y0cola (361) - fremont, California, USA - OCT 10, 2003
1.5 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
Didn't really taste like a porter. I'm surprised to see this from NY. i was thinking wetlands. Probably why this beer sucks ass.
biomechanic (55) - Washington, USA - SEP 8, 2003
2.8 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
Not a bad beer but is NOT a porter by any chance. It's kinda nutty and sligtly malty, not much alcohol flavor (read bland!). Better than some macrobrews
GreatStelle (363) - Chico, California, USA - SEP 8, 2003
2.8 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 9/20
It sucks that Mississippi mud is made in New York, what a rip off. With that aside it's not a bad beer. It's not good either. Very watery and lacks flavor for it's color. Buy it for the bottle.
grant (842) - Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA - AUG 28, 2003
1.8 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 7/20
Okay, so the jug is cool. And it's not that expensive. Reddish-purple brown. Average lacing and retention. Too bright looking. Aroma is fair: very nutty with buttery malts and a little bit of cocoa. Flavor disappoints: synthetic-tasting smokiness, plasticy, just not a good blend, in very real terms. Palate and finish are beyond underwhelming. Could it be thinner than water?
brownaler (488) - Alexandria, Virginia, USA - AUG 27, 2003
2.5 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
Dark brown appearence that you can barely see through. Only a trace of thickness can be found in this beer and it has an unimpressive finish.
garrison (808) - Cin. city, Ohio, USA - AUG 25, 2003
2.3 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 6/20
They call this a stout porter?! Bullcookies! Although better than any macrobrew, this stuff is on the wimpy side, and "black-and-tans" should be made, not bottled! Hrrrmph!
Nate (3998) - Indiana, Pennsylvania, USA - AUG 23, 2003
2.1 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 6/20
Nice malty aroma, though weak and a bit sour. Light hops. Off-white foamy lacing head atop dark copper brown clear beer - coloring looks fake. Medium watery body with medium-light carbonation. Taste is weak, with alcohol. Some malts and hops, low bitterness. Sort of sour with hint of caramel. OK, but nothing remarkable.
EKGoldings (627) - Radford, Virginia, USA - AUG 14, 2003
1.6 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 6/20
I like B&T made the real way, with Guinness and (ideally) Smithwicks, although a lager will also do for the tan. The nice feature about a B&T is the mix of flavors, which you don;t get with these 'premixed' versions. The taste is too light in this one, some dark roast coming through, but far too little for the style. Better than megaswill, but just barely.
BückDich (5464) - McCall, Idaho, USA - AUG 11, 2003
2.7 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 11/20
Appearance is that of a bum jug (i.e. from the photo in the top left). I didn't bother pouring this into a glass, it's much more entertaining from the jug. Aroma is lightly chocolaty from the porter but dominated by DMS and plastic from the crappy lager, booo! Flavor is lightly smokey with a very lagerish quality to it. Not too bad porter qualities, just wish the "pilsener" they used would have been a little less asertive.
roomtempbeer (185) - Franklin, Pennsylvania, USA - AUG 2, 2003
2.6 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 9/20
UPDATED: JAN 5, 2004 Rerated: Beer pours (in Chimay glass)a crystal clear dark brown-red liquid that light can penetrate with a medium (3/4 inch) amount of slightly dirty brown colored head that dissipates quickly to near nothing. Aroma is of sour fruit/ sour apples, whiskey, and candy corn sweetness, noticibly "sickly". Flavor is sour, but not dry with a slight hoppy character with a noticible sickly sweet character that is unpleasant. Sampled at 67 degrees Fahrenheit.