Recently, after enjoying a bottle of Hell from Bamberg’s Keesman brewery, I attempted to throw together some quick tasting notes for an
Untappd check-in. Here’s what I eventually came up with;
“Fresh biscuits &
steamed broccoli aroma. Tangy biscuit malt, refreshing carbonation, mineral
bitterness in the finish. Wish I had another.”
I threw in the last sentence because I felt that those
preceding it failed to a) communicate that I had actually very much enjoyed the
beer, or b) make it sound like anything anybody would ever want to drink.
Whilst these notes accurately represent my experience of drinking the Hell (I
didn't claim to be tasting things I wasn't really tasting), the truth is I was
desperately grasping for anything to usefully say about it. That doesn't mean
it was boring or unremarkable – I'm just starting to realise that I have a hard
time describing the experience of pale lager.
One reason for this might be that pale lager is pretty much
my base point for what “beer” means. Since lager is the dominant beer in our
culture, this is not unusual; a Google image search for the term ‘beer’ results
in pages and pages of images of foaming
glasses of lager, sometimes joined by other glasses of varying ale-like colours
but never absent. The first beers I ever tasted were lagers, and lager was
almost all I drank between my teenage years and my early twenties.
The result of this is that lager is, often, “just lager”. In
my discovery of good beer (revelatory pint of Camden Hells notwithstanding), it
took a long time to separate good lager from bad, even if the contrast is night
and day to me at this point. I would argue that the differences between macro
fizz and properly brewed lager are far more subtle than between, say, Punk IPA
and (what I then perceived to be) a boring cask bitter.
But then lager is
subtle, even at its most sublime. And that’s definitely part of why I'm lost
for words when it’s time to write about one – I recently had the same issue
trying to write about mild, a similarly non-imposing style. The complexity of a
barrel-aged imperial stout means that tasting notes write themselves. Drinking
one, there’s so much going on that you hardly have time to jot down one thought
before another hits you. Lager is comparatively simple – this is a large part
of its appeal, but it doesn't make for great writing.
There are certain stock phrases and descriptors I keep going
back to in my blundering attempts to describe the lager experience, of which crisp is probably the laziest. I know what
I mean by it – a suggestion of freshness as well as refreshment, like biting
into a juicy, crunchy apple. But in this context, the word has a whiff of
corporate copy about it – words like ‘crisp’, ‘cool’ and ‘refreshing’ are often
used in advertising macro lagers, presumably as they divert attention away from
the lack of actual flavour in most of these products.
Similarly, I know what I mean when I say a lager is clean. A well-made lager given plenty
of time to mature has a certain purity
to it, and those brewed with less attention to quality don’t – they often have
distracting notes of sweetcorn or cabbage, or are weirdly, synthetically sweet
or metallic. But it doesn't apply to all great lagers; I love Pilsner Urquell,
but it’s big ol’ scoop of diacetyl adds a complexity which, whilst it might not
be exactly dirty, isn't clean either.
I mentioned biscuits in reference to the Keesman beer that
prompted this post, and variations on biscuity
seem to pop up often in tasting notes. There are probably more varieties of
biscuits than there are styles of beer, making this about as useful a statement
as ‘tastes like beer’. But it does, at least for me, mean something specific. Think
of Maltesers. Now, ignore the chocolate (or imagine you've nibbled it off) and
focus on the biscuit ball within. There is a specific malty tang within that
biscuit that is exactly what I'm
referring to when I say ‘biscuity’, and I find that particular flavour in a lot
of lagers (obviously malt flavour is part of it, but there’s more to it than
that). Until I can find a way to sum that up succinctly and pithily, lager will
remain forever ‘biscuity’ for me.
So pale lager, much as I love it, probably won’t be
inspiring any upcoming poetry collections.
I know precisely what you mean. My default terms for good matured lagers are gentle/delicate and them some illusion to sucking copper coins (possibly from the Saaz hops). I think the tasting notes you started the post on are pretty clear.
ReplyDeleteI came here via Boak & Bailey’s blog post ‘What Does Helles Taste Like’
ReplyDeletehttps://boakandbailey.com/2026/07/what-does-helles-taste-like/
Good Pale Lagers & Milds (esp. on cask) are some of my favourite beers, but as subtle-flavoured beers, I totally get how difficult it is to say much about them.
I think the best writers do their best & then get prosaic & poetic, and I’m all in for that!
Tell me when & where you drink this beer? What’s the weather? Sun-dappled biergarten? Old English pub next to the fire? That’s what would pique my curiosity, that the beer was good & the combination of beer, place, people, food, etc all elevated & explained why the beer was that good.
Side note - as an old-ish former lager brewer who’s fascinated by anomalies around brewing*, it’s great to see you positively mention diacetyl in Czech lagers like PU. I’ve had several conversations with experienced & highly qualified brewers who just can’t accept that a pro brewer & their managers, etc. would intentionally have a spec in their production for what they view only as a flavour fault.
They do. They know what they’re doing. They do it on purpose. They believe it adds subtle flavour (butterscotch?) that works well with the more regular flavours via the malt, hops & yeast.
* I do draw the line at Shepherd Neame saying that they stuck with clear bottles because their customers were so used to the weird “skunky” lightstruck off flavour! …& interestingly I think they have finally moved to brown glass?