1. Extreme Beer Fest. March 20 & 21, 2015 in Boston, Mass. Join us!
  2. The wait is over! Download the BeerAdvocate app on iTunes or Google Play now.
  3. Get 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine for only $9.99!

Mestreechs Aajt (US - Non-Saccharin Version) - Gulpener Bierbrouwerij B.V.

Not Rated.
Mestreechs Aajt (US - Non-Saccharin Version)Mestreechs Aajt (US - Non-Saccharin Version)

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

130 Ratings
THE BROS
98
world-class

(view ratings)
Ratings: 130
Reviews: 90
rAvg: 4.09
pDev: 12.71%
Wants: 25
Gots: 1 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Gulpener Bierbrouwerij B.V. visit their website
Netherlands

Style | ABV
Flanders Oud Bruin |  5.00% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
Blend of "Hollandish" Oud Brouin {around 3.5% alc/vol} , "Dortmunder" lager bockbier {around 6.5% alc/vol} and the "primeval" beer. The "primal" beer has been aged in traditional wooden barrels. It introduces lactobacilli, Brettanomyces and other microflora into the very complex blend.

Mestreech's Aajt is driven to showcase the two flavors "sourness" and "sweetness" in perfect balance and harmony

(Beer added by: Todd on 06-11-2004)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Usefulness | Recent | High | Low | Top Raters | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of Mestreechs Aajt (US - Non-Saccharin Version) Alström Bros
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 130 | Reviews: 90 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of GooseIsleBCS
1/5  rDev -75.6%

GooseIsleBCS, Jan 28, 2012
Photo of DefenCorps
2.68/5  rDev -34.5%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

On tap at Max's. I guess this is what I drank, unless we got the Dutch version

Dark brown, solid brown head with good retention and nice lacing. Nose is light, tart, roasty, mildly lactic and refreshing. Very grainy and rustic. Some sweetness is noticeable. Palate opens very sweet, artificial, almost like Equal. It really gets in the way, covering up the grain and tartness. Sweet, artificially so on the finish with a mild grainy husky character. Light in body with high carbonation, this beer is too sweet for its own good. I can't really recommend this.

DefenCorps, Jun 25, 2011
Photo of TurdFurgison
2.85/5  rDev -30.3%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

This comes in the coolest beer bottle, similar to grolsch but more stylish. A keeper for homebrewing.

Poured into a Watou goblet, brown red color with very little head.

It smelled like Easter eggs in vinegar, sour and icky. I gave myself time to overcome the smell and try the beer. It tasted like a sour red ale. The flavor wasn't as bad as the smell.

I tried it once, that's enough. I recommend Rodenbach over this.

TurdFurgison, Jan 08, 2006
Photo of nomad
3/5  rDev -26.7%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Pours a deep red, the sort that brings to mind more elaborate descriptions but I'll leave the color at very deep and lusciously red. Almost brown in tone. Surprisingly good lacing though the head was non-existent.

Smells lightly of vinegar over bare fruit tones. Very malty but quietly so due to the lack of carbonation.

A balanced and easy-drinking take on the style, round and strangely malty with little sour character besides licks of lemon in the finish. Seeing as this beer is a blend of a Flemish Red and a Dunkel this version seems tipped toward the latter. Very malty and lager smooth, incredibly so for the style and thus lacking the sour and semi-roast complexity found in the scions of Flanders. Mouthfeel is round and full but dead flat, killing any complexity that the beer might have had. Might.

Smooth easy-drinker with little spunk. Not a beer I'd buy again.

nomad, Feb 04, 2005
Photo of ChainGangGuy
3.1/5  rDev -24.2%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Appearance: Pours a clear, still, dark brown body.

Smell: Aroma of raisins soaked in balsamic vinegar and aged in wood.

Taste: Intensesly sweet-sour raisin flavor. Subtle wood character. Finishes sweetish and acetic.

Mouthfeel: Medium-thin body. No carbonation.

Drinkability: Not really too much to say about this one.

ChainGangGuy, Sep 09, 2007
Photo of counselor
3.1/5  rDev -24.2%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

pours a dark brown with hints of ruby. No head to speak of. Aromas are more like a cider than any malt or hops. The flavors are very muted, nothing really stands out. Some granny smith apple flavors, some crispness, grass and lightly soured. There is a little sourness left after swallowing, but overall, very little aftertaste. The mouthfeel is crisp, lightly carbonated and quaffable, inoffensive. I wuold not buy this again, but was a decent enought beer - unobtrusive.

counselor, Feb 26, 2005
Photo of kennyo
3.13/5  rDev -23.5%
look: 4 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Dark red / cherry wood stain color, clear, beautiful. Pours a nice big head, but is gone line that. Aroma is beautiful, cherry/sourness. Probably the best part of the beer.Taste is not that impressive, cherry, a little sweetness but a very chalky feeling on taste buds and back of throat. There really is not much there.

kennyo, Jun 24, 2004
Photo of emerge077
3.25/5  rDev -20.5%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Recently sampled this on tap, after it's extended hiatus from the US. Haven't seen any bottles show up yet.

Dark brown body with tan suds that lingered for awhile. Astringent tart and sweet grape aroma, seems backsweetened. The taste confirms this, it's a bit thin and caramelly sweet, with a muddled grape/cherry tartness to it. Some cardboard notes hint at oxidation. Not as good as I remember, little to no acidity here, no oak woodiness or anything remotely wild. Seems dumbed down from the old version, little more than a second-rate Duchesse knockoff. Wouldn't be surprised if this had saccharine added. Can't say i'll be drinking this over Rodenbach/Jacobins anytime soon.

10-12-2006
4.2/5 rDev +3.7%
look: 4 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 4 | overall: 4.5

Poured from an 11.2 oz. flip-top bottle. Carbonation forces a cracking sound once the seal is broken. The ale pours a deep garnet hue, capped with khaki foam that rises and falls to a patchy film. A swirl of the bottle adds another finger of dense aromatic foam.

Aromas are strongly of ripened cheese, and sour funky fruit. This heightens the tastes, which seem to follow the aroma further into sweet and sour territory. Oak, cherry, malt, and leather interplay for a brief moment before it's tart and dry finish closes out. Mouthfeel begins a little thin, but is balanced well by the rich flavors. A sipper for me, but it would be a sure session candidate.

Not as sour as Rodenbach, or as woody, sweet, and complex as the Duchesse. Overall, a solid Flanders Red, balancing the best qualities of the style. Try to find a fresh bottle, it doesn't age so well.

emerge077, Jan 17, 2012
Photo of rousee
3.3/5  rDev -19.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

Lots of difficult to read writing on the bottle. Pours a brownish red with small 1 mm wisp of foam on top.

Smell is sour cherry quite acidic and like musty wood. Taste is very sour but it finishes dry and has a slight tingly bite to it.

Mouthfeel is very dry and fruity and the drinkability on these Flanders sour reds is never that high anyway. This one is not as good as some others of this style I have tried. I would probably not buy this one again.

rousee, Nov 21, 2004
Photo of Crosling
3.38/5  rDev -17.4%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Cherry red color. Lightly acidic nose, vinous, peppery, with hints of balsamic vinegar a touch of red fruit. I find this to be poorly blended, too much lager and not enough sour ale. It’s definately a let down, compared to the aroma, which led me to believe this was going to be intensely sour. The caramel sweetness from the lager seems to be the most dominant here and I look for a drier, less approchable and more sour version of red ale.

Crosling, Apr 24, 2006
Photo of santoslhalper
3.43/5  rDev -16.1%
look: 4 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2

Appearence: Pours a reddish brown with a thin, tan head. Carbonation is low.

Smell: The smell is a wonderful mix of fruits, sourness, nuts, and wood.

Taste and Mouthfeel: The taste is a tart, sour flavor that's kind of hard to put a finger on. The flavors are balanced, but nothing really stands out and taste that incredibly wonderful. I just can't quite understand what they're going for with the flavor. The mouthfeel is dry and sticky, but apporpriate.

Drinkability and Overall: This is definitly a unique beer, but not all that incredibly wonderful. It's smooth and balanced, but has very little focus, which kills the drinkability for me. At least it's different, and that's more than I can say about alot of brews nowadays.

santoslhalper, Jul 11, 2005
Photo of GnomeKing
3.48/5  rDev -14.9%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

A funky take on sour ales. I was surprised by the mouthfeel, which was dominated by the sharp bubbles-on-the-tongue feel I associate with seltzer water. Because of this, or at least in keeping with this, the taste reminded me in some ways of italian sodas...it almost could have been cherry or raspberry italian soda from Starbucks. There were some tart and sour flavors that wouldn't let me forget that I was drinking a Flanders Red, but the overall impression was of something that was one of a kind. I appreciated this beer for it's uniqueness, but it didn't provide all that much enjoyment.

GnomeKing, Nov 08, 2005
Photo of Gaisgeil
3.5/5  rDev -14.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

My first ever Flemish Red Ale. I've heard some bad things about this one, but overall I guess I liked it, sort of. Nice hearty nose with woody and malt tones fading quickly into nothing. No aftertaste to speak of, but overall this is a nice sipping ale despite being distinctly sour.

The lack of complexity suprised me considering this style's reputation for it, but I was fairly satisfied overall.

Gaisgeil, Jan 30, 2005
Photo of francisweizen
3.5/5  rDev -14.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

I was excited to try a new Flemish red ale, but this really didn't cut it for me, and yes it was the 5% US version. A dark reddish plum with a small head of off-white/beige. The aromas were of several malts, a bit of oak, some funk, and no hops. The taste was quite malty but pretty one dimensional with a bit of oak in the mix as well. This was OK, but bland for a flemish red, and nowhere near a rodenbach level of complexity. The mouthfeel was medium bodied and decent but the drinkability was not the best. Decent for a flemish red, but there are many better examples, imho.

francisweizen, Jan 11, 2005
Photo of t0rin0
3.5/5  rDev -14.4%

t0rin0, Oct 09, 2012
Photo of oglmcdgl
3.5/5  rDev -14.4%

oglmcdgl, Mar 11, 2013
Photo of RoyalT
3.53/5  rDev -13.7%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Appearance – This one was almost black in color with a dark purple hue around the edges and a modest head.

Smell – The big, malty sourness was prominent in the nose. I couldn’t really pick up much else except that. It was primarily cherry.

Taste – The sourness was much lighter at the taste. It was well-mixed with some darkish malts and a light yeast flavor.

Mouthfeel – This one was light to medium-bodied with some subtle carbonation that tingled the tongue.

Drinkability – This isn’t my favorite style but they pulled it off well enough.

RoyalT, Sep 07, 2004
Photo of Dogbrick
3.53/5  rDev -13.7%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Pours a deep reddish auburn color with a medium beige head. Thin and quick lacing. The aroma is strong sour apple along with vinegar and spice. Medium-bodied and smooth with tart fruit (apple again), yeast and some malt tastes. Also a little bit of a Cabernet or Concorde grape wine flavor. The finish is fruity and earthy and maintains the sourness. I am still having trouble appreciating this style but I would probably try this again.

Dogbrick, Sep 15, 2004
Photo of YonderWanderer
3.6/5  rDev -12%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 4 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

A: Pours a brownish-red with a thin layer of foam on top.

S: Tart cherries, berries, a hint of vinegar mixed in. Sourness is evident from the start.

T: Similar to the smell. Some acidic sourness mixed in with cherries. A bit of a malty backbone is evident as well. Fairly balanced overall, and pretty good.

M: A little thin, with medium carbonation. I'd like a little bit more to this.

D: This is a simple, but solid example of this style. Definitely worth trying, but I'd probably take a Rodenbach over this.

YonderWanderer, Nov 26, 2007
Photo of granger10
3.63/5  rDev -11.2%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

This beer pours a dark crimson brown color with a medium tan head. Aroma is weak but fruity and slightly tart. Taste has more of a balance between the fruit flavors and the sour flavors, a little chocolate underneath. But I can't really get anything definitive. I'm searching for a striking flavor and I can't really find any. It's good, really smooth and drinkable, but nothing really piques my intrigue in this one. Good, but nothing amazing.

granger10, Aug 13, 2005
Photo of rhoadsrage
3.65/5  rDev -10.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

(Served in a tulip glass)

A- This beer pours a dark mahogany brown body with a fizzy light brown head that turns rocky very quickly. There appears to be lots of carbonation of tiny bubbles.

S- Even as I pour I detect an odor of red wine vinegar. On closer sniff, I notice hints of cherries and a faint note of fresh bread.

T- The flavor starts with a soft mild sour note that has a faint cola hint. In the finish there is a very soft old oak note that has a slight sweetness to it giving a note of cherries and vanilla.

M- This beer has a medium mouthfeel that might be a bit more full from the fizz in the texture. There is no alcohol warmth or astringency at all. The sour notes are very gentle.

D- This beer is a gateway beer to the Flanders Reds. It is very soft and mild leaving me wanting more pucker, more sour and more oak notes. I think it needs more of everything but it is pleasant to drink if I wasn't hoping for a big Flanders.

rhoadsrage, Apr 12, 2006
Photo of GbVDave
3.65/5  rDev -10.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

Served in a goblet a Map Room 9/15/07.

A: Served an attractive, dark, tarnished-copper color. Very dark, brownish-red with deep mahogany highlights. Some sticky lace.

S: Vaguely tart. Smells of earthy, dirty, and sour cherries. Also picked up a hint of raisin.

T: See above with the addition of oak and a pleasantly medicine-y flavor in the finish. Did I taste tree bark?

M: Sour and bitter with just the right amount of oak-y smoothness.

D: Quite refreshing, as far as sour beers go.

GbVDave, Sep 16, 2007
Photo of UCLABrewN84
3.68/5  rDev -10%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

On tap at Congregation Ale House in Pasadena, CA.

Pours a clear dark crimson brown with a foamy beige head that settles to a film on top of the beer. A foamy curtain of lace coats the glass on the drink down. Smell is sour, tart, and funky with some vinegar and berry fruit aromas. Taste is only slightly sour but mainly has sweet berry jelly/jam flavors. This beer has a good level of carbonation with a crisp mouthfeel. Overall, this is a pretty good beer but it's more sweet than sour in the flavor.

UCLABrewN84, Jul 04, 2012
Photo of mdm46410
3.7/5  rDev -9.5%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

On tap, poured into a tulip. This ale pours a deep ruby color with a small quickly diminishing off-white/beige head. Leaves a fair amount of light lacing around the glass. The aromas are that of sweet/sour cherries, light wood, and notes of some vinegar. The vinegar smell is not overpowering, and somehow finds a way to blend with the other flavors to make a smooth, refreshing drink. Mouthfeel is lighter bodied with a good dose of carbonation. The ale finishes clean and dry with a slight hint of sourness left on your tounge. Nicely done.

mdm46410, Jun 02, 2007
Photo of woosterbill
3.73/5  rDev -8.8%
look: 5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

On-tap at Prime 16 into a Weyerbacher tulip.

A: Beautiful, clear, dark ruby body under a majestic two-finger head of creamy, sticky tan foam. Tons of lace. Truly spectacular.

S: A little underpowered - light acetic sting, some sweet fruit, and a bit of husky malt. Pretty pleasant and to style, but just a little weak.

T: There's a nice bit of vinegary piquancy that bounces between my palate and sinuses, but this pleasant sharpness is quickly subsumed in sweet, sticky cherry fruit and pale malt. Way better than some examples of the style (cough-Duchesse-cough), but still a trifle cloying.

M: Hugely carbonated, medium body. Lightly sticky. Not bad at all.

O: How hard is it to brew a Flanders Red that isn't cloyingly sweet? Ommegang Rouge and Rodenbach Grand Cru made me fall in love with the style, but it seems like almost every one I've had since has been cursed with excessive sweetness. This particular beer shows some terrific signs of life, and is really quite enjoyably quaffable, but still doesn't quite deliver the bracing acidity and tart fruitiness that I'm looking for. It was on tap simultaneously with Rodenbach Grand Cru, though, and the bartender told me that most people who tried both preferred the Mestreechs Aajt, so take my opinion with a grain of salt - I'd take the Rodenbach 10 times out of 10.

Cheers!

woosterbill, Jul 27, 2011
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Mestreechs Aajt (US - Non-Saccharin Version) from Gulpener Bierbrouwerij B.V.
91 out of 100 based on 130 ratings.