Bottle 660 of 1515. Bought in June 2010 at the brewery/winery for $25 per 330ml. Refrigerated since purchase.
Incredibly heady. Slightly overcarbonated.
Chocolatey.
Oliver: “That is the best beer I've had in a very long time.”
Marcelle: “I don't even like stout, but that's delicious.”
Lisa: “That just tastes like chocolate.”
Lisa: “Too constructed.“ (It was late in the night, and what she meant is anyone's guess.)
This would have been a five-star beer if not for the carbonation issue.

Made by (at the time) a one-beer brewery.
Oliver: “A very tasty beer.”
Geoff: “I certainly enjoyed it.”
Lisa: “Not good for a session. It's really good-quality beer but I think I just want one or two or them. You're not drinking them at the footy grand final.”
This mob makes one beer, and they make one beer very well.

Oliver: “It's not going out on a limb to suggest that any beer that is described by its brewer as 'premium' is, in fact, not.”
Geoff said he “absolutely agreed”, and that most “premium” beers were quite the opposite, citing examples such as Boags Premium Lager and Crown Lager.
Geoff: “It's the exception that proves the rule about the use of the word premium.”
A discussion ensued about the origins of the term pale ale, and whether it described the colour of the brew or the malt used in its production?

Lisa: “Mmm, good … I'm calling this one early.”
Geoff: “This is the best of all the Hawthorn beers.”
Oliver: “Interesting …”
Lisa: “A sessional beverage par excellence.”

The ladies agreed that it is a lovely beer.
All but Oliver preferred this to the “premium” ale; he thinks this is a style that he just doesn't like (e.g. James Squire).
Oliver: “It's a bit …”
Geoff: “Caramel?”
Lisa: “Gay?”
Oliver: “… No … astringent. The premium is a far, far better beer.”
Geoff made no comment on Oliver's assertion.

Oliver: “A really good beer. I f---ing love this beer.”
It's kind of a porterish stout. A bit lighter than what we're used to in Australia, particularly if you're a drinker of Coopers Best Extra Stout.
Oliver: The nose is “interesting” but the taste is magnificent.

Lisa: “An absolute winner. It's brilliant. Pick of the day. Pretty good beer, but it's just too big for me to drink much of.”
Marcelle: “And me. It's good though.”
Geoff: “It's got verything you want from an ESB.”
Label says: “A re-interpretation of a classic English style (sic) bitter, this ale is generously dry-hopped with hops from the 'New World'”.
Geoff says: “A bit of wank on the label, but the label is simple and classy.”
Malty nose and great taste.

Oliver: Sweet. Light copper colour. A pretty nice beer. Tasty.
Geoff's wife, Lisa: “Good. You could drink a lot of it. That's good shit.”
Geoff: “A bloody good beer.“

Not a bad stout. But not a great stout.

Geoff: Reading the label, “ferments to a clean dry finish”. Surely it ferments into beer?
Oliver: Over-carbonated? “I just don't like amber ale.”
Geoff: “I'm not finding it much better than the last one.”
Marcelle: “It's better than the last one, I could probably finish this.”

Hybrid of pale ale and lager, having been brewed to an American-style pale ale recipe but with a lager yeast.
Lisa: “This is going to be stupid. It looks like piss.”
Oliver: “I think it's a nice color, actually.”
Lisa: “… dehydrated vitamin B piss.”
Apparently won a silver medal at the Australian International Beer Awards in 2010.
Geoff: “Maybe it won silver at the International Beer Awards for best pale ale from Para Hills West.”
Oliver: “Very cloudy.”
Has the Beard and Brau Scottish terriers on the label.
Geoff: “Obviously someone who loves shit dogs and James Bond movies came up with this … a shit beer named after a shit dog. Fits the generic flavour of a mediocre Australian craft brewer.”
OW: “Golden paw? More like golden shower.”

Apparently brewed “in petite batches using the freshest ingredients allowing this bold libation to encapsulate the flavours of the season”, whatever that means. The label suggests one “(explores) this subtle ale with a friend to make any occasion a memorable one”.
Well, we did share it with friends, and it mad the occasion memorable. Just not in a particularly good way.
And anyway, how can any beer that's 7.9 per cent be described as subtle, under any circumstances.
Marcelle: “It's a bit suss. Oh, f---,”, she says after a sip, “that's not subtle. It's as subtle as a kick in the teeth. I reckon this label is describing a different beer. Someone got it wrong.”
Heady. Geoff: “An unstable and volatile beer.”
Geoff: “Not entirely disagreeable.”
He then reconsidered and we agreed that it was a pretty ordinary beer.
Lisa had most to say (expletives deleted): “You can make this comment: I may have enjoyed this beer a whole lot more if I hadn't read their stupid label. The label is the wishful thinking in their sick heads.”

Brewed with “23 hops”, which we take to mean 23 varieties.
Extremely floral. We're not quite sure if it's Chanel No.5 or beer.
Marcelle: “Too floral.”
Lisa: “If you had this at a dinner party and matched it with food it would be OK.”
Geoff: “It's a curiosity. If you served this at a barbecue of VB drinkers you'd either get a punch in the face or a d--- in the bum.”

“Naturally bottle-conditioned” with honey, according to the label. We're not sure what other type of bottle-conditioning there is, but anyway.
Very heady.
Lisa: “It's not a sessional beer; it's too herbacious. A good dinner party beer.”
Geoff: “I like it.”
Oliver: “It's nice.”
Geoff: “It's f---ing nice.”
Lisa: “It IS f---ing nice.”
A lengthy discussion ensued about the relative merits of scoring the beer. i.e. should it be rated as compared with other types of beer. All agreed that it was too late to change our methods.
What would Margaret and David say? She would say 4, he would say 3.5

Oliver: “A disappointing beer.”
Geoff: “Nondescript. A beer for people who don't like beer.”
Oliver: “A beer for very hot days. But is it really a pilsner?”
Guest reviewer Craig: “Watery.”

Oliver: “Christmas cake odour. Tastes fizzy and smells like it tastes.”
Lisa: “Fizzy in the mouth but the aftertaste is dull.”
Marcelle: “Tastes like sarsparilla.”
Oliver: “But not in a good way.”
Geoff tasted cloves.
Oliver: “A nasty smell carries over to the taste, which is of carbon dioxide. Not a great beer.”
Guest reviewer Craig liked it though: “Very good. Smooth and easy aftertaste.”

Geoff: “A challenging beer … what I tasted was not what I expected. Weird one …”
Oliver: “Tastes like candy sugar. Almost toffee-like.”
Marcelle thought that it may be a bit cold and would be better as it warmed up. She was probably right.
Guest reviewer Craig tasted spice and Christmas cake, which is what this beer is aiming for.
The reviewers were divided. Ratings ranged from 2.5 to 4.0.

This beer is fined with isinglass (a fish product), which is not a common practice in Australia. According to the label: “No less [sic] than three classic hops are used, giving a wild profusion of spicey and fruity aromas.”
Oliver: “Very citrusy; a complex beer.”
Guest reviewer Craig said it wasn't as heavy as some of the other beers tasted in this sitting, and was more of a sessional beer.
Geoff: “A bit Hoegaarden-ish.”
We all agreed that it was a very nice beer.

Oliver: “What my grandfather would have described as lolly water.”
Geoff: “If there was a choice between Carlton Draught and Pure Blonde, I'd go the latter.”

Oliver: “It doesn't smell right.”
In fact, it smelt very wrong. Strangely, not to mention fortunately, it tasted a lot better than it smelled.
Guest reviewer Craig: “A bit of teriyaki ramen.” Our notes were transcribed some time after the tasting, and are not clear if he meant that it would go well with teriyaki ramen, or if it tasted like it!
MM: “Like beer-flavoured lemonade.”