Redhook Audible Ale | Redhook Ale Brewery

3.75/5  rDev +12.6%

4.05/5  rDev +21.6%
look: 4.25 | smell: 4.25 | taste: 4 | feel: 3.75 | overall: 4

A : Pours a mellow golden hazy hue, coloring in a 30% opacity, with a very nicely layered and stable 2 finger head. The head leaves webs and lace on the sides as it recedes.

S : Lots of dense, malty grains, maybe stashed in a wooden bucket. Some faint pine pokes through but the hop is largely juicy citrus. Some bready smells also accompany the aroma.

T : Mildly piney, with a lot of orange and orange peel. This is held up by a solid foundation of cracker and bread malts, a little yeast, and ends on a citrus rind note.

F : Light bodied, airy, not particularly dense at all, with a mild carbonation underneath. It ends somewhat fizzy and semi-dry.

O : I remember the first time I tried a pale ale that I liked. I bought it from the Wolf Stop in Aberdeen, SD. This reminds me of that beer. It takes me back to a time when I was first trying different styles and I landed on an example of the pale ale category that I thought did pretty well by me. Audible Ale does a pretty good job if I do say so. I'd buy this in a sixer, it's a solid APA.

 1,051 characters

3.38/5  rDev +1.5%
look: 3.25 | smell: 3.25 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.25

Pours from the stubby bottle into a standard pint glass a clear light to medium golden with a thin quick to fade head that leaves no trace behind.Caramel malts and toasty grain the nose with not much hop presence except for a hint of herb.Flavors are alot of caramel/biscuit with mild herbal/leafy hops,this seems much more like an English pale than an American one in my opinion.It goes down pretty easy but there isn't much going on as far as complexity.En Fuego...

 467 characters

3/5  rDev -9.9%

3/5  rDev -9.9%

3/5  rDev -9.9%

3.75/5  rDev +12.6%

3.5/5  rDev +5.1%

4/5  rDev +20.1%

3.5/5  rDev +5.1%

3.25/5  rDev -2.4%

5/5  rDev +50.2%

3.32/5  rDev -0.3%
look: 4 | smell: 3.25 | taste: 3.25 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.25

3.75/5  rDev +12.6%

3.53/5  rDev +6%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Poured from a bottle into a pint glass.

Appearance: Golden amber with a thin white head. No lacing on the glass.

Smell: Hops, pine, and citrus notes.

Mouthfeel/Taste: Smooth medium to light bodied. Taste of bitter pine/hops with a subtle citrus taste in the background.

Overall: Decent brew. I would have it again.

 318 characters

3.24/5  rDev -2.7%
look: 2.75 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.25

2.48/5  rDev -25.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.25 | feel: 2.75 | overall: 2.75

Just about as ordinary as one can get. If it were labeled Bud Light, I would have no complaints, but it is not so labeled. I expect more from producers branding themselves as 'craft beers'.

 189 characters

4/5  rDev +20.1%

3.5/5  rDev +5.1%

4/5  rDev +20.1%

Not much to it, goes down smooth. Dan Patrick is a jackass, not sure why they would let him put his name on the bottle - the beer is better than that.

 151 characters

3.5/5  rDev +5.1%

3.41/5  rDev +2.4%
look: 3.75 | smell: 3.25 | taste: 3.25 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

Copper colored with excellent clarity. Lots of carbonation bubbles are churning from within. Heavy lacing. There's a quarter inch head of eggshell white. Aroma is of light malt and fresh bread. The flavor seems a bit muted with some light malt and bready notes. Just a trace of gentle bittering hops are detectable. The mouthfeel is light and smooth.

 357 characters

2.69/5  rDev -19.2%
look: 2.75 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.75

There is a little less taste than there is smell I wasn't expecting the best but I expected more but for 4.7% I'm setting the bar too high. It lacks in taste it's good for a summer session beer but if had a little of hop after taste it would be a lot better. It's too watery for me but since it's cheaper than most it ok but to be honest most of the rest of their stuff is above part.

 384 characters

3.75/5  rDev +12.6%

3.52/5  rDev +5.7%