Dig | New Belgium Brewing

Your Rating: None
Want it   Got it 

Brewed by:
New Belgium Brewing
Colorado, United States

Style: American Pale Ale (APA)

Alcohol by volume (ABV): 5.60%

Availability: Spring

Notes / Commercial Description:
None provided.

This beer is retired; no longer brewed.

User Reviews & Ratings
first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Reviews: 236 | Ratings: 1,082
Photo of marzenfannm
1.62/5  rDev -54.7%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.25 | feel: 1.25 | overall: 2.25

Dull brown appearance, but with nice foamy head. Somewhat sourish aroma. A bit bitter on the palette. Taste not unpleasant, but probably not one I would buy again for my taste.

[I am copying these notes over from RateBeer ... it does not require as long of review. I tasted this some time ago so I can't add anything.]

 319 characters

Photo of thydarkprevails
1.88/5  rDev -47.5%
look: 2 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Bottle to a nonic pint glass. Pours a clear amber orange with a finger of off white head and minimal lacing. Head dissappears quickly. Aroma is faint. Light grass and bread. Flavor is mild citrus, light caramel, and something sour that I can't place but do not like. Mouthfeel is thin and over carbonated. Sorry to say this beer will not be bought again. Not a very good Pale ale.

 380 characters

Photo of augievikings
2.54/5  rDev -29.1%
look: 3 | smell: 4 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Poured from the bottle into a standard pint glass. Nice copper color, nice head, fruity crisp smell. In fact, the smell of the beer is its best attribute. The taste, however, is another story. I would describe it best as a bitter/dry variation of Fat Tire. Not a very balanced beer. Disappointing to me since Mighty Arrow is one of my all-time favorite seasonals.

 363 characters

Photo of kojevergas
2.57/5  rDev -28.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2.75 | taste: 2.25 | feel: 3.25 | overall: 2.5

5.6% ABV confirmed. Best by May 19 2013. Acquired yesterday at a local SoCal beer store. 12 fl oz brown glass bottle with standard pressure cap served into a New Belgium stem-goblet in me gaff in low altitude Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California. Reviewed live. Expectations are above average; I like a select few New Belgium beers (La Folie, Abbey, Trippel) but this doesn't seem like a solid one.

Served straight from the fridge. Side-poured with standard vigor as no carbonation issues are anticipated.

A: Pours a three finger beige colour head of slight cream, decent thickness, and pretty good (~3.5 minute) retention for the modest ABV. Body colour is a dull pale copper. Transparent. Translucent. No yeast particles are visibile. No bubble show. Very thin weak lacing as the head recedes.

Sm: Lemon grass, lemon zest, pear, artificial lime, mango, and over-ripe fruit peel. Smells like a really crappy saison. Stale lemon. Off-putting. A fairly strong aroma.

T: Stale lemon, artifical lime, and pale malts. Some juicy pear is the only notable aspect. Simple and weak. Boring and bland. Lemon zest is dominant. Poorly balanced and built. Lacks complexity and subtlety. There's not much to say about it. I don't get any yeast character or alcohol. Quite underwhelming.

Mf: Soft (the highlight of the beer), smooth, and wet. Carbonation is adequate. Poor palate presence.

Dr: Drinkable but lackluster. A poorly executed pale ale that I definitely wouldn't get again. A failure from New Belgium. Why brew this? Very underwhelming.

Low C-

 1,552 characters

Photo of BucannonXC5
2.77/5  rDev -22.6%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Poured from a bottle into a pint glass. Color was basically straight caramel, a bit like dehydrated urine. About two fingers of head. Cloudy white lacing that dissipated fairly quickly. Pretty even film on the sides.

Pretty non-existent smell. Couldn’t get anything and really worked for it. Got some slight hops.

Wow on the taste, a mix of bitter hops and pale notes. Got some lemon wheaty stuff. Maybe some grass.

Medium body. Creamy texture. Lively (above average) carbonation. Abrupt finish.

This was just average at best for me, which is saying something consider how most of the other New Belgiums I’ve tried.

 624 characters

Photo of woosterbill
2.81/5  rDev -21.5%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

12oz bottle into a Duvel tulip. Thanks to my buddy Will both for the beer and the Nashville hot chicken it helped tame.

A: Clear chestnut body; 2-finger off-white head. Nice retention and lacing. Good.

S: Light fruity hops, bread, toasty malt. Pretty boring.

T: Follows the nose, with emphasis on the nutty, toasty, boring malt. Neither good nor memorable.

M: Medium body, moderate carbonation. Fine.

O: Not a good beer. A little below average for the style.


 473 characters

Photo of NiceTaps
2.83/5  rDev -20.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

On tap in a pint glass.

A- good looking dark red/brown color with a one finger head that leaves a little lacing on the glass.

S-very earthy, grass and moss aromas.

T-not much. So earthy and grassy that the name fits - DIG - as in dirt.

M-ok but the poor flavor just ruins it.

O-I am tempering this review with 3.0 ratings as a 'benefit of the doubt' perspective. Maybe it's me, I just didn't get this beer. And I wanted to.

 428 characters

Photo of Rhettroactive
2.88/5  rDev -19.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

From 12oz bottle to Bruges hybird glass on 2/2/12
*From notes

A: Clean, rich and fairly dark golden in hue. A standard pour yields a 2.5 finger head. Decent retention and lacing.

S: It's got that New Belgium malt profile to the nose, that patented flair I detect in almost all of their non-hoppy/non-sour brews.

T: Like an overly acidic Fat Tire. It's not all that pleasant, really. There's a bit of lemon to it that's just not meshing well with the base profile of the beer. Lack of hops is dissapointing.

M: It's passable, and doesn't spark any outrage.

O: Meh. Just another in a long line of mediocre Spring seasonals. It's not terrible, just not all that great though, either.

 685 characters

Photo of blakelive784
2.9/5  rDev -19%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

Served on tap in a generic pint glass, reviewed from notes:

A - Pours a pale, transparent copper color with a relatively thin white head that's one finger tall. Retention's okay. Generic.

S - Lemongrass, heavy caramel, floral and perfumy notes. There are fruity and grassy notes. It's fresh, but I don't find anything "groundbreaking" about it.

T - It's shyly built, and a bit imbalanced to boot. I appreciate the freshness of the hops, and they've got a good floral/fruity taste working for them, but it's entirely too simple. Heavy caramel malt is the only counterpoint to the hops. It definitely has potential.

M - Medium bodied and entirely too thick. Not ideal for an APA.

D - It's a fresh pale that's fairly easy drinking, and definitely a good foundation, though it's too simple. With some work it could be a great beer.

 835 characters

Photo of DefenCorps
2.96/5  rDev -17.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Best by 6th June 2012, served in my New Belgium tulip. For a change, I get to emulate drabmuh!

Surprisingly dark, this is a copper/amber colored beer with a dense, off-white head with decent retention and lacing, this is a nice looking beer. Plenty of carbonation is visible as well. As for the nose, it's pretty much dominated by the Cascades. There's some lemon, for sure, but the chalky characteristic I get from Cascades is what is most noticeable to me, almost pepto bismol-like in some ways. Apart from that, there's some caramel, a little more than I'd like. A little bit of toast, as well as more fruit (peach, maybe some melon) round out the nose. Decent.

On the palate, it's a step up with what seems to be a deliberately understated bitterness with enough hop flavor to gently prod my tastebuds. The chalky character is reduced, and there's more lemon, peach and even some floral characteristics present. Bitterness is medium-low, and the hop flavor is quite nice in the mix. Sweeter flavors, with honey, toast and a little caramel, are noticeable, but aren't prominent right now. Drying on finish with a refreshing bitterness, this is quite nice on the palate. Almost over-carbonated, this has a mild carbonic acid bite, especially on the finish. While the bitterness is low, it does have a nice snap to it. Apart from that, however, there isn't much I can say in a particularly positive light as this beer is just... bland. Decent, I'd drink it if offered but I doubt I'll seek this out again.

 1,508 characters

Photo of emerge077
2.98/5  rDev -16.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

First casual beer of the afternoon, thanks Bill!

Pours a dark golden amber shade with bright clarity, streams of carb visible, a thin layer of sudsy white foam sits on the surface. Pretty textbook pale ale, though it does appear to be filtered.

Smell is mild, vague dried citrus peel and light hop earthiness, light grains. Taste is similar, a thin flash of hop character fades into a watery and malt forward middle, and an earthy aftertaste. Body is thin and somewhat bland. Drinkable but not assertive at all. Seeing as this was just released for the season, it should be fresh, and therefore was a bit of a letdown.

 621 characters

Photo of JosiahS
3/5  rDev -16.2%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

glass: Sam Adams

Golden pale color, tons of bubbles, sudsy a frothy white head. no lacing. Light caramel, toast bread and lemon on the nose. Biscuit and toast bread hide underneath lemon/grapefruit rind and a piny hop profile. Medium bodied, medium-high carbonation. A basic page ale, nothing remarkable.

 305 characters

Photo of iSip
3/5  rDev -16.2%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

New Belgium Dig Pale Ale: New Belgium has made it big because of Fat Tire. Fat Tire is not a bad brew. My theory on its success is that is has a catchy name. These days it takes more than a good product to hit it big, branding is key. So where did New Belgium come up with Dig? As a name for a beer, it is pretty poor. Anyway, Dig, despite poor branding is not a bad effort from a drinkability standpoint. Amber in color, thin but persistent head, but not much in the aroma column get things started. Smooth experience going down, almost a dry feeling, with very little aftertaste. Flavor is a balance between malt and subtle hops from start to finish; one never gets in from of the other. In the end, the Dig is a very drinkable beer, with no outstanding qualities, but no shortcomings other than an odd name.

 810 characters

Photo of ChainGangGuy
3.01/5  rDev -15.9%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

12 ounce bottle - $1.99 at Total Wine & More in Kennesaw, Georgia. What appears to be an expiration date of 27 May, 2012 is printed on the label's bottom corner.

Appearance: Pours out a fairly clear, medium copper-hued body with a large, foaming, off-white head. A bit of glass-coating lace here and there on the way down.

Smell: An apparent lead of caramel in the scent followed by a slight, surprising butteriness in the nose trailed by lighter, albeit agreeable notes of distant lemon and spice.

Taste: Pale malts given a generous brushing of sweetish caramel and sweet cream butter. A little lemon zest and spice with little else from the hops producing a medium-light bitterness. A little hint more of the caramel and butter before the drying finish.

Mouthfeel: Medium-light body. Medium carbonation. Generally soft mouthfeel throughout.

Overall: Surprisingly light in the hop department, but, then again, the diacetyl was also a rather unexpected encounter, leaving me to wonder if this particular batch was off or if this is indeed what they had intended.

 1,067 characters

Photo of Efeswasmy1st
3.07/5  rDev -14.2%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Bottle poured into glass. Light amber in appearance, some head. Let is warm up a bit to open. Nose is very peachy, pine and some citrus. Taste is more bitter than expected and stays with you. Some lacing. Average pale ale, not sure I "dig" it.

 243 characters

Photo of GossageBrewery
3.07/5  rDev -14.2%
look: 3.25 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Poured this APA from a 12 oz bottle into a pint glass. Poured a clear pale amber color, produced an average white head, average retention and it left an average amount of lacing on the glass. The aroma consisted of fresh baked bread, citric lemon, white pepper and pears. Medium bodied, very smooth, there was a foundation of malted grain, balanced well with white pepper, herbal hops. Overall, decent session beer- average attempt at the style.

 445 characters

Photo of Blargimus
3.08/5  rDev -14%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

12 oz bottle, poured into pint glass. Best by 5/13/2012.

Darkish orange in color and completely transparent. Two fingers of white head that sticks around. There's still about 2-3 mm on the surface, half an hour later. Doesn't leave so much on the side of the glass, though.

The smell is best described as "malty dirt" but not in a brett way, and not in a bad way, either. The hops come together in a way that just smells earthy. It is also possible that the label has subconsciously influenced my nose.

Taste is a standard APA, maybe a little more bitter than most. Hard to pick out anything done exceptionally well or poorly. It's the definition of a 3 on the scale.

Mouthfeel is a bit thicker than most pale ales I've tried, a little creamy with the carbonation. I enjoy it, but again, they're not pushing the boundaries here.

Yeah, this is a textbook 3. Certainly don't feel like I wasted my money, but there are far better uses for it in the future.

 958 characters

Photo of pmcadamis
3.09/5  rDev -13.7%
look: 2.75 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.25 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A - clear amber brew with a small white wispy head and a decent amount of lace.

S - toasty and caramel-y with some hay like hops.

T - a little more assertive than the aromas. I keep thinking of hay and autumn leaves. Really light on the hops for the style...seems more like a solid amber ale.

M - Light bodied and somewhat grainy. Relatively clean finish with some lingering toasted grain notes.

Not bad...but not really special. Reminds me of a higher quality amber ale, not really all that different from Fat Tire honestly.

 529 characters

Photo of scottfrie
3.11/5  rDev -13.1%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

12oz bottle.

A: Pours a light caramel color with golden highlights beneath a huge, fluffy and dense manila colored head that took forever to fade into a thin film leaving spotty lace down the glass.
S: Sweet caramel malts, earthy spices, bready toast and a bit of citrus and herbal hops.
T: Herbal and earthy hops with a hint of lemon juice, dry grains, caramel malts, and grapefruit zest. Toast and bread-crust bring up the rear. Spicy hops all around.
M: Medium body, slick and refreshing mouthfeel, with frothy but subtle carbonation.
O: The flavor profiles in this were not my favorite. A decent IPA, but not one I’ll have again.

 640 characters

Photo of facundoCNB
3.11/5  rDev -13.1%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

a clear amber pour with copious amounts of fluffy white head.

smells of caramel, honey, lemongrass.

bitter up front with a wheat tasting sweet backbone. grass, caramel, dirt.

medium bodied, mild carbonation, lots of lacing.

not a bad beer for summer days, it IS refreshing, it just lacks character in pretty much all aspects.

 329 characters

Photo of RattleheadKV2
3.13/5  rDev -12.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Poured from 12oz bottle into Unibroue tulip Best by date of 5/27/2012.

Appearance: Pours a clear amber color with a bout a finger and a half of rocky of white head, that seems to be staying around for awhile, and leaves some nice lacing.

Smell: Not a whole lot going on here, but I do get some nice citrus, and pine notes, as well as a faint breadiness.

Taste: Nice herbal, floweryness upfront, that turns to some piny, citrusy notes, and then fades into a nice bitter dry finish.

Mouthfeel: Quite light here, Very medium-light body, and very drinkable.

Overall: Fairly decent brew, remind me more of an English PA than an American PA. Very mild on the hop bitterness, and taste, but overall a very solid drinkable brew.

 725 characters

Photo of onewetpaw
3.14/5  rDev -12.3%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A- Muted grapefruit and lemon nose. It's definitely understated in the two examples I've tried.

A- Brilliant. Dark golden. Thin white head.

F- The bitterness is in line with style and is firm, but not overpowering. There's a fair amount of hop flavor tasting vaguely like lemon and grapefruit that lines up with the nose well. I don't really detect much malt flavor.

M- Average carbonation and slightly thin body.

O- A decent pale. Really not too much to comment on for me. It's certainly not shouting to be noticed. I have had other beers with Sorachi Ace that had a more noticeable lemon character that I would like to see here. Also the aroma is minimal. Some of these issues could have to do with warm storage on the shelf and/or age.

 746 characters

Photo of phishsihq
3.15/5  rDev -12%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

New Belgium Brewing Company is trying out a new rotating seasonal line, usually 3 years as a seasonal, then a new brew will replace it. This go round, Mighty Arrow Pale Ale was replaced by Dig Pale Ale. Dig pours a light copper, almost amber with a thin, off-white head that provides a lot of lacing. a bouquet of hop aromas dominate the nose, with whiffs of tropical fruit, grapefruit, and lemon all very noticeable. Very little malt flavors are detectable on the pallet, with the bolder notes going towards lemon, orange and passion fruit hoppiness, before a dry finish. This medium carbonation and bodied ale use some newer hop strains, Sorachi Ace and Nelson Sauvin, creating some new and unique flavors.

 708 characters

Photo of thatruth
3.17/5  rDev -11.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

pours a mild copper color with a bright amber tint in the glass. minimal head with better, but not by much, lacing. wait a tick, pretty frothy lacing, but not much of a layer to the lack of head. sticks around awhile, i think the lacing just saved the appearance rating.

smells of DENSE hops. not so much ultra hoppy as just heavy hops that were used. smells like they were fused rather well. citrusy, a tad more orange than green apple. hint of pine. again, dense hops. really digging the smell.

note: lacing still apparent. really badass lacing here, folks.

taste of explosion that lays dormant before it can be swallowed. odd, yet tasty initial aroma that lays down quickly and goes down just awkward. first taste: 4/5. after taste: 0/5. funky afters. more so than usual. bold and sort of pungent. guess it's a trick to make you drink more?

not a bad brew, could use a few kinks worked out. definitely more worthy of the 1.9 it received before this. that's why i love this site, other reviews actually make you want to review a beer, good or bad!

**date on bottle: "03JUN12"

 1,085 characters

Photo of TMoney2591
3.18/5  rDev -11.2%
look: 4.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Served in a Chicago Bears shaker pint glass.

Can't tell you why I'm so jazzed to try out the new New Belgium seasonal, but I kinda am... It pours a clear amber topped by a finger of cream-white foam. Something about this beer strikes me as unusually good-looking. The nose comprises sparkling lemon zest, light peach, light caramel, and a touch of minty pine needle. If some of these were a bit stronger, this would smell damn pleasant; as it is, it ain't close to bad. The taste halts the love train, bringing notes of orange peel, grapefruit rind (in both cases, the white part only, along with a lick of the unwashed outside), light caramel, light pine resin, and bitter, chlorophyll-laden grass. I'm gonna assume the Sorachi hops ruined things, as usual, but it's not normally like this when they do, what with the sharp bitterness and all... I got nothin'. The body is a light medium, with a moderate carbonation and a dry finish. Overall, a nice-looking and -smelling beer, but one that falls apart in the flavor department. Still, it could be a lot worse, and I wouldn't necessarily turn down a free bottle of this in the future...

 1,139 characters

first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Dig from New Belgium Brewing
Beer rating: 3.58 out of 5 with 1,082 ratings