Bayhawk Poorman Honey Blonde Ale
Bayhawk Poorman Honey Blonde Ale
Rated 2.900 by BeerPalsBrewed by Bayhawk Ales
Irvine, CA, United StatesStyle: Blonde Ale
6.7% Alcohol by Volume
Availability of this beer is unknown
Sign Up to Participate:
No beer description available, which means BeerPal needs your help to write one. Why not check out the brewer's website and see what you can learn?
ID: 1720 Last updated 2 weeks ago Added to database 23 years agoKey Stats
percentile
0
Drunk2
Reviews0
LikesBeeributes
Most noted beer attributes
None to date - be the first! Beeributes help BeerPal predict what beers you'll love.
Sign up to participateSimilar Beers
Statistics
Overall Rank | 50051 |
Overall Percentile | 9.9 |
Style Rank | 1289 of 1495 |
Style Percentile | 13.8 |
Lowest Score | 2.6 |
Highest Score | 2.9 |
Average Score | 2.750 |
Weighted Score | 2.900 |
Standard Deviation | 0.000 |
Rating Distribution
Not enough reviews for this chartBeer vs Style
2 Member Reviews
-
-
Aroma: 6 | Appearance: 5 | Mouthfeel: 5 | Flavor: 7 | Overall: 6
Pours into glass with clean, light amber color. Smells distinctly of honey and something malty/biscuity. Smooth but almost sticky mouthfeel; very rich in honey flavor, little hop balance, very malty. Coats the throat but goes down easy. A nice beer for the warm night after a day of working on renovating the house. After 2-3 though, my mouth wants something hoppy.
-
Aroma: 6 | Appearance: 6 | Mouthfeel: 5 | Flavor: 6 | Overall: 3
Wow, this is not-so-interesting, to be honest.
I figured with the current heatwave that SoCal (and the entire South-West) has had to deal with as of late, this would be a welcome respite from the heat and humidity. After all, if a "Honey Blonde Ale" can't satisfy during these sort of conditions, it won't do so well any other time of the year, eh?
But really, this is a classic example of why I normally shy away from "Honey" ales. Sweet and cloying in the mouthfeel, and entirely too sweet and sugary for my taste.
This does have some bitterness in the middle, but not nearly enough to counteract the sugar-cookie sweetness in the front and the backend. Comes across way too "amaturish" and (dare I say it?) vaguelly homebrew-ish. And if a homebrewer like myself usess that term (in this isolated instance) as as derogatory thing, you know it must have issues!
This actually brings me back to the mid-90's, to be honest. The microbrew explsion was fully underway, and you couldn't turn left nor right in a decent liquor store without running into 10-15 different fly-by-night microbreweries, trying to cash in on a trend that was bound to burn itself out (i.e. which it did, by `99). Nothing too wretched, but way too many marginal schwills with way-too-fancy labels. And while I'm not saying that Bayhawk is neccesarily a fly-by-night outfit, their beers often do have a rather slip-shod feel to them. "Flood the market with enough Bayhawk brands, and something is bound to stick", perhaps?
Anyway, $3.49 for a 22-ozer, that I can afford to dispose of via the nearest sink. Sweet, sickly, and (worst of all) boring as all-get-out....
Music: Nightrage's "Descent Into Chaos".
//TB