Southampton Biere De Garde | Southampton Publick House

BA SCORE
86
very good
125 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score
Send samples
Southampton Biere De GardeSouthampton Biere De Garde
BEER INFO

Brewed by:
Southampton Publick House
New York, United States
publick.com

Style: Bière de Garde

Alcohol by volume (ABV): 7.20%

Availability: Winter

Notes / Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

Added by Ego on 01-27-2007

BEER STATS
Ratings:
125
Reviews:
98
Avg:
3.88
pDev:
10.05%
 
 
Wants:
11
Gots:
2
For Trade:
0
User Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Ratings: 125 |  Reviews: 98
Photo of mcallister
2.47/5  rDev -36.3%
look: 4.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 1.5

'05 vintage

Great looking beer. Deep copper with scarlet hues and an erupting head thick and puffy that extends 2 inches above the rim of my tulip.

Hmmm off the initial aroma curious if I may have aged this one to long. Buttery esters, with muted malt aromas. Some fruity aromatics and berry resemblances.

Still good and drinkable but just not alot going on. Slight diacetyl flavors with again that same muted malt that was in the aroma. Lacking fruit qualities and no hints of hop. Just not that great.

 507 characters

Photo of BusyNinja
2.61/5  rDev -32.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Southampton is one of my favorite east coast breweries. I always consider it a real treat when I can find it, whether it's in bottles or served on tap. This is my first Southampton disappointment. It wasn't bad. It just was not their usual stellar brew. Surprising mediocrity compounded by me overpaying - $11 and change in a good beer store for a 750.

Darker than golden, but not quite brown. Quite clear for the initial pour. A little cloudy, as should be expected, for the second pour.

Smell, a touch of wheat, not very strong. A hint of moderate alcohol.

Taste - just okay, pretty bland, not malty, not hoppy, not zippy like a Castlelain or a JenLain (sp). Just okay.

Mouthfeel - smooth, not too malty, not too bubbly.

Drinkability - yes, I could have had another bottle, but why? I know, I know, I'm getting spoiled by too many excellent brews. Believe me, I'd have a couple of these over BMC, but is that the standard? I don't think so. Looking forward to more great Southampton brews in the future.

 1,020 characters

Photo of davidwhatshisnam
2.75/5  rDev -29.1%

Photo of chrispoint
3/5  rDev -22.7%

Photo of jfcaa193
3/5  rDev -22.7%

Photo of JDV
3.18/5  rDev -18%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Bottle generously shared by fly. Thanks Alan!
Pours a rich amber with a light white head. Smell is bright, fruity and sweet breadiness. Taste is sweet, aged, fruity and very bready again, without much spice coming through for me. Still, pretty tasty.

 250 characters

Photo of BeerImmediately
3.18/5  rDev -18%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Corked n' caged 750ml brewed down the road in Rofo.

Pours with a lively 4F head of soapy bubbles, slightly opaque caramel-orange color, with light carbonation.

Aromas of sweet yellow raisins, plum, some alcohol, and sourdough bread-like quality.

The flavor brought out some definite sweetness - in particular, apricot, molasses and butterscotch - strange bedfellows indeed. Lightly bitter hop quality, and finishing with just a wee hint of sourness and earthy, dirty funk. The flavors seemed a bit at odds with each other, so I'd like to cellar one of these for a year or two to compare.

Mouthfeel was pretty thin and dry - again, seeming at odds with the smell and taste. Not bad, mind you, and ok for the style.

Overall drinkability is not bad - it doesn't constantly pull you back for another sip, but it's a pleasant, dry, and pretty complex beer.

My recommendation is to let this one sit for a year, and serve over 45 degrees ... it was more enjoyable as it warmed.

 981 characters

Photo of MiScusi
3.21/5  rDev -17.3%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A- pours a dark burnt orange, somewhat opaque but can see some clarity in it. Head builds up ridiculously big.

S/T- musty, sweet. Not caramel sweet but melanoidin sweet. Some lighter fruit aspects.

M- kinda thick and syrupy yet very highly carbonated. The sugary taste just adds to that perception.

D- The sweetness was a bit overwhelming. Didn't like the flavor combination a whole lot. Would enjoy more of a focus on the fruit and less on the sweetness, maybe with more of a lighter toasted malt.

 501 characters

Photo of ATLbeerDog
3.28/5  rDev -15.5%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Pours a cloudy light orange color with a frothy one finger head. Smells of light fruits with plum fruits dominating nose. First sip is plums and other fruits mixing not well with the massive yeast favor. There is way too much carbonation here and too much yeast. I'm guessing it is bottle conditioned but too much sugar was used. I am not impressed.

 349 characters

Photo of Brianmerrilyn
3.33/5  rDev -14.2%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Another one I picked up a 750ml at Skibbo's in the Bronx on East Tremont before heading up to Copake NY for some camping. This was my first of this style and I was very excited to get down to business.

A: From an oversized wine glass, the pour was strong amber orange, two and half if not more finger off white head. Fair amount of chunks and small hills in the head, solid lacing and retention but less than I expected.

S: Spices hit my nose first, some sweetness but don't believe it was fruit based. Low key bread and wheat hanging around to intriuge the pallet as you hoist for the first quaf.

T: Understated toasted biscuits, sweetness of vanilla and honey after the sting of something astringent hit my pallet. I didn't get much out of this and I suspect either it was the temperature or the age(too young) but I wanted more flavor.

M: Quite dry, very light but high level of carbonation.

D: Now that I've down one of these right off the rack, it's time to pick up another and cellar to see if I can get more flavor out of Southampton.

 1,048 characters

Photo of phisig137
3.37/5  rDev -13.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3.5

First pour is brilliantly clear amber orange color, with a three finger thin head. Little retention leaves nothing behind. Second pour is chunky, cloudy, and looks pretty nasty.

Aroma is slightly wheaty, with some bread aromas, as well as some light spice and fruits. Vanilla also seems to be present. Mild, but enjoyable.

Flavor is very mild, with lightly toasted grains, biscuits, honey, and vanilla being prevalent. Finish is relatively dry, and the mouthfeel is thin and overcarbonated. Drinkability is pretty good.

Overall, I'm pretty disappointed with this one. It's not poorly made, but it's just lacking in any wow factor. It is very well balanced, and would be a pretty good food beer, but by itself, it's a little lackluster. The bottle says to "Enjoy now or age it for later".... I can't imagine this possibly getting better with age. Probably the most disappointing Southampton beer I've had. Not bad, just not that great.

A side note.... I have had a few bottles of Southampton's corked beers that were infected/corked/not stored correctly. Perhaps this is another one of those bottles. I'll have to revisit this if my next bottle it different.

 1,171 characters

Photo of TheManiacalOne
3.38/5  rDev -12.9%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Poured from a 750ml bottle into a tulip glass.

A: The beer is a light golden brown color, with a large off-white head that fades slowly and leaves a spotty lace on the glass.

S: The aroma is of sour apples and citrus, Belgian yeast, some spice, light malts and some hops.

T: The taste likewise starts out sour with tart flavors of apples and citrus but is quickly followed by some sweet flavors of caramel and spices. There are bready flavors of Belgian yeast and a light but hearty malt character. There's also a little bit of a metallic bite to it at times. The after-taste is slightly sour and slightly sweet.

M: Crisp but not very smooth, medium body, medium-to-high carbonation, finish is dry and slightly sticky.

D: A little tasty, goes down ok, not too filling, decent kick, good representation of style, it's a decent beer but it's certainly not one of the first Belgian beers that I would look for.

 912 characters

Photo of LennyV
3.41/5  rDev -12.1%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

Poured a dark brown into my Chimay glass. Wounderful thick foamy head that hangs around.

Smells of malt and alcohol.

Tastes as it smells malty mixed with warming alcohol.

Feels fantatstic in the mouth like i am drinking velvet.

Maybe with age this beer will improve but I did not find anything unique about the brew. I was expecting some more funk from a farmhouse ale.

 374 characters

Photo of number1bum
3.43/5  rDev -11.6%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Part of NEPA BC split #19.

Pours a deep, burnt orange amber color, somewhat hazy with a billowing ivory colored head. Keeps a very full lace and leaves a bit of stick.

Smell seems quite sweet for the style, with aromas of honey and even a bit of caramel. Bit of a grainy note, too, which is slightly toasty. There's a bit of a buttery note, too with some yeast and floral characteristics, as well. Also a bit of fruit. This is definitely one of the sweeter aromas for the style that I have experienced.

Taste is not as sweet as the smell, with only a little bit of caramel sweetness. There is some buttery diacetyl like there was in the smell, too, and some apples and pears show up now and again. Dominant flavor is grain, however, which is toasty but also very raw and husk-like. There is a pretty substantial hop bitterness that goes with it, and both flavors linger into the finish. This is also a bit odd, but for different reasons than the smell was. Unfortunatley it doesn't all meld together quite as well as the smell, and the grain flavor is a bit too much.

Mouthfeel is pretty creamy, almost a little chewy, and is a bit heftier than a typical medium body. For this style though I'd like it to be a bit crisper and more refreshing.

This is a decent beer but it just seems a bit off to me. The smell is quite sweet, the taste is quite grainy. I'm not wild about the diacetyl that shows up here and there, either. It's ok, but I doubt I'd come back to it.

 1,470 characters

Photo of ipc2000
3.5/5  rDev -9.8%

Photo of gcare02
3.5/5  rDev -9.8%

Photo of JTomczak
3.5/5  rDev -9.8%

Photo of jkane101
3.5/5  rDev -9.8%

Photo of brewcrew76
3.5/5  rDev -9.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Thanks to Dyan for this one.
Best by 11/15/12 on the bottle.

A - Copper with orange highlights and a big, bubbly 3 finger head that disappears quickly.

S - Sweet malt with a bit of caramel and some herbal fruity notes.

T - Sweet caramel malt mixed with a touch of fruit followed by a spicy kick and some herbal, spicy hops ending with a belgian yeasty flavor.

M - Not sure if the beer is on the heavier side or if the high carbonation makes it feel that way but it is not as light and airy as other BDG's I have had.

D - Not bad, just not as complex or enjoyable as the other belgian/farmhouse styles I have tried by Southhampton.

 636 characters

Photo of dirtylou
3.53/5  rDev -9%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

750ml bottle, split with the prince of darkness in raleighwoods

appearance: poured into a snifter much sturdier than one of my own...glowing amber-orange, healthy supply of soapy white foam. when everthing settles, its an attractive brew

smell: certain level of yeasty funk noticeable immediately, earthy, toasted malt, buttery...ok

taste: spicy yeast presence, moderately funky, peppery...buttery biscuit malt, light metallic traits, booze rather strong

mouthfeel: somewhat dry to me, funky and spicy

drinkability: pretty good

 542 characters

Photo of psinderson
3.53/5  rDev -9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 4 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

720ml bottle poured into snifter-type glass.

Appearance: Medium red in color, very clear. Thick and coarse head that dissipates quickly.

Smell: Initial aroma was metal, like aluminum. That faded to reveal a yeasty, sour aroma.

Taste: Surprise! Sweeter than expected up front. Floral & spicy notes thanks to the yeast.

Mouthfeel: Medium body, good carbonation...nothing too special.

Drinkability: Good drinkability if you can forget the metallic aroma!

 457 characters

Photo of jampics2
3.53/5  rDev -9%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

750 ml bottle I think I purchased in Pittsburgh a year ago. Split with friends before going out for my bachelor party.

Looks decent in the glass. Cloudy copper/orange with decent head. Looks nice, just a touch muddy.

Balsa wood and honey meet my nose, along with some spices and vanilla and caramel. It's a tad bit oxidized and cardboard isn't a stretch. But there's some nice herbs underneath - this seems like an artisan beer but is just missing the target. Yeasty esters play a minor role - I'd like more please.

Taste is a let-down for sure. I was hoping something magical would save the day, but this is just sweet and off. Tons of toffee and caramel, a bit of dried fruit, and a lot of oxidation. The herbs and yeast don't add anything distinguishing. It's a bad example of the french style, where I expect noble hops and fruit. This has just a bad basement thing going on that kills it's chances of scoring higher. Nonetheless, it's tolerable just a beer without a clear identity.

Mouthfeel felt rough. Good carb, medium body, but not creamy, more muddy. I wouldn't care to try this again unless it was a fresh bottle at the Publick House. Not my thing, and I love a good BdeG.

 1,188 characters

Photo of maddogruss
3.55/5  rDev -8.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

Got this on tap at the Cloverleaf Tavern in West Caldwell, NJ.

A: This beer pours a fairly clear, slightly light amber body with a small, white head with nice retention and lacing. Lacing along the side of the glass was nice and evident until the finish.

S: A slightly earthy, grassy, malt smelling bee with subtle hits of vanilla and caramel notes that seemed appropriate for the style.

T: A nice, slightly sweet vanilla and caramel taste. Slight grassy backbone with some slight earthy honey notes. A fairly strong vanilla aftertaste with some slight, earthy bitterness in the back of the throat in order to balance. Overall, fairly well-balanced.

M: A pretty light and crisp mouthfeel. Nice on the tongue and even slightly refreshing despite the fairly high alcohol notes.

D: Overall, a nice combination of mouthfeel and taste makes the beer pretty nice overall. A pretty, easy drinking beer and a nice one to open the spring with.

 939 characters

Photo of Stinkypuss
3.55/5  rDev -8.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

Poured on tap into a pint glass

Semi Hazy dark gold in appearance. Good amount of head and ample lace.

Smell is just slightly sweet, maybe a bit sour.

Tastes of tart fruit on the tongue, that fades quickly to a slight belgian yeast/barnyard funk then nothing.

Mouthfeel is slick and it finishes rather abruptly.

This is a pretty drinkable, if forgettable, Biere De Garde. Certainly worth the try.

 402 characters

Photo of Hojaminbag
3.55/5  rDev -8.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

A light orangish body, something that looks a little but like copper or rust. Plenty of lively carbonation in the body. A big off-white head pops up with the pour, but only to die down fairly quickly, without leaving any lacing behind.

Very herbal nose. Not sure what kind of herbs, but the word that comes to mind is definitely herbal. Some fruitiness is noticeable. Slightly malty.

This beer isn't bad, but there is nothing too exciting about it either. There is just something off for me. Up front there is a slight musty tartness that is nice, but it is rather muted. The malt profile is a little bit like caramel malts and a little bit like other malts, I can't make up my mind. Some light fruit notes come through too, apricot and peach. The herbal notes in the nose are once again strong here. The hops add to it, earthy and spicy, but I really believe there is something else in there contributing also. Not sure what.

Mouthfeel is pretty good I must say. Light to medium bodied with a ton of carbonation, the beer explodes on the tongue. Reminds me a little bit of saison deluxe, but to a slightly lesser extent.

Drinkability is ok, just like most of the beer. After drinking the saison deluxe and the grand cru, I was pretty pumped to try this one. Those two beers amazed me, some of the best beers I've gotten to try in a good while. This one disappoints. It isn't a bad beer, it just does not wow.

 1,414 characters

first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Southampton Biere De Garde from Southampton Publick House
3.88 out of 5 based on 125 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.