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!

Wee Beast (Cuillin Beast) - Isle Of Skye Brewery

Not Rated.
Wee Beast (Cuillin Beast)Wee Beast (Cuillin Beast)

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
81
good

80 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 80
Reviews: 70
rAvg: 3.58
pDev: 16.76%
Wants: 3
Gots: 0 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Isle Of Skye Brewery visit their website
United Kingdom (Scotland)

Style | ABV
Scotch Ale / Wee Heavy |  7.00% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: brewdlyhooked13 on 06-10-2004)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Usefulness | Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 80 | Reviews: 70 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of Soma474
1/5  rDev -72.1%

Soma474, Sep 03, 2012
Photo of Suds
2.33/5  rDev -34.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

Okay, so I don't believe in reviewing an infected beer. However, after reading several other reviews of this beer, and also doing some research on other published opinions, I feel the need to write about my impressions. This beer pours a very clear amber-golden color with a modest white head. Not a bad looking beer, for sure. But, the smell certainly has something off...acetic acid is strong in this one...wild yeast or bacteria have done some serious munching on the sweetness. The company's website describes this beer as 'sweetish', not lambic-like tartness. There is a musty, earthy, moderately fruit-like scent that's not completely bad (in the right context, I kind of like it)...I'm just pretty sure it's not intended. I also believe that most other drinkers are tasting the same thing. The beer is quite dry, with no malt flavor at all. The finish is lingering and vinegary. Moderate mouthfeel, and very mouth-drying. Unfortunately, this experience lead me to be quite skeptical of the beers from this brewery.

Suds, Dec 11, 2010
Photo of geexploitation
2.38/5  rDev -33.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Pours a very light color for a wee heavy -- reddish amber with a big white head. The nose is very pungent with sharp fruits (citrus, apples) and caramel, but little in the way of those pleasantly dark aromas that wee heavies usually have. On the palate, sharp citrus fruits and carbonation first off, followed by watery sourness and a quickly vanishing finish of little heft. This is a thin, insubstantial, overly fruity interpretation of a style that should have some muscle to it. I'm not a fan of this.

geexploitation, Nov 23, 2006
Photo of lostbearbrew
2.4/5  rDev -33%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Pours an orangish amber color with plenty of light coming through.

Smell is malty with flowery undernotes.

Taste is thinner than expected, almost not like a beer. Hints of berrries, grass in the midst, and a flat finish with bitter tinge. Heather? or maybe some sort of chamomile/minty flavor in the front to middle of each sip.

Goes down pretty easty, although the taste is not my bag. For being a Wee Heavy, I expected more viscosity and more to the body and flavor of the beer. Likely wouldn't have another, just not my mug of brew.

lostbearbrew, Jun 09, 2005
Photo of ahalloin
2.45/5  rDev -31.6%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Poured from a 1 Pint, 9 oz. bottle with no freshness date. I didn't purchase this long ago so I hope it is fresh.

The beer pours a dark cloudy goldish color, a bit light for what I would normally associate with a Scotch Ale/Wee Heavy beer. The head is decent considering a fairly aggressive pour was used. The white head topped off at about a finger width but quickly receded to a thin ring.

The smell is a little weak but presents a light roasty quality with a slight hint of peat moss. I am also detecting a slight cidery vinegary smell.

The taste isn't so great. There is some smoked peat flavor there, appropriate to the Wee Heavy style but there is definitely a sour, vinegar flavor predominating. I'll let it warm and see what happens. After warming a bit, I am still getting a stinging cidery flavor that I don't think belongs in a Wee Heavy at all. Maybe my bottle has turned?!

Mouthfeel seems right for the style with medium low carbonation and a slightly creamy feel.

Drinkability is difficult to discern as I think the beer has turned.

I'll have to try it another time.

ahalloin, Jul 24, 2009
Photo of bditty187
2.58/5  rDev -27.9%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Lightly hazy, bronzy brown-red in hue with a coppery twist. The liquid looks pleasant enough but it does seem too clear and light in color for the style. Maybe I’m judging a book by its cover. The beer was very foamy, over three fingers of slightly off-white head. The head retention was fair, it slide to a fizzy cap. There was a massive amount of clumpy subsequent lacing. No matter the flaws, it still looks better than average.

The nose is frail, nutty with a trivial caramel malt underbelly. Airy. I am not digging the aromas. It really lacks depth and power. Poor articulation as well… this is Scottish? Says who? Not this beer! I didn’t find the bouquet to be inviting.

The palate is very thin… unbelievably so. Nutty. Caramel. Fusel alcohol supplies warmth and even some spice. It is weakly fruity (cherries and berries). Mild sweetness, the palate lacks depth and the flavors are not rich or well developed. Every flavor spike is disjointed. The finish is clean and empty. Good Scottish Ales give off a relaxing, charming vibe. Not this one because this is not a good Scottish Ale.

The mouthfeel is pitiful, light in body, thin and way too carbonated. I guess I would call the mouthfeel fitting because the nose and palate were equally as poor.

This beer is not drinkable. It is not worth a damn. At $5 a bottle, this is a onetime purchase… unless I can be convinced my bottle is old and the next is very fresh but this beer just entered the Omaha market so I assume the retail got new beer. I purchased my beer in Omaha. Not recommended.

bditty187, Jul 28, 2005
Photo of Brad007
2.58/5  rDev -27.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Pours a mild amber/golden color with a one-finger head into my glass. A bit lighter than I expected but good presentation.

Aroma is full of a gentle hint of peak smokiness and sweet malt with a raisin-like essence. Not bad to start with.

Taste is kind of sour (?) with only a hint of smokiness and sweet malt. Raisin is still here but I can't get over the sourness. I don't think this style is supposed to be anywhere near sour.

Mouthfeel is full of lingering sourness/smokiness and not much else. Again, very disappointing.

I certainly hope this is just a bad bottle but I'm not one to waste beer. It could be many things but this style is most certainly not supposed to be sour.

Brad007, Jun 15, 2010
Photo of impending
2.58/5  rDev -27.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

500ml into a tulip. Pours a hazy dirty honey. Minimal head receded quickly to none.

Malts and more hops than typical.

Tangy taste, some sour and again more hops than typical. I don't know what to label this brew as it sucks at being a wee heavy. Not that it is necessarily a bad brew but in the context of a wee heavy it fails. I'd say it would fit as a Scottish Wild Ale in which case I would rate it a B+. My rating here on BA is rating to classification.
cheers
jd

impending, Aug 07, 2010
Photo of rebel1771
2.7/5  rDev -24.6%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Pours a copper color with a huge head with nice retention.

The aroma was a bit of a disappointment. Very light aromas of caramel and bread make an appearance, nothing special.

Much like the aroma the flavor is lacking. The bread and caramel flavors from the aroma make another appearance in the flavor. There's not a whole lot to this brew, almost tastes like a botched homebrew.

I expected more from this brew, guess I got suckered by the pretty lable.

rebel1771, Aug 03, 2006
Photo of Budlum
2.78/5  rDev -22.3%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Pours with copious amounts of creamy, tan head. Brilliant copper body that almost glows. A very appetizing appearance.

Fresh, sweet and spicy on the nose. Immediately noticeable alcohol. Light scotch whisky presense. Fused with coriander, caramelized sugars, pine aromas and a sweet malt presence. Very powerful.

A rush of malty flavors quickly subdued by a charcoal / woody presence. Spicy and tangy suggesting coriander and curry. Big peat, smoke and black licorice flavors in the finish dominated by a massive, almost overbearing barley flavor. Notes of sweet toffee and caramel round out the finish. Unforunately, there is a VERY long and pungent aftertaste that is loaded with a burned barley flavor and tons of smoke. Faint hop presence as it warms.

Mouthfeel is a little heavy and not quite as creamy as I would expect from more of a Scottish Ale than a Scotch Ale.

Drinkability is so-so. It was a unique example of the style but a little difficult to consume.

I left disappointed since I am a big fan of this style. It is doubtful that I would purchase another.

Budlum, Aug 05, 2006
Photo of beerthulhu
2.83/5  rDev -20.9%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

A: Poured a medium-dark orange with a soft and creamy 2 finger light beige head that lasted for a minute or two before receding and leaving a spothcy, broken sheet leacing. Visible carbonation was medium-strong.

S: moderately strong with spicy oranges and caramel malt with some noticeable alcohol notes.

T: spicy and sour oranges delivering a big tart presence in the beginning. Overall the flavor was pretty limited in complexity with sharp, acidic, sour oranges that quickly fade to a subtle tart finish. Overall the flavor was quite odd per style I though and best described as alcoholic, tart oranges.

M: light, slick, and oily with a spicy alcoholic tart orange flavor.

D: Less then moderate drinkability and not many reasons to try or like. Flavor gets tiring quickly and didn't make me look forward to next sip. Packaged in 500ml bottle and not embarrassed to say I just couldn't finish or rather cared to.

beerthulhu, May 02, 2008
Photo of Minkybut
2.93/5  rDev -18.2%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

I poured this really complex beer into my tumbler at 50 degrees. The beer was a nice amber color and poured a pretty head. The smell was Fruity/nutty. The taste was of Coffee, sweet/sour/ and pecan bitter meat. Yea, strange. Not for me so no, I will not buy again.

Minkybut, Dec 24, 2008
Photo of ccrida
3.15/5  rDev -12%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

500ml poured into my Delirium snifter, Wee Beast is a murky pale bronze with a creamy white head, it leaves decent lace, and overall looks pretty good.

Smell is musty, a little nutty, grassy hops, light smoky phenols (AFAIK none of the commercial Scottish examples used smoked malts), with a slight sweetness.

Taste is not too sweet or overly malty for a scotch ale, and the grassy hops follow the nose in an unusually prominent role for the style, although there's at least not to much bitterness. Taste more like an English strong ale, although not a particularly bad one, just not what I'm looking for in the style. There is a bit of a staleness to it but I'm pretty sure it's new stock to my beer store so it could just be the flavor profile.

Mouthfeel seems a bit thin, and also a bit drier then I expected.

Drinkability is OK as far as UK ales go, but it really wasn't my bag or what I was looking for. I don't think this is a classic brewery, as I've been doing a little research on the style for homebrewing purposes (at least it's not referenced in Designing Great Beers, which has extensive information on all the major traditional breweries), which would explain why it seems like a more modern interpretation of the style. .

ccrida, Jan 10, 2009
Photo of Rayek
3.2/5  rDev -10.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Poured into a Thistle.

A: Very cloudy red oak with active carbonation. A puffy lemon peel tinged cap has nice retention and leaves good lace.

S: Alcohol really struck me at first; which seemed odd for a beer with this ABV. Letting my nose linger revealed chocolate, smoke and a bit of peat, plus a mild lemon scent. Perhaps even a hint of salt.

T: Different, if nothing else. Quite sweet and tart. Almost sugary out front, with a mild chocolate undertow. A powerful sour lemon tartness comes on quick. Alcohol adds a touch of warmth. A little raw earth is in the background. Finishes extremely dry and tart.

M: The medium body is grainy and has way too much carbonation for my tastes.

D: This was one of the more, if not the most unique takes on this style. The extreme tartness didn't really work for me. Once past the tartness, there is a bit of a toned down single malt theme here that's interesting. But the overall experience wasn't that joyful for me.

Rayek, Jan 17, 2010
Photo of puboflyons
3.25/5  rDev -9.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

No date or lot code on the bottle. Sampled on July 18, 2010. I think I have to preface this by saying this is not a style I tend to drink regularly. The pour was yellow-copper with a haziness that made me think it was unfiltered. There is a puffy white head and pretty good lacing. The main thing I get in the aroma is yeast, yeast and more yeast. It felt like it hadn't fully fermented. There was a distant hoppiness but the yeast was a bit much. The taste really puckered up my lips because it was just so tart and sour although it did tend to remain dry throughout. Sorry, not something I could do again.

puboflyons, Jul 18, 2010
Photo of CSeavey64
3.25/5  rDev -9.2%

CSeavey64, Jan 25, 2014
Photo of lackenhauser
3.25/5  rDev -9.2%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Pours a somewhat cloudy orange to amber color. Low carbonation level. Slight caramel aroma. A tad floral. Orange marmalade? Sweet and slightly vinuous. Malt dominates the flavor. Flavors of caramel and oak with a lingering, almost "earthy" hint. This reminds me more of a Scotch Ale from Belgium then Scotland. It has that sort of Belgian "hint" to it. Decent enough body. A notch above average beer. It doesnt quite pull off "wee heavy" for me. Reading other reviews perhaps I had an off bottle though some noted other odd traits as well. Try it and form your own opinion by all means.

lackenhauser, Jan 08, 2005
Photo of harpus
3.25/5  rDev -9.2%

harpus, Jul 24, 2012
Photo of Drew966
3.33/5  rDev -7%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Wee Beast pours a dark reddish brown with a thin head from a brown half liter bottle. The aroma is on the sweet side. The flavor is also quite sweet, malt being a big part of the taste. The hops add balance but it's still on the malty side. Worth a try.

Drew966, Jun 21, 2007
Photo of taez555
3.4/5  rDev -5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

This beer poured a tan/cream soda colored body with a thick white head.

Nose is surprisingly muted. Some sweet peat smoked scotch whiskey like notes. Mild caramel or toffee with a granite earthiness as well.

A very fine carbonation Taste is almost more like a brown ale than scotch or wee heavy at first. Burnt coffee/fire place brick sort of charred taste at first is more reminiscent of peat smoked single malt scotches. A nice grain taste but it has this strong taste of Roasted barley as if the brewer just tossed in handful of 500L+ barley. Very bitter and tannic in the back-end with a lingering rock like dryness. A very dirty leafy hop taste. Taste lingers for quite some time.

The strong roasted barley and very tannic tastes are bit overpowering considering how great the peat smoked scotch type tastes are. Beyond that though, a nice scotch ale/wee heavy.

taez555, May 20, 2006
Photo of shapudding
3.45/5  rDev -3.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

No dating. Chestnut brown and unclear, cannot see through it all. Light barely enters it. Only a thin white ring at the edges and a slight bit of dust in the center. Not much scent coming out, lightly vineous and malty. Smooth feeling, do not really notice any carbination. Medium bodied. Caramelly maltiness, bit roasty, coffee and chocolate. Seems to get sweeter as you drink it. Candi sugar maybe? Just barely notice a little bit of hops in there. Easy drinker, nice flavors, not too intense, much better as it warms. Decent as a session, but not one I would go out of my way for.

shapudding, Jan 22, 2005
Photo of Gueuzedude
3.45/5  rDev -3.6%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 4 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Pours with a frothy, initially two-finger thick, light tan colored head that sits atop an amber colored brew, which shows a lightly hazy, pinkish tinged, red colored beer when held up to the light. Strong aromas of diacetyl contribute a definitely distinct aroma of butterscotch & butter, though it is not at the rancid butter stage. Underneath the dominant butterscotch aromatics is perhaps a hint of fruitiness and a touch of toasted malt aromatics; both of these are probably substantial, but I have a really hard time detecting them under all of the diacetyl.

Soft, slightly creamy textured, yet it has a light prickle of carbonation to it. Toasty malt notes reminiscent of lightly browned biscuits, toasted bread, a touch of roast grain and lots of dark bread flavors are all noticeable. The malt character tends to especially linger on in the mouth. The diacetyl flavor contribution is much reduced, when compared to the nose, but does add some definite butterscotch notes here as well. Up front the notes of butterscotch, caramel and toffee mix, but this then slowly yields to the dry, toasty malt notes previously mentioned.

While the aroma is not so bad, it is certainly almost exclusively one-dimensional in its butterscotch focus. The flavor actually sort of works; I had written this beer off after smelling it, but it is actually fairly enjoyable in the flavor department.

Gueuzedude, Nov 30, 2007
Photo of stereosforgeeks
3.48/5  rDev -2.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Appearance - Murky dark golden brown. Bubbly head that dissipated quickly, but was nice when it was present.

Smell - Toasted caramel malts, some fruits, alcohol, and hoppiness.

Taste - Sweet caramel toasted malts, some alcohol, and hops.

Mouthfeel - Smooth and medium bodied. Semi-dry finish.

Drinkability - Nice and smooth.

stereosforgeeks, Mar 23, 2007
Photo of Hopheadjeffery
3.5/5  rDev -2.2%

Hopheadjeffery, Aug 05, 2013
Photo of jdhilt
3.5/5  rDev -2.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Pours an off-white, one finger-head that goes slowly leaving a good lace. Cloudy amber color. Medium carbonation. Medium bodied. Nose is earthy. Starts with a roasted coffee flavor, finish is a balnce of malt and hops that is sweet but dry. Easy to drink, alcohol is not noticeable. $4.40 for a 500ml bottle from Colonial Spirits Acton, Ma.

jdhilt, Dec 10, 2004
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Wee Beast (Cuillin Beast) from Isle Of Skye Brewery
81 out of 100 based on 80 ratings.