Thomas Hooker Munich-Style Lager - Thomas Hooker Brewing Company
Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
Ratings: 163 | Reviews: 118 | Display Reviews Only:
1.6/5 rDev -59.4%
I really don't understand how this beer is rated so highly. It is simply terrible. The taste was so thin and flimsy, I'd rather eat uncooked linguini than take another sip of this terrible beer. I drank about 1/4 of it and then dumped it down the drain.
It's very possible that there was an infection present, because I detected a very faint sour note in the finish, which was the final straw. Speaking of straw, that's what this beer tasted like, and not in a good way. I'd rather drink Stoudt's Gold Lager any day of the week over this atrocity.
I wanted to like this beer because it's a local brewery, which makes it all the more disappointing that I hate it so much. I wish I had something positive to say about the beer but I don't.
09-07-2011 06:08:49 | More by moosejaw7
2.55/5 rDev -35.3%
12oz bottle into a Duvel tulip. Thanks to vonschplieffen for letting me review this one from the cooler in his back yard.
A: Cloudy light amber body with 2 fingers of frothy, persistent off-white foam. I'd like a clearer lager, but it's got a great head - lovely retention and lace.
S: Hmmm. Underwhelming aroma of sulfur, cooked vegetables, metal, toasty malt, and herbal hops. Some good, some bad, all boring.
T: Follows the nose (sadly) - pretty sweet, with a hefty amount of minerality, DMS, and metallic flavor. Pretty disappointing, but at least it's not totally bland.
M: Smooth, lively body with lots of roiling carbonation. Pretty fun.
O: I was shocked - shocked! - to see the plethora of positive reviews for this beer, as I found it to be a highly flawed, thoroughly forgettable offering. Perhaps I got an old bottle or something; I'll have to look for it on tap. Until then, I'll be glad to stick with fresh Elm City whenever I feel like some light CT lager (I'll be the first to agree that Hooker Liberator is the best overall lager brewed in the state, if not the nation).
07-27-2011 03:18:01 | More by woosterbill
2.98/5 rDev -24.4%
From the bottle after warming, the beer features a body colored golden, hazy though no apparent sediment. The head is slightly off-white, just over two centimeters in height and comprised of small bubbles. As the head descends, there is little lacing (and this continues during drinking as well), and what remains is a persistent, thin layer of foam atop the beer.
Aroma is mildly bready with some detectable hops, rather weak in strength and presentation. Taste is similar: bland, malty with a small amount of bitter/spicy hops, a bit of lemon zest, and yeastiness.
The beer is a bit overcarbonated for the medium to medium-light body, resulting in too much foaming on the palate. While this does not make the beer terribly unpleasant to drink, it doesn't encourage further sipping, either. Overalll, nothing truly distinguishing about this lager. No aspect is that far from average, but without any particular strengths or aspects of the beer blending well (such as a solid maltiness mixed with a present, but ephemeral hop nuance) there's no reason to return to it.
05-17-2006 01:30:47 | More by falloutsnow
3.08/5 rDev -21.8%
On tap at Brass Rail Deli on 4/25/09.
A - Clear, heavily carbonated amber body with half a finger of creamy, off-white head that reduced to a thin film and left sparse but thick lacing around the glass.
S - Sweet malts and buttery diacetyl with some bready/grainy malt in the back. Hop presence is very faint. Pretty subtle aroma overall.
T - Sweet caramel malt up front with an unfortunate buttery diacetyl flavor. Some light leafy, noble hops attempt to conceal the buttery taste, but do so minimally. Maple syrup sweetness appears in the backend, followed by a grainy, bready malt character in the finish.
M - Light to medium bodied with a syrupy texture and moderate carbonation resulting in a slightly bristly mouthfeel overall. Mildly bitter on the palate with some residual sweetness.
D - Not bad, but a little too heavy on the butter flavor, unfortunately. Not overly crisp, either. The diacetyl really detracted from my overall enjoyment of this otherwise tasty style.
04-26-2009 13:23:10 | More by ffejherb
3.18/5 rDev -19.3%
Pours a hyper clear bronze and gold amalgamaton with a pillowy white soap-dish head.
Aroma is somewhat classic for style with pale malt leading the way and an faint whiff of caramel and grains. Sone light floral and perfumey hop notes are given off as it warms a bit.
Flavor is sticky sweet, much sweeter than the aroma would indicate with husky, bready grain bits in the middle. Finishes with a very bland but bitter note.
Mouthfeel is lighter side of middle with heavy carbonation. I generally look for balance in this type of brew and just wasn't there. The sweet and bitter just did not flow well and the hop bittering seemed a bit off.
Drinkability was average. Decent;y made but very boring IMHO. I'll stick with the bigger brews from this phenomenal brewery.
04-17-2006 21:06:48 | More by CRJMellor
3.2/5 rDev -18.8%
Golden-orange with a smooth white head with decent stay and lace. Musty metallic aroma hints of herbal hallertau. Peppery, dusty, dry. Plums, a little orange, maple sugar. Flavor is less complex, involving mandarin oranges, honey (as seems to be a TH signature), and a pinch of pepper. Feel is too big and too sweet (which is rare for me to say). The carbonation is good, but I want this dryer, thinner, and crisper.
I guess I do not understand who would want a beer with heavy feel and light flavor. I would rather have the opposite. I am a malt man, but this needs more hops and less body to pull it off. This was a fine beer, but 22 oz. is enough for me.
12-24-2004 02:45:44 | More by waughbrew
3.3/5 rDev -16.2%
A light yellow-orange brew with a slight head that fades quickly. Not much lacing going on. The aroma is vague, bread/wheat, suggests a light refreshing beer. The taste comes on with a lemon highlight and a murky hops, but I detect the sweaty socks syndrome. It has a peppery finish but there is a wheaty sweetness that grows on you as you get to the end. Friends seemed to like this quite a bit but I couldn't see the attraction. It's OK, reasonably refreshing but just not crispy enough for my tastes in this style. Hooker is excellent as a rule so it may be me more than the beer, just not my style.
07-11-2007 02:40:18 | More by Durge
3.4/5 rDev -13.7%
My Golden Lager came in one of those old fashioned swing top bottles instead of the 22 bomber bottle pictured on BA. It's the same type of bottle that the Liberator use to come in. Simple sky blue label with the name of the beer in big yellow letters and 2 squared lion heads at the ends of the name. To the left and right of the lion heads in yellow squares is the address of Thomas Hooker, US Govt. warning, barcode, and refund values. For some reason, this one didn't have a brewed year yellow strip over the swing top.
Appearance: When poured into a Sly Fox Imperial pint glass, this Golden Lager is a hazy and bright golden lemon color. On top of this brew was a tall 1 1/2 to 2 inch fluffy head of white foam. This white head of foam had really good retention that left behind a 1/2 inch left over head of foam and quite a few streaks of white lace around the glass. Basically, it's what a Golden Lager should look like to me. Great color and a nice head of white foam!
Smell: The aroma to this beer is very dry with a few drops of lemon, subtle toasted malts (So subtle that it was hard to tell they were even there), a dash of black pepper, and some yeast here and there. In the beginning it was mostly yeasty, but as it warmed up a bit, the yeast receded and the lemon and pepper came out from the background.
Taste: I thought Thomas Hooker would take a basic Golden Lager and work on it to make it more than just your average lager. That wasn't the case with this Lager. It was just plain and simple dry and lightly hoppy taste of toasted biscuit malts, a hint of lemon, a splash of grapefruit, and some bitter citrus hops at the finish. It felt like the hops were increased a bit, but it was still just a basic Golden Lager.
Mouthfeel: It's a light bodied beer like a Golden Lager should be, but it had a nice little dry and yeasty aftertaste of bitter citrus hops and lightly toasted biscuit malts.
Drinkability: It's just a simple Golden Lager, but hell if it isn't highly drinkable. Overall, it was just a nice refreshing light beer that would make a nice choice for a summer Lager session beer. I thought it just came in those expensive swing top bottles, but it's nice to see that it now comes in a 22 oz. bomber bottle.
05-29-2008 21:05:38 | More by AltBock
3.43/5 rDev -12.9%
On tap at Cambridge Common:
Whoa baby - this ain't your daddy's lager. I actually didn't particularly care for this brew. I found the hops and fruits a bit too strong when they blended together. Rather than the crispness which I expect, I found a stringent tingly sensation. Just not that drinkable.
A highly interesting brew and one that I recommend trying, but not one that was really my style.
N.B. Served way too cold on draft - not sure what effect this had.
03-09-2006 19:14:59 | More by Lnedrive14
3.45/5 rDev -12.4%
Golden, had a decent head that diminished to lacing. Has a tiny bit of hops in the smell, can't pick up on too much with this one. A very smooth brew, very buttery/biscuity malt and some hops present.
Wasn't too impressed honestly, nothing really stuck out with this one besides the drinkability. Wouldn't go out of my way to find this, but would have it again if I came across it on-tap.
12-28-2008 03:40:42 | More by Soozy
Thomas Hooker Munich-Style Lager from Thomas Hooker Brewing Company
88 out of 100 based on 163 ratings.