Ultimator
Stadin Panimo
- From:
- Stadin Panimo
- Finland
- Style:
- Doppelbock
- ABV:
- 8%
- Score:
- +7 ratings needed
- Avg:
- 3.42 | pDev: 23.68%
- Ratings:
- | reviews: 2
- Status:
- Inactive
- Rated:
- Jun 26, 2015
- Added:
- Apr 23, 2013
- Wants:
- 0
- Gots:
- 0
NO SCORE
-
-
No description / notes.
Recent ratings and reviews.
Reviewed by Jugs_McGhee from Texas
2.31/5 rDev -32.5%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.25 | overall: 2.5
2.31/5 rDev -32.5%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.25 | overall: 2.5
"Light doppelbock." Hm. Brief impressions froma 33cl bottle served into a mason jar in Kuopio, Finland below:
A: Head is ~2 inches wide, and is of off-white colour. Decent complexion and consistency, though no lacing sticks to the sides of the glass as the head recedes. Full enough, with some creaminess and froth.
Body is a translucent copper of average vibrance. No yeast or sediment is visible within.
Oddly light for a doppelbock, but I'm curious to try it.
Sm: Heavily hopped, actually, running contrary to style conventions. Notes of pale malts, floral hops, coating hoppy resins, cotton candy, cream....this is not what I expected. It's also not much of a doppelbock. Seems like a strong pale lager, if anything.
Aromatic intensity is average.
T & Mf: Goes off the deep end with the hops, yielding a cotton candy-emphatic beer with none of the traditional robust malt character you'd hope for in a good doppelbock. Strangely fruity and almost estery. Floral, a bit resinous, pale malt-dominant...was this mislabeled? Nothing about this fits into any contemporary or traditional definition of the style. Imbalanced, to boot.
Medium-bodied, smooth, wet, coating, and a bit sticky. This isn't a gestalt beer, and the texture (like the taste) doesn't match the intended style.
There's (criminally) no robust malt presence, and the emphasis is wrongly on the hops. Don't look for dark fruits like prunes or plums. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if it came out that they actually used ale yeast. What's going on here?
O: I'm not sure what they were going for with this one, but it's easily amongst the worst attempts at a doppelbock I've ever come across. Even outside style conventions, it's still well below average, albeit drinkable. Hides its ABV pretty well, for what little that's worth. I always applaud experimentation and innovation, but this "light doppelbock" is way off the mark.
Low D+ (2.31)
Jun 26, 2015A: Head is ~2 inches wide, and is of off-white colour. Decent complexion and consistency, though no lacing sticks to the sides of the glass as the head recedes. Full enough, with some creaminess and froth.
Body is a translucent copper of average vibrance. No yeast or sediment is visible within.
Oddly light for a doppelbock, but I'm curious to try it.
Sm: Heavily hopped, actually, running contrary to style conventions. Notes of pale malts, floral hops, coating hoppy resins, cotton candy, cream....this is not what I expected. It's also not much of a doppelbock. Seems like a strong pale lager, if anything.
Aromatic intensity is average.
T & Mf: Goes off the deep end with the hops, yielding a cotton candy-emphatic beer with none of the traditional robust malt character you'd hope for in a good doppelbock. Strangely fruity and almost estery. Floral, a bit resinous, pale malt-dominant...was this mislabeled? Nothing about this fits into any contemporary or traditional definition of the style. Imbalanced, to boot.
Medium-bodied, smooth, wet, coating, and a bit sticky. This isn't a gestalt beer, and the texture (like the taste) doesn't match the intended style.
There's (criminally) no robust malt presence, and the emphasis is wrongly on the hops. Don't look for dark fruits like prunes or plums. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if it came out that they actually used ale yeast. What's going on here?
O: I'm not sure what they were going for with this one, but it's easily amongst the worst attempts at a doppelbock I've ever come across. Even outside style conventions, it's still well below average, albeit drinkable. Hides its ABV pretty well, for what little that's worth. I always applaud experimentation and innovation, but this "light doppelbock" is way off the mark.
Low D+ (2.31)
Reviewed by Arborescence from Finland
4.2/5 rDev +22.8%
look: 3.75 | smell: 3.75 | taste: 4.5 | feel: 4.25 | overall: 4.25
4.2/5 rDev +22.8%
look: 3.75 | smell: 3.75 | taste: 4.5 | feel: 4.25 | overall: 4.25
Appearance: Light copper, nice and clear. Pours a lightly creamy one finger head that recedes quickly.
Aroma: Caramel malt, hints of wood smoke and oak, ripe fruit.
Taste: This has a lot of depth. Full-on caramel malt completed with strong bitter hops. Toast and dried apricot in the aftertaste.
Mouthfeel: Soft and creamy. Medium to heavy body. Light to moderate carbonation.
Overall: Very well balanced doppelbock, great mouthfeel too. A pleasure to drink.
Apr 23, 2013Aroma: Caramel malt, hints of wood smoke and oak, ripe fruit.
Taste: This has a lot of depth. Full-on caramel malt completed with strong bitter hops. Toast and dried apricot in the aftertaste.
Mouthfeel: Soft and creamy. Medium to heavy body. Light to moderate carbonation.
Overall: Very well balanced doppelbock, great mouthfeel too. A pleasure to drink.
We love reviews (150 characters or more)! Check out: How to Review a Beer. You don't need to get fancy. Drop some thoughts on the beer's attributes (look, smell, taste, feel) plus your overall impression. Something that backs up your rating and helps others. Thanks!