David Brockington's Tasting Notebook

Samuel Middleton's Pale Ale

I received this beer in a shipment from Charlie G. Of the 12 beers in the box, this was the second one I tasted. Like my review of the Boston Burton Ale, I plan to post a similar summary of my impressions for all the beers in the shipment, most of which I have never had before.

Initial Impressions:

My sample of this beer arrived in a green twelve-ouncer, non- twist-off bottle. It has a smart label in a colonial motif, on beige background.

The beer itself was highly carbonated -- more so than one would expect out of a Pale Ale. It is golden in shade, clearly taking the moniker of "pale" in its literal sense. The head that formed in my glass was thick, and it hung out during the majority of the tasting. Good head retention with nice lacework.

However, the beer lacked anything which could be called "clairity". It was rather hazy -- much like a bottle of homebrew which used no clairifyers in the brewing process and was decanted by a novice. It was more hazy than a Belgian Wit, but less so than a Bavarian Weizen. I have received one report in advance of this review that Samuel Middleton's Pale Ale is generally a clear beer, so I may have received a bad bottle. However, the beer I sampled was as cloudy as a typical Seattle sky (much like today, in fact). I was worried that it was bottle-conditioned and that I had poured it without grace, but inspection of the remaining centimeter of beer remaining in the bottle showed no signs of sediment.

Nose:

The nose hit me like a brick. It was extremely fruity/estery; inordinately so. The fruity nose completely dominated whatever malt or hop aromas wished to make their presence felt in the boquet. There simply wasn't anything in the nose aside from the fruityness. My wife, who along with our roommate also sat in on the sampling (beer enthusiasts and homebrewers all) mentioned that the nose reminded her of Lindeman's Gueuze, and I agree with that analysis without reservation.

Flavor:

Two constituents dominate the initial flavor experience: the high degree of carbonation and a nicely dextrinous, moderately full body. The body is appropriate, imho, but the carbonation, as earlier indicated, is a bit high. The carbonation tended to mask the other flavor constituents fighting for recognition. What did manage to come through was the estery compounds, which is appreciated to a moderate degree, but I think that they were a bit excessive in this glass. There was some indication of hop-bitterness in the finish, but no hop flavor managed to make its presence felt. Once again, the fruityness was slightly reminiscent of Lindemans Gueuze.

Final Analysis:

Either I got a bad bottle, or this is a mediocre beer. Considering the high degree of carbonation, the cloudy apperance, and the high degree of estery/fruitiness making one recall a Gueuze, my guess is that the fault for this is the former (bad bottle) rather than the latter. I suspect that either this individual bottle or the entire batch was the target of a minor infection. While this may speak well for how the beer is supposed to taste, it doesn't speak well for the consistency and sanitation practices in the brewery. As I have no knowledge of the brewery's history (which may be a blessing or a bane) so I can't fit this example into an overall trend. However, I am fortunate to have two more products of this brewery in my frige awaiting a taste, so I will have more data points on the consistency (or lack thereof) of this particular brewery.

Overall:

*1/2

I was tempted with simply not scoring this beer, because of the aforementioned concerns, but I decided to anyhow. My glass clearly needed a bit of work to be considered a Pale Ale. I would like to hear from anyone out there who has had a better experience with this beer.

Next up:

Dock Street Bohemian Pilsner
Dock Street Amber Ale
Copyright 1994 by David Brockington, all rights reserved

David Brockington, Seattle, USA
bronyaur@u.washington.edu