Gale's Prize Old Ale
George Gale & Company Ltd

Gale's Prize Old AleGale's Prize Old Ale
Rate It
Beer Geek Stats | Print Shelf Talker
From:
George Gale & Company Ltd
 
England, United Kingdom
Style:
Old Ale
Ranked #58
ABV:
9%
Score:
79
Ranked #28,569
Avg:
3.48 | pDev: 23.28%
Reviews:
327
Ratings:
101
Status:
Active
Rated:
Feb 27, 2022
Added:
Dec 31, 2001
Wants:
  16
Gots:
  26
SCORE
79
Okay
Gale's Prize Old AleGale's Prize Old Ale
Notes: None
View: More Beers
Recent ratings and reviews. | Log in to view more ratings + sorting options.
Ratings by bros:

  None found.

Photo of sulldaddy
Reviewed by sulldaddy from Connecticut

3.49/5  rDev +0.3%
look: 3.25 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5
Sampling this 375 ml bottle brewed in 2001 pouring at cellar temp into my snifter in February 2022. A beer old enough to drink itself.
The beer pours a deep mahogany color with only a little light passing through the glass. No bubbles foam up even with a steady pour.
The aroma is brown sugar and toffee with red grape and raisins mixing. Quite a rich nose on this malt forward old beer. Not boozy and no hops either at this point.
First sip reveals a medium to light body with very smooth body and zero carbonation. Beer is a little slick , but has a bit of a merlot mouthfeel to it.
Flavor is some toffee and brown sugar and then red grapes take over. I get a bit of acidity, similar to a merlot again here. I keep thinking that this beer, feels and tastes like a dark red wine mixed with some brown sugar.
this beer is fine, I never had it fresh, that I took notes on anyway, but I dont think this is currently better at 21 years old. Glad to have opened it and recommend anyone else with a bottle drinks it now, it wont get any better.
Feb 27, 2022
More User Ratings:
Photo of brewandbbq
Reviewed by brewandbbq from New Hampshire

2.98/5  rDev -14.4%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.75 | overall: 3
1997 vintage.

Broken cork, pours flat.
Worstershitre and balsamic in the nose. Flat and slick mouthfeel. Winey and vinegar-like on the palate with umami-rich malt. Finishes sour.
Dec 23, 2021
 
Rated: 3.98 by LesDewitt4beer from Minnesota

Nov 09, 2021
Photo of RobertColianni
Rated by RobertColianni from Pennsylvania

4.34/5  rDev +24.7%
look: 4 | smell: 5 | taste: 4 | feel: 5 | overall: 4
16yo (2005) bottle: seems like the best timeframe is
May 23, 2021
Photo of Razor9
Reviewed by Razor9 from Connecticut

3.69/5  rDev +6%
look: 3 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.75 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5
1997 Vintage. Cork was in decent condition to allow for a seal and light carbonated pop when removing but began to crumble halfway up during removal. The beer poured with light carbonation and delicate lacing that quickly faded leaving a close to still, dark liquid. Nose was very pleasant with dried dark fruits, light caramel/toffee and slight oxidation. Taste was slightly oxidized but in an interesting way that interplayed well with the flavors of the liquid. Very much enjoyed this almost 25 year old ale and its definitely worth trying these old vintages if they are available for a low cost. Shake the bottles before purchasing to see if they have any carb visible in the neck prior to selecting a bottle for purchase.
Feb 15, 2021
Photo of StonedTrippin
Reviewed by StonedTrippin from Colorado

3.56/5  rDev +2.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.75 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5
i thought from the label at first that this was from 1992, but the back clearly shows its 2003 vintage, still one of the older beers ive ever had at this point. crazy to see a corked beer without a cap, just the foil, looks ancient, and the cork essentially disintegrates as we try to pull it out on christmas eve, a perfect beer for such an occasion! finally it pours a deep mahogany color without any real carbonation at all, likely intentional, just a few patchy popping bubbles at the edge of the wine glass i pour it into. clear enough though, and with some shine, cork bits floating, but thats on me. the smell is a little tart and astringent but curiously not all that oxidized, a hint of a sour purple grape thing here, some malt sweetness, molasses and rum, lots of alcohol swirling, stale tobacco, raisin. the flavor is more of the same, thin in feel to me, sharp with some acid, not yeasty in the way i expected it to be, some breadiness still, maple, cognac, black pepper, toffee, brown sugar, leather. this is super old tasting, almost decaying, but its not oxidized all that much in the traditional sense, maybe its past that, but it seems well enough preserved for what it is, it suits the style, and if you like this sort of thing, this is pretty classic. for me, its on the edge of a novelty at this point, and there is little here to suggest what it may have tasted fresh. i hope to find out. a fun one to share.
Dec 28, 2020
Photo of fptan
Reviewed by fptan from Tennessee

4.04/5  rDev +16.1%
look: 4 | smell: 4.25 | taste: 4 | feel: 3.75 | overall: 4
2005
Appearance: Dark copper. No head. Very little carbonation.
Smell: Alcohol notes. Dried fruits. Treacle. Some earthy notes. No hop aroma.
Taste: Like treacle, really. Maybe some brett. Besides treacle, has an earthy / sweet flavor. Little hop bitterness. Enough to balance and not get in the way.
Feel: Little to no carbonation. Almost drying on the tongue, but somehow full bodied. Thick.
Aug 15, 2020
 
Rated: 3.74 by smi69 from New York

Jul 09, 2020
Photo of Naugled
Reviewed by Naugled from New York

2.65/5  rDev -23.9%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5
Just had a 2002 vintage bottle. It did not age well. I thought about not reviewing but there seems to be a lot reviews of older vintages. My gut says 18 years is way too long for this beer. I’m going to try to find a 3-4 year old bottle and try again.
Apr 28, 2020
Photo of cozmo
Reviewed by cozmo from New York

3.97/5  rDev +14.1%
look: 3.75 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 4.25 | feel: 4 | overall: 4
2005 edition. No carbination. Very close to drinking a wine. Still has some good flavors. Don't think this beer would benefit from being aged much longer but still a decent tasting beer.
Nov 03, 2019
Photo of scream
Reviewed by scream from Wisconsin

3.98/5  rDev +14.4%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 4 | feel: 3.75 | overall: 4
Bought a btl a few yrs ago and tonight was the night. A 2005 edition. It had been a while so I did not remember that when one removed the foil cap a corkscrew was required to open it. There was no pop when the cork was removed so as I guessed the beer had no carbonation to it. A decent nose to it w a taste somewhat like an old wine - not bad but perhaps past it's prime. Due to no carbonation it is more like drinking an old wine but that is not bad. They have been out of business for some time now so it is probably no longer available but I will check the next time I go to the store where I bought this bottle. I do remember having one at the brewery in 1999 but have no recollection of what it was like then, except it was not bad or I would have remembered
Jan 19, 2019
 
Rated: 3.01 by Goosehunter75 from Missouri

Oct 18, 2018
Photo of iebforever
Reviewed by iebforever from California

2.25/5  rDev -35.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.25 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5
Am trying the 1999 edition and it is past its prime. The cork came out intact and moist, but the beer was flat, which made any aroma all but impossible to discern. The beer was oxidized to the point that other flavors were difficult to make out. The body was thin, again I don't know if it was the age. I've aged a lot of other beer longer than this, but any beer less than 10% abv should be consumed before its ten years old.
Dec 16, 2017
Photo of Czequershuus
Reviewed by Czequershuus from Minnesota

3.95/5  rDev +13.5%
look: 3.75 | smell: 5 | taste: 3.75 | feel: 3.25 | overall: 3.5
Tried this before , but first review of it. I will be reviewing 2000 and 2001 side-by-side.

The 2000 pours a very clear amber with no head. The 2001 is darker, rather a muddy amber, also no head.

The aroma on the 2000 is very rich and sweet - maple syrup, molasses, raisin, fig, toffee, fudge, iodine, hint of soy sauce, cocoa powder, butterscotch candy, and maybe some green apple. The 2001 is way more soy heavy and funky, with less fruit. Burnt rubber, soy sauce, rum, clove, band-aid, very powerful, almost unpleasant.

The flavor is less intense and starts off quite watery, although the flavor kicks in way more to the end. It on the swallow that toffee, golden raisin, and cocoa powder show up. The 2001 is heavy with soy and iodine, probably improperly stored. Having had a few of each vintage before, there is significant bottle variation. This rating is based on the sound 2000 bottle.

Both 2000 and 2001 are very thin with no carbonation.

Overall, and ignoring the clearly flawed bottle, this is a cool beer. It may be that 16 years it a bit long for it to age, I would enjoy getting one with a little less time on it, but I still really like it.
Aug 05, 2017
Photo of VoxRationis
Reviewed by VoxRationis from New York

3.87/5  rDev +11.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 4 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.75
Decanted from a 9.3 oz (275 ml) bottle into a conical pint glass; brewed in 2005.
A: Murky brown without any discernible head and very minimal effervescence.
S: Malty with the aromas of molasses, raisin, prune, and spice and maybe a mushroom and/or nut note.
T: Tangy molasses malt flavor with a strong sherry taste and a little fudginess. A surprisingly clean, if woody aftertaste.
M: Full bodied with only minimal effervescence evident.
O: Good example of the style; not the trick if you like bubbles.
Jun 09, 2017
Photo of CTHomer
Reviewed by CTHomer from Connecticut

4.11/5  rDev +18.1%
look: 4.25 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 3.75 | feel: 4.25 | overall: 4.25
1997 - Bottle 8677

A: murky; the color of bittersweet chocolate; no head; no lacing;

S: pungent - port like; sweet; dried fruit and tobacco;

T: sweet port up front, then a combination of port and vinegar; no bitterness; finish is raisin like; a little astringent in the aftertaste;

M: medium to full bodied; no carbonation; moderately dry finish;

O: perhaps a bit too old; I would have preferred less vinegar character; nonetheless, very good;
May 23, 2017
 
Rated: 3.5 by paulish from New York

Apr 15, 2017
Photo of rodbeermunch
Reviewed by rodbeermunch from Nevada

1.59/5  rDev -54.3%
look: 2.25 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.25 | feel: 1.25 | overall: 1.75
Man this was a substandard beer pour from a professional brewery, its all ruddy, gritty and brown and totally devoid of carbonation. Aroma was like gasoline, alcohol and dark fruit bitterness.

Almost all alcohol in the taste. I can't do it. Its really in that small contingent of beers that I literally can't drink all of it. No hop aspect. Is there vinegar? I can't even. . . so much raisin like booziness all over it.
Sep 19, 2016
 
Rated: 3.6 by gouettn from Washington

Jul 03, 2016
 
Rated: 4.04 by moarmare from Missouri

Jun 23, 2016
 
Rated: 4.42 by NickyDee21 from Pennsylvania

May 22, 2016
Photo of Beginner2
Rated by Beginner2 from Illinois

3.45/5  rDev -0.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.25
This bottle went bad. My rating sticks to the average
Listed in "1001 Beers"
Reviewed in Roger Protz' "300 Beers"
MJ's "Guide" gave it 3.5 of 4 stars
Apr 30, 2016
 
Rated: 2.2 by westcoastbeerlvr from California

Apr 20, 2016
 
Rated: 3.69 by luke12345 from Pennsylvania

Feb 07, 2016
Photo of flagmantho
Reviewed by flagmantho from Washington

3.81/5  rDev +9.5%
look: 3.75 | smell: 4 | taste: 4 | feel: 2.75 | overall: 3.75
Poured from 275ml corked bottle into a tulip.

Appearance: dark brown and murky with no head; appropriate for the style and attractive within that context.

Smell: richly malty with a lot of sweetness and a deep raisin/tobacco character. I quite like it.

Taste: malty and sweet with plenty of oxidation, dustiness and raisins. This might turn some people off, but it's representative of the style and done well here.

Mouthfeel: medium-rich body with absolutely no carbonation whatsoever. The style demands low carbonation, but I need to have *something* to liven it up.

Overall: the complete and utter lack of carbonation is a bit disappointing, but the flavors and certain the aroma are very good.
Jan 26, 2016
Photo of keithmurray
Reviewed by keithmurray from Connecticut

2.69/5  rDev -22.7%
look: 3 | smell: 4 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5
2003 vintage

Appearance - murky eggplant color, with some cork sediment involved

Smell - grapes, port, balsamic vinegar

Taste - sour grapes, balsamic vinegar

Mouthfeel - medium bodied, no carbonation, sour

Overall - what a disappointing experience, took forever to open this piece and when I did, the cork disintegrated to the point I couldn't even strain it out. Tastes like old, sour balsamic vinegar. More wine like than anything else. Never again

Price Point $5/11.2 oz bottle
Jan 09, 2016
 
Rated: 3.58 by kylehay2004 from Illinois

Jan 01, 2016
 
Rated: 3.19 by Hopswagger from South Carolina

Nov 27, 2015
 
Rated: 3.5 by Masters from Massachusetts

Oct 20, 2015
 
Rated: 3.5 by Petegrieco from Massachusetts

Oct 19, 2015
 
Rated: 3.5 by WasupBeerQueen from Massachusetts

Oct 17, 2015
 
Rated: 2.66 by jason_nwx from Oregon

Sep 20, 2015
 
Rated: 3.76 by jaydoc from Kansas

Sep 18, 2015
 
Rated: 4.35 by StoutBoi from New York

Sep 12, 2015
Photo of HopsAreDaMan
Reviewed by HopsAreDaMan from Missouri

2.21/5  rDev -36.5%
look: 1.75 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.25
2005 vintage. Nice looking little bottle with a cork. It was fun using the corkscrew to open it.
This was one of the strangest beers I have tried yet. There was no carbonation; it poured a muddy, hazy brown, with no head. Lots of sour in the aroma, and some malt, with a bit of booziness. I tried it not long out of the fridge, and also tried it when it warmed up. It wasn't too bad cool, making it drinkable but the sour flavors seem to be more present when warm, and I am not of fan of sour flavors in beer. I think I get the 'old ale' flavor from other old ales I have had (Founder's Curmudgeon) , but this one has too many sours flavors thrown in the mix (the clerk who sold it to me basically said it has an unusual mix of sour flavors). Perhaps it is an acquired taste, but at the moment I don't like it. Still, I'm glad I tried it. I have seen even older versions out there (1997), and I may still want to try those, someday ...
Aug 29, 2015
 
Rated: 3.51 by nmann08 from Virginia

Aug 20, 2015
 
Rated: 5 by pathman from Ohio

Aug 19, 2015
Photo of SPLITGRIN
Reviewed by SPLITGRIN from Kentucky

4.33/5  rDev +24.4%
look: 4 | smell: 4.75 | taste: 4.25 | feel: 4 | overall: 4.25
I have had the pleasure of trying many different vintages of this beer and will say for the record that it hits its prime around 8-11 years of age. If you are a fan of port you will love this one. Having a 1999 vintage now and I must say it is a bit past its prime. But this is a lovely and classic beer.
Aug 16, 2015
 
Rated: 3.79 by tappangordo from New York

Aug 13, 2015
 
Rated: 3 by atlbravsrno1 from New Hampshire

Jul 25, 2015
Gale's Prize Old Ale from George Gale & Company Ltd
Beer rating: 79 out of 100 with 428 ratings