Karjala Maltti
Hartwall Helsinki Panimo
- From:
- Hartwall Helsinki Panimo
- Finland
- Style:
- American Amber / Red Lager
- ABV:
- 4.5%
- Score:
- +9 ratings needed
- Avg:
- 2.42 | pDev: 0%
- Ratings:
- | reviews: 1
- Status:
- Inactive
- Rated:
- Jun 06, 2015
- Added:
- Jun 06, 2015
- Wants:
- 0
- Gots:
- 0
NO SCORE
-
-
No description / notes.
Recent ratings and reviews.
Reviewed by Jugs_McGhee from Texas
2.42/5 rDev 0%
look: 2.75 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.25 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5
2.42/5 rDev 0%
look: 2.75 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.25 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5
Truncated notes from a 568ml aluminum can purchased at a Sale market and served into a mason jar in Kuopio, Finland.
4.50% ABV. Best before: 25/12/15. Served cold into a mason jar.
No bubble show forms at it's poured.
A: ~2 inches wide. White colour. Foamy. Frothy enough. No lacing sticks to the sides of the glass as it recedes.
Body colour is a clear copper of average vibrance. Clean, with no yeast or sediment.
Looks typical of a pale lager, but I'm not noticing a difference from the ostensible specialty malts.
Sm: Munich malts, pilsner malts, clean lager yeast, generic floral and grassy hop character, cheap overly sweet barley.
Aromatic intensity is average.
T: Cheap but clean barley. Pilsner and Munich malts. Generic floral hops. Hints of berries - probably juniper.
Shallow and simple. Plain, even. There's not much to say about it given its lack of interesting and/or diverse notes. Average flavour duration and intensity.
Mf: Smooth and wet. Overcarbonated. Medium-bodied. The thickness, fullness, heft, and weight aren't quite dialed in. A bit syrupy. Sticky.
Not oily, gushed, hot, boozy, harsh, astringent, scratchy, or rough.
Execution isn't great. This mouthfeel suits the taste in a general sense, I suppose, but it isn't custom-tailored to accentuate specific flavours.
O: Not a gestalt build. There's no harmony of texture and taste. Drinkable albeit generic. It's unremarkable, but the price is fair by Finnish standards. The imbalance is noticeable (too sweet), but it's not as egregious as many other cheap macro lagers. And it gets points for not being watery, adjuncty, or fruity to the point that it's no longer really beer-redolent. Meh.
D+ (2.42)
Jun 06, 20154.50% ABV. Best before: 25/12/15. Served cold into a mason jar.
No bubble show forms at it's poured.
A: ~2 inches wide. White colour. Foamy. Frothy enough. No lacing sticks to the sides of the glass as it recedes.
Body colour is a clear copper of average vibrance. Clean, with no yeast or sediment.
Looks typical of a pale lager, but I'm not noticing a difference from the ostensible specialty malts.
Sm: Munich malts, pilsner malts, clean lager yeast, generic floral and grassy hop character, cheap overly sweet barley.
Aromatic intensity is average.
T: Cheap but clean barley. Pilsner and Munich malts. Generic floral hops. Hints of berries - probably juniper.
Shallow and simple. Plain, even. There's not much to say about it given its lack of interesting and/or diverse notes. Average flavour duration and intensity.
Mf: Smooth and wet. Overcarbonated. Medium-bodied. The thickness, fullness, heft, and weight aren't quite dialed in. A bit syrupy. Sticky.
Not oily, gushed, hot, boozy, harsh, astringent, scratchy, or rough.
Execution isn't great. This mouthfeel suits the taste in a general sense, I suppose, but it isn't custom-tailored to accentuate specific flavours.
O: Not a gestalt build. There's no harmony of texture and taste. Drinkable albeit generic. It's unremarkable, but the price is fair by Finnish standards. The imbalance is noticeable (too sweet), but it's not as egregious as many other cheap macro lagers. And it gets points for not being watery, adjuncty, or fruity to the point that it's no longer really beer-redolent. Meh.
D+ (2.42)
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!