Dismiss Notice
Sneak peek! BeerAdvocate magazine #104 (September 2015) featuring Leah & Oscar from Highland Brewing in Asheville, North Carolina. Learn more ...
Dismiss Notice
Subscribe to our newsletter and get the latest BeerAdvocate updates delivered to your inbox.

Doggie Style Classic Pale Ale - Flying Dog Brewery

Not Rated.
Doggie Style Classic Pale AleDoggie Style Classic Pale Ale

Educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
83
good

986 Reviews
THE BROS
85
very good

(Read More)
Reviews: 986
Hads: 2,306
rAvg: 3.65
pDev: 11.78%
Wants: 38
Gots: 272 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Flying Dog Brewery visit their website
Maryland, United States

Style | ABV
American Pale Ale (APA) |  5.50% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes & Commercial Description:
Beer added by: kbub6f on 08-17-2001

No notes at this time.
Beer: Reviews & Ratings
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of Doggie Style Classic Pale Ale Alström Bros
Reviews: 986 | Hads: 2,306
Photo of MLasoski
2.93/5  rDev -19.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Served: In a bottle, poured into an ale glass.

A: A clear amber body with a pencil-thick head. It's sticking around longer than expected. Leaves a bit of lacing as well.

S: I can smell grapefruit and hops, nothing more than that.

T: Has a citrus taste to it, more like a grapefruit flavor. The hops are also apparent.

M: Starts out with the grapefruit flavor and very carbonated. Has a finish of mild grapefruit and a fair amount of hops.

D: This isn't my favorite pale ale. I would much rather go a different route next time when I feel like enjoying this type of brew. I have to admit that I am not disappointed with it since I am enjoying it. (650 characters)

Photo of Beerandraiderfan
2.94/5  rDev -19.5%
look: 3 | smell: 2.75 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A disappointing offering. Looks hazy dark yellow, I've got hefe fever! Oh no! Aroma, gee, that smells like tea time and alcohol.

Tastes more British ipa with a little more DMS alcohol or something, maybe a crazy yeast strain (Flying Dog does make some good beers) for this one. Doesn't taste like a pale, tastes like an imperial bitter. No dry hopping apparent.

Bleh, not my kind of pale ale, can't savor any mouthfeel, not drinkable when so many other superior choices for this style. (488 characters)

Photo of scottchesterhall
2.94/5  rDev -19.5%
look: 2 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Poured in a British pint glass...small head was gone in about a minute or two. Color was pretty, but way too dark & amber for a pale ale.

Smell was strongly malty, almost no trace of hops. If you'd just had a Mirror Pond (I hadn't) this would taste like a sweet brown ale. The malt smell was nice--biscuity, round--but way too pronounced for a pale ale.

Taste was just like the smell...all malt. Very disappointing.

Mouthfeel was heavy, very viscous, no astringency.

Drinkability was poor...I felt full after half a glass. If I'm drinking a Belgian Double or a barleywine, I expect that...not in a Pale Ale.

If you can't tell, this beer was a huge disappointment. Call it a malty amber ale? Then it's fine. But when you're expecting Mirror Pond/Sierra Nevada PA/even a freaking Bass...this makes you go: "Huh? Was this mislabeled?"

Here's my only hesitation...my label says '05. Today it's April 2010. This beer appears to be five years old. Maybe the hops just snuck away over the past five years...to be fair, I'll give it another chance with a fresh one. (1,063 characters)

Photo of shaunb81
2.94/5  rDev -19.5%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

My wife picked me up a sixer of this while shopping. "Thanks, Babe!"

Appearance - I like how this stuff looks. A hazy, copper body accompanied by a decent 2" head. After that goes down (about 1 minute...) there is little foam on the top and some medium lacing around the glass.

Smell - It definitely looks better than it smells. Right off the bat there was a funk (sweaty shoes?) that was followed by some sweet, bready malts. Some spicy, piney hops finish off the nose. Some grassiness too.

Taste - Well, well, well. This stuff actually tastes better than it smells. Some sweetness on the front tip and a very prominent dry hop profile. There is a faint citrus hidden there too. Not bad, but I feel that there should be more to it. Then again, it is a "classic" pale ale.

Mouthfeel - Body is pretty nice along with the carbonation, both medium. The hops really dry my mouth out.

Overall - Not a bad outing, I will be putting one of these off to the side for a buddy. Not sure if I would spend more than a few bucks for this at a bar, but I'm glad that it wasn't super expensive. (1,085 characters)

Photo of gskitt
2.95/5  rDev -19.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 3.5

Pours a rosy amber with thick head, lots of lacing, takes some time for this to recede. Smells of malts and raisin bread, maybe some caramel. Tastes very musty, even earthy. Has some characteristics of being in an oak barrel. A little smoky. Has a bit of a flat mouthfeel, bitter at the end. Drinkable? Go ahead, but this dog don't fly. (For me) (345 characters)

Photo of Oxymoron
2.95/5  rDev -19.2%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

I cant really say if Im a big fan of George Stranahan, but I can review Flying Dog's Classic Pale. Pours a crystal clear amber color some copper color. There is a quickly disappearing white head and next to no lacing.

The smell is lacking any definite characteristic.

This continues with the taste as well. Although there is a blend of sweet malt with a very light caramel flavor. A slight citrusy smoothness is noticed through the hop tasting and is noticed through the end of the taste. Mostly it has a cascade zing to it. Nothing too exciting but still good.

The body is light and has a somewhat watered down taste to it. Decent hop flavors bring it to an average score. This beer is easy to drink but nothing too exciting. (735 characters)

Photo of tjthresh
2.96/5  rDev -18.9%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

I found this beer in my fridege left over from my 30th birthday party. The thing that stands out to me is a harsh grassyness from the hops in both the nose and the flavor. The malt come through with caramel, and bready notes. Nothing too special. Just a basic pale ale. (269 characters)

Photo of jamiesessions
2.96/5  rDev -18.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

A clear orange-amber colour fills the glass with a decent looking head that leaves an acceptable amount of lace. Smells of hops and flowers (which i guess is redundant), but not very strongly. The smell is not bad, but it is severely lacking, which hurts it. The taste is completely mediocre. Inoffensive hoppy taste that isn't bad, but does absolutely nothing for me. Medium body that goes down well picks me up a little bit, but overall this a decidedly average beer. I have no desire to have another, and am sad to say that after many great beers by Flying dog, the Doggie Style classic pale ale was a severe disappointment (626 characters)

Photo of frank4sail
2.98/5  rDev -18.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Wet leather malt sweetness in the smell. A rather dark look in the glas for a pale ale.. light red in color. Pale white head with a tinge on pinkness. Quite sticky and lasting. Initial taste is hoppy/orange rind but this then leaves the tongue and you get a wash of watery thin slightly sweet malt base. There is also a metalic finish to the brew as well (tin). Thin mouth. Not balenced on the ratio to hops and malt backbone. (426 characters)

Photo of brewmudgeon
2.99/5  rDev -18.1%
look: 3 | smell: 4 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

3 A coppery amber, good head at first, minimal lacing
4 S cascade grapefruit, bread dough, slightly metallic
2.5 T not nearly so bold as the smell, dry and bitter, taste (w/o allowing aroma to influence) is mainly just moderate bitterness, oddly similar to a thinner anchor steam if focusing just on taste
2.5 M watery, too thin, seltzer levels of carb
3 D not even close to an ideal APA, but could be decent summertime beer. should try comparing this head to head with acme. (479 characters)

Photo of mmmbeer
2.99/5  rDev -18.1%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

12 oz. bottle with some code. It pours an unfiltered, lightly hazy copper that is extremely carbonated with a massive head (4 inches) which makes it difficult to fit the entire beer into a 20 oz. nonic. It smells of pulpy orange with light grapefruit and a light papery or stale character that makes the beer seem a bit "off." The flavor has a medium bitterness and tastes the same as the aroma on top of a medium, drying body that is medium in carbonation and finish. Maybe this is a bad bottle, but if not, then I'd rather spend my money on something else. (558 characters)

Photo of robocrouch
3/5  rDev -17.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A: Poured into my pint glass from the bottle with a orange/amber color and a decent white head. Chill haze is present.

S: A kiss of citrus and hops. Malt is the biggest thing you pick up.

T: It has a good balance of hops and malts but in a weak way. It has a lighter body then what I expect from an APA and it doesn't have such a large hop presence in the finish.

D: An average APA that does not impress much. (421 characters)

Photo of tpd975
3/5  rDev -17.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A: Honey-colored in appearance, with an off-white head that leaves some lacing on the glass.

S: I have had this on draft and the bottle is a good representation of the draft. Hoppy citrus aroma with a hint of malt sweetness.

T: I prefer the taste of the draft version of this beer over the bottled version. It's still a pretty good PA, but with the bottled version, there was a little bit of a metallic (tin-like) flat flavor that hits you in the middle and rally seems to linger. I do like the hoppy character of this beer. There is a nice big malt character that attempts to balance the hops. There is still the earthy/grassy flavor that is different yet nice, but the flat tinny character is just too much.

M: Like the draft version, this bottled version bubbled and fizzed happily in the glass. Crisp and medium body make for an above average mouthfeel.

Drinkability: I'm still a hop-head but this one is just not hoppy enough for me. I realize it's only a PA but there is just too much malt here for me, and the malt is not a good tasting malt that balances out the hops. It comes at you in a distracting sort of way followed by the unpleasant tin flavor. It would be a good choice as a gateway beer for those who want to journey into hopdom but there is nothing world class about this one. (1,303 characters)

Photo of Roser
3/5  rDev -17.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A- gold, copper, amber hue. Semi- clear/cloudy (even 20 min. after pouring into tulip). Decent vanilla white head, disappeared quickly but left a healthy foam lace that remained for a good bit.

S- nothing that jumped out immediately/obviously. Faint lemon and grass notes.

T- very light, lemony, grass taste. Nothing to strongly praise or pan. Will be helped greatly if accompanying food/meal.

M- light (to medium, at most). No strong/obvious impressions, otherwise.

O- this beer? So so. Just ok for me. Most of the stuff I drink, that I don't love, would still far outweigh the mass produced crap. In here, compared to the better stuff, I'd leave this one alone. But, don't ignore the rest of Flying Dog's offerings. This is a strong producer of excellent craft beers (i.e. Raging Bitch Belgian IPA, Gonzo Imperial Porter, Pearl Necklace Oyster Stout, In Heat Wheat). And, an outstanding experience if you visit the brewery for a tour followed by the post tour visit to the tasting room. Go!

Cheers all! (1,013 characters)

Photo of cvfish
3/5  rDev -17.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A - Poured light amber color with a white head that disappears quickly

S - The smell wasn't strong, only hops were present

T - Tasted like citrus and malts

M - light bodied brew that would be very drinkable, minus the high amount of carbonation

D - Good on a hot day, could throw back a few (296 characters)

Photo of IceAce
3/5  rDev -17.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

APPEARANCE: An aggressive pour into a beer-clean .5 ltr pilsner glass landed me a very thick 2 finger collar of rapidly dissapating foam. Lacing is simply superb and the brew is a dark copper color and the clarity is very good.

AROMA: Nothing in this nose except the (welcome) sting of piney Cascade hops...and lots of 'em.

TASTE: While the nose promises Cascades, the taste delivers them...by the bushel. Those looking for hops will not be disappointed as this beer has been dry-hopped yet is not overpowering.

MOUTHFEEL: This beer makes a lot of promises...but falls short on mouthfeel with its one-dimensional hoppiness. The beer is thin and clings to its dry-hopped nature to pull the drinker through.

DRINKABILITY: Lacking the 'stickiness' of most West Coast pale ales, Flying Dog is little more than a representation of the style. Is it horrible? Absolutely not. Unfortunately, the answer is the same if you ask me if I'm going to go looking for it again. (973 characters)

Photo of maxpower
3/5  rDev -17.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Clear light copper color, decent size white foamy head, light bready and citrus aromas, balanced malt and hop flavors. Light to medium body with a watery and somewhat thin mouthfeel, finishes with a mild bitterness, very average and middle of the road pale ale. (261 characters)

Photo of ChainGangGuy
3/5  rDev -17.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Appearance: Pours a clear, medium brown body with a small white head.

Smell: Aroma of dry, toasty biscuits and citrus with just a hint of caramel.

Taste: Mild, unassuming biscuit malt flavor with a just a bit of caramel sweetness. Light citrus hops. Fairly mild bitterness accentuated by the carbonation.

Mouthfeel: Medium-thin body. Moderate carbonation.

Drinkability: It's not exactly what I'd call a "classic". Then again, "okay" doesn't look as good on a bottle label. (477 characters)

Photo of utopiajane
3.01/5  rDev -17.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3.25 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.75 | overall: 3

Poured orange amber with one finger of foam that didn’t last and no lace to speak of. It’s clear and has nice beer bubbles rising from the bottom of the glass. Nose is grass, leaf and herbal. Some grapefruit some forest and pine in back of that. Smells dry. Malt is biscuit, sweet bread and caramel. The malt nose sweetens as it warms with some pale honey. Taste is woody, earthy, both bitter and sweet. Semi dry. Malt base is sweet grain but doesn’t round out. Hops are tangy with the classic cascade profile of grapefruit and pine. Body is a little thin and it drinks a little heavy with the carbonation. It’s unbalanced and watery. I’m looking for something as I drink and not finding it. The bitterness lingers but not well and the alcohol comes to the palate in the finish. This one’s forgettable. (814 characters)

Photo of BarryMFBurton
3.02/5  rDev -17.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

I finally gave in and grabbed my first Flying Dog...I just couldn't keep walking by that awesome Ralph Steadman bottle art any longer! The liquor store cashier told me it was "AWESOME!," so I've got high hopes. Let's see if I end up agreeing with him:

A: The body is a great color: chestnut brown. It's just about the same as the stained wood of the table I'm sitting at. 1 1/2 finger head is white and thin, dissipating quickly. Pretty typical.

S: BIG piney hops. A lovely pale ale freshness that's incredibly inviting.

T: More wheat than I was expecting...or less hops. Or both. It's fresh-tasting, but pretty bland at times. There's also that cheap, processed grain taste that I find so easily identifiable, and it's an instant dealbreaker for me. The hops perk it up a bit, but never quite save it.

M: The carbonation isn't very noticeable, and the presentation turns out watery overall. How did a beer with such great aroma turn out so thin?

O: Too bad; I really wanted to love this stuff. Steadman's art is great, the names kill me - it all just seems like an in-your-face experience. Now it just seems like they're compensating for/trying to elevate a lackluster beer. Oh well, I'm still keeping my eye out for other interesting-looking offerings from these guys. Never give up hope! (1,295 characters)

Photo of Bcant
3.03/5  rDev -17%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A: Lots of red, big white head that leaves lots of lacing – good clarity.
S: Strong malts, almost raw wort with some pine hops behind.
T: Centenary not bad, interesting flavors but unbalanced, too much malt to start and too much raw hop to finis.
MF/D: Sticky.

Disclaimer: The above remarks seem harsh and they are. Overall this is an average APA. Yet its flaws are pronounced and therefore easy to comment on. (417 characters)

Photo of rdrummer
3.03/5  rDev -17%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

This Flying Dog offering poured an nice amber color with a modest off-white head with lots of lacing. It had a slightly hoppy nose with some hints of citrus. The hop character was weak for an APA but there is a little more maltiness than expected, which limits the bitterness somewhat. The citrus flavor continued in the taste. I was not greatly impressed with this offering. It was a rather bland effort. It is sort of like an APA light. (438 characters)

Photo of Zorro
3.03/5  rDev -17%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Pours a cloudy red brew. Pale Ale? Doesn’t look like pale ale.

Smell is fairly hoppy, with a bit of tea smell. Malt is present too smells lightly sweet.

Taste is mild hops and malt. There is a mild sour taste here too, from the yeast in it I think.

Mouthfeel is adequate.

It's drinkable but it seems to be under flavored. (334 characters)

Photo of jar2574
3.03/5  rDev -17%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Pours a brownish orange w/ a cream colored head. Average carbonation.

Not much in the smell department, maybe some sweetness. You don't get the hoppy scent you'd expect from a pale ale.

Average taste, a bit of skunkiness though in the back of the throat. Very little maltiness. If you like hops you'll like this more than if you're a mellow malty guy.

OK, but nothing to write home about. (397 characters)

Photo of mobud
3.03/5  rDev -17%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Poured from bottle into pint glass.

A- Nice copper color with an off-white head that remained thru sample.

S- Light citrus with really light floral hops smell.

T- Sweet and light hops taste that does not overwhelm.

M- Medium mouthfeel with a light bitter hops aftertaste.

D- OK, but not a "rush out and get this one" beer. Lower ABV makes it a nice session style beer for the summer. (398 characters)

Doggie Style Classic Pale Ale from Flying Dog Brewery
83 out of 100 based on 986 ratings.