Pomona Queen | Last Name Brewing

Your Rating: None
Want it   Got it 
Pomona QueenPomona Queen
57 Ratings
Pomona QueenPomona Queen

Brewed by:
Last Name Brewing
California, United States

Style: California Common / Steam Beer

Alcohol by volume (ABV): 4.90%

Availability: Year-round

Notes / Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

Added by DoubleJ on 07-19-2008

Bros Score:
User Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Ratings: 57 |  Reviews: 18
Photo of CEDAMA
2/5  rDev -37.9%

Photo of sharkdigital
2/5  rDev -37.9%

Photo of FrogOut69
2.25/5  rDev -30.1%

Photo of Samaurer23
2.25/5  rDev -30.1%

Photo of BeerEngineer
2.31/5  rDev -28.3%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.25 | overall: 2.5

General - This beer was from a bottle that poured this into a Sam Adams Perfect Pint glass. 22 Oz bottle with a bottled on date of March 19, 2013.

Appearance - Good amber color fitting to the style. Thick white head upon pouring but it diminishes VERY quickly. No lacing on this beer at all. Kind of disappointing.

Smell - A light smell of toffee but there is some sort of fruit smell underneath it all. Almost like a plum or apricot. No hop bitterness included in the aroma of this beer, smells sweet but more like a sugar, not a malty scent.

Taste - There is a bitter taste to this, it almost tastes like it is lightstruck. Really disappointing actually. I expected a much better amber beer, this isn't good. I'm wondering if the storage of this beer was wrong, I don't expect the brewery to be having issues with sanitation but if this was from a homebrew I would be concerned about sanitation in their process. Maybe some people like this flavor, I just don't enjoy it at all. I guess that this taste could be caused by the California Common style, but most that I have had aren't this... bad.

Mouthfeel - A little thin on the mouth feel, also it is pretty dry. It's interesting with the lager yeast in an ale. I think that contributes to the dry mouthfeel.

Overall - I'm normally a big fan of amber ales but in this instance, I'm not excited about it. This is their flagship beer, the one that everyone in the area knows about. I am no more than 10 minutes from this brewery and have yet to go to it. I am hoping that this is a bad batch and not the standard. I really want to give this another try directly from the brewery, hopefully it will be different.

 1,670 characters

Photo of FacistCannonBall
2.31/5  rDev -28.3%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Had this at a local pizza joint from a 22 oz. bomber. I was intrigued by the thought of buying a beer that was made just a few miles away. Unfortunately, the name was the best part of the beer. I really couldn't differentiate it from many macro beers in aroma, taste, or mouthfeel. In fact, I'd suggest that even the lowly PBR is better tasting. It was very dry with little to no malt nor hop flavors or aromas. I'd swear that it was adjunct beer as well, though I don't want to research the fact. I've had steam beers (primarily Anchor Steam) and this beer comes nowhere near it. Why even bother making a craft macro? Not worth it.

I'm cleansing my palate and my memory of this beer with a Rip Roaring Red.

 708 characters

Photo of vurt
2.44/5  rDev -24.2%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Poured from a 22 oz. bottle purchased at Lone Hill Liquor in Glendora, CA, into a 16 oz. tumbler. The crown cap under the wine bottle foil cap (a quirk of Dale Bros. bottles) bears the handwritten number 627.

Dale Bros. Pomona Queen California Amber Lager is an attractive, bright gold-amber color that is perfectly clear. The beer doesn't form much of a head, even with a vigorous pour. Swirling the glass leaves lacing on the glass which is good looking but short-lived.

The smell is a let-down, after such a good start. This is the 3rd beer I've had from Dale Bros. which has far too much butter (diacetyl) in the nose. I understand that small amounts are desirable in certain styles, but this much butter in the aroma is not a feature, it's a bug. Working around that, I get a burst of crisp lager smell, some clean and sweet malt, and a bit of red apple peel. As the beer warms slightly, it reveals a note of cooked oatmeal. Rather odd.

Similar to the smell, in that the buttery character makes it hard to get an handle on anything else. There's a moderate malty sweetness up front, and a grainy finish with a light tea-like hoppy astringency at the end. In between is just too much butter.

Medium-bodied and unpleasantly slick. Carbonation is too low as well.

Maybe I'm just too sensitive to diacetyl, but in this beer it adversely affects the smell, taste, and mouthfeel. I only made it through half the bottle, and that still felt like several sips too many. If I saw it on tap somewhere I'd probably try to talk the bartender into giving me a sample, just to compare it to the bottle. But if I had to make a decision based on this bottle, I wouldn't try it again, nor could I recommend it.

 1,754 characters

Photo of kizzram
2.5/5  rDev -22.4%

Photo of jdhilt
2.52/5  rDev -21.7%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Pours a one finger white head that fades quickly leaving no lace. Light carbonation and light-medium bodied. Almost clear amber color. Nose has hints of light piney hops. Flavor is mildly hoppy, indistinct. Dry piney finish. $4.49 for a 22oz bottle from Liquorama Upland, CA.

 275 characters

Photo of GRG1313
2.58/5  rDev -19.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

Pours a lovely clear amber with a short and short lasting white head.

Nose is pleasant "floral yeast" and hints of fruit, a light perfume character.

Mouthfeel is thin and without character.

Flavors are weak, thin and uneventful. A bit of yeast, some light malt and some light bitter. Well balanced but without anything "special." Weak, unflavorful finish with no character or identifying trait.

An uneventful drink. No reason to try again.

 446 characters

Photo of steve8robin
2.6/5  rDev -19.3%
look: 4.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 4

Got this beer from a good friend. 22oz bottle...

A: A deep clear ruby red with a 1 inch off-white head that fades at a decent pace. Very good.

S: Kind of a light wheat scent. A light, mild, earthy hop. Kind of a trend with this brewery. Weak scents. Eh.

T: A light breadiness with a watery taste in the middle. Not much on the backend. Eh.

M: Light body with a light carbonation. A clean crisp finish. Eh.

D: Goes down so easy, like water.

All in all, this sucks. No worries about this one. I am starting to think that this brewery wants to be Budweiser. No flavors, just water.

 584 characters

Photo of Zorro
2.63/5  rDev -18.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Clear amber colored lager per the name, next to no head formation though.

The smell is sweet and buttery with a slight apple aroma. Decent malt but next to no hop aroma.

The taste starts out sweet and malty with a butter flavor and a bit of astringent grain husk flavor. Mild bitterness but the butter is bugging me. Doesn't really taste like a lager.

Mouthfeel is OK.

Not that great, this is almost a drain pour for me, would market better as a British Pale Ale.

 467 characters

Photo of t0rin0
2.75/5  rDev -14.6%

Photo of Tommygunn
2.79/5  rDev -13.4%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.25 | taste: 3.25 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.75

Photo of MiScusi
2.84/5  rDev -11.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

On tap at Pacific Wine Cellar in Upland, CA.

A- pours a pretty clear light golden color. Not much head from the pour, though some can be regenerated.

S- Smells somewhat reminiscent of the macro lagers with a bit of adjuncty type sweetness.

T- Not sure if their base was pilsner malt or if they used a lot of corn in this or what but it comes off very lagerish with a fairly generous amount of crystal malt giving it a good backing of sweetness as well.

M- light and fizzy. A little less in body than anchor steam to compare to the same style, but not horrible.

D- Would have enjoyed just a touch more hops in this, didn't find them anywhere. Kinda felt unbalanced towards adjuncts like a macro lager or something with caramel malt added.

 744 characters

Photo of olafisberserker
2.89/5  rDev -10.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

A - A nice golden color. Very little head that disappears quickly with no trace.

S - A bit of a sweet smell but fairly weak aroma overall.

T - Like the smell, slightly sweet with hints of honey and wheat. Not very strong but not watery also.

M - Very little carbonation and does not engender any real tongue sensation.

O - Overall, a very average beer. A slightly sweet, fairly light beer that is easily drinkable but won't set the world on fire with what it does, which is nothing exceptional, but not I wouldn't classify it as a bad beer either.

 551 characters

Photo of Rwang
3/5  rDev -6.8%

Photo of SocalKicks
3/5  rDev -6.8%

Photo of DoubleJ
3/5  rDev -6.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Described as an amber lager in the California Common style per the Dale Bros Brewery, I have my hands on a bomber of one. From Walnut Liquorette to my house, on to the beer:

Pale orange color with a clearish body and a thin white head that slowly fizzes away. Clean aroma, some pale malt sweetness and little else. The taste starts off and remains somewhat pleasant. Earthy upfront, then clean notes of hops come into play. As bits of caramel are detected, the grains leave a drying finish. It becomes a bit sloppy with a cooked cereal note and a mildly thin undercarbonated body at the end.

Not too bad, though its loose ends could be tightened.

 649 characters

Photo of akang
3/5  rDev -6.8%

Photo of Ryancthomas7
3/5  rDev -6.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Photo of redoak075
3/5  rDev -6.8%

Photo of JamesBristow
3/5  rDev -6.8%

Photo of Hopnotic_John
3/5  rDev -6.8%

Photo of Furlinator
3/5  rDev -6.8%

first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Pomona Queen from Last Name Brewing
Beer rating: 3.22 out of 5 with 57 ratings