Beez Neez | Matilda Bay Brewing Co.

Your Rating: None
Want it   Got it 
Beez NeezBeez Neez
55 Ratings
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

Bros Score:
User Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Ratings: 55 |  Reviews: 34
Photo of Frog
2.18/5  rDev -15.5%
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 +11.6%
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 WoodBrew
2.68/5  rDev +3.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 2.75 | overall: 2.75

Not sure why this beer is being brutalized by others. There is alot worse beers out there than this.

101 characters

Photo of JKCooper
2.43/5  rDev -5.8%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.25 | feel: 2.75 | overall: 2.5

Photo of SmashPants
1.46/5  rDev -43.4%
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 nitrofenix
3.5/5  rDev +35.7%

Photo of spycow
2.5/5  rDev -3.1%

Photo of Stuckey_Stuckey
3.88/5  rDev +50.4%

Photo of emincems
2.34/5  rDev -9.3%
look: 2.75 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.25 | feel: 2.25 | overall: 2.25

Photo of bicorrea
4.5/5  rDev +74.4%

Photo of Mosant
2.5/5  rDev -3.1%

Photo of LathouXaris
3/5  rDev +16.3%

Photo of Agentveba
3/5  rDev +16.3%

Photo of GraduatedCashew
3/5  rDev +16.3%

Photo of adityashekhar
2.5/5  rDev -3.1%

Photo of soju6
2.64/5  rDev +2.3%
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 -12.4%
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 pin
2.5/5  rDev -3.1%

Photo of XsoldoutX
2.5/5  rDev -3.1%

Photo of Jake321
4/5  rDev +55%

Photo of kazoo
3/5  rDev +16.3%

Photo of doktorhops
2.09/5  rDev -19%
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 Gypson
2.25/5  rDev -12.8%

Photo of hopnerd
2.5/5  rDev -3.1%

Photo of Taphouse_Traveler
2.5/5  rDev -3.1%

first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Beez Neez from Matilda Bay Brewing Co.
Beer rating: 2.58 out of 5 with 55 ratings