Bell’s 25th Anniversary Ale
From Bell’s – Celebrating 25 years of brewing, this strong amber ale carries on our tradition of flavorful, balanced beers. Brewed with 100% Michigan-grown barley, 25th Anniversary Ale starts with caramel & light toffee flavors. These are paired with generous kettle & dry-hop additions, yielding a crisp, assertive bitterness and hop flavors ranging from citrus, floral, and piney notes.
Bell’s Brewery – Bell’s 25th Anniversary Ale – 12 oz. bottle poured into a goblet. 8.5% abv. From Online Trade
Appearance: Pours a bright brass with a thin beige film.
Aroma: Medicine, supplements, the paper stuffed in sneakers, and peach.
Taste: Bitter piny hops, peach, pear and toffee. Finishes earthy and bitter.
Mouthfeel: Thin and sticky.
Overall: It’s a memorable beer, but not in a good way. It smelled horrible, and didn’t taste much better. Let’s hope they make up for this in their next landmark beer, which I know they are capable of.
November 4, 2010 @ 12:39 pm
Marty,
Thanks for tuning into my notes and taking the time to comment.
I don’t like to describe beer from a home brewer or brewer’s standpoint. The way I like to describe a beer is to relate it to tastes and smells I’ve experienced with other indigestible or aromatics.
You and anyone else should feel free to ask me what one of my wacky notes means. In the case of supplements, open up a jar of multi-vitamins or other vitamin supplement and take a whiff. For me, it has a distinct smell that I could pick out blindly.
As for the “paper stuffed in sneakers”, to me, has an unforgettable, distinguishable smell. Even if you’ve never noticed these types of details, if you went and stuck your head in a box of new sneakers, you’d know what I mean, likewise with the jar of vitamins.
This is what my nose arrived at, and that’s how I feel comfortable explaining it.
For me, the beer was sticky, as I got a resiny texture on the roof of my mouth, all the while it had a thin body.
I can see the post being confusing, but not contradictory. It was a beer that could have been above average, but the nose stifled my enjoyment of the entire package.
November 4, 2010 @ 12:17 pm
I have to say, this review was very disappointing. Not simply because the beer sounds less than stellar, but your descriptors are both confusing and contradictory.
I find that your description of the aroma, using “supplements” and “paper stuffed in sneakers” useless. I have no idea how to interpret those aromas. I doubt the average reader would either.
The descriptors used to convey the taste of the beer made it sound pretty complex, flavorful and interesting, and yet you go on to say that the beer “…smelled horrible and didn’t taste much better”. That’s quite confusing.
Finally, I don’t get how the mouthfeel can be simultaneously thin and sticky. Stickiness in beer (mouthfeel) typically suggests that the beer is very viscous and full bodied. “Thin” beers are typically watery. Rather contradictory, isn’t it?