Discussion in 'Beer Talk' started by BerlinBomber, Jan 6, 2013.
Red's Rye, but Ruthless Rye is still quite good.
I used to think Red's was supposed to be a "rye pale ale" until I saw it constantly called an IPA. It's a play on words/letters.. r-IPA. r-I PA. Rye.P.A. And my vote does go to Red's Rye. I was super excited when Ruthless came out, but was severely disappointed each time I tried it. Hop Rod Rye is great, but Red's Rye is definitely one of the most overlooked, underappreciated beers out there! Luckily, I'm 10 min from Founders, so I get to try it from a cask with extra dry-hopping fairly frequently!!
Both are really good beers, and I am looking forward to seeing Ruthless hit Minnesota. However, Red's might be my all-time favorite rye beer. A bit saddened to hear that it's going seasonal.
I figured people would side with founders red rye, but what about Hop Rod Rye vs Red Rye? Since I've never had founders and I like Hop Rod more then Ruthless.
I'm probably in the minority here but I'm glad to see Red's going to a seasonal. I can rarely find a sixer that is even somewhat fresh, 90% of the time they are 3-4 months old and this beer falls off pretty fast IMO. That said I haven't tried ruthless.
Just had my first Ruthless the other day.... does anyone else think that stuff smells like pure, skunky weed? Not that it was a bad thing, but that was certainly the first thing that came to mind, haha.
I love Founders, but I think I might take Ruthless over Red's Rye. Both delicious, but I think Ruthless was a little more powerful.
Agree. I was underwhelmed with Ruthless. (didn't say it was bad..just never gave a second thought to purchasing more)
Huh? They just released their 2013 release cal and it will be released a few months in the fall from what sounds like for good. They made this decision based on its shelf life as the folks at founders claim it has a short shelf life. So it's year round on tap and bottled in the fall. But there will be bottles. I'm sure it will still come in 6 packs even though it's listed as a speciality.
Well now that red's rye is a fall offering we won't have to make that choice given Ruthless is available in winter through early spring. If I were to observe both however I'd give the nod to Founders Red's Rye. It's a damn tasty brew. However Sierra Nevada are no slouches either(one of the greatest breweries in the world) a bit underrated IMO. Ruthless Rye isn't one of SN's best offerings, but then again they dont have any bad offerings. Same with founders and red's rye, it's not one of their greatest offerings but IMO they don't have a bad beer. I'm not sure if ruthless is considered an American ipa or a rye ale and I'm pretty sure red's is a rye beer and not an ipa or apa. But if ruthless is considered a rye beer it should be in the top 25 with red's being in the top 10. Drink both and appreciate both these top shelf breweries.
It'll still be around, but only as a seasonal in the months of Sept./Oct. in a 4-pk.
Why is Red's Rye classified as a Rye Ale and Ruthless Rye as an IPA?
Personally, I like Ruthless much better. Ruthless is more of an IPA with some rye added where as Red's is more of a pure rye beer. Much more rye flavor in Reds. Ruthless to me is soooooo drinkable.
When Red's Rye is on point, its so much more enjoyable (and bolder in hop and rye character) than Toothles Rye. When it's not, they are comparable.
The brewery considers it an IPA. Since "Rye Beer" is a category, also and rye is beers aren't particularly common, and I can see why whoever created the Red's Rye page on here years ago labeled it so. However, when you drink it, you can tell it is an IPA with the spicy, bold, rye characteristics as an additional point of flavor. It is a very citrusy, grapefruity beer with rye as well.
Its going to be a seasonal, not sure on 4 or 6 pack, but it will be out 2 months a year.
two brothers cain and ebel
I like both, but prefer the more "in your face" of the Ruthless Rye. I would say that Red Rye is a bit more sessionable though.
Red's Rye and it isn't even close (imo at least). Felt like the Ruthless had a weird after taste.
I like Red's a bit more, but considering a 4pk will be 9.99 going forward, while I can get a 12pk of Ruthless for 11.99- I will not be buying Red's again. Really odd move to put it in 4pks at the same price point at beers like KBS, Imp. Stout, etc.
Only time it won out last year was when it was a 'beer of the month' special and six pks were 6.99.
Ruthless Rye is way better, usually I would go with founders but not one this one
Though I enjoyed them both, Founders gets my vote.
I, too, like Reds Rye better than Ruthless. I'm not saying anything bad about Ruthless, just that Reds appeals to me more. I have a clone in the fermentor now and I hope it comes out since Reds Rye is going seasonal.
Checking my reviews, I had a 5-month-old Red's Rye and wasn't so impressed. Too malt-forward for me. Unfortunately no Founders out here (this one was shipped to me) so that's all I have to base my opinion on. Are hops more prominent when this one is fresh, or should it hold up pretty well for 5 months?
I did really enjoy Ruthless Rye, but then I can always be assured of fresh Sierra Nevada beer. For that reason alone I'd give my vote to Ruthless.
Yes, it certainly is more hop forward when it is fresh, but it still isn't as "hoppy" as Ruthless. It's a more balanced beer than Ruthless Rye.
IMHO, when equally fresh, Hop Rod>Ruthless>Red Rye.
Ruthless Rye was ok. Red's Rye was fantastic.
Red's...when fresh, my favorite Founders beer
No question for me- reds rye is awesome and ruthless generally falls short for me.
They're so different, I wouldn't say one is better than the other. I actually don't know if I could decide between them, if I were trying to choose my favorite. Maybe Sierra Nevada by a hair.
Nice beers, both of 'em, but I like Ruthless a bit better. Had a few bottles just 12 days old last night. Delicious stuff.
I've tried the Ruthless and thought it was outstanding even for Sierra Nevada which I have the greatest respect for... if the Founders is better I'll really look forward to that. It's hard for me to imagine though.....
Separate names with a comma.