Red Marker Ale | AleWerks Brewing Company

BA SCORE
77
okay
145 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score
Send samples
Red Marker AleRed Marker Ale
BEER INFO

Brewed by:
AleWerks Brewing Company
Virginia, United States
alewerks.com

Style: American Amber / Red Ale

Alcohol by volume (ABV): 5.00%

Availability: Year-round

Notes / Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

Added by Riverwarrior on 05-12-2008

BEER STATS
Ratings:
145
Reviews:
58
Avg:
3.24
pDev:
14.81%
 
 
Wants:
1
Gots:
18
For Trade:
0
User Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Ratings: 145 |  Reviews: 58
Photo of WillieThreebiers
3.17/5  rDev -2.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.25 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.25 | overall: 3.25

Photo of Boone757
3.5/5  rDev +8%

Photo of Thorpe429
3.5/5  rDev +8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Reviewed from notes.

Pours a moderate amber color with a two-finger off white head. Decent recent but fails to create any lacing. The nose is fairly one dimensional, mostly consisting of some mildly-toasted bread. There are some faint, earthy hops in there as well. The taste adds in a bit of a caramel touch along with fresh dough and toast. Slight bitterness and moderately dry. Medium body and a bit chewy with somewhat high carbonation levels. Drinks fairly well. Not their best, but solid nonetheless.

 507 characters

Photo of chinchill
2.59/5  rDev -20.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

12 oz bottle (no date but purchased 2 days ago) served in a snifter.
An unusual amount of ressure released by uncapping. Pours dark and murky red-brown in color, hazy and with an over-sized, creamy tan head that has excellent retention and leaves the glass well coated with lacing.
Aroma: infected?
Flavor: better than the nose and drinkable, but still poor.
Feel: soft and smooth with high carbonation.

O: possible infected, making 2 out of 3 (all different beers) for me from this brewer. Should re-visit but the lack of quality control discourages that.

 561 characters

Photo of ygtbsm94
2.5/5  rDev -22.8%

Photo of ZEB89
3.5/5  rDev +8%

Photo of BMart
3/5  rDev -7.4%

Photo of smakawhat
3.64/5  rDev +12.3%
look: 3.75 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Poured from the bottle into a nonic pint glass.

Faint two finger tan head, simple pimple right off the pour. Some good staying power, but she is tiny. Body is a very deep red, crystal clear, but blood and dark with barely a hint of dark mahogany brown to it which makes it hard to see through. Settles to a thin cap and collared ring with even pinhead bubbles.

Nose is filled with lots whipped chocolate sensations. Good sense of sweet powdered spices, dry clove, lots of nutmeg. A very nice aroma almost winter warmer sensing.

Very mellow hop forward but not a booming presence on the palate. Hints of large grapefruit oil on the palate. Clean finish with oil character and coating. Slightly wet, without a chewy or malty depth and presence, some caramel to this would really hit the spot. Interesting the hops seem to star but they are not aggressive, which is fine with me. Slight hints of herbality and tea with the grapefruit also.

An interesting subdued hoppy amber, but with a nice fruit presence. Kind of dig it.

 1,024 characters

Photo of jwc215
3.6/5  rDev +11.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

Pours light brown with amber/reddish hues. A thin off-white/tannish head that stays tops it off. A little bit of lacing sticks.

The smell is bready, with toasted notes, and vague fruitiness.

The taste is of lightly toasted breadiness, some caramel, and some leafy, tea-like bitterness. Mild maltiness balanced by mild roast/toast and mild bitterness. It has a soft, dry finish.

Light-to-medium-bodied with medium carbonation, it's pretty smooth.

An easy-drinking, mild amber. Could push it up a notch or two in both malt and hop categories and still be "sessionable".

 571 characters

Photo of VeganUndead
3.5/5  rDev +8%

Photo of AngusOg
3/5  rDev -7.4%

Photo of redfox405
4/5  rDev +23.5%

Photo of Davepoolesque
2/5  rDev -38.3%

Photo of yourefragile
2.52/5  rDev -22.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2

12 oz bottle poured into a nonic.

Maybe I had a bad bottle of this (though I doubt it), but this was bad. Appearance is an average brown copper color, hazed with an un-retentive tan head that leaves no lace a thin crown. Aroma is the worst part of this, very sweet, slightly medicinal, I don't want to think much more about this, but whatever it was, it's not natural. Flavor is average, bready and malty with a mild, dry hop flavor throughout, but my mind might being playing tricks on me on distinguishing how sweet the flavor is compared to the aroma. This was hard to finish the bottle, blindly I never would have called this an amber, I probably would have pegged the style as an American drain pour.

 706 characters

Photo of avalon07
2.65/5  rDev -18.2%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A: Poured from a bottle to a pint glass. Had a light amber color and a clear consistency. There was a small amount of foamy head that quickly dissipated. Very little lacing.

S: A weird, slightly off-putting aroma of malt, hops and a soapy quality.

T: Tasted of some malt, piney hops, and that same soapy quality. Not a very appetizing flavor. Unfocused and a bit on the thin side.

M: A good amount of carbonation with a dry finish. Medium-bodied.

O: This is definitely not a very memorable beer. Could have been better than it was.

 535 characters

Photo of Immortale25
3.52/5  rDev +8.6%
look: 3.75 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Poured into a Dogfish Spiegelau glass. No freshness date.

A- Pours a reddish light brown color with a 1/2 inch dark tan head that retains well before becoming a thick ring around the edge of the glass and a mostly full sheet of surface foam. Semi-resilient lacing leaves a broken ring behind.

S- Toasty, sweet malt with some mild hop character that's mostly earthy. Also some weird must from the yeast

T- The toastiness continues but it's quite a light toastiness as is the hop bitterness and flavor. Easy to drink, though pretty plain.

M- Also plain with medium carbonation and a body leaning toward the fuller side.

O- I feel like they wanted to make a red that was very red, but not all the way brown, yet they ended up at a halfway point which doesn't really lead to anything interesting. Like they wanted to redefine the style but ended up making something very...plain. But it has enough character to keep it drinkable, hence the generous score.

 962 characters

Photo of hozersr
3.33/5  rDev +2.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.25 | feel: 3.25 | overall: 3.25

Photo of Suds
3.08/5  rDev -4.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Poured from a 12 ounce bottle, this beer is clear, brownish-amber, and presents a very small head. Clarity and color are quite nice. The smell is a mix of lightly roasted, biscuity malt and herbal hops. Modest aroma. The flavor is balanced, with a notable bitter finish. Hop flavor is muted in favor of bitterness. Some slickness in the mouthfeel, but otherwise medium in body. Balanced, semi-dry beer. The beer seems like something of a throwback...to fifteen or twenty years ago when every small brewery seemed to make a similar 'red ale'.

 541 characters

Photo of Bung
3.85/5  rDev +18.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

12 oz, Found this at the Grapevine in Fort Mill. Hope it's not too old, no idea on dating.
Poured a fairly vibrant red, very thin layer of white head. Doesn't retain and does not lace to well.

Very malty aroma, light leather and treacle. Lighter cocoa. Candied sugar also, pretty sweet. I could see how people would not like that, but for me it's fine.

Taste has much balancing hop presence. Piney and lightly spicey herbal hops equally present with solid caramel malt and peat, leather, some cocoa.

Heavy side of light bodied. Coats very well for a smaller beer. Carbonation more present in the mouth than appearance. Could drink a bunch of this no problem.

I must have got a newer bottler, none of the negative qualities described previously were found for me.

 766 characters

Photo of THECPJ
3.25/5  rDev +0.3%

Photo of cjgiant
3.58/5  rDev +10.5%
look: 4.25 | smell: 4.25 | taste: 3.25 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

On tap at brewery:
Poured nice dark amber, with large amount of red-tan foamy-to-soapy head. Lacing significant. Nose has more hop profile than I'm used to in an amber, which works for me. Nose is herbal hops with some metallic background.

Taste is cluster to ambers I've had in past, crisp dark bread cracker, light copper, and then an earthy to herbal hop ending. Feel is what I usually think about ambers, thin (not as watery as most, though). Body is medium light, and the beer is actually refreshing.

Better amber in my eyes than most, with maybe a little more hops than normal for the style. Not sure that hops is as obvious from a bottle.

Edit: adjusted based on second tasting on tap at local restaurant later in week. Can't speak to freshness of the place's keg, but the hops definitely were less involved in the glass I had there (note: it didn't taste old or skunked, just definitely a notch less enjoyable than at brewery, unsurprisingly).

 961 characters

Photo of hophugger
3.2/5  rDev -1.2%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.25 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.25

a nice beer from my hometown. Nice ale flavor but lacking a bit of boldness associated with most ales. Overall, a commendable effort and an enjoyable beer, served well chilled. Flavor tends to lose its appeal as it warms. Bravo for bringing a good beer that is brewed in Williamsburg

 283 characters

Photo of DavoleBomb
2.75/5  rDev -15.1%

Poured into a pint glass. Bottle.

3.25 A: Clear deep amber brown color. One and a half fingers of frothy off-white head. Retention is below average but a short ring of lacing is left.

3.5 S: Definitely hop forward. Floral with some early citrus notes. A touch of earthy hops underneath. Caramel maltiness with toastiness and a touch of cracker.

2.75 T: The taste is poorly balanced for an amber ale. There's not enough malt character. Moderate bitterness with a touch of tanginess to it. Earthy mountain stream component. There's some caramel and toastiness again, but it's not strong enough and it comes off as slightly watery.

2.5 M: Lighter watery body. It could use a touch more carbonation. Lacking creaminess too. Not a big fan here.

2.75 D: It's not horrible, but it's well below average for the style.

 832 characters

Photo of ArkyVaughan
3.25/5  rDev +0.3%
look: 3.25 | smell: 3.25 | taste: 3.25 | feel: 3.25 | overall: 3.25

Photo of Zonian1
3.25/5  rDev +0.3%

first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Red Marker Ale from AleWerks Brewing Company
3.24 out of 5 based on 145 ratings.
  • About Us

    Founded in Boston in 1996, BeerAdvocate (BA) is your go-to resource for beer powered by an independent community of enthusiasts and professionals dedicated to supporting and promoting better beer.

    Learn More
  • Our Community

    Comprised of consumers and industry professionals, many of whom started as members of this site, our community is one of the oldest, largest, and most respected beer communities online.
  • Our Events

    Since 2003 we've hosted over 60 world-class beer festivals to bring awareness to independent brewers and educate attendees.
  • Our Magazine

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