Thomas Hardys Ale (Vintages through 1999)

Aroma: 7 | Appearance: 6 | Mouthfeel: 5 | Flavor: 7 | Overall: 6

Pours translucent chestnut - hardly any head, but this is an ancient bottle. Sweetish aroma features caramel and woody notes. Woody flavor has malty and caramel hints - and a bit of butterscotch, mouthfeel has OK body but lacks fizz. Well, this is an old bottle. Glad I got to try it.

Aroma: 8 | Appearance: 10 | Mouthfeel: 7 | Flavor: 8 | Overall: 8

had a 2006 right before this, lets see how it aged abit :VINTAGE 1994:... the aroma gets ya first, no 10 here, a 15! ... dark cognac reminders ... still a tad hott, a tad watery, but hugely enjoyable and drinkable ... so many great flavours! ... wonderful wonderful stuff!! had with stu and rob ...

Aroma: 7 | Appearance: 8 | Mouthfeel: 5 | Flavor: 7 | Overall: 7

"1991 Vintage! No. 18053
Beer appears completely flat and a hazy brown, I’m not really too sure how a 17 year old beer is suppose to look. Aroma is chocolaty with sweet apple and wood. This smells so much better than the relatively fresh 2005. Just hit a hint of cherry in the nose. First sip was way more mellow then the 2005 but it’s still pretty intense. Why am I tasting coconut, I keep tasting coconut and that makes zero since. Salty smoke, earthy malts, and some flowery tastes are coming through. The alcohol is undetectable. On fast deep inhals the aroma od burnt chocolate appears. Great brew!!!!

Aroma 9/10
Appearance 7/10
Mouthfeel 6/10
Flavor 8/10
Overall 8/10


1978 Vintage, bottle No. G 24140, May 1, 1978, 6.34 oz
Oh man the beer and me where born in the same year but the beer is a few month older then I. wow the label is half worn off and the cap is all pitted and rusty, I’m so scarred right now. Beer is completely flat not a single bubble is floating to the surface, body appears to be dark reddish brown. Aroma is so mild compared to the 2005, 1991 also drank tonight. From a distance the beer is sweet and fruity smelling but up close its salty and sweaty foot like. Ugg.. the first sip hurt my face. That first taste was so unfriendly but yet inviting. You can tell this taste old. I’m picking up some berries, chocolate, with lots of burnt qualities. Aroma is starting to become more intense as it warms. Taste is turning bloody and has a powerful sourness to it. the longer I drink this the more it reminds me of a red wine. I think thirty years was to long for this to sit the 1991 was far better. I can’t explain it but the flavor is very strong but seems empty.

Aroma 7/10
Appearance 7/10
Mouthfeel 4/10
Flavor 5/10
Overall 6/10

Aroma: 7 | Appearance: 9 | Mouthfeel: 6 | Flavor: 6 | Overall: 6

1991 Vintage!
Bottle 1 or 4, No. 18053. The marks shown are for the 1991. See below for marks on the 1978 bottle
Poured out a brown brew that was just a bit darker than mid range brown, zero head, tipping the glass should have produced some legs but it just stays as a film on the glass... white wine glasses used for this 1978-1991-2005 comparison.
Man, I first compared this bottle to bottle against the '05 that I just opened and they do not smell that different aside from the '78 being more sweet and some of that old, intense malt smell that seems soy saucy, but this time, unlike the Sam Adams 1997 Tripel Bock, this is good. Very sweet, caramel, wood, figs and plums, mild but sweet licorice, thick malts that have cigar and deep, deep toast, port. Putting my face in the glass dries out my eyes.
The taste initially is disappointing as the malts are thick, heavy and come across with a soy sauce taste of which I have bad memories of thanks to that trip bock, defenetly softer but more harsh on the malts, interesting drying bitterness, on light sips I find vodka, dry black dirt, dark fruit, burnt caramel and very vinous.
The mouth feel is quite thick, near zero carbonation, bitter and quite strong on the alcohol front. Finishes dry, harsh bitterness.
Well, it sure smelt good but this flavour did not go down well with me. I have no idea on how this beer was aged so maybe it sat in someones window sill in the sun. 3 more bottles to go - I think I will let them sit for a couple of years.


1978 Vintage, bottle No. G 24140, May 1, 1978, 6.34 oz
Even back in the day, the label says do not open for 10 years, good for at least 25 years.
Same day review as the 1991 bottle
Same as before, I have no idea how this beer was kept over the years, lets just assume the worst. The cap is rusty, a chunk of the label is missing.
Poured out a lot light brown than the others. The aroma is very good from a distance - with my nose around the rim I find sour cherries, candy and dirty water, orange rind?, and something quite unfriendly awaits inside my glass.... Deeper smells release how obviously old this is and the stark realization that this probably has not been stored properly. Dust, slight caramel, intense sharp/sour fig/plum, cheap red wine, a flash back to the smell of O'Leary Pool's change room from when I was 10 and three generations of terrible teeth.
And now... the taste... drum roll... bleeeeeeeaaaccccchhk. It had all the flavours of previous vintages but then an overwhelming wave of distain crashed down on me. Intensely sour, spritzy. It tastes just like the bottle cap looks - rusty and old. The soy sauce is there but more mellow than I thought, some caramel with burnt malts, salt and sometimes watery almost.
The mouth feel is quite harsh, so much that I'm inclined to not finish what's in my glass. Well, it was worth a shot. This specific bottle did not age well. With the rusty cap and damaged label I put no faith in the possibility that this may have been stored correctly. Then again, it may be that the beer is just too damn old.
The taste did improve slightly with some of the 30yr old coal attached to the bottom of the bottle swirled in.
Between 78, 91 & 05, I thought the best aroma was 91, 05, 78 & the taste, I liked the fruitiness of the 05 better but 91 aged wonderfully. 78 was a bit shaky.
ar: 7.5
ap: 7
m: 4
t: 3.5
o: 4

Aroma: 8 | Appearance: 8 | Mouthfeel: 8 | Flavor: 8 | Overall: 8

Bottled (1982 vintage@Kulminator). Ruby red colour, not much head. Aroma is earth and some smooth vinegaryness. Flavour is alcohol, plum, slight vinegar and some vanillaish very smooth things. A very pleasantly aged thing, which shows a bit of oxidation in it, but in a good way.

Aroma: 7 | Appearance: 8 | Mouthfeel: 9 | Flavor: 10 | Overall: 10

Wow my first 10 for any category. Have drunk loads of this stuff over the years. Best was 18 y.o drunk in 2004. Great big gobs of fruit all the way down. Poured clear and ruby red. Little head and what there was dissipated quickly. Still we don't drink with our eyes... Winey taste with fruit and caramel/butter taste. Fantastic with very strong english cheese

Aroma: 8 | Appearance: 7 | Mouthfeel: 6 | Flavor: 6 | Overall: 8

The brandy comparison is probably accurate. I was really looking forward to trying the stuff, it being my first dip into the barley wine style. It was good, but the alcohol and mediciney tastes were just a bit much for me. Would be good with a little drinking to get used to it and in smaller quantities (I polished off the entire bottle in one sitting). It’s possible that a younger vintage might be more to my taste since my 1996 was 6 years old.

Aroma: 8 | Appearance: 10 | Mouthfeel: 9 | Flavor: 9 | Overall: 9

Bottle, vintage 1990, RBESG 2005 Grand Tasting. Intensely vinous oak and sherry aroma. Flavour is also intensely oaky and old sherry-like, incredible alcoholic punch, very sweet. Mature flavour, but no sign of it being oxidised. Will probably be good for another 15 years (at least).

Aroma: 10 | Appearance: 10 | Mouthfeel: 10 | Flavor: 10 | Overall: 10

Ok... since this my 1,000 Beer Review, I'm going to cheat a little..., and actually submit two beers at the same time! How so? Well, a little exercise that I'm borrowing from various Universities and Colleges, called "Compare and Contrast". The subjects under inspection? Only Thomas Hardy's 1994 and a Thomas Hardy's 2003, that's all... ;^) So, without any further ado, let's get this party started, eh?

"Essay Question, #1 of 1: Please Compare and Contrast the original Eldridge Pope Thomas Hardy's Vintage Ale (circa 1994), to a modern-day example now brewed by the O'Hanlon's Brewing Co., Ltd. Remember to support your response with as much emperical data as possible. You have exactly 1 hour to complete your response. You may now pick up your #2 pencils; begin."

Yikes, this is a toughy, especially considering that the original Eldridge Pope-era Thomas Hardy's has such a world-class reputation -- I picked up this bottle for a fair but not exactly miniscule amount of money on eBay last year. And then saved it for something noteworthy -- so why not my 1,000th review, eh?

And the 2003? A very kind gift to me from my bud Robert, who made it a point to snag me a few bottles. Tonight, for this little face-off competition, the bottle number is O16768.

Still some carbonation when I popped the cap, but in the 1994 beer itself? Not a wisp of carbonation. No worries there, of course -- we are talking about a rather staid ten year old beer, after all. The 2003 popped open a bit more agressively, but even only a year old, we're not talking about a huge mounding amount of foam. In fact, I think I counted exactly five bubbles hanging onto the side of the glass containing the 2003, compared to maybe two in the glass with the 1994. So, in other words, carbonation is a non-player in this side-by-side face-off, that's for sure.

Aroma: A fine Sherry or Port Wine-ish aroma from the 1994, while the 2003 seemed to me to come across to me more as Rum than anything else. I had to really work to pick up much in the way of aroma from the 2003, while, at the same time, the 1994 jumped out the glass, smacked me up-side the head, and left me gasping for more!

Very similar flavor profiles, surprisingly enough. Of course the 1994 is more mature and mellowed (and therefore more appealing) than the 2003, but they are definately raised from the same parentage, that much is clear in my mind. But, at the same time, does that make the 2003 "bad", per se? Not at all! No, only that it's nice to know where this beer has been, where it's at now, and where it's going 5-10 years down the line. And must say this is something that *needs* to be held onto for the long haul.

Mouthfeel. Well, as I alluded to earlier, the 2003 can't hold a candle to the 1994 -- that just goes without saying IMO. Just like it should come as no surprise that the 2003 has a certian amount of "hotness" (that "vibe" big-beer homebrewers know by heart!), but that can easily be calmed down with some gentle cellaring.

The fact that I had no qualms what-so-ever drinking down the 1994 (compared to the 2003 -- or any other beer, for that matter!) should be pretty-much a no-brainer. And that the 2003's harshness in mouthfeel would detract from the drinkability is also something of no-brainer. But yet again, it's reassuring that something as "hot" as the 2003 can gain so much more with just a simple decade or two of aging... ;^)

Conclusions: It's clear that while these are seperate beers, from seperate brewries, from seperate decades, they share a common bond -- a brotherhood, if you will. The only surprises from this being that the gap between the superlative 1994 and much-too-fresh 2003 was not as massive as you might expect.

A wonderful beer to sample throughout the years. Stock up on your fair share now....!

Meanwhile, please alow me to raise this 1994 Thomas Hardy's Ale to all of my online friends -- you know who you are.... :)
Cheers!
//TB

Aroma: 10 | Appearance: 9 | Mouthfeel: 8 | Flavor: 8 | Overall: 8

I have tasted all vintage from 1991 to 1999 (except 1992) and my appreciation for this beer is increasing each year. Perfect after a good dinner by a cold winter evening. Dark brown, almost no foam, fruity wine nose, short head quickly disappearing, strong malt sweetness, long bitterness.