Sininen III
Hartwall Helsinki Panimo
- From:
- Hartwall Helsinki Panimo
- Finland
- Style:
- European Pale Lager
- ABV:
- 4.5%
- Score:
- +6 ratings needed
- Avg:
- 2.48 | pDev: 10.89%
- Ratings:
- | reviews: 1
- Status:
- Inactive
- Rated:
- Jun 01, 2015
- Added:
- Jun 02, 2008
- Wants:
- 0
- Gots:
- 3
NO SCORE
-
-
No description / notes.
Recent ratings and reviews.
Reviewed by Jugs_McGhee from Texas
2.21/5 rDev -10.9%
look: 2 | smell: 2.25 | taste: 2.25 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.25
2.21/5 rDev -10.9%
look: 2 | smell: 2.25 | taste: 2.25 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.25
Purchased at a Sale store in Kuopio, Finland. Brewery on can is listed as "Oy Hartwall AB, PL44, 15101 Lahti. Hartwall.fi ." I'm assuming this is the correct listing; I did some online research but could not ascertain where exactly Hartwall is (Lahti? Helsinki?).
CAN: Aluminum. White and blue label motif. Standard pull-tab. 50cl. Best before: 15/08/15.
40 kcal/100ml. 4.50% ABV.
Served cold into a mason jar at low altitude in Kuopio, Finland. Expectations are low. Reviewed live as a pale lager.
No bubble show forms as it's poured.
HEAD: White colour. Foamy and frothy, with a decent consistency and complexion. Not real soft or creamy looking. Thickness and fullness could be more robust. Leaves no lacing as it recedes.
Retention is above average - ~4 minutes.
BODY: Clear pale copper of average vibrance. Clean; devoid of visible yeast and sediment. Translucent and transparent.
Appears overcarbonated. Looks pretty typical for a supermarket-purchased pale lager. Lacks any unique or special attributes.
AROMA: Faint buttery (diacetyl?) off-notes. Pilsner malts. Cheap barley. Cereal grains. The sweetness seems checked by a light hint of metallic off-character. It doesn't seem watery, boozy, or adjunct-y - but it does seem bland and dull.
Aromatic intensity is low.
I can't say I'm looking forward to trying it. This aroma suggests an insipid beer. I find no overt hop profile, no yeast character, and (luckily) no booze.
TASTE: Grainy. Stale barley dominates, with some unwelcome sweet pilsner or Munich malt thrown in. There's no hop profile, yeast character, or booze. Some hints of metallic off-notes and diacetyl do manifest.
As shallow, plain, and simple as can be. There's no intricacy, depth, or subtlety here. Unnuanced. Unbalanced. Dull. Why brew this?
TEXTURE: Smooth, wet, aggressively overcarbonated (to the point that it's sharp), and unrefreshing. Light to medium-bodied. A biteen buttery. Middling heft, weight, and thickness. This isn't dialed in at all, and lacks harmony with the taste.
Overall presence on the palate is poor.
OVERALL: Not as drinkable as would be ideal, but certainly downable. Has a characteristic cheap taste, which I suppose is natural given the relatively low price tag and wide availability in supermarkets. I'm glad it's not as watery, boozy, off-note driven, or cloying as lesser offerings in the style, but it remains a completely unremarkable pale lager with lowest common denominator appeal. I won't bother with it again, but there're worse beers in this style on the Finnish (and European) markets. A student beer at best, and not a brew that will satisfy the discerning drinker. To its credit, though, it's probably exactly what you imagine it will be prior to trying it. We've all had worse.
High D (2.21)
Jun 01, 2015CAN: Aluminum. White and blue label motif. Standard pull-tab. 50cl. Best before: 15/08/15.
40 kcal/100ml. 4.50% ABV.
Served cold into a mason jar at low altitude in Kuopio, Finland. Expectations are low. Reviewed live as a pale lager.
No bubble show forms as it's poured.
HEAD: White colour. Foamy and frothy, with a decent consistency and complexion. Not real soft or creamy looking. Thickness and fullness could be more robust. Leaves no lacing as it recedes.
Retention is above average - ~4 minutes.
BODY: Clear pale copper of average vibrance. Clean; devoid of visible yeast and sediment. Translucent and transparent.
Appears overcarbonated. Looks pretty typical for a supermarket-purchased pale lager. Lacks any unique or special attributes.
AROMA: Faint buttery (diacetyl?) off-notes. Pilsner malts. Cheap barley. Cereal grains. The sweetness seems checked by a light hint of metallic off-character. It doesn't seem watery, boozy, or adjunct-y - but it does seem bland and dull.
Aromatic intensity is low.
I can't say I'm looking forward to trying it. This aroma suggests an insipid beer. I find no overt hop profile, no yeast character, and (luckily) no booze.
TASTE: Grainy. Stale barley dominates, with some unwelcome sweet pilsner or Munich malt thrown in. There's no hop profile, yeast character, or booze. Some hints of metallic off-notes and diacetyl do manifest.
As shallow, plain, and simple as can be. There's no intricacy, depth, or subtlety here. Unnuanced. Unbalanced. Dull. Why brew this?
TEXTURE: Smooth, wet, aggressively overcarbonated (to the point that it's sharp), and unrefreshing. Light to medium-bodied. A biteen buttery. Middling heft, weight, and thickness. This isn't dialed in at all, and lacks harmony with the taste.
Overall presence on the palate is poor.
OVERALL: Not as drinkable as would be ideal, but certainly downable. Has a characteristic cheap taste, which I suppose is natural given the relatively low price tag and wide availability in supermarkets. I'm glad it's not as watery, boozy, off-note driven, or cloying as lesser offerings in the style, but it remains a completely unremarkable pale lager with lowest common denominator appeal. I won't bother with it again, but there're worse beers in this style on the Finnish (and European) markets. A student beer at best, and not a brew that will satisfy the discerning drinker. To its credit, though, it's probably exactly what you imagine it will be prior to trying it. We've all had worse.
High D (2.21)
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!