1. The wait is over! Download the BeerAdvocate app on iTunes or Google Play now.
  2. Get 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine for only $9.99!

Brooklyn Local 2 - Brooklyn Brewery

Not Rated.
Brooklyn Local 2Brooklyn Local 2

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
91
outstanding

1,183 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 1,183
Reviews: 510
rAvg: 4.05
pDev: 10.86%
Wants: 73
Gots: 167 | FT: 8
Brewed by:
Brooklyn Brewery visit their website
New York, United States

Style | ABV
Belgian Strong Dark Ale |  9.00% ABV

Availability: Rotating

Notes/Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: ClockworkOrange on 02-02-2009)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Usefulness | Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
Ratings: 1,183 | Reviews: 510 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of bbadger
3/5  rDev -25.9%

bbadger, Jan 07, 2012
Photo of TubbyDullard
3/5  rDev -25.9%

TubbyDullard, Nov 28, 2013
Photo of jwat
3/5  rDev -25.9%

jwat, Feb 06, 2012
Photo of TheBeerAlmanac
3/5  rDev -25.9%

TheBeerAlmanac, Mar 14, 2013
Photo of jophish17
3/5  rDev -25.9%

jophish17, Dec 24, 2011
Photo of thefuneral
3/5  rDev -25.9%

thefuneral, Aug 02, 2014
Photo of tastymug
3/5  rDev -25.9%

tastymug, Jan 21, 2013
Photo of rderedin
3/5  rDev -25.9%

rderedin, Jan 16, 2012
Photo of chcfan
3/5  rDev -25.9%

chcfan, Nov 17, 2011
Photo of boondogglefob
3/5  rDev -25.9%

boondogglefob, Dec 23, 2013
Photo of dirtylou
3.08/5  rDev -24%

750ml bottle, brawleys

notes. i've had a day to reflect on how dissapointing this beer was.

appearance: dark cola body, frothy tan head with lively carbonation and foamy retention

smell: dark fruits, booze, wood, dark malts

taste: bitter orange rind, honey, dark malts, booze, woody notes, hoppy, booze soaked dark fruits. split this one and it was really too much.

mouthfeel: really bad - carbonation way over done, spicy boozy finish. basically the opposite of good

drinkability: bad.

dirtylou, Dec 29, 2010
Photo of woosterbill
3.08/5  rDev -24%

750 corked & caged bottle into a Duvel tulip.

A: Dark, opaque black-vermillion body with a lovely 3" head of frothy, creamy tan foam; good retention and light lacing. Great looking beer.

S: Rather dull aroma of bready malt, dark fruits, and spicy yeast. Not bad, but nothing special - especially for such a great style.

T: Starts out with fruity yeast, then the bready malts, then a distinct bit of cherry flavor (nice), and finally a wave of booze. Fairly complex, but overly boozy and not especially tasty.

M: Very smooth and fairly light, with abundant fine effervescence. Quite pleasant.

D: Not so great here. Mediocre taste and overly apparent alcohol make it a bit of a chore to drink a whole 750.

Notes: Much like Local 1, this was a faint imitation of the best Belgians (and, for that matter, top-notch American versions like Three Philosophers and Allagash Quad/Odyssey). Unlike the Local 1, it wasn't all that tasty in its own right. Even though this isn't a bad beer by any stretch, I was pretty disappointed. I'd recommend steering clear of this one in favor of one of the offerings from Rochefort, St. Bernardus, or Chimay, or...you get the idea.

Cheers!

woosterbill, Mar 31, 2010
Photo of rapidsequence
3.1/5  rDev -23.5%

750 ml bottle, $9.39 from my grocery store. Been in my cellar for a year.

Appearance: Pours a dark cherry brown with an off white head. Excellent head retention and some sticky lacing. When held to the light, the beer is a clear garnet color with lots of bubbles. The head and lacing on the second pour is even better, so I'm upping the score. Good looking beer.

Smell: Definitely its a BSDA, but not the best. Some dark fruit and bready yeast, but not too complex. Very spicy and peppery. The "citrus peel," which I assume is curucao is very tart smelling. Unfortunately spice and citrus drown out some of the other nice aromas.

Taste: Up front, a thin example of fruity and yeasty Belgian dark, followed by a ridiculous amount of sour, tart citrus all the way through to the finish. Why, just why? Why add citrus peel to a Belgian dark, and if you must, why this much? Its not terrible, but just wrong.

Mouthfeel: I like the carbonation. It allows it to be foamy and creamy without being too much. It does finish a little too dry/puckering, maybe because its so tart. That makes it seem a little thin though rather than thick and rich.

Drinkability: All in all, its an OK BSDA with too much citrus flavor. Its drinkable and decent, but not for $10 a 750. Much better BSDAs to be had for that, both North American and Belgian.

rapidsequence, Jul 27, 2010
Photo of WalrusJockey
3.18/5  rDev -21.5%

750ml bottle into Duvel tulips.

A- very clear and crisp brown on the pour, in the glass it is a darker, reddish color. The head is thick, and the color they call mocha that looks nothing like the coffee of the same name.

S- very sweet with lots of forest-berry aromas, with a choco-vanilla hint, assumedly from the malt.

T- spice and fruit linger behind and alongside the thick malt profile, with the fruit of the nose far removed from where it was expected to be. The dominant flavor is of spices, like a spicy cinnamon loaf, combined with the 9% ABV, the result is very warming. The berries of the nose are sadly underrepresented, and the label's "honey and citrus peel" seem to be more added to sound enticing on the label than to be significant ingredients.

The end result isn't *bad,* in fact it is rather nice, but it is not what the aroma, or the bottle itself, might lead you to expect. For a BSDA I find it to be far too much malt and not nearly enough...flavor besides malt.

M- much thinner than I expected. Not creamy or thick at all. In the glass, it looks quite heavy, and the head is fairly substantial, but in the mouth, the beer is light, and with the heavy amounts of malt and spice present, it winds up feeling lacking in body, though it isn't wattery by any stretch. Honestly, if the mouthfeel had matched the flavor profile in ANY way, this beer would have received a much better score from me.

D- I don't think any 9% is going to be overly drinkable, but I don't especially like this beer, so I would rate it poorly.

Notes- if you want a strong, spiced-unto-spicy beer that won't weigh down your stomach with tons of body, and isn't distracted by fruit flavors, you might like this beer. I don't care for "winter warmer" types, and if I had known that was what this is, I probably would have passed on it. Rated as a BSD it fares even worse.

WalrusJockey, Apr 01, 2009
Photo of psyphin
3.2/5  rDev -21%

A - Very dark brown with ruby highlights. Huge slight off white head on top, no lacing.

S - Boozy with typical belgian esters. Dark fruit and malt hidden behind.

T - Heavy malt, fruity with a heavy alcahol heat.

M - Slightly thin with aggresive carbonation.

D - The overwhelming sensation of the alcahol detracted from an otherwise interesting beer. Worth a bottle for sampling, definitely not intended for session drinking.

psyphin, Oct 10, 2009
Photo of Hoppington
3.23/5  rDev -20.2%

The bottle discretely states: "Ale brewed with honey and citrus peel". Sounds good to me so I bought a bottle.

I have mixed impressions here. It is a decent Abbey influenced beer, but the taste is not evoking either honey or citrus peel. Still, its a good beer - but pretty much a straight belgian style ale...and not particularly distinctive.

The malt notes strike me as a bit muted and the overall mouthfeel is a bit more liquidy than I would expect for this style. Also there is a slight lagerish nose which turns me off a bit.

I'm not going to pan it completely, but I probably won't be drinking this one again unless they refine the recipe a bit. This has potential, but it's just not quite there yet for me. It needs to be more distinctive and exhibit a bit more character. This one seems a bit timid.

Hoppington, Apr 05, 2009
Photo of matty
3.23/5  rDev -20.2%

Dark brown colored beer with a rapidly fading head.Aroma is dark fruit.Taste is the same dark fruit,alcohol and a bit of hops on the finish.Overall it's ok but this is not something I can see myself buying again in the future.I would probably recommend to try once but as for me one is plenty.

matty, May 16, 2009
Photo of whoneeds8
3.25/5  rDev -19.8%

Pours out a dark brown with a one finger head that disappears rather quickly. I can't tell anything along the line of smell because of allergies. This is the worst time of year for me to be reviewing anything, lol. The taste doesn't really have the flavor intensity I would like for a beer at this price level. The taste is well balanced, but I am having trouble finding the honey advertised on the back of the label. There is a sort of mapel taste upfront, maybe that's what they were talking about. The spices from the belgian yeast is there, just not very strong. The mouthfeel is way way way too carbonated. So much so that it almost takes away from the flavor. It definatly takes a notch off drinkability.

whoneeds8, Oct 08, 2009
Photo of zachpaschal
3.25/5  rDev -19.8%

zachpaschal, May 09, 2014
Photo of leinie13
3.25/5  rDev -19.8%

leinie13, Mar 31, 2012
Photo of jaypb
3.25/5  rDev -19.8%

jaypb, Jul 28, 2014
Photo of JedediahK
3.25/5  rDev -19.8%

JedediahK, Apr 07, 2012
Photo of champ103
3.25/5  rDev -19.8%

A: Pours a cloudy brown color. A large beige head forms with good retention. Light lace is left as the foam recedes.
S: Brewers yeast, some fruity esters, and some alcohol.
T: Follows the nose. Yeast and fruit. Sweet sugary malt and alcohol. A strange mineral flavor.
M/D: A medium body that is way over carbonated. The alcohol is noticeable, but still a good beer to sip on.

Not bad, but kind of bland IMO. Worth a try, but not my favorite for the style or brewery.

champ103, Oct 11, 2009
Photo of wembly13
3.25/5  rDev -19.8%

wembly13, Apr 08, 2012
Photo of nzerbe
3.25/5  rDev -19.8%

nzerbe, Mar 04, 2013
Brooklyn Local 2 from Brooklyn Brewery
91 out of 100 based on 1,183 ratings.