Beez Neez | Matilda Bay Brewing Co.

34 Reviews
no score
Send samples
Beez NeezBeez Neez

Brewed by:
Matilda Bay Brewing Co.

Style: American Pale Wheat Ale

Alcohol by volume (ABV): 4.70%

Availability: Year-round

Notes / Commercial Description:
This unique brew has a light malt palate with a distinct honey aroma and flavour plus a hint of bitterness. Clean, crisp and dry on the palate and surprisingly refreshing.

15 IBU

Added by BeerAdvocate on 01-07-2004

For Trade:
User Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50  | nextlast
Reviews: 34 | Ratings: 55
Photo of Frog
2.18/5  rDev -12.1%
look: 3.75 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.75 | overall: 2

This beer is not what I would call a craft beer. Its not a terrible beer and might make a half decent session beer. The price for a 6 pack simply was not a reflection of the quality of this almost fraudulent brew. Theres no disguising the fact that it's a mass produced Aussie blonde lager type beer thats been tinkered with to make something more interesting.
I too did not get any sweetness or honey. Aftertaste wasnt really an issue for me.

 443 characters

Photo of Andrewharemza
2.88/5  rDev +16.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 2.75 | overall: 3

This brew has a light malt palate with a distinct honey aroma and flavour plus a hint of bitterness. Clean, crisp and dry on the palate and surprisingly refreshing.

 164 characters

Photo of SmashPants
1.46/5  rDev -41.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.25 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

Format: a standard dark brown 345mL bottle, with a decent semi-boutique label - looks good.

Appearance: a strong golden-yellow colour that looks a little too yellow. Limited carbonation with basically no head. Isn't this meant to be a honey wheat beer?

Aroma: oh damn, what is that?? It smells of a fantastically cheap lager grain with a touch of some off honey lumped on top. How did they manage that? Honey doesn't even go off!

Taste: very little of those cheap lager grains on the nose, but a stronger and hence nastier crap honey. This is dead-set one of the worst beers I have ever had.

Aftertaste: I couldn't get this out of my mouth quickly enough. The flavours linger for quite a while, even through my first rinsing with water.

Mouth feel: a very watery body with stacks of sharp carbonation that make those awful flavours explode up your nose.

Overall: suffice to say, this is not one of my favourite beers in the world. I really don't know what they were thinking with this - it tastes like a really poor lager with watered-down honey dropped in just before bottling. It is a horrendous, nasty and vile substance which will never again pass my lips. They also want to charge AU$56 a case for this nonsense.

 1,224 characters

Photo of soju6
2.64/5  rDev +6.5%
look: 3 | smell: 2.75 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

A: Pours a golden color with a good head that fades slowly to some lacing.

S: Aroma of citrus, honey and some grain in the background.

T: Light taste of honey, trace of fruit and some grain. Mild bitterness and a slightly sticky finish.

F: Light body, smooth but the honey sweetness gets to you by the end of the beer.

O: Drinkable but for only one.

 357 characters

Photo of magpieken
2.26/5  rDev -8.9%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

345ml bottle. 02 May 15. Pours a pale gold colour with a decent, creamy, white head which lasted well and left some very nice lace rings. Initially pleasant honey note is matched by an equally unpleasant vegetal one. At times the smell reminds me of a shandy. Light to medium sweetness and some mild unappealing sourness which lingers. Light bodied and with a dry finish. This beer was passable until I put it in my mouth and then that lingering sour taste ruins everything. Please make it stop. Unenjoyable. 4.

 511 characters

Photo of doktorhops
2.09/5  rDev -15.7%
look: 1.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

How did this one get away? I've reviewed damn near every Matilda Bay beer, however Beez Neez seems to have escaped my grasp. Could it possibly be due to the fact that it was a beer I used to enjoy back in the day when it was first released and then was somehow changed into a mediocre third-class brew? Sure it could, but let's give it a fresh look again and a second chance of glory.

Poured from a 345ml bottle into a 500ml stein.

A: First things first - this is not a wheat beer as we know it. There is some obvious filtering making what should be a cloudy straw body clear and amber like a typical Lager. The head is also in Lager territory; puffy white cloud that dissipates to a thin white lacing. If being marked as a wheat beer it loses points here, and as a personal preference cloudy bottle-conditioned beers are better... they just are.

S: Honey is the big note and is noticeable straight away, along with a heavy grain base, aromas of corn and cut grass hops. There is a vegetal matter (or skunk) smell ever present in the background that really just detracts from the overall aroma and lets this brew down considerably (think along the lines of a typical macro Lager).

T: Upfront with adjunct grains, more corn than wheat flavours, with a that vegetal note in the background and slight hop bitterness. The hops are more grassy foil to the hearty grain base, and the honey flavour noted in the aroma is almost non-existent now. And here is the rub: this is not a wheat beer by any stretch of the imagination, it is total Lager flavours here and this only serves to compound ones disappointment further. Also back when it first came out you could really taste the honey, now it's hardly noticeable, cost-cutting is the first thought that comes to mind.

M: Lagerish in mouthfeel, watery body with a zing of carbonation, far from any wheat beer out there.

D: Yep, it hasn't improved from the day it was changed many years ago. I remember this beer being a minor hit back in the day but now it is a total miss, barely better than the macro Lager scene and not worth investing any time in. If it's at a pub and you have a choice between this and the usual macro Lager club; go for whatever Coopers is on tap instead. At least Coopers haven't compromised the quality of their beers to save money. Bottom line - miss this one. Possibly the worst of the Matilda Bay brews (it's this or Redback, which also used to be a better beer).

Food match: Match this with Lager fare; hot dogs, meat pies, hamburgers and other street food you might find. Don't spend any money food pairing with this as it will be a waste of decent cuisine.

 2,638 characters

Photo of aBeeraWeek
2.41/5  rDev -2.8%
look: 1.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

When poured it looks pretty thin. There is a few light bubbles rising through a light orange amber colour. Head is virtually non existent, and what was there diappeared quickly. Zero lacing.

Smell is not bad. Some distinct honey, but not as overly sweet as some other honey beers I have tasted before. Some wheat smells coming through as well.

Taste is a let down. The honey is there early, but disappears to leave you with a more maize taste with a light bitter aftertaste of no real distinction.

Quite light bodied with just enough fine carbonation to at least give it some refreshing value.

 596 characters

Photo of dansmcd
2.66/5  rDev +7.3%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Poured into my Weihenstephan weizen glass.

A - Effervescent pale amber with two fingers of fluffy white head with good retention and reasonable lace. Good start.

S - Mild hefe aromas of wheat and banana.

T - Again, typical hefe flavours of wheat and banana. Im not getting any honey.

M - Watery thin. Moderate carbonation.

O - Pleasant enough but very much one-dimensional. Easy drinking.

 393 characters

Photo of Raebies
2.05/5  rDev -17.3%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Perhaps my nostrils are dead. I'm not picking up any aromas, except for a faint generic smell of "beer". Pours a pale, watery golden colour. Crisp light malt flavour. Slight acidity and an off flavour that reminds me of aspirin. Tastes like a watered down lager to me. I don't get any honey in the flavour either.

 313 characters

Photo of Stew41
2.64/5  rDev +6.5%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

Pours a nice clean, pristine white head. Again very clean and clear in the glass with gold to amber hues. Quite a bit of definition on the nose, some malts, quite larger like in the Oz mould. Unfortunately it reminded me a bit too much of CUB’s Crown. Palate is a bit of a letdown, no honey to speak of and quite generic flavours. Carbonation levels are ok and let the beer speak, so to speak. Fizzy back palate and short of flavour. Quite refreshing mouthfeel but you need more at $16 a 6-pack.

 497 characters

Photo of heygeebee
2.83/5  rDev +14.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Pours a one finger head cream head, golden copper coloured. Bubbles in a twister shape from a point on the bottom of the glass. Go figure.

Restrained aromas of malts, sadly some macro-ness, and a little honey. A little. Along the lines of 'its called Beez Neez therefore should smell of honey' lines.

Taste is a bit of a mixture. A bit of Aussie Macro, a bit of malts, a bit of sweetness, and a bit of wax, rather than honey. I used to drink this stuff and quite liked it. Not so sure in this case.

Mouthfeel is OK, but a bit thin.

Overall not too bad, but served too cold, especially for winter.

 600 characters

Photo of philphilphil
2.71/5  rDev +9.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Appearance was good with a nice amber and okay head. Deceiving.
Smell was honey and low grade malts.
Taste made me say is this sweet to myself, honey in beer wasnt a good idea.
Mouthfeel was okay.
Overall this is for the mass market, had far worse, but not impressed.

 267 characters

Photo of Macca
2.61/5  rDev +5.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Looked nice when first poured with a generous white head but it dropped quickly. Clear.

Very grainy nose. If I get any honey it's only fleeting. Disappointing.

Again the graininess on the palate. Blah. Reminds me of a macro.

Crisp mouthfeel.

What a bland brew!

 264 characters

Photo of CrazyDavros
2.58/5  rDev +4%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Golden amber pour with a small head showing reasonable persistence.
Aroma is quite faint, there's some grainy aussie malt and possible some pride of ringwood hops? A bit of sweet honey in the background.
Flavours are very similar: grainy malt with a little supporting sweet honey and a hint of grassy hops.
Soft, fine carbonation.

 330 characters

Photo of Parrotshake
2.48/5  rDev 0%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

This beer has a bit of a bad rap on this site, it seems. Fair enough, it's not very good, but it's not that bad either... or is it? Maybe I'm just in a good mood at this point. Knocked off a quite a bit of Avec Les Bon Voeux earlier and turned to my girlfriend's supply of this as a nightcap, so to speak, but I'm not not enjoying it....

Pours pale gold without much head. Spotty lacing here and there.

Cheap lager-y smell with a fermented grainy note and a nondescript sweetness. I can't tell if I'm getting a little bit of honey or it's just that I already know the beer contains honey... nothing convincing, at any rate.

A bit of honey on the first sip, which I never really noticed again... strange. Watery, followed with a corn-like flavor. Not much more to it. Metallic hop bitterness leading to an abrupt dry finish. Not as sweet, nor as carbonated as I'd imagined (thank God), but still an obvious shot at the Alcopop market. That said, it goes down easy, even if the taste is a bit lacking.

For anyone interested, I recall it being quite a bit better on tap, though the glassware made me feel a bit self-conscious. But I (and I suspect YOU) are clearly not the target maket. Because we like beer, mostly.

 1,217 characters

Photo of laituegonflable
1.89/5  rDev -23.8%
look: 2 | smell: 3 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

Got given this when I asked my mate to fetch something that would 'surprise me' - of course I'd already seen Beez Neez was on tap so I was willing to take the risk.

Came out looking alright, golden colour with fair carbonation, sparsely bubbled head but fairly good retention. No lacing at all; I find this disappointing in a supposedly sweet beer. Everything else pretty meh.

Smells alright and better than it does out of a bottle. Distinct honey aroma which, basically, is what I expect. Little bit of floral hop behind, but not enough to make a fanfare about. Decent nose, but simple.

Taste is a hodge-podge and badly so. Starts with a strong honey hit on the front palate, seems like it's heading for sweetsville then takes a sharp right into nasty, sharp adjunct flavour. The honey which makes this beer a marketing bonanza lasts for about a second, and the mid-palate is flat and weak, while the finish is very nasty bitter with no real hop character. Just a sort of chemical bitter, like putting your tongue to a battery. Mouthfeel is thin and dull, no carbonation, and the finish really renders this a difficult one to get through.

Again, I'm really put off by this beer. It's just all wrong.

 1,204 characters

Photo of WHROO
2.4/5  rDev -3.2%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

A: Cloudy golden, 1 finger head, ave head retention, no lacing...ave carbonation.

S: Fruity (pears), little skunky & sulphury, only got honey as it warmed a little...expected more sweet honey but too bland.

T: Really struggled to get any honey - maybe a little as it warmed...just bland, with a little fruit & thats about it...boring finish too.

M: Thin & watery...

D: just another bland beer...was really hoping for more honey. Had this on tap years ago & remembered it to have way more honey.

Boring installment from Matilda Bay.

 536 characters

Photo of foles
2.76/5  rDev +11.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

A really poor effort by Matilda bay to expand on the success of the Redback Wheat beer. Basically a watery wheat beer which is unsure of its identity, trying to behave like a lager beer.

No real character in it, loosely hinting to the taste of the redback, with a teaspoon of honey.

I'll stay away from this one, given the quality of most of the brewery's other offerings.

Nice bottle.

 388 characters

Photo of rjimlad
2.88/5  rDev +16.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Generally I like Matilda Bay beers but this one's a bit boring. A nice looking wheaty with no aroma and a barely perceptible honey note. No hops as you'd expect but not much else going on either. It's very drinkable and inoffensive but it's not far removed from a dozen other BBQ macros. Dull.

 293 characters

Photo of brendan13
2.63/5  rDev +6%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

A - Mid-golden colour poured with a few centimetres of white head that falls away rather quickly. Little bits of sporadic lacing.
S - Some grainy aroma with an obvious honey note.
T - Like the smell.
M - Quite a watery mouthfeel, medium to high carbonation.
D - Theoretically it's fairly drinkable. However it's also pretty boring.

 331 characters

Photo of LittleCreature
3.08/5  rDev +24.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

Appearance - 3.0
Poured two fingers of frothy white head that reduced steadiliy to a thin layer (that looks patchy and unattractive), leaving little in the way of lace. The body is a pale golden yellow with a shade of copper, with a few bubbles rising.

Smell - 2.5
General "beeriness" with a hint of honey, a little hops and some pale malt. Not offensive but quite weak, not a whole lot going on here, even with a little warming.

Taste - 3.0
Quite refreshing, sweetish, but not overly so, and with a little of the honey promised in the name. There is a wheaty taste to it, but the main flavour is more like that of a lager. The finish is slightly bitter, and a bit dry and leaves a little of the upfront flavours.

Mouthfeel - 3.0
Perhaps a little less carbonated that your general macro beer, feels light in the mouth.

Drinkability - 4.0
Definitely a sessionable beer, and a decent substitute for lagers, pilseners etc. However, many (like I) will get bored of it quickly and want to move onto something with more flavour.

If I were reviewing this as a macro lager, I would say it is clearly above average. However, this is not a macro lager, it is an American pale wheat ale, and it priced as a premium beer, and as such, it is sub-par. However, it is similarly priced to a lot of mainstream euro lagers that are similar in level of taste, so it isn't a bad session choice. However, Matilda Bay do make MUCH better beers, such as Bohemian Pilsner and Redback that are just are widely available for the same price. Easy drinking, but not a beer for beer lovers.

 1,578 characters

Photo of rec
2.31/5  rDev -6.9%
look: 2 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 3

Initially I was a fan of this beer, but my mind quickly changed...

While brewed with honey, it's not all that sweet and is extremely light bodied - after drinking something heavier it almost feels (and tastes) like a flavoured water.

It's far better on-tap than in-bottle, but remains unimpressive at the best of times.

Due to its light nature and honey flavour, it's easily drinkable and a big winner with the ladies.

I do however remember it being a nicer drink a year or two ago.

 494 characters

Photo of vancurly
2.6/5  rDev +4.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Mid-gold colour with nice white head.
Yep...some honey on the nose, but not much.
Light touch of citrus, with some malty body. Honey is there of course. But even still, I get a watery impression.
Finishes a bit thin, but there is a touch of hop at the end, which is the first time I notice it.
I don't really see the point of this beer. It's drinkable, I suppose, but not normally my kind of beer.

 402 characters

Photo of jamie2dope
2.33/5  rDev -6%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Another Matilda Bay beer...pours a light golden straw color, no head whatsoever. Smell, didn't really detect much of one, mostly just grain and a bit of malt, also a bit musty. Taste was decent at best, again more grain with a very slight hint of honey coming through towards the end. Mouthfeel wasn't too bad, light to medium body, some hops here and there, crisp. This beer isn't harsh on the palate by any means, but one or two would leave me more then satisfied. In the end, this beer isn't bad, but I don't know how they get off calling it a honey wheat beer, the honey is hardly traceable.

 595 characters

Photo of jarmby1711
3.5/5  rDev +41.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Have not tried this style before , so really dont know what the addition of honey is all about
However it sis crystal clear and deep gold in colour , developing a head after a high pour.
Thee is certainly honey on the nose and the taste is , well wheat and honey.neither overerules and they blend together well
I found this interesting and enjoyable and would go well with a ploughmans lunch or similar.

 407 characters

first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50  | nextlast
Beez Neez from Matilda Bay Brewing Co.
2.48 out of 5 based on 55 ratings.
  • About Us

    Your go-to website for beer (since 1996), publishers of BeerAdvocate magazine (since 2006) and hosts of world-class beer events (since 2003). Respect Beer.
  • BeerAdvocate Microbrew Invitational

    Join us June 2-3, 2017 in Boston, Mass. for beer, cider, mead, kombucha and sake from over 70 small producers.

    Learn More
  • Subscribe to BeerAdvocate Magazine

    Support uncompromising beer advocacy and award-winning, independent journalism with a print subscription to BeerAdvocate magazine.