JPDIPSO (4956) - Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, USA - APR 1, 2002
3.2 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
Scottish porter? I would envision a smokey, malty brew. Lacks in expectations. That said a dry brown porter. Not bad in that category. Skip the censorship ploy.
mimsy (8) - Naples, Florida, USA - MAR 31, 2002 does not count
1.7 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
Dark color. Flavor has hints of burntness and has a mild aftertaste. Not my favorite and not Scottish in any sense of the term.
P-tor44 (886) - Anchorage, Alaska, USA - MAR 25, 2002
2.8 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 12/20
minimal malt nose. deep burgundy color, minimal taste, slight alcohol taste. BOOOO
BeerNazi (169) - winnetka, California, USA - MAR 22, 2002
1.6 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
scottish ale? this is not scottish ale, this gives the good scot beers a bad name.
Aubrey (3356) - Bellingham, Washington, USA - MAR 14, 2002
2.1 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
Grainy nose, frothy head, dark mahogany color. Flavor is dark and fairly heavy. A hollow smokiness seems to come through mostly. ’Good beer... no shit’ on the bottle. Mmmh? I like how they used the word shit. Not to say this beer is shit though, I just like how they used the word shit on the bottle; that was cool. But I don’t really like the beer too much. It’s as if it’s ’haulin’ ass with no place to go.’ Very good intentions, but somewhat misdirected. Malts are complex, but unbalanced and all over the place. Alcohol flavors come through in waves. Smoke flourishes like an untamed fire. That’s all. Oh, and I actually kinda like the labels... but I’m an abstract artist myself.
labattblueleaf (225) - Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA - MAR 10, 2002
1.6 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 6/20
Hated it. Two thumbs down and a middle finger up the sphincter. Dark and scottish..........You don’t see many black Scotsmen so they shouldn’t mix them in beer either.
TheRavishingOne (45) - Cumming, Georgia, USA - FEB 25, 2002
3.5 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 15/20
UPDATED: AUG 30, 2003 I was afraid of the dark side, and then came this beer. I sipped it, and it wasn't bad. Then I took in a large gulp. It was the exact opposite of how I thought a dark beer should/would taste. It lacked the bitterness I had expected and satisfied me in every conceivable way. However, it doesn't smell that great.
Pablo McStouthead (69) - L.A, California, USA - FEB 21, 2002
2.5 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
Bland. Thin body. Has the cheap ’American’ tinge. Still, nice underlying raisiny maltiness like a bock.
Drew (2413) - Kent, Ohio, USA - FEB 12, 2002
3.4 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 15/20
the label describes it as a Scottish Porter - i think it is really neither. It is malty, smoky, dark, tasty. it is also a bit but in the end. very nice.
Oakes (11031) - Vancouver, British Columbia, CANADA - DEC 18, 2001
3 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 12/20
Mahogany colour; aroma of smoke, cascades, hint of iron; thin body - a little acidic even; metallic, mellowed malts (a little toasted caramel, whole grain bread), cascades...what precisely is the brewer trying to get at here?