Boaks Two Blind Monks Ale | Boak Beverage

BA SCORE
81
good
119 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score
Send samples
Boaks Two Blind Monks AleBoaks Two Blind Monks Ale
BEER INFO

Brewed by:
Boak Beverage
New Jersey, United States
boaksbeer.com

Style: Dubbel

Alcohol by volume (ABV): 7.00%

Availability: Year-round

Notes / Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

Added by dsa7783 on 03-21-2008

BEER STATS
Ratings:
119
Reviews:
71
Avg:
3.51
pDev:
15.95%
 
 
Wants:
1
Gots:
10
For Trade:
0
View: Beers | Events
User Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Ratings: 119 |  Reviews: 71
Photo of newbeeraday
1.75/5  rDev -50.1%

Photo of mikesgroove
1.85/5  rDev -47.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

Wow, this was not a good beer, at least it was not for me. The first beer that I literally could not finish in a as long as I can remember. Served chilled and poured into an over sized wine glass, this one was consumed on 01/02/2010.

The pour was bad, caramel color with only the tiniest of soap looking bubbles around the edge of the glass and these faded immediatly. Thsi left behind literally nothing but a flat, boring, and utterly pathetic looking liquid. Aroma is all over the place, hints of citrus, musky, almost wet cardboard like with a hint of sweetness and cough syrup like notes. Just messy and confused. Then I took a sip, wow, what a disaster. Obnoxious citrus bite in the front from where I don't know and then I get hit with the flavor of wet grass that has been hanging out in the bottom of a garbage can for too long. Just bad. Flat with no carbonation and an astringent and almost sour like flavor that goes no where, led me to a drain pour. I was wincing when I drank this.

Overall it is a shame, this is a hometown brewery for me and I have liked what I have tried in the past, this one was just a mess though. I would avoid.

 1,149 characters

Photo of DIM
1.96/5  rDev -44.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

Looks like they've upgraded their labels. Mine has a picture of two monks in shades propping one another up while hoisting their mugs.

a: This was a clear caramel brown color. I couldn't coax much of a head out of this one.

s: I got some very mild raisin aromas and a little perfumed alcohol that was pretty unpleasant.

t: Overall, I got a dry, flowery, solventy flavor that was occasionally puntuated by some artificial sweetner. It did have kind of a generic "Belgian" quality.

m: Thin and fairly still. There is a lingering aftertaste of something chemical that is really off-putting.

d: I can't find much positive to say about this one. One of my least favorites so far. I didn't finish it.

 702 characters

Photo of Syracuse12
2/5  rDev -43%

Photo of speter
2.09/5  rDev -40.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

A: Poured a murky brown with a fairly-large head that faded to a little lace. The initial pour had a good amount of carbonation.

S: Some malt, but mainly booze. There are very little of the Belgian yeast estery smells I would expect for a dubbel.

T: Booze. There are hints of a background malt basis, but the alcohol is what comes through the most. Very little of the complexity I've come to associate with Belgian yeast. In fact, this strikes me as even less complex than a Munich Dunkel, and perhaps less malty.

M: Somewhat thin, although the carbonation gives it a bit of heft.

D: Unfortunately, I cannot say I will be picking up any more of this. (I did use one of the six pack in a split-pea soup, and it did enhance the flavor a bit there.)

 751 characters

Photo of NJFeurious
2.35/5  rDev -33%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

After reading the reviews on this beer, i was convinced to give it a try since it was on tap.... and man, i was sorely disappointed. This really isn't a dubbel and shouldn't be billed that way.

Should have known after reading the first page of reviews that this beer was a bit of a risk. Unfortunately, these were followed by a lot of hyped up reviews and good recommendations.

Presentation: On tap, served in a tulip glass.

Appearance: Golden with little to no head retention.

Smell: Maybe some apple, yeasty.

Taste: Somewhat off. It had a generic, mass market type of flavor. Similar to Amstel Light.

Notes: I didn't bother to finish the beer. Next to a solid, traditional dubbel, this beer really doesn't compare. Plenty of other beers to spend my money on and I wouldn't recommend it to others unless you are looking for a good beer for a beer pong tournament.

 875 characters

Photo of phattysbox
2.4/5  rDev -31.6%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

12oz bottle poured into a snifter glass. Pours a darky murky brown with little head. What head there is retreats to a very thin lace. Murky water basically.

The smell has me worried a bit. There is no matly candy sweetness that normally comes with a dubbel. Theres a musty smell coming from a bigger yeast profile, with many off-puting esters pulling through the nose.

Taste is worse for me. A strange sour tang (esters) dominate followed by a grainy husk. A bit sour for me and was not expecting this as it is advertised as a dubbel. Malts are very weak to the background of the yeasts.

Will have to pass on this one.

 621 characters

Photo of beertunes
2.42/5  rDev -31.1%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Thanks to Chris G. for bringing this back from a trip to visit family. Poured into 10oz glass. Poured a slightly reddish amber color with no head, thus no retention or lace.

The usual earthy scents of the style were present but very subdued. The flavors were also very muted compared to most of the style. The body was very thin and watery, far below average. Drinkability was OK, but nothing special.

Overall, this beer struck me more as an american amber than a Dubble. Worth trying but not worth seeking out.

 513 characters

Photo of CharlesK
2.52/5  rDev -28.2%
look: 2.75 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Photo of Vendetta
2.56/5  rDev -27.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 1 | overall: 2

Original Rating Date:
May 17, 2008

Really excited to find this at my local beer store in both a six pack and single 12 oz. bottles. No bombers were available. I remembered reading an article about the beer and brewery in the Newark Star Ledger some months back, so I picked this up to try it out. Contrary to some reviews, I can't seem to get much of an aroma out of it. It looks like it could be mistaken for a glass of soda. Fizzy, soda-like head that's gone within seconds. Still cold- lots of carbonation, very malty taste. As it is warming, more of the flavor comes through. Lots of raisin, a little bit of caramel. Hints of earthiness as well. Too much fizzy carbonation kills the beer for me. It's a quality beer, but I'm glad I picked up a single instead of a six, I'm a bit disappointed.

 797 characters

Photo of Seanibus
2.68/5  rDev -23.6%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Is it weird to say that my first thought was of bacon?

Well, it was.

And when I tasted it, I thought of Chinese food.

Ok, I know that sounds gross. But it does make some kind of twisted sense.

Pours a slightly hazy deep copper with a smallish tan head that fell away quickly.

The aroma has a spicy edge, with a thing. A thing, you know? A baconish thing. What is it? A nitrate quality, perhaps? A saltiness? A slight, unintentional smokiness? I think it's smoke.

The flavor follows through, with a slightly smoky malt, with a sourish thin fruit, perhaps some overripe peach, some clove and allspice. But there is that Thing. This time it comes across as Pork Lo Mein. Maybe it is that nitrate thing. A little sesame perhaps. A hint of green onion.

The mouthfeel is tingly and leaves a lasting prickle in the mouth. It feels like more than a carbonation issue. Maybe a spice issue. A bit of white pepper.

So now you think I hate this beer.

No. Not really. It's not great. It's not a particularly inspiring Dubbel. But it's not awful.

 1,043 characters

Photo of maddogruss
2.71/5  rDev -22.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Poured a bottle of this into a shaker glass.

A: Pours a dark brown, amber body with a small, white head with pretty good retention and lacing until the finish of the beer.

S: A kind of sour and very alcoholic smell that was not too enticing and made me think that the alcohol was going to be a bit overbearing for this beer.

T: A fairly roasted malt taste with some roasted toffee notes but with a bitter, alcohol backbone that was a bit too evident. There was also a fairly bitter aftertaste to the beer as well.

M: A pretty light mouthfeel that was most likely due to the pretty high ABV.

D: While the mouthfeel was pretty easy and yielded a nice drinking experience, the alcohol was a bit too much and took away from the overall drinking experience of the beer overall. If the alcohol was less "in-your-face," I think that this brew could have been significantly better.

 878 characters

Photo of deereless
2.78/5  rDev -20.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

A: Chestnut colored, thin layer of head, quite clear - 3.50, S: Quite malty and somewhat musty, has a subtle sweetness that you might get from old dates or prunes - 3.00, T: A hint of spice or sour - it's hard to discern, a little hop bite but this beer is mostly malt, out-of-date pineapple juice, the palate isn't doing it for me, it is improving a touch as it warms - 2.50, M: Medium bodied - 3.50, D: No date on this bottle so it is hard to determine if age played a factor in this beer, it is close enough to a Dubbel to feel like I'm getting the essence of the beer, unfortunately this beer is missing the mark in my book - 2.50

 634 characters

Photo of Anthony1
2.89/5  rDev -17.7%
look: 3 | smell: 4 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Pours dark, dark brown that looks deep copper when held up to light. There is a small bubbly head that dissipates quickly leaving only hints of lacing. Aroma has sweet candied sugar and caramel malts on top of the Belgian yeast backbone. Dark fruits come through as it warms. The taste is similar to the aroma with lots of yeast and sweet caramel malts. Candied sugar, figs and raisins also come out in the flavor. odd sour taste that i wasnt expecting. The mouthfeel is sticky with the sweetness and good carbonation. This is a good representation of a dubbel and quite enjoyable.

 581 characters

Photo of Dcunicelli
3/5  rDev -14.5%

Photo of twenty5
3/5  rDev -14.5%

Photo of irishking1977
3/5  rDev -14.5%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A: Dark brown/ruby read with no head and virtually no lacing.
Nothing special looking about this one.

S: Malty sweetness with a hint of hops and a yeasty bread like quality.

T: Perplexing. Malty sweetness, caramel, brown sugar and an unusual metallic finish at the end. This almost ruins the beer. It's like they dumped a sack of pennies into the wort during the brewing process.

M: Thin mouthfeel, though the carbonation is right where it needs to be.

D: If it wasn't for the fact that I feel like I'm drinking sweetened liquid pennies, this wouldn't be such a disappointment. Perhaps I got a bad bottle. I've had this once before on tap and found it to be drinkable yet unremarkable, but this time around, it has a mildly offensive finish.

 747 characters

Photo of instein
3/5  rDev -14.5%

Photo of confer
3.07/5  rDev -12.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

The picture must be older since the labels have been upgraded. There is a picture of you guessed it, Two Blind Monks.
The labeler must not have been working to well that day though since most of the labels were peeling of of the bottles.
The beer poured a very nice murky brown. The aroma was sweet almost grapelike. The taste just didn't do it for me. No fruit tastes come though, and as it warms up all I get is a heavy malt taste.
I have no trouble drinking this beer but since I have a case of it I think I will let the remaining bottles hang out in the Keller and try it again in a few months.

 598 characters

Photo of deliriumfest
3.09/5  rDev -12%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Consumed on 2/21/09

Poured a really nice copper/light brown with a darker brown center. The aroma is sweet caramel and malt and taste pretty much follows suit although with a bit of fruit. The mouthfeel is smooth and creamy with a easy drinkability. The best part about this beer is it's beautiful appearance in the glass.

 323 characters

Photo of Pav5069
3.11/5  rDev -11.4%
look: 2.75 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Photo of GregStoner
3.11/5  rDev -11.4%
look: 3.75 | smell: 2 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Photo of stomioka
3.2/5  rDev -8.8%

Photo of mychalg9
3.21/5  rDev -8.5%
look: 3.75 | smell: 3.25 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.25

Photo of bookwyrm
3.22/5  rDev -8.3%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

A- Light reddish-brown. Little to no head
S- Malty with a little citrus.
T- Sweet malt, molasses, and little alcohol aftertaste
M- A little too thin. A disappointing almost "lite-beerish" quality

Overall- Decent, but not worth $12 and change I paid for a four-pack.

 267 characters

first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Boaks Two Blind Monks Ale from Boak Beverage
3.51 out of 5 based on 119 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.