Faithfull Ale | Dogfish Head Craft Brewery

Log in or Sign up to start rating.
244 Reviews
no score
Send samples
Faithfull AleFaithfull Ale

Brewed by:
Dogfish Head Craft Brewery
Delaware, United States

Style: Belgian Strong Pale Ale

Alcohol by volume (ABV): 7.00%

Availability: Rotating

Notes / Commercial Description:
Faithfull Ale is a celebration of Pearl Jam's 20th anniversary as a band and its extraordinary debut album, "Ten." In recognition of these milestones, this Belgian-style golden ale is delicately hopped to 20 IBUs and fruit-forward from 10 incremental additions of black currants over a one-hour boil. Faithfull clocks in at 7% ABV.

Added by THECPJ on 10-19-2011

For Trade:
User Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Reviews: 244 | Ratings: 720
Photo of rtucci9
1.39/5  rDev -58.9%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 1

I finally setup an account with BA just to review this beer. I feel like people are rating Faithfull Ale higher than it deserves, just because it was brewed by Dogfish Head & has ties to Pearl Jam.

Appearance: Nice golden ale
Smell: Slightly skunky in a Heineken way
Taste: Mix between Corona, Stella, and Rolling Rock

At the end of the day, buy Faithfull for the bottle if you're a Pearl Jam fan. If you're a beer fan, STAY AWAY! I was extremely excited to try Faithfull, but ended up pouring out about 3/4 of the bomber.

 526 characters

Photo of Abrengle
1.59/5  rDev -53%
look: 2 | smell: 3 | taste: 1 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1

A-Poured into a dogfish head pint glass at 52 degrees. Very pale straw and clear as day with a small amount of diminishing, foamy lacing.
S-Smells of toast, bread, and crisp diluted fruit notes fill the nose.
T- At first I could have been confused with an awful, over-produced belgian pilsner with crisp notes and muted malts. The middle pallet is depressing with an off-dry carry through. The finish hints at currants, but I couldn't place it if it wasn't hinted on the label.
M-Low carbonation with a crisp finish.
One of the worst beers I have had from our favorite Milton DE brewery, quite a dissapiontment conidering the "hype" around the mediocre label, not a accurate tribute to Pearl Jam.

 705 characters

Photo of Rhettroactive
1.64/5  rDev -51.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 1.5

From 750mL bottle to snifter on 11/13/11 with a group of friends
*From notes

-- Thanks for sharing, John --

A: Brilliant pale golden with a measly .25 head and zero lacing on a good, firm pour.

S: Ugh, Horse urine and wet, carboardy earth.

T: Know what a taint is? Lots of that, just all up in the mouth. It's bland, with a mere hint of medicinal herbs and yeast on the finish.

M: It actually feels alright. It doesn't feel special or signifigantly above average, but it's passable.

O: I really do like DFH. They are one of the reasons I got into craft beer. And I love Pearl Jam. I've been to what, two or three of their concerts. So when I tell you that I hate this beer, it's not something I stumble into easily. I'm so god damn angry at Dogfish for lazily creating something so blasé, with no consideration for what this beer means. It's fucking Pearl Jam, let's do something complex and brooding, something utterly unique that's deserving of their great name.

Instead, we get a weak attempt at a Belgian Strong Pale. you could put Eddie Money on the label and what's inside would suck just as much.

Shame on you, Dogfish. It's gonna take a while for me to begin forgiving you all for this monstrosity.

 1,215 characters

Photo of Weidman26
1.66/5  rDev -50.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1

This beer far from lives up to the lineage of a fly by night band like, say, nickelback, let alone a moderately talented band like pearl jam.
Firstly, there was little to no aromatic enjoyment. In fact it actually smelled like stale sweat and locker room funk with a tinge of old fruit and yeast.
Secondly, where are the currants? 10 different additions to this beer and yet still no currants on the palate? How do you justify plastering this on the label? Reprehensible at best
Thirdly, I couldn't wait to finish this beer. Actually, it took more than one conscious effort not to throw this thing directly into the toilet following my first taste. My only source of resistance in this matter was the fact that it cost me way more the the 40 price that it was worth. I figured I should at least suck it down and retain the alcohol content. Sadly there wasn't enough to even catch a bit of buzz-worthy enjoyment.

Stay away from "Midas touch light" or if you're at least curious, find a sucker like me who paid good money for this atrocious beer and get them to share it with you. That way you can both be miserable and hateful towards this one but only one has to actually shell out money for it.

 1,196 characters

Photo of patm1986
2.12/5  rDev -37.3%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

gold body. white head dissipates quickly without much residue. looks thin. slight carbonation. looks a bit putrid.

reminiscent of a lager in its metallic pungency and sugary, yeasty notes. not getting much fruit, definitely not currants. smells a bit sweet at the tail end with some slight bread-y oils.

sweet, creamy, a little butterscotch, a bit of banana, and a lot of lead/metal. it's really sugary, with a granulated sugar density. can't get passed the metallic flavor. still no currants.

thin, lots of carbonation, tinny, semi-dry finish that despite its sweetness is not very forthcoming.

this is a major disappointment more so than Hellhound in that i could finish that bottle. sadly, i couldn't finish this, because i didn't want it. sadness in dumping a beer when no one else wanted it either.
the currant additions are really bothersome, because i was expecting a belgian style pale with tartness; currants are tart as hell.
this was the opposite. it seems as though the additions of currants contributed to a higher sugar consistency, because i was unable to discern anything of the sort in terms of actual flavor.
really sad about this one. girlfriend says, "it's like miller light's artsy older sister." sad.
sorry if this is harsh. i don't mean it to be offensive.

 1,292 characters

Photo of bobhits
2.12/5  rDev -37.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 1.5

Pours crystal clear, a stream of carbonation coming from the bottom of the glass. Decent finger of head was there and is gone.

Very sweet. Vanilla, caramel, ginger, chi tea, lemon, maybe some spices...complex but the sweetness dominates and this distracts from the complexity leaving the beer almost one dimensional. A poor alcohol finish drops things a hair.

Very rich, full of flavor and none I'd say go with golden. Vanilla, caramel, lemon, not picking up on the currants at all, but suppose they are part of the blend. A rather interesting one that it is. Sour hints, hops, and finishing absurdly sugary sweet!

Very creamy and dense despite the clear look.

13.50 for a 750 ml. Points off for that. This had that in the back subtle taste of currant that wines often claim and frankly dogfish is better than some elite best in the world winery...they sell stuff that is drinkable after all. More to the point I feel like they were going for some kinda of pretentious subtle but not really there flavor. I love the creamy mouth, but the flavor is far some exciting. Perhaps true to Pearl Jam. Age imo will hurt the best feature that mouth feel. Wow I wanted to be more highly spoken but let me use words, if you like sweet and spiced beers this is something I can't even begin to under stand. I like a lot of the parts, but the final verdict with price factored in is absurdly negative....

 1,397 characters

Photo of aorloski
2.19/5  rDev -35.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Appearance - Hazy yellow, nice carbonation with a nice finger white fluffy head

Smell - Ummm smells very watered down, if you smell long enough you get some currants. Mostly cereal and corn in the nose

Taste - Again, cereal and corn, very light with nothing dominant. There is a slight sweet and spicy note in the tongue somewhere. SLIGHT. Honestly my brother and i thought this drank like a BMC product. Very unimpressed.

Mouthfeel - Standard carbonation, smooth, not silky or chewy. Middle of the road.

Overall - What a huge disappointment. I know the reasons behind making this beer and all and i like the idea but come on, why even bother making a shit beer just because that is what Pearl Jam drinks?

 709 characters

Photo of Doppelbockulus
2.21/5  rDev -34.6%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Disappointing. Why did I pour this into my graffiti special edition Duvel Glass?

This looks like a standard golden ale, not anything bad.

The smell seems kind of faint, only a little alcohol and yeast, I don't get any fruit or malt out of this.

The taste, seemingly the most important part of the beer, is limited and not really pleasing. It isn't horrible, but it is below par on the taste scale that I use, in which Bud Light is par (and about 2.5). Flavor profile seems to be a combination of clean refreshing water and malt liquor with dust. Oddly reminiscent of Colt 45 or Olde English 800, not what you want in a special offering from Dogfish Head, unless it is their brown bagged 40... which this is not!

Feels like...water with a small bit of tannic acid and some carbonation.

My advice is only get this if you really like Pearl Jam or are trying to collect everything from Dogfish Head.

 900 characters

Photo of AdamBear
2.33/5  rDev -31.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

A-pours golden and loud. slightly transparent. the fizzy white head fades to nothing.

S-honestly smells a bit like what would happen if BMC made a strong lager with just a touch of currant. mostly it just smells like honey barley

T-comes in with a warm taste of barley, sweet honey, and alcohol. there is a slight taste of currants, but its weak. there's an odd unwelcomed bitterness that follows. the after-taste reminds me of water logged cooked vegetables. this really has nothing going for it.

M-dry medium carbonation with a watery finish

O-main 2 reactions: i spent way too much on this ($15) AND i do not want this whole bottle to myself. I don't know what DFH's aim was here but they missed it. this isn't good. i bought a a 12 pack of celebration for less than this one bottle and it has caused me to rethink how i buy beer

 836 characters

Photo of axeman9182
2.34/5  rDev -30.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

750 mL bottle, poured into my Duvel tulip.

Faithfull Ale pours a crystal clear goldenrod, with about three fingers of fluffy white foam crowning the beer. Head retention isn't bad, but lacing is hard to come by. The nose is a bit dull (which, in the end, is probably doing me a favor), but what aroma is perceptible is dominated by the currants. There's also a slight peppery phenolic presence, but all it really does is hint that maybe currants don't belong in this style of beer. The flavor is still dominated by that dark raisin-y flavor, but a little bit of pear shows up and joins the pepper-clove notes to provide a slight Belgian Strong Pale framework for the currants. They don't belong here any more than they did in the nose though, the flavor clashes horribly with the base beer. The body is nicely dried out, but the carbonation isn't as expansive and lively as would be ideal for the style. I'm a Dogfish Head fan, and I'll try just about anything they brew at least once, because more often than not I can dig it. Every once in a while though they come up with something that's just a complete miss for me, and this is one of those times.

 1,153 characters

Photo of smerrell
2.36/5  rDev -30.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

Appearance - Similar to a MBC product - amber with a moderate head that dissipates quickly

Smell - I'll buy the idea that the smell is of currants, but I'm not liking it very much

Taste - not entirely pleasant. Sweet , hints of honey and a bit of hops. it gets a but better as it warms

Mouthfeel: bubbly and a little cloying

I'd call this an average beer. I'm glad that I tried it, but I wouldn't get it again.

 415 characters

Photo of CHickman
2.39/5  rDev -29.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Pours a hazy yellow gold color with a big foamy 2 finger foamy tan head that was full of bubbles and didn’t move for at least a minute, dissipating quite slowly; it actually looked like a good German lager. While this brew leaves good lacing, it still just looks like an average beer.

Smells of sweet malt, skunky yeast, grains, light bread and an almost macro lager essence; not what I expected, with basically no hops in the nose and very light fruit and sweetness – pretty disappointing for DFH.

Tastes like a Belgian, but not a strong ale; after a few sips it seems like half a Belgian such as a Duvel was poured in a glass, and then a half a Coors or Budweiser was poured into the glass. It’s really odd that such an epic album would get such a standard flavor. Flavors include sweet malt, caramel, skunky yeast, grains, wet wheat bread, tea leaf, herbs, sour apple and fruit which I assume to be currants, very faint spices and something else that’s metallic like a penny or medicinal; I was hoping that it would get better as it warmed up, but it didn’t.

Mouthfeel is light, crisp and smooth, sliding down easy with high, fizzy carbonation, a medium body and finish that is on the dry and tart side.

While this brew did hide the ABV very well, it just didn’t taste very good and it’s hard to believe that I’m disappointed with a Dogfish Head beer, but this was a huge let-down. The sweetness makes it drinkable, and while it doesn’t taste bad it just has no redeeming qualities to make it anything bust just an average beer. Something is missing as the flavor just remains average and on life support. Based on the price, I would not seek this out again as it’s just a hair above a macro brew lager, which makes this honest assessment difficult as I love this brewery. I guess this shows that some off-centered experiments do actually miss the flavor mark. This is my DFH mulligan.

 1,916 characters

Photo of lacqueredmouse
2.39/5  rDev -29.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

750ml bottle purchased from Bevmo in Sunnyvale, CA.

Pours a very light golden colour, with a white head that froths up initially, but then forms a flimsy film atop the body. The beer itself seems a little light, although it forms really nice fine carbonation. Some positives, some negatives to the appearance.

Nose is uninspired. Mostly flat, with a fermented sugar or grainy adjunct character, mingled with a cloying sweetness and a hint of paint thinner. Some sugary notes could be the currants, although it could just be booze. Unimpressed.

Taste is better only because it is blander. Light grainy sweetness through to the back, when there's a slight uptilt in metal and booze, and perhaps a slight fruity acidity on the aftertaste. Feel is exceptionally light, almost absent. Overall, a really unimpressive brew.

Urgh. I'm totally off DFH's beers. Why did I buy this one? I knew it was going to follow the same trajectory. Something about the promise of currants through the boil intrigued me. But like most Dogfish beers I've had, the intrigue is one thing, and the execution is quite another.

 1,102 characters

Photo of yourefragile
2.44/5  rDev -27.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

750 mL bottle that I wasted $12 on served in a snifter.

Pours a clear golden amber color with a large white head that quickly fades to nothing, minimal lace and little carbonation. Aroma is medicinal, plum, ripe fruit, alcohol, hand sanitizer, Belgian yeast, and light spice. Flavor is much less offensive than the nose. But who cares. Overly sweet and fruity, sugar and syrup with a cloying aftertaste. Thick, syrupy body with light carbonation and a mild dry finish. Whatever, I don't care. Evenflow bros.

 508 characters

Photo of calcio360jrd
2.46/5  rDev -27.2%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

First off, i love Dogfish Head, one of if not my favorite and most consistent brewery.

Bottle split with my roomate in our dogfish head snifters. The label said this is a belgian golden ale, so immediately i thought of duvel and delirium tremens, and figured this would be a nice drinking belgian style ale. Appearance had a nice subtle golden color with a full 2 finger head on it, left some nice lacing on the glass as well. The smell was unspectacular, but smelled well enough to continue and taste this beer. Now, when i say that if i did a blind taste test with this beer, i probably would have told you it was a heineken, that is how bland and plain this beer was. This by far is the only dogfish head beer that has ever disappointed me, and i hope that this is not a trend with some of their newer beers. Not worth the $12.99 the bottle cost, to be honest, not worth $2.99.

 882 characters

Photo of nataku00
2.49/5  rDev -26.3%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

Bottle poured into a tulip glass. Beer poured a clear golden color with a finger and a half of foamy and bubbly pure white head that quickly slid back down to a collar of bubbles. No lacing from the head, but a decent amount of fast rising large bubbles from the bottom of the glass.

Nose is a strong fruit candy sweetness, like a jolly rancher grape aroma. A little bit of biscuit malt and floral hopping as the beer warmed.

Taking a sip, the jolly rancher grape candy is a bit more subdued, more ester like. Middle of the tongue, more yeast flavors, like a ball of bread dough after about an hour after it was mixed together, lightly of lactic acid, with a bit of floral flavor. Finish is pretty dry, with lingering grape candy and floral flavors.

Light to medium body with a prick of carbonation here and there on the tongue. Flavor on the tongue is a bit off putting for me, just a strange combination of flavors that don't work too well for me.

 955 characters

Photo of MsRif
2.52/5  rDev -25.4%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Had from a bottle purchased at Pinocchio's beer garden in Media, PA. Poured a very clear, bubbly straw yellow color. Quickly receding head with no lacing to speak of. Had an aroma of yeast, earthy hops and grapes. Pretty bland in aroma, and unfortunately,
bland in taste. Definitely not "fruit forward" or "full of currants." In fact, I did not smell or taste any currants.

Light-bodied with HIGH carbonation. It looked similar to a ginger ale after I poured it.

This brew was really disappointing. Average at BEST.

 519 characters

Photo of CuriousMonk
2.53/5  rDev -25.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

POured from 750ml bottle into tulip glass. Pours a clear, dirty golden color with a full, white, pillowy, frothy had which is somewhat lasting and leaves minimal lace. The nose has a light currant note, some doughy/bready yeast, light candi sugar, light peach, some light herbs, and faint sweat. The flavor is similar with more light candi sugar, peach and currant notes underneath, faint herbs, doughy yeast, and light peppery phenols. The palate is lively, medium, creamy, and slightly drying. The finish is lightly herbal and peppery, drying slightly, but ultimately still filled with light candi sugar. Not what I would call a tribute to Pearl Jam with not much going on. The beer was mostly just candi sugar notes and subtle fruit additions. Very disappointing but again I could never really associate Pearl Jam with craft beer?

 833 characters

Photo of dmgnyc
2.53/5  rDev -25.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Recently on tap at The Blind Tiger in NYC, needed to try because I'm a huge Pearl Jam fan, and generally a fan of DFH's more esoteric creations.

Pours an unimpressive clear yellow with minimal head and lacing. Doesn't smell like much of anything at all.

I recall this being billed as a fruit forward, Belgian Strong...designed to bridge the gap between the fruity bottles of Pinot Noir and the Mexcan lagers that Eddie V and the boys enjoy drinking. So why does it taste like Miller High Life? Goes down very easy for a 7%, but I fear I'd label this an American adjunct in a blind taste test. I don't get any currants or Belgian elements at all.

I realize that DFH's willingness to take risks often results in beers about which people will have varying opinions, but still not quite sure what DFH was thinking with this one. Marketing seems to have trumped quality control.

 876 characters

Photo of ToddT
2.54/5  rDev -24.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

A- Pale clear golden yellow topped with a one finger off white head. Head falls quickly and leaves no lace on the glass.

S- Not much going on in the nose, light malt aroma and a hint of hops, reminds me of an American adjunct lager.

T- Mild bread notes and a hint of hops along with a light fruit note, not unlike grapes, that follows to a clean and quick finish. Finish is dry and with almost no aftertaste, very clean as well.

M- Medium in body and decently carbonated, not over the top, a nice feel.

O- Pretty forgettable and very little of a Belgian character to it. The 7.0% ABV is well hidden and I would not have guessed that it was this high, but I don’t see me going back for seconds. Unlike Pearl Jam’s ten, I wasn’t hooked on the first try/listen. Maybe if I age it twenty years I’ll reconsider.

 818 characters

Photo of wedge
2.55/5  rDev -24.6%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

@ Busy Bee

Sparkling gold with a frothy white head. Pale, dry aroma...winey grape, currant, and light bread. Tart pale grape and sweet, crackery grains. Tart and very slightly phenolic with a bit of citrus in the finish. Light and slick. Not at all what I was expecting and fairly disappointing overall.

 304 characters

Photo of heelsn02
2.55/5  rDev -24.6%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

750ml Bottle poured into chimay chalice.

Listening to PJ yield – faithful, track #2 of 13 while reviewing...

Hardly any head... thin white bubbles... almost see-thru... barely cloudy... almost blue moon looking... head dissipates very quick... decent amount of carbonation though

Fruity... summery beer smell... hardly any hop smell... smells like a weak Belgian... sweet malts

This literally tastes like a slightly upgraded version of bud heavy... or some cheap domestic. Alcohol doesn’t come thru much. Don’t taste any sweetness at all.

Light on the palate... decently carbonated... goes down pretty easy... just not very good.

Horribly overpriced at $15.99 a bottle. Reminded my wife of Budweiser, and she can't stand Budweiser. Like a light Belgian gone bad. No taste of currents or aftertaste whatsoever. Really disappointed in this one from DFH (and I like a lot of their stuff). Pearl Jam still rocks though.

 930 characters

Photo of Gfunk720
2.62/5  rDev -22.5%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

750ml bottle, out of my DFH signature glass. Ten was one of the first CD's I ever had, so this was a must have.

A- Quite nice. Bright and golden, very clean and clear. A nice foamy white head forms immediately, and clings to the glass.

S-Belgiany yeast and spices. Some bready notes, as well as some wine/currant notes. Also, has an off metally smell.

T- Smooth initially, then the carbonation and belgian yeast hit. The spice is prevelant, but it gets watery for a second. The aftertaste has a decent currant/hop blended flavor with a touch of malt. Not as much metal flavor, but still here faintly.

M- Not bad, but jumps between watery and nice and full flavored. Not really sure about this beer, had some potential, but never really came together.

O- Overall, this strikes me like most of the DFH 750ml series beers. I keep expecting them to be something delicious, and they really are just average beers. This is your typical spicey tripple, with mediocre body. Not worth the $$


 996 characters

Photo of donkeyrunner
2.7/5  rDev -20.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

"Just be darlin' and i will be too. Faithful to you." Pearl Jam, Faithfull

Pale straw color with a thin white head. Head settles to a thin ring around my glass with a few swirls in between.

Smells like dry champagne and grape skins. Maybe some vegetal hop.

Tastes dry and musty. Some sweetness to balance the dry must would have been nice. Because of the 10 additions of currants I was expecting Chambord in beer form. Faithful does not taste like Chambord in beer form. It tastes like a dry basement.

Pearl Jam's 10 was one of the most significant albums of my teenage life and is still one of my favorites. This beer doesn't even begin to do it justice. Less reminiscent of early Pearl Jam (very good) and more reminiscent of late Pearl Jam (not very good).

 764 characters

Photo of nrbw23
2.7/5  rDev -20.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

A- Pours a slightly hazy yellowish gold color with pretty thin white head. Head lays onto top of the brew and leaves a bit of spotty lacing.

S- Smell is pretty yeasty and spicy at first. Some light tropical fruit hops and light malts.

T- Quite a bit of sweet malts. A good amount of yeast and spice. A touch of tropical fruits too.

M- Medium in body and fairly crisp carbonation.

O- Pretty boring and one dimensional.

 424 characters

first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Faithfull Ale from Dogfish Head Craft Brewery
3.38 out of 5 based on 720 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.
  • Extreme Beer Fest® Cometh

    February 3-4, 2017. Boston, Mass. Limited tickets available. Prepare for epicness.

    Learn More
  • Free Trial Subscription

    Reside in the US? Interested in a free 1-month trial subscription to the print edition of BeerAdvocate magazine?

    Yes! Sign Me Up!