Aggie80 (783) - Michigan, USA - APR 11, 2002
4.3 AROMA 9/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 18/20
UPDATED: MAY 15, 2009 Heavy carbonation. Good head that doesn’t last, no lacing. Totally opaque, dark and black. Some bitter aftertaste with a heavy texture. Good with strong foods, but not something I will drink on a regular basis. Note: I bought this in the US.
Earlier Rating: 3/2/2002 Total Score: 4.6
This is the one I compare all other to! Best on draft, the bottles are the next best thing!
chug18799 (36) - Lakewood, Ohio, USA - APR 10, 2002
4.2 AROMA 9/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 16/20
Very good beer with lots of bitterness to bite you at the end. Pretty thick stuff.
joet (2038) - Santa Rosa, California, USA - APR 9, 2002
1.7 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 6/20
UPDATED: APR 18, 2003 Sad, thin beerless beer. Ashen, thin body, seems easily heat damaged. \
Earlier Rating: 6/10/2001 Total Score: 2.9
Drinkingdan (371) - East Norriton, Pennsylvania, USA - MAR 30, 2002
4 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 19/20
If it is not on tap I’ll take it like this.
maxhits (172) - Pico Rivera, California, USA - MAR 29, 2002
3.7 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 15/20
This beer is very dark -- almost black -- in color with a thick, brown loamy head that lies on top of the beer. This beer is brewed in Ireland and was originally known as a Porter. It is brewed using malt, barley, roasted barley (which gives it its dark character) and hops. The beer is conditioned in a second yeast fermentation before it is bottled. For a beer that has a solid, stout taste, it surprises me that the alcohol content is only 4.3% -- lower than Anheuser-Busch’s Budweiser, for example.
muzzlehatch (4424) - Burlington, Vermont, USA - MAR 28, 2002
2.5 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
UPDATED: MAR 19, 2003 March 02:Looks great, of course, though I prefer the pour of the draft can or on tap; flavor is more intense and bitter than other versions I've had, though the nose is surprisingly weak. More wine-like, syrupy, and coffee-like simultaneously.
How many different versions of Guinness have I had now? How many has Oakes had? Why don't the folks over there in Dublin just read what we at Ratebeer have to say about all these damn versions and pick the one that we think is the best? We could even vote, hell, even let the occasional non-Ratebeer neophyte in on it. Better than all of this confusion...
A year later...22 oz bottle. Pour not quite so impressive, head weaker than I remembered. Very faint chocolate aroma, little roasted grain. Fairly harsh flavor at first, a softer somewhat roasty-coffee center, but an odd creeping off-milk and metal flavor coming in at the end really ruins this. I can't really tell from my rating above what version I was drinking, but this one is really not good. Decent mouthfeel in the middle and nice look, thats it. Bye bye Guinness.
ultralite3399 (18) - USA - MAR 24, 2002
4.6 AROMA 9/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 9/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 19/20
the can is better.
DrunkCaleb (69) - Michigan, USA - MAR 23, 2002
4.7 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 10/10 PALATE 5/5 OVERALL 19/20
Standard stout. Great anywhere, available anywhere. Sip it and enjoy the roasted flavors.
spydog (75) - Chandler, Arizona, USA - MAR 21, 2002
3.1 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
Disappointing out of the bottle. Had bittersweet taste and a roasty finish. Not worth drinking again.
Skred (107) - Houma, Louisiana, USA - MAR 19, 2002
3.7 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 14/20
This was one of my first ’real’ beers, and thus an early favorite. It seems that it was more well-balanced about 12-15 years ago, with the bitterness and malt blending together rather than being separate as they are now. This is a decent stout, but I prefer the draught version, which has a more integrated flavor and is creamier.