I found this going through the archives of my old websites. These are
beer tasting notes I wrote back in the early days of the post-text
Internet - middle to late 90's. I was very active in
rec.food.drink.beer back then.

So I read through them, and was mildly amused by my superfluous
writing style. In any case, there's comedy and some value in the
content. There's a couple tasting notes for beers you can't get any
more - like Rhodenbach Alexander (I cried when I found it was
discontinued). There's a resurrected beer, production stopped and
later resumed - Xingu, which I haven't tried in the resurrected
version. There's a beer that was good 15 years ago, but has since
become crap - Pyramid Apricot Ale. And there's quite a few beers you
can still get - but I haven't tried recently.

Consume with tongue in cheek: http://beancurdturtle.com/oldsite/mybeertaste.htm

Cheers,
--
Daniel

BeancurdTurtle > writes:
> There's a couple tasting notes for beers you can't get any
> more - like Rhodenbach Alexander (I cried when I found it was
> discontinued).

A bar around here has a poster for Rhodenbach Alexander on the wall, on
which Michael Jackson had scrawled "drink this beer!" (and signed) in
magic marker...

:[

-Miles

--
We live, as we dream -- alone....

I agree with most. You might have tried some of the Austrian dark lagers (Gosser, Stiegl festival dark).

I agree on the Belhaven S. ale. I disagree with the Mackesons. It sucks. I thought the sweetness would come come dark malt; but they obviously use some lighter stuff to boost the sweet.

German Pilsners are inferior. I like DAB's standard brau, but Pilz lovers might be better off staying in the Czech (Volkopopvicky, Golden pheasant and such are quality pilz.)

I also love it when beer publications almost never talk about the Aass brewery in Norway. They just seem to do everything right...even pilsner. Their bocks and sweeter brews are unbveatable, though. I'd love to meet their maltster.

If you desire the red ale with cheerries, probably the best made brew in the US is New Glarus Belgian Red. Out-of-line good.

Gorio > wrote:
>I agree on the Belhaven S. ale. I disagree with the Mackesons. It sucks.
>I thought the sweetness would come come dark malt; but they obviously
>use some lighter stuff to boost the sweet.

Keep in mind his reviews are 15 years old. I know Mackeson
was brewed in Cincinnati at some point, so you guys may be
talking about somewhat different beers.
--
Joel Plutchak

"New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any
other reason but because they are not already common." - John Locke

Joel wrote:
> Gorio > wrote:
>> I agree on the Belhaven S. ale. I disagree with the Mackesons. It sucks.
>> I thought the sweetness would come come dark malt; but they obviously
>> use some lighter stuff to boost the sweet.
>
> Keep in mind his reviews are 15 years old. I know Mackeson
> was brewed in Cincinnati at some point, so you guys may be
> talking about somewhat different beers.

Pretty sure the "brewed under license" US version (done for Royal
Imports by Boston Beer Co.) didn't come about until after then-Interbrew
bought Whitbread in the UK circa 2000-1, so a 15 year old review would
have probably have been of the UK exported version (which was stronger
than the UK domestic version IIRC). The Lion also brewed Mackeson for a
while in the mid-2000's- but I think their version was only the 22/24 oz
bottles.

But, Gorio complaining that the sweetness of Mackeson's didn't come from
"dark malt" but from "some lighter stuff" seems a bit off seeing as
Mackeson was *the* classic example of "milk stout" and so, by
definition, used lactose as sweetening ingredient.

Hello



Dalwhinnie 15 year old is considered by a fair few to be a bit of a lady’s drink, not quite suitable as a man’s dram. Quite how it earned this reputation I do not know, though I would suppose that it is due to a combination of its mild mannered characteristics and the label being just a tad too neat.

I'm speaking of Mackeson's Triple Stout. One gets the impression of an imperial. I guess it's a matter of communication. Sorry, "sweet" does not typify the taste. It's like cardboard.

I was hoping for an "Imperial" and got "Dragon."

Gorio wrote:
> ;1519398 Wrote:

>
> I'm speaking of Mackeson's Triple Stout. One gets the impression of an
> imperial.

Mackeson Triple Stout, IIRC, was about 5% alcohol, compared to the
domestic UK Mackeson Stout at around 3%. Every book I've ever seen
describes it as either a "sweet stout" or "milk stout" - I can't imagine
anyone ever claiming it to be anything close to it being an Imperial
Stout. The "triple" in the title predates the current mania for
"double" "triple" and "imperial" IPA's, stouts, etc.

> I guess it's a matter of communication.

Well, it seems you were expecting something that the beer wasn't.

> Sorry, "sweet" does not typify the taste.

You're the one who first mentioned sweet. "thought the sweetness would
come come dark malt; but they obviously use some lighter stuff to boost
the sweet."

> It's like cardboard.

Which version of MTS did you drink? The US "brewed under license"
version ended several years ago. There's also one brewed somewhere in
the Caribean IIRC.


>
> I was hoping for an "Imperial" and got "Dragon."
>

But it was never intended to be an Imperial stout. UK beer history
Martyn Cornell says when originally brewed in early 20th century, the og
was 1054- given the addition of non-fermentable lactose, I'd imagine the
original abv was in the same range of the last modern versions 3-5%.

I thought it may have been brewed on Isle of Man. No, I was a bit younger and probably thought that "triple" might be synonymous with sweeter malt. I did taste the lactose, though.

I jjust don't pay for beer inferior to what I can get locally. mackeson's wasn't THE worst I've ever had (too many to name). It just disappointed, IMO.

One Imperial I like is Old Swede (or, that may be the porter), Viking may be the Imperial. Made in Dallas...Dallas, WI.