Graincheuse Ambrée Belge
La Voie Maltée
- From:
- La Voie Maltée
- Quebec, Canada
- Style:
- Belgian Pale Strong Ale
- ABV:
- 8.5%
- Score:
- +6 ratings needed
- Avg:
- 3.64 | pDev: 14.56%
- Ratings:
- | reviews: 1
- Status:
- Inactive
- Rated:
- Jan 01, 2018
- Added:
- Dec 21, 2015
- Wants:
- 0
- Gots:
- 0
NO SCORE
-
-
No description / notes.
Recent ratings and reviews.
Reviewed by TheDoctor from Canada (QC)
3.02/5 rDev -17%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5
3.02/5 rDev -17%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5
Serving: Can
Canned on: Oct-2-2015
A:
Pours a clearish orange.gold with a scummy skiff of off-white head that gassily disintegrates to nothing. No retetion; little to no lace. (3)
S:
Sugary "Belgian Mârzen". Rich and bready, toasted malt, orange peel potpourri, spicy yeast. (3.5)
T:
Similar to nose. Juice-like sticky cloying sweetness throughout with big dought backbone and a sharp twang of nutri-sweet. (3)
M:
Sticky and slightly cloying with a medium body and light carbonation. Shudder-inducing. (3)
O:
Meh.
Not out and out bad, nor infected; but it is a little wonky tasting, was way too sweet for me, had a big yeast presence that kind of clashed with the malt profile (to me, at least). It was generally unenjoyable and ended up being a chore to finish (which I couldn't). I would possibly be a little more positive on this one if it wasn't additionally so damn expensive. I think it is cool that they have a canning machine now and that they have nice-looking branding and all that jazz, but if I have to pay more for that and the beer is still beyond mediocre, I can think of better beers (in some cases, two better beers) for the same price. (2.5)
Feb 02, 2016Canned on: Oct-2-2015
A:
Pours a clearish orange.gold with a scummy skiff of off-white head that gassily disintegrates to nothing. No retetion; little to no lace. (3)
S:
Sugary "Belgian Mârzen". Rich and bready, toasted malt, orange peel potpourri, spicy yeast. (3.5)
T:
Similar to nose. Juice-like sticky cloying sweetness throughout with big dought backbone and a sharp twang of nutri-sweet. (3)
M:
Sticky and slightly cloying with a medium body and light carbonation. Shudder-inducing. (3)
O:
Meh.
Not out and out bad, nor infected; but it is a little wonky tasting, was way too sweet for me, had a big yeast presence that kind of clashed with the malt profile (to me, at least). It was generally unenjoyable and ended up being a chore to finish (which I couldn't). I would possibly be a little more positive on this one if it wasn't additionally so damn expensive. I think it is cool that they have a canning machine now and that they have nice-looking branding and all that jazz, but if I have to pay more for that and the beer is still beyond mediocre, I can think of better beers (in some cases, two better beers) for the same price. (2.5)
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!