Midas Touch | Dogfish Head Craft Brewery

1,644 Reviews
Read the review
Midas TouchMidas Touch

Brewed by:
Dogfish Head Craft Brewery
Delaware, United States

Style: Herbed / Spiced Beer

Alcohol by volume (ABV): 9.00%

Availability: Year-round

Notes / Commercial Description:
This sweet yet dry beer is made with ingredients found in 2,700-year-old drinking vessels from the tomb of King Midas. Somewhere between wine and mead, Midas will please the chardonnay and beer drinker alike.

12 IBU

Added by purplehops on 10-31-2001

For Trade:
User Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters | Alström Bros
Reviews: 1,644 | Ratings: 4,783
Photo of 1sophrosyne1
2.54/5  rDev -31.7%
look: 2.75 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Consumed at the Tap House over 20 minutes.
Golden appearance, obviously--nothing special. Decent clarity. Thin head falls fast, leaving little lacing.
Buttery sweet scents with mild herbal notes.
Tastes like a honeyed version of the nose with a winey edge. Fairly bland and short.
The mouth is soft and uneventful, contributing to the lack of length in the taste experience. But it's smooth enough to be drinkable with a high alcohol content that's not very noticeable.
Overall, this brew is not much of a beer, and not adoptive of the best qualities of mead, either. A fusion of styles that fizzled.

 600 characters

Photo of cokes
2.55/5  rDev -31.5%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 1.5

I hate to give this brew such low marks, because I can appreciate the tradition and archeology that is behind this brew. Nonetheless, I must call 'em as I see 'em.
This "beer" (which is more a mead than anything) has a cloying sweetness which I just could not adjust to. Lots of honey and wine flavors to contend with. Much too sweet for my taste. I actually had to struggle to finish it. My bottle was capped rather then corked (I think I got the last bottle in the Madison area...for that I feel relatively fortunate); I would have prefered a corked bottle, but I don't think it would have made any difference. It is not something I would purchase again. I am, however, glad I tried it.
If you can get ahold of some, give it a shot for history's sake.
I would love to give King Midas some Immort Ale. just to let him witness how far beer has progressed the in past few millennia.

 892 characters

Photo of Minkybut
2.55/5  rDev -31.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Poured into tumbler at 45 dgrees. Noticed right away there was absolutly no head. Straw colored brew smelled like beer I use to make with Mr. Beer kit. Tasted like it also. Very flat tasting. Still it was interesting to try a beer that was made so long ago. I think you should try it and see what you think. Personally I'm glad we have better beer today. Not buy again.

 369 characters

Photo of scottakelly
2.56/5  rDev -31.2%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 1.5

Pours a clear dark yellow, almost gold. Very little head and lacing. Aroma is of grapes, herbs, and hone. Flavor follows suit with the aroma. Flavor is dominated by grape sweetness and floral honey. Big flavor impact from whatever herbs are used. No forthright grain or hop flavor and aroma. I enjoyed this beer the first third of the glass, but things turned south quickly and it ended up being a drainpour. The bitter herb flavor became too dominant as the beer warmed, and the grape flavors were also unpleasant and warmer temperatures.

 539 characters

Photo of blackearth
2.57/5  rDev -30.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Purchased from Three Cellars in Franklin, WI. This beer poured a clear golden color with no foam. Makes me wonder if the bottle is a bit old? Aroma is of grapes. Medium bodied, it tastes of grapes up front and malt sweetness in the finish. Seemed very one-dimensional -- I was expecting more depth of flavor.

 308 characters

Photo of davednyc
2.57/5  rDev -30.9%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

I am not sure what I may have been expecting, but this wasn't it. The 'Golden' in the Golden Elixer expressed on the label is certainly correct...

Perhaps it was the particlar bottle (and considering that it's DFH, I'm certainly willing to take a second chance)... but this brew was much more sour than spicy.

 310 characters

Photo of ngandhi
2.57/5  rDev -30.9%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Somewhere between a bock and a typical Belgian golden ale, Dogfish Head Midas Touch is a honeyed, lightly grapey mess of flavors and textures. Almost immediately flat, this brew ends up drinking more like a honeyed spirit or mixed drink. With some mead characteristics, the primary tastes in this brew are the muscat grapes and an undercooked caramel. At times this is a Belgian, at times it's a bad special bitter and, through it all, this beer is unbalanced and unsure of itself. The saffron hints at the nose, but is subdued by some ripe fusel alcohol. The finish is very dry and highlights the English-style maltiness; it redeems this beer.

To know what this beer is is a tough task; DFH makes itself vulnerable to criticism by releasing a beer based on something no one has ever heard of. That said, there are all sorts of beers on the market from Baladin Nora to different gruits that take old or otherwise extinct styles of beer and revitalize them into something spectacular. Midas Touch drinks more like a bastardization of several existing styles of beer than a rehashing of anything historic.

I can only hope more breweries make beer like this, but the Midas Touch itself is a failure.

Relax, relax.

 1,225 characters

Photo of lbkornlb14
2.6/5  rDev -30.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Sigh, I always look forward to any DogFish head beer, but this one is a big pass for me, I guess I like the fact that its different, but different doesnt always mean good. It was really sweet and spicy, tasted like dessert wine. I dunno what to say about this beer and Im sure alot of you will be in the same boat. I guess I can say that its forgettable, I wouldnt order it or buy it again but It was nice to try. not really drinkable at all, Id be suprised if anyone could finish a four pack, I guess I cant like all dogfish head beers or varietals, but I like most, so for me this beer is a "will not order again" but I do recommend trying it.

 645 characters

Photo of DomErie
2.61/5  rDev -29.8%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

When I had this on draft at the brewpub in Rehobeth it was really tasty to the point that I felt compelled to buy two, four packs to take home.

Somewhere between Delaware and PA, either my taste buds went south or the bottled version is different from the draft version. Out of the bottle this beer is way too sweet, and I like sweeter beers. I also like a little bitterness to the beer. At the brewpub I wasn't blown away by sweetness but by balance. In the bottled version it had none.

Unless you like the taste of sweet wine mixed with beer you might want to skip this one. As many other reviewers have noted, kudos to DFH for innovation but I'll stick to their IPA's in the future.

 691 characters

Photo of ccrida
2.66/5  rDev -28.5%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

A 12 oz. bottle (dated 7/06) poured in a pint glass, the Midas Touch is a light orange with a very thin head that dissipates quickly, leaving little lace. The aroma is very faint and unassuming, not much different then a Budweiser, or maybe a bit like a club soda. The taste however was nowhere near as subtle, almost entirely dominated by the sweet taste of honey with a touch of champagne. I have never tasted a honey beer that tasted so much like raw honey, almost as if it didn't fully ferment, or they added some extra at bottling. This made it to sweet for me, and I generally favor a sweeter beer. I did not pick up any traces of the saffron, and my Mom makes a mean paella, so I'm pretty familiar with it's taste. I guess it just got lost in the honey. I really liked what I assume I was tasting of the white grapes, reminding me a bit of a Saison, and wish that had been brought out more. As it was, with a fairly thin mouth feel and overbearing sweetness, I did not find this beer to be that drinkable, and would probably not bother with it again, unless I had cellared one for a good year or two, in hopes of easing the sweetness.

 1,141 characters

Photo of stimulus
2.66/5  rDev -28.5%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

12 ounce bottle.

A: Pours a clear golden with a medium white head.
S: Grapes with a hint of hops present in the nose.
T: The very sweet but somewhat sour muscat grapes dominate the palate in this one with something else on the finish, probably the saffron (I have never had this before so I couldn't place it).
M: Light body and good carbonation.
D: The overpowering taste of the muscat grapes must be acquired. I don't taste any honey at all. The saving grace of this beer is that it is not that filling.

After trying almost every beer DFH bottles, I must say this is a miss. I don't really care if it's an historic recipe. The other ancient ales, Theobroma and Chateau are pretty good, but this is too focused on the grapes and perhaps the saffron.

2/26/11 Edit: Gave this one another try and my palate definitely despised some flavor in the taste that sealed the deal between me and this beer ever again in the future.

 924 characters

Photo of semibaked
2.68/5  rDev -28%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Poured into a pint glass.

A - Great honey color and the body is clear, active carbonation and a nice white head.

S - Candy sugar, spices, and some grape aroma. The spice smell is the most prominent.

T - Malts, sugar, hops and spices with maybe a bit of the grapes. The spice (I am guessing the saffron) is off putting to me.

M - Very slick mouthfeel like oil also lots of carbonation.

D - If it wasn't for the spice in the beer I would like this a a lot more, I give DFH props for their experimentation though.

 515 characters

Photo of pokesbeerdude
2.68/5  rDev -28%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2

12oz bottle from Wilbur's in Ft. Collins. Around $3.

A: Aggressive pour yields about 1/4 of an inch of stark white head on top of a highly carbonated, slightly cloudy pale gold beer. Head retention is fair, a few chunks of lacing.

S: Smells kinda musty to me, some barley malt, champagne, honey, and a little bit of booze, doesn't exactly smell great, but not offensive either.

T: The champagne taste is carried over from the nose, along with a sweetness, probably from the honey, has a few spicy notes in there as well. I am not impressed with this at all. Boozey notes all over the place, mixed with some odd, not very beer like flavors.

M: Somewhat thick, but ridiculously carbonated, and dry, fair amount of alcohol heat.

D: No thanks, this will be a workout to get through this one. Just tastes like a mess to me, too many flavors, and none of them that I even like. A beer that someone who enjoys champagne would probably like, but I don't, and those flavors really put me off on this one. The flavors just don't work well together, the grape and barley just don't blend it doesn't taste that great at all.

 1,121 characters

Photo of okcommuter
2.68/5  rDev -28%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.75

Not what I expected. I wanted to like this beer, but something just seemed off about it. I may have to give it another try at a later date, just to be fair.

 158 characters

Photo of jjanega08
2.69/5  rDev -27.7%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

A= Pours almost a syrupy translucent orange color. Crystal clear with absolutely no head on it with no lacing... hmmm doesn't look like much carbonation either.
S= Sweet sugary malt and a kiss of saffron. Smells really really sweet.
T= Sugary sweet with a touch of saffron like I said from the odor. Sort of a bite on the back ends of my tongue. Interesting but I dunno about how good it is. Really sugary.
M= No carbonation at all. Heavy with a dry finish.
D= Not very high at all. I'll get sick of this after one I'm sure. I appreciate the effort and the history lesson but not for me.

 587 characters

Photo of GreatPondBrewer
2.7/5  rDev -27.4%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

This was not one of my favorite beers the flavors just never melded correctly leaving some sensations overpowering and the rest bouncing off the walls like a bunch of ADD 6 year olds. Poured a extremly clear amber color. The clarity cannot be understated. There was a weak white head on top, but a fair bit of lacing here and there. Smell was overpoweringly alcoholic with huge notes of sweetness. I was already not looking forward to this. The taste was so cloying it made my mouth pucker, kinda like when you add waaay too much lemonade mix to a glass of water. I felt like I was a honey bee od'ing on sweetness. More alcohol that became rather raw further down the glass.

I respect Dogfish Head for making this beer and trying something completely different. However, somewhere from King Midas to the 21st century something much have been lost in the translation.

 870 characters

Photo of samie85
2.7/5  rDev -27.4%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Bottled on 5/15/2009

A- Hazy, orange-ish hue with a small, quickly dissipating head.

S- The aroma was all malt and honey at first, but as it warmed I got some grape/wine-like aromas.

T- The taste was largely dry, bitter, and alcoholic for me. I didn't get much of the malt or honey that others have mentioned.

M- Pretty thin feeling, and pretty well carbonated, yet oily.

D- This is not really a beer for me at all. Way too dry. I really had to struggle to get through it with the alcohol presence and dryness.

 517 characters

Photo of jdg204
2.7/5  rDev -27.4%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Actually pulled this brew for the wife, sounded interesting and up her ally (Beer meets White Wine). Was excited to try something billed as this unique.

A: Deep golden yellow with a thin head that soon becomes a thin, floating patch.

S: The smell is of honey with an herbal background.

T: Honey and barley malt. Maybe the grapes, that gives it an almost winey character and some balance, the saffron? Well, it's an unusual additive to beer. This has an unusual taste (as expected)... can't say I really love it though.

M: The feel is medium, with lingering sweetness and an alcohol sharpness.

D: Well, I was glad I gave this brew a chance but I have to say it greatly underperformed on all expectations. Wife hated it, which kind of ruined the purpose, and I was certainly no fan. Definetly not a brew I'll be revisiting or recommending.

 845 characters

Photo of Steasy66
2.7/5  rDev -27.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

6oz from a 12 oz into a snifter.
A- Golden, whisphy white head.
S- Fruity, a bit of red fruit, citrus, and melon
T- Tastes like a thick lager, a bit of mead flavor, strange aftertaste.
M- Medium body, crisp carbonation
O- Strange beer, wouldn't buy it again, nothing off or bad about it, just no real appeal.

 308 characters

Photo of OtherShoe2
2.7/5  rDev -27.4%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Had an opportunity to try a bottle of this at a family party (brother in law bought a 4 pack for $14 and offered me one). Yikes for him, but great for me -- so much for champagne taste and beer budget - literally! As you will see, this is the method I recommend for trying this -- don't pay for it!

A very well crafted, well structured beer, as you'd expect from Dogfish head. Nice deep golden/orange with a decent head to start. Fades to nothing, with little lacing. Pretty.

Smells like you'd expect. First hit is grape, then sweet malt, then spice/bee pollen elements. Smell goes right into taste. How do I put this?...a liquid version of golden raisin bread/toast. The grape is always there, almost Concord grape in flavor. Sweet, honeyed malt flavors, some buttery notes, and a bit of spice.

Flavors coat your mouth and stick with you. Moderate carbonation.

One is enough, maybe even too much.

Another consistently well made brew by these guys. No rough edges here, and they achieved exactly what they set out to do, unfortunately. This beer goes beyond beer snobbishness (something I admit to), right into the kingdom of the beer nerd. All palates are different, as is a level of openmindedness, but this is more about conversation and image than taste here. I can't imagine someone enjoying his, period. Overly sweet. Too damn much grape. I cannot think of what I'd want to eat with this (maybe middle-eastern fare, rice and currant dishes?), or even imagine sitting down with a snifter and sipping this. As I said in the beginning, absolutely be adventurous and try it, mooch one if you can, but do not buy this.

 1,626 characters

Photo of marvin213
2.71/5  rDev -27.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

It looks like an ordinary lager, or even a pilsner--translucent throughout--a light, straw-colored ensemble with a brownish tint. A thin layer of carbonation never approaches foamy status. The dark tint provides some allure, but this is among the most common-looking DFH brews I've encountered.

I smell grapes and honey. It's like a sweet wine, slightly more grapes on the nose than honey. I wonder if it's the saffron that plays a hop-like balancing act. I can't say I detect barley with wafts, but I venture to guess that it provides the brown amid the honey yellow. Still, it smells more like a wine than a beer. I love how this brewery pushes the boundaries but, so far, I remain skeptical.

A nicely carbonated honey note followed by acidic, soury grape juice. Sweet honey certinaly pervades the palate. The white grapes juxtaposed against the honey make for an odd, uneven taste. It's like every sip tastes the same, but each part of my mouth senses something different about the beverage. I honestly can't decide if I like it. The sour presence diminishes appeal, despite the tingle of warm, carbonated honey. It's iike it's neat to see what the ancients enjoyed, but it's difficult for this one to compete with the peers of its day. I hate to be a hop monger, especially when experiencing an ancient-type herbal/spicy beer, but the white grapes need more substantive stand-up to sour. The sweetness suffices, but the saffron seems insufficient.

There's enough of a sweet honey smack to achieve a good mouthfeel. The sour is oddly more a taste on the tongue, while the sweetness is a sense on the cheeks and teeth. The carbonation seems right-on. Though "old" and "extreme" seldom go together, this recipe fits the bill. It's ancient and hopless, but one hell of an interesting concoction. Though this one is a relative disappointment by most ratings, the moutfeel, at least, is cool.

A drinkable beer has to taste better; it is, nevertheless, a beverage worth sampling.

 1,981 characters

Photo of tgbljb
2.71/5  rDev -27.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Shared 750ml bottle with fellow ba mtanji. poured a hazy amber color with almost no head. There was absolutely no smell. The taste pretty much mathced the smell because there was no taste either. Mouthfeel was of alcohol. I wonder if this bottle went bad

 254 characters

Photo of wcudwight
2.72/5  rDev -26.9%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Pours the color of a sunset with a small short-lived thin fizzy head. Lots of carbonation bubbles.
Smell is of alcohol and spice. Maybe some clove.
Woa! I can say that I have not had a beer like this and I can also say that I don't like this beer. Taste is buttery, bitter, medicinal, and metallic.
Mouthfeel is fair. Crisp. And I wouldn't consider this a drinkable beer.
I'm not saying that this is a bad beer. It's simply not my thing and maybe my palate is not adventurous enough to fully enjoy the Midas Touch.

 518 characters

Photo of cnits66
2.72/5  rDev -26.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

A-half finger quickly disappears but suds have legs like wine.  Golden butterscotch color.  
S-fruit forward with hint of honey.  
T-definite barley flavors...not as sweet as it smells.  Very wine like and lacks balance.  
M-almost like a flat Proseco...slightly fizzy.  
D-decent for the ABV but prefer a good white wine.  
O-interesting beer that doesn't live up to the Dogfish stable of beers...give them props for trying something different.  

 461 characters

Photo of MacQ32
2.72/5  rDev -26.9%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

A - Pours a nice honey golden color with a finger of off white head that leaves a nice lacing as consumed

S - Smells sweet of saffron and white muscadine wine. Almost a sour smell, which I like

T - Too much going on, tastes like white floral wine initially sweet but dry and more bland at the finish, especially considering the nose

M - Medium bodied, ok carbonation but the dryness makes the mouthfeel less than desirable

O - My girlfriend loves it, I don't. The best thing about this beer is that it weighs in at 9% and its very easy to drink, dryness aside

 563 characters

Midas Touch from Dogfish Head Craft Brewery
3.72 out of 5 based on 4,783 ratings.
  • About Us

    Your go-to website for beer (since 1996), publishers of BeerAdvocate magazine (since 2006) and hosts of world-class beer events (since 2003). Respect Beer.
  • BeerAdvocate Microbrew Invitational

    Join us June 2-3, 2017 in Boston, Mass. for beer, cider, mead, kombucha and sake from over 70 small producers.

    Learn More
  • Subscribe to BeerAdvocate Magazine

    Support uncompromising beer advocacy and award-winning, independent journalism with a print subscription to BeerAdvocate magazine.