Lager
Fordham & Dominion Brewing Company

LagerLager
Beer Geek Stats | Print Shelf Talker
From:
Fordham & Dominion Brewing Company
 
Delaware, United States
Style:
Helles
ABV:
5.1%
Score:
78
Avg:
3.23 | pDev: 11.76%
Ratings:
21 | reviews: 18
Status:
Retired
Rated:
Jun 22, 2014
Added:
Mar 24, 2004
Wants:
  0
Gots:
  1
No description / notes.
Recent ratings and reviews. | Log in to view more ratings + sorting options.
 
Rated: 3.75 by twonder23 from Ohio

Jun 22, 2014
 
Rated: 3.5 by rorjets from Connecticut

Dec 17, 2013
 
Rated: 3 by THECPJ from Delaware

Nov 14, 2011
Photo of BeerSox
Reviewed by BeerSox from Virginia

3.41/5  rDev +5.6%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5
12oz bottle into pilsner glass.

A one finger eggshell white head slowly settles to a thin even cap.

Very light malt aromas, with a hint of candy. Very little hop aroma.

Mild grain flavors with a touch of hop bitterness. Some of the candy flavor from the aroma is in the flavor as well. Medium bodied. The finish is a bit of the lingering hard candy flavor.

I've had better, I've hard worse. I believe this is brewed by Old Dominion in Virginia. An okay summer beer.
Aug 17, 2008
Photo of dedrinker
Reviewed by dedrinker from Kansas

3.32/5  rDev +2.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3
Light amber golden in color with a floofy white head. Aromas of fresh grains growing out in the country and a hint of sulfur. Flavor is light barley with more sulfur and the thinnest possible balance of hops. Pretty true to the Bavarian style, but a little darker. I was surprised how well they pulled it off style-wise, but most Helles Lager I had in Germany never really lit my fuse either. Light-medium body, with a little caramel on the finish. I like it. An innocuous mid-day quaff.
Apr 23, 2008
Photo of beerthulhu
Reviewed by beerthulhu from New Jersey

2.85/5  rDev -11.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5
A: Poured a pale golden color with a slight off white head. Visible carbonation was light.

S: light grains and a light herbal hoppiness.

T: The initial flavor was toasted malt sweetness with a light grassy hopping. The flavor seemed subdued and muddled bearing no strengths or individual characteristics.

M: thin and watery with light grains and a light herbal hopping.

D: A light style helles drink that is easy to consume but hard to justify having another.
Feb 25, 2008
Photo of sinistrsam
Reviewed by sinistrsam from Maryland

3.23/5  rDev 0%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3
Poured a very watery straw color with mild carbonation and no head whatsoever.
The nose didn't offer much except buttery malts and even those weren't pronounced.
The taste involved mild hops and semi-sweet malts, but once agian nothing complex and nothing outstanding.
The watery mouthfeel, combined with everything else made this at most a decent beer, and more likely just mediocre.
Jan 17, 2008
Photo of cichief
Reviewed by cichief from Virginia

3.03/5  rDev -6.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3
Had on tap at the Ram's Head Tavern in Savage, MD.

A- Light yellow in color, with a thin white head.

S- Faint scent of hops, nothing else.

T- Thin, not too hoppy, not as fresh tasting as I would hope.

M- It was okay, a bit too carbonated.

D- There are so many other beers I'd rather drink. This is an average example of a pale lager, at best.
Apr 08, 2007
Photo of mrasskicktastic
Reviewed by mrasskicktastic from New Jersey

3.56/5  rDev +10.2%
look: 2 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 4
A - Pale gold with a small head that quickly dissipated to only the larger bubbles and no lacing in moments.

S - Grassy hops and light bodied malt.

T - A light, faintly sweet, malt profile with the slightest touch of grassy hops. Only a touch of grassy bitterness rests in the faintly malty aftertaste. It is a mild flavor, but its actually a good performance. It could afford to be a touch more dry.

M - Medium viscosity, the carbonation stings a tiny bit, a bit refreshing.

D - Pretty good. It is a decent helles lager. It isn't exactly my favorite style, but this is a solid example of the style. Quaffable, sessionable and . . . foodable. If I was a big fan of this style, I would probably have a 6'er of this about all the time. It is very inexpensive compared to the rest of the beer out there.
Nov 05, 2006
Photo of RonfromJersey
Reviewed by RonfromJersey from New Jersey

3.38/5  rDev +4.6%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 4
A bright shiney yellow-orangey golden body, topped by half a hand of tight, irregular foam. A bit of lacing quickly evident.

Good nose of fresh hay, not enough to get me sneezing, but inviting.

A lightly caramelly malty start, which is very, very gradually countered by a very subtle hop presence, which slowly rounds off the initial sweetness, and really only asserts itself in the aftertaste.

Mouthfeel is slighty too thick, there's a lack of crispness to the entire beer. Drinkability is fine, if there are no challenges here, there are also no flaws.

An ok lager, a good beer to offer to the BMC crowd, and acceptable for the beer geeks. Could use a little crisper hop character. I wouldn't turn it down if offered, and could be an oasis in some bars. Still, I'd prefer Stoudts Gold, Victor Lager, or Ramstein Golden.
Sep 03, 2005
Photo of WesWes
Reviewed by WesWes from New York

3.2/5  rDev -0.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3
The beer pours a gold color with a thick frothy white head that slowly fades to lacing. The aroma is decent. It has a light pale malt scent along with a dry, yet fruity lager yeast aroma. It is musty with a light malt sweetness. The taste is average. It has a light pale malt flavor that goes down slow and finishes bitter. It doesn't have any hop flavor, but it's plenty bitter. It also has a sweet malt taste. The mouthfeel is decent. It is a low/medium bodied beer with good carbonation. This is very close to a cream ale. It is highly sweet, but with that lager yeast dryness. It also is quite bitter. It's one and done for me.
Jul 30, 2005
Photo of tgbljb
Reviewed by tgbljb from Pennsylvania

3.92/5  rDev +21.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 4 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4
poured a deep amber color with slight white head thatb fell to a light coating. Smell is difficult to describe, maybe a musty smell that is pleasant to the nose.Tsete is malty and slightly sweet. Leaves a bit of a dry aftertaste that I enjoyed. Overall a pretty good beer.
Jul 24, 2005
Photo of Gavage
Reviewed by Gavage from Nevada

3.33/5  rDev +3.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5
Clear amber in color. Thin wispy white head. No lacing develops. carbonation levels seemed very low. The aroma was of light malt. The flavor was nicely malty, somewhat grainy, with some caramel and a mild bitterness. Smooth with a touch of crispness at the start. Finish was smooth and short with malt lingering into the aftertaste. Lighter bodied. Drinkability was acceptable, but overall this lager was a bit too grainy and malty.
Jul 17, 2005
Photo of lackenhauser
Reviewed by lackenhauser from Maryland

3.5/5  rDev +8.4%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 4
Golden in color like the name says. Moderate carbonation level. Low aroma-somewhat malty. Trace of yeast and slightly sulfury. Full malt flavor up front. Very low hop bitterness. Slight residual sweetness. Good body for style. For the most part an enjoyable beer.
Jun 05, 2005
Photo of whartontallboy
Reviewed by whartontallboy from New York

2.6/5  rDev -19.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5
Thin white head on a straw-colored pour. Grainy and slight malt scents, bu not much else.. The flavor is light and grainy, but there's a slightly cloying sweetness that seeps through that just isn't pleasant. There's a little bit of toasted malt in the finish, but even that is marred by an off flavor that's almost rubbery. Mouthfeel is fairly light and smooth, but this just isn't a very good lager, even at $5.25 a sixer. I'm passing on it.
Apr 17, 2005
Photo of RBorsato
Reviewed by RBorsato from Virginia

3.92/5  rDev +21.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 4 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4
Golden with lots of floaters, a low white head, and subdued carbonation. Husky, grainy malt aroma and flavor. Hops were not noticeable. Light-medium (leans medium) bodied with a malty finish.

A nice grainy everyday type brew ..

Per label: "Est 1703" & "Re-Est 1995" & "Southern Beverage Inc, T-A F. B. Co., Dover DE"

Per Fordham website: 5.1% ABV. 12.5P O.G. Brewed mostly with pale malted barley and small amounts of Vienna and Munich malts.

'156 03' lasered on bottom
Tasted: 01/09/05
Jan 10, 2005
Photo of Higravity
Reviewed by Higravity from Michigan

2.68/5  rDev -17%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3
This Beer seemed to be old so it might have been worse than if it was fresh. I have got to say the color was nice and golden but there was a lack of decent aroma. It was a wheaty lager and a bit thin. I have had other Fordham brews, but this brewery doesn't seem to have a great beer I have had yet. Wouldn't waste my time again unless I found it on tap or happened by their brewery.
Oct 06, 2004
Photo of granger10
Reviewed by granger10 from Wisconsin

3/5  rDev -7.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3
This beer poured a bright golden color with a moderate off white head. Decent amount of carbonation. The smell was quite innoucuous but I did notice a grainy sweetness to it. That grainy flavor translated over to taste. For the most part this beer was unoffensive in taste but not good either. The body was medium. Finish was a little weak and not as crisp as I would've liked. All in all, an average lager.
Jun 20, 2004
Photo of Shaw
Reviewed by Shaw from Florida

3.03/5  rDev -6.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3
Pours a golden color with an off-white head. There's not much aroma at all. Just a bit of sweetness.

The taste is pretty light and watery, but not bad by any means. I can taste a bit of malt but not much else. I'm not noticing any major off flavors. The body is light, as the taste would lead you to believe.

Overall this is a pretty innocuous lager. If you want to drink something that has little flavor but doesn't taste bad like some of the major lagers, try Fordham Lager.
Apr 23, 2004
Photo of JMH_
Reviewed by JMH_ from New Jersey

2.55/5  rDev -21.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5
fordham need to work on their quality control a bit because this one was lacking in many areas. it pours with a thin head on top of a watery looking amber colour. not the worst looking lager i've seen but far from the best. the smell is very thin as well. watery and bland. maybe a bit of malt is noticeable and a touch of sweetness perhaps, but that's it. actually, i think i picked up a trace of sulfur in there as well. the taste is quite similar to the smell. i was not impressed at all. much work needs to be done here, as the brew tasted a bit metallic at times. this was my first fordham brew and should be my last for a while, at least.
Apr 07, 2004