UKIS Iki Tradicinis Alus
Aukštaitijos Bravorai
- From:
- Aukštaitijos Bravorai
- Lithuania
- Style:
- European Dark Lager
- ABV:
- 5.2%
- Score:
- +9 ratings needed
- Avg:
- 2.1 | pDev: 0%
- Ratings:
- | reviews: 1
- Status:
- Inactive
- Rated:
- Feb 28, 2016
- Added:
- Feb 28, 2016
- Wants:
- 0
- Gots:
- 0
NO SCORE
-
-
No description / notes.
Recent ratings and reviews.
Reviewed by Jugs_McGhee from Texas
2.1/5 rDev 0%
look: 2.25 | smell: 2.25 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.25 | overall: 2
2.1/5 rDev 0%
look: 2.25 | smell: 2.25 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.25 | overall: 2
750ml brown glass bottle comes packaged in a brown paper bag, but it actually looks kind of classy - tied off at the top with twine. Hood-and-wire cap over a cork. No label on the bottle itself. Purchased (obviously) at an Iki supermarket. Apparently this used to be brewed for Iki by Kupiškio Alus, but my label (bag) clearly shows Tarusku. Best before: 22-05-2016.
5.20% ABV.
A: The pour reveals a nice bubble show, with creamy white foam cascading to the top of the murky dull copper body. It's too dark for transparency, but there is some translucence - especially towards the bottom of the glass. The head is nicely frothy, and hangs around for a good ~8 minutes. Leaves coating lacing as it recedes, though it's inconsistent (not an even ring).
It's a decent appearance overall, but I see no unique or special characteristics, and its dullness makes it rather unlively. Not the most inviting brew appearance-wise, but the head is better than the body.
Sm: Buttery notes suggest diacetyl off-flavour. Cream, dunkel-redolent bready character, amber malt syrup, caramalt sweetness, some odd cotton candy character, bubblegum phenols.
This aroma is all over the place, a hodgepodge of scattered flavours that don't seem to amount to a cohesive whole in any way. I'm not sure what they're going for here. The diacetyl is ruinous.
Aromatic intensity is above average - which works against this beer, seeing as the aroma isn't inviting at all.
T: Matches the aroma in character and quality, which is to say it's quite poor. It's a mess, with no balance or direction, and the buttery diacetyl is quite off-putting. It's too sweet, to boot. Needs a bit of hop bitterness to balance out the malty sweetness...maybe Saaz or Noble if they want to keep the hop profile downplayed.
Not a gestalt or cohesive whole of a beer by any means.
Mf: Too filling and heavy on the palate, especially seeing as it's only 5.2% ABV. Borders on syrupy. Definitely too thick, but it's smooth and wet enough to be approachable. Overcarbonated.
Poorly executed across the board.
O: This one seems like it wasn't brewed to any particular style - that the brewer(s) just threw in some random ingredients and hoped for the best. While the breadiness does work to a degree, the rest of the build is lackluster. I know it's a supermarket beer, but I did hope for better. And in this market category, even Euro pale lagers are more drinkable than this. It's not terrible, and diacetyl is one of the more tolerable off-flavours - but it needs serious work. More of a hop presence, higher attenuated yeast, less caramalt, maybe even just better water chemistry control.
D / AVOID
Feb 28, 20165.20% ABV.
A: The pour reveals a nice bubble show, with creamy white foam cascading to the top of the murky dull copper body. It's too dark for transparency, but there is some translucence - especially towards the bottom of the glass. The head is nicely frothy, and hangs around for a good ~8 minutes. Leaves coating lacing as it recedes, though it's inconsistent (not an even ring).
It's a decent appearance overall, but I see no unique or special characteristics, and its dullness makes it rather unlively. Not the most inviting brew appearance-wise, but the head is better than the body.
Sm: Buttery notes suggest diacetyl off-flavour. Cream, dunkel-redolent bready character, amber malt syrup, caramalt sweetness, some odd cotton candy character, bubblegum phenols.
This aroma is all over the place, a hodgepodge of scattered flavours that don't seem to amount to a cohesive whole in any way. I'm not sure what they're going for here. The diacetyl is ruinous.
Aromatic intensity is above average - which works against this beer, seeing as the aroma isn't inviting at all.
T: Matches the aroma in character and quality, which is to say it's quite poor. It's a mess, with no balance or direction, and the buttery diacetyl is quite off-putting. It's too sweet, to boot. Needs a bit of hop bitterness to balance out the malty sweetness...maybe Saaz or Noble if they want to keep the hop profile downplayed.
Not a gestalt or cohesive whole of a beer by any means.
Mf: Too filling and heavy on the palate, especially seeing as it's only 5.2% ABV. Borders on syrupy. Definitely too thick, but it's smooth and wet enough to be approachable. Overcarbonated.
Poorly executed across the board.
O: This one seems like it wasn't brewed to any particular style - that the brewer(s) just threw in some random ingredients and hoped for the best. While the breadiness does work to a degree, the rest of the build is lackluster. I know it's a supermarket beer, but I did hope for better. And in this market category, even Euro pale lagers are more drinkable than this. It's not terrible, and diacetyl is one of the more tolerable off-flavours - but it needs serious work. More of a hop presence, higher attenuated yeast, less caramalt, maybe even just better water chemistry control.
D / AVOID
We love reviews (150 characters or more)! Check out: How to Review a Beer. You don't need to get fancy. Drop some thoughts on the beer's attributes (look, smell, taste, feel) plus your overall impression. Something that backs up your rating and helps others. Thanks!