from Australia
205th highest rated brewery (of 635)
Highest RatedAce Of Spades (77 / 100) Average score61 / 100 (Decent)
Lowest RatedCharger Lager (41 / 100) Number Tried18
Maiden Ale
Reviewed by LaitueGonflable on 04.10.11 in bottle
58 / 100
Pours a coppery red colour with mild haze and slight bubbliness. Head is off-white, quite generous with big bubbles on top and retaining a nice thick layer of lace.

Smell is largely fruity, with a lot of ale yeast py-products, giving pear, green apple and slight sultana notes. Hint of leafy hops at the back but predominantly sweet. Not bad, though.

Taste doesn't have the fruitiness of the nose at all. Hints of malt on the front with grain notes that get very earthy on the mid, providing resinous hop notes, hint of grapefruit and some late carraway spice. Woody, earthy, a little bit dirty with just a touch of that pear fruitiness on the back. Not an overly tasty palate; has a grittiness that lacks refreshment, but the beer overall is fairly well constructed.

Sparkly, mostly dry mouthfeel with a bit too much sizzle. Can't say I love it.

Fairly standard offering, not sure I'd drink another if it were on offer.
appearance: 4.0 | aroma: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 2.5 | drinkability: 3.0
Seeing Double
Reviewed by Jez on 29.09.11 in bottle
68 / 100
Pours a dark red-brown colour, quite hazed, with a frothy, but bubbly head of yellow beige. Very light body to it, and the carbonation streams with such brazen carelessness. It looks a little bit unsubtle and a bit unrefined, and not necessarily particularly interesting.

Nose is more pleasant, with a sweetness cut by a robust smokiness through the centre. Around it is something a bit organically sweet, a bit like appleskins, which is slightly less pleasant, but the smoke is more robust than in many other examples.

Taste is darker, and roastier than I expected, with a pleasantly charred character and still that aromatic smoke coming through. The body is really quite thin, and this, coupled with the rather low level of sweetness mean that it doesn't feel like a particularly big beer at all.

Yeah, it's actually pretty nice, but not entirely what I expected. The smoke character is much more pronounced, and it's rather pleasant. The lack of body is a bit of a shame, especially given the sweetness on the nose, but it has enough to interest me.

appearance: 3.0 | aroma: 3.5 | taste: 4.0 | feel: 3.5 | drinkability: 3.5
GT Lager
Reviewed by Jez on 24.05.11 in bottle
44 / 100
(Not Great)
Opens with very little carbonation vzzt, and when pouring, I have to rather vigorously promote a head, which ends up being large-bubbled and flimsy. Body is a deep almost coppery amber colour, much darker than I expected. Body is more meaty and solid than it might have been. It's not a bad look, overall, but neither is it a particularly inspiring one.

Minimal wet grain and light earthy hop aroma, giving an organic forest-floor/leaf-mold character on the nose. Rather sweet, as the hops that are there have no sharpness, almost tending towards a vanilla note at points. Rather like an English Pale Ale in terms of aroma.

Taste is very light and simple, with a warm grain note through the centre, and a mild earthy bitterness on the back that collapses in on itself leaving a bready aftertaste. Very little breadth on the palate, and no complexity—it just plonks down each character one after the other.

Mouthfeel is full and chewy, but this merely makes finishing the beer a laborious task.

Too much effort after a while, for too little gain. IT has the simplicity and flavour-dearth of a quenching lager, but the body and ABV of something much more complicated—it's an unfortunate combination.

appearance: 3.5 | aroma: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | drinkability: 2.5
Charger Lager
Reviewed by Jez on 21.03.11 in bottle
41 / 100
(Not Great)
Purchased from the Adelaide Bier Shop online.

Pours a perfectly clear, almost crystalline pure golden colour, like young white wine. Head is crackly with carbonation, and only manages to form a filmy lining. Some loose and sudsy lacing. I like the clarity and brightness in the body, but otherwise, it leaves a little to be desired.

Nose is crisp and a little organic, giving a hint of mushrooms and turned earth along with a husky grain sweetness. Very light on in most respects, but the cleanness is pleasant at least.

Taste suffers from the Curse of Ringwood, PoR giving a big dollop of earthy harshness to it, and really singling it out as an Aussie lager from the cookie cutter of the macro. Clean and grainy on the finish--a hint of cashew--and without perhaps some of the harsh yeasty notes of other Aussie lagers plagued with this most hated of hops, but it's not enough. It comes across as bland for the most part, and vaguely offensive when the characters come through.

Feel is light and crisp. Perfectly suitable for the style, but without the flavour or body, it doesn't really help.

I've had far better. This is not a great beer, although I recognise that there's skill involved in getting such a clean and flavourless lager out the door.

appearance: 3.5 | aroma: 3.0 | taste: 2.0 | feel: 3.5 | drinkability: 3.0
GT Lager
Reviewed by LaitueGonflable on 14.03.11 in bottle
64 / 100
Pours...amber. Seriously, when I picture the colour amber, this is what my mind conjures up. Head is sad and listless, nothing left after a short while except some patches of foam where head once was, and a rind of off-white lace which is surprisingly nice. Not much else to report; a bit blah.

Smell is fairly malty. Some grain sweetness lingers on the olfactory, barley with mild corn and a touch of rich redgum honey. A more pleasant, tangy aroma comes through as well, almost reminiscent of citrus. There's a richness to the malt like a good molasses hit - all very subtle though. Not exciting, but not bad.

Taste is definitely rich. That's the sellint point here; none of the forced-carbonation, chemical or even POR flavour here that the cynical side of me has come to expect from anything called a 'lager' produced in Australia. Starts quite malty with some honey and herbal notes backing up. Mid-palate is fairly grainy with some pearl barley on the back. Touch of some herbal hop late-mid acts as a red herring, as the finish is not very hoppy at all but rather fades out with a rich, molasses-style malt that is odd and a little bit dirty with some potential resinous hop notes adding roundness. Like I say, not too clean, but still more rewarding than your average lager. I would go so far as to call the palate pleasant.

Deceptively full body; seems viscous and chewy on the front, but you feel that carb sizzle and realise it was all a ruse. Suits the palate but doesn't quite fit the bill.

Pleasant drop, but not so pleasant that it makes me rhapsodise, and not so clean that it makes me compulsively grab another.
appearance: 3.0 | aroma: 3.5 | taste: 4.0 | feel: 3.0 | drinkability: 3.0
Maiden Ale
Reviewed by Jez on 24.12.09 in bottle
68 / 100

Pours a darkish golden colour, amber is probably stretching it a little, with a filmy but persistent head of white suds. Not much lacing, but it's not too bad. Looks a bit static in the glass, but I do like the fine bubbling in what counts as the head. Not bad.

Very light, and not particularly pungent nose, although pleasant fruity hints of sweet orange and dried apricots come through, along with a smooth buttery sweetness. Really, not much to it though.

Taste is smooth and pleasant, with a nice bite of hops through the centre of the palate. Otherwise very clean around the edges, with some buttery malt notes providing a base. Finish is not particularly dry, with a slight lingering sweetness balanced by a slight metallic zing. It's not a huge palate, but it's very well balanced and really refreshing - certainly nothing off or unwelcome. Mouthfeel is balanced nicely between smoothness and spritzy carbonation.

Yeah, this is a very nice beer. It's not huge, but it's well-made and it's very drinkable. By the end of the glass, I was won over.

appearance: 3.5 | aroma: 3.0 | taste: 4.0 | feel: 4.0 | drinkability: 4.0
Ace Of Spades
Reviewed by LaitueGonflable on 01.10.09 in bottle
68 / 100
Pours a very, very dark colour with slight red tinge around the edge. Head is minimal, sinks to an ochre ring, while lacing is deliciously sticky and consistent around the glass. Good-looking stout, for damn sure.

Nose is sour and smokey, nice roasted malt but has very little ashiness. Smells quite meaty, with a slight caramel edge as well, bit of bacon, wood smoke, light medicinal phenols, nice stouty nose. Impressive but subtle, and pleasant.

Taste is quite black, with some over-roasted characters there but none of that burnt, charcoaly bitterness. Has nice flavours in fact, but ultimately is a bit lacking in taste. Quite caramelly, with some hints of burnt toast and a slight mint character around the edge and some sour cherry flavour as well. Nice flavours, just not enough of them, ultimately seems like it's holding something back.

Mouthfeel is fairly syrupy, not much fizz, but a little bit of texture from a boozy thickness. Not bad, but not special.

Quite a drinkable stout, the right sour and bitter flavours, subdued enough to quaff, really.
appearance: 4.0 | aroma: 4.0 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | drinkability: 4.0
Ace Of Spades
Reviewed by Jez on 30.09.09 in bottle
77 / 100

Pours a very deep black, brownish at the edges, with a filmy, but consistent head of mocha brown foam. Some nice lacing. Body isn't quite as thick or languid as it might be, but otherwise a damn good looking brew.

Lots of deep dark, but pungent characters on the nose. Toasted coconut is noticeable, hints of oak, smoke and charred grain. It's not overwhelmingly black, but there's an awful lot to it. Very nice indeed.

Very deep, rich and succulent on the palate. There's a really nice sheen and smoothness to it, that glosses over a lot of the charred ashy characters which form the bulk of the body. It's a subtle sweetness, that takes the edge off the darkness. It's not as insane as some of the best, or most intense stouts I've had, but it's pretty good.

A very nice, and very smooth stout. Plenty of character, and quite drinkable. Not as insane, or as complex as the very best examples, but it is flying high.

appearance: 4.5 | aroma: 4.0 | taste: 4.0 | feel: 4.0 | drinkability: 4.0
Brown Bomber
Reviewed by Jez on 12.07.09 on tap
65 / 100

On top at the Sydney Local's Beer SpecTapular.

Cloudy light brown colour, with a fine bubbled head of white foam. Lacing is good, with a nice bead to it. Overall looks pretty tasty.

Quite a ripe fruit character on the nose, my bro Sam might be right about NS hops. Light sweetness from the malt, but the sharp fruit character really does stay prominent. Really quite hoppy. Not amazing, and out of character.

Again, pretty hoppy on the palate too. Starts nice and rich, with a brown sugar and wholemeal bread flavour, but the hops soon shear through it, leaving a crisp residual bitterness. I'm not sure it suits the style, but it is a perceived American trait to overhop everything. Mouthfeel ok, not too thick, not too thin.

It's a drinkable beer. I'm not overwhelmed with happiness for having drunk it, and it doesn't strike me as really unique and tasty, but it does have character.

appearance: 4.0 | aroma: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | drinkability: 3.5
Brown Bomber
Reviewed by LaitueGonflable on 08.07.09 on tap
51 / 100
Pours cartoon brown and very hazy, with a pleasant beige crown of foam. Lacing is sensational, and can't see any carbs because of the have. Head is great, lacing is great, I love haze. That's a great look.

Nose is quite tangy, good caramelly sweetness but a tangy sauvin hop aroma as well at the back gives it a hint of passionfruit, pineapple and lemon. Hint of leather as well, nice and complex, could be stronger though with more fragrance. Need to really sniff to get the smell.

Taste has a sweet grainy character, lots of seedy, nutty flavours with cereal overtones, and then a floral sauvin hop bitterness on the back, which is nice, but doesn't suit the flavour very well. Should be more malty on the finish, and the hops really overpower. Mouthfeel is quite tingly with a bit of puckering on there, again it's not a bad mouthfeel, but I don't think it suits the style. I think this is a decent beer gone awry. Nice flavours, but in the wrong combination and ratio.
appearance: 4.5 | aroma: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.0 | drinkability: 3.5