PorterPounder (5971) - Tallahassee, Florida, USA - JUL 21, 2002
2.7 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
I bypassed this beer many a time just because of the idiotic bottle - but now that I am on a quest for 100 - I broke down and bought it. Expected something where I needed to hit the bottom like a ketchup bottle to get all of it out. Very disapointed - very thin - like brown Budweiser. Good head though.
gws57 (1275) - Saint Charles, Illinois, USA - JUL 19, 2002
2.9 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
Ehh... nothing special about this. This beer knocked me on my ass, however. It lacked taste. Get a real black-and-tan, and leave this one alone.
bigal9699 (152) - Orange County, California, USA - JUL 15, 2002
2 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 6/20
Ah yes - Marketing at its best - packaged uniquely and customers will buy. But why? The beer really lacks in flavor in a style that is supposed to pack a punch. Sure there is typical malt, hops and yeast notes, but it is so watered down and killed my over-carbonation. Its a pretty package, but don’t judge a book by its cover.
Aubrey (3482) - Bellingham, Washington, USA - JUL 12, 2002
1.3 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 5/20
Tried this in Wilmington, North Carolina, at a grungy bar called the Barbary Coast; quite the sludge hole BTW, but the place had charisma, so we kept going back. I ordered one of these because I thought the bottle was intriguing. Of course, glasses were not the par on this course, so I had to twist off and drink from the ’jug.’ (I’m giving the beer the benefit of the doubt, and giving it a ’3’ for Appearance, jug considered). I have to say, I was a little scared at first - not knowing what was coming out of that thing... and into my throat. I expected much more though (i.e., a thicker, meatier beer) than what I got (a watery, weak, ’dark lagerish’ type of thing going on). I wasn’t too impressed. But it sure did strike up some conversations: ’Cool bottle man, what’s that?’ The name of this beer is rather misleading. Not entirely offensive, but I wouldn’t order it again. I think I have the bottle in my garage somewhere, collecting dust and cobwebs.
MartinT (8351) - Montreal, Quebec, CANADA - JUL 7, 2002
2.4 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
Boy, were we excited when we saw this bottle the first time (in my first real beer trip as a matter of fact!)…Boy, did we look stupid when we looked at each other after the first sip…Little did we know that the mud in Mississippi was pathetically paper-thin and devoid of any strong feature…
bubslang (438) - Kentwood, Michigan, USA - JUN 25, 2002
2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
Cool looking bottle, but that’s about all thats going for it, thin even by a black and tan standard, over carbonated, slight hint of malt, basically a dark american lager in a jug
Drew (2411) - Kent, Ohio, USA - JUN 18, 2002
2.6 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
cool bottle, average dark beer. the bottle says black & tan - didn’t seem like it to me.
brewbandit (312) - Marietta, Georgia, USA - JUN 18, 2002
2.7 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
Well, the commercial descript is fairly accurate as to packaging. The one I had was rather light in body for what one would expect. Aromas were not that noticable, either. Flavor was light in roastiness and malt. Still, it is quaffable. But I won’t buy it.
JPDIPSO (4956) - Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, USA - JUN 18, 2002
2.9 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 12/20
Ah, the novelty of it all. There really is only one B&T and that is hard poured. That said. Dark brown color with a light tan head. Minimal aroma. Flavors of dark malted grains. Rather thin and bubbly. Just not a whole lot here.
kmeves (1098) - Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, USA - JUN 9, 2002
3.2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 15/20
Good black and tan!