Now, I know I didn't really go for the Katy - and I have been told that other people do actually think a lot more of it than I do. That is fine. So why am I trying Katy Rose then? Well, apart from being the only cider in the off-licence that I hadn't tried (so it was rude not to), I want to see whether it being read does anything more for me. Sounds odd. Well, yes it is I suppose.
In actual fact and to be brutally honest about this, I didn't drink it on my own. Well, what would you do with 750ml of cider if you struggle to drink it? I am hoping that it doesn't come to that however. I recall that one of my objections to Katy was that it had none of the characteristics of a desert apple (thin, light and acidic generally). So once again its a bit of a comparison review - albeit there is more than one of us trying this one out!
On pouring its a foamy cider. And red. Very red. Once the initial frothing has died down the aroma is fairly pleasant - gently appley, although not a great deal of tannin on the nose (given what I have said about desert apples being used for cider, there ought not to be a lot of tanin really!)
Taste wise - well, its very much like its sister cider; tamed, with a ubiquitous tannin and acid blend that I would expect from more cider apple based ciders. However this is adjusted in the processes, I don't expect a desert apple to deliver the balance and tannin that this does.
The rest of its story is pretty much as per the last review. Its a lighter cider than Katy - lighter in ABV too for some reason although it taste very similar. My friend who joined me in tasting liked it, although did comment that it was similar to many ciders he has tried from Thatchers before.
I want to finish by saying that neither Katy or Katy Rose are bad. They are competant ciders. However, they are clearly aimed and taylored to a market that I am not a part of. And this leaves me a little cold.
A score of 60/100.
No comments:
Post a Comment