bigal9699 (152) - Orange County, California, USA - JUN 3, 2002
3 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 14/20
I expected more from this beer - had it on tap and I believe it was fairly fresh. Black color, very creamy head - by appearance, thought it would be a real treat. Mothfeel was of medium silky smooth. But where are the flavors? Very muted taste ... slight hints of coffee and bakers chocolate - but again, very faint. I was disappointed and will not be buying again.
Murphy (1759) - Fort Collins, Colorado, USA - MAY 20, 2002
3 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
Pretty good. Not my favorite porter but a good attempt.
Tom Servo (424) - Arlington, Virginia, USA - MAY 19, 2002
3.4 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 14/20
A nice buy, though not what I was expecting. A little too much on the burnt side for me. Great appearance, nice head, and a nice aroma, with a hint of chocolate.
Gusler (2653) - Tucson, Arizona, USA - MAY 12, 2002
3.4 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
Re-Rate 05/12/02: Deep garnet, almost brown, beige head, decent lace. Nose is malt, caramel, toasted grains quite evident. Front sweet, the top is light, finish is dry, lightly carbonated, fair hop presence. A fair to middlin porter, nothing special.
austinpowers (2826) - New York, New York, USA - MAY 7, 2002
3.2 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
UPDATED: MAR 12, 2004 Bit bitter, decent medium-bodied porter. Hard to find in NYC, for some reason. Appears in March of each year and vanishes quickly.
Steak (124) - New York, USA - APR 24, 2002
3 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 11/20
Pretty stong roasted malt aroma, with just an inkling of caramel. Dark brown/black in color, but lost its head quickly. Flavor was marred by a weight-loss chocolate shake taste, very strange. It was incredibly thin for a porter, and had little body. The finish was actually hopped well, but it couldn’t save the brew. Characteristicly mediocre as Red Hook goes, and in that vein, somewhat of a dissapointment.
TChrome (1447) - Bedford, Texas, USA - APR 16, 2002
3 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
Not a bad porter, but definately
doesn’t measure up to standard porters,
Fullers and Anchor. Seems rather one dimensional.
With a fairly straight roasted malt flavor, unlike the flavor of
Fuller’s Porter which seems to have four or five elements.
A good value at $4.99 per sick.
boto (2103) - Granby, Connecticut, USA - MAR 31, 2002
3.8 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 15/20
UPDATED: JAN 19, 2003 As with all of RedHook’s beers, very good, but not quite exceptional. When looking at 8 differfent tap handles, it is a high pick! Nitro version: still quite good. Almost too close to being a Guinness copy.
unixweb (237) - Sherman, Texas, USA - MAR 30, 2002
2.9 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 12/20
The aroma is plain and doesn’t indicate a porter. If I were blindfolded I might think it was a Michelob dark or something like that, based on aroma alone. The color is nice, very dark in the glass. Not much carbonation, very little head. The hoppy taste surprised me, though. I really expected more complexity from this. It’s mostly bitter and like someone said before it is a ’porter-like liquid.’ The bottle says it’s dark, not bitter. I say it’s dark AND bitter. It’s watery on the palate, and the best part about the taste was the black coffee-like taste that hung around after the beer itself went down. I taste absolutely nothing like chocolate malt in this one. The last porter I had was Taddy and damn I miss it right now. I guess I just prefer sweet porters.
JahNoth (1039) - Rochester, New York, USA - MAR 28, 2002
3.9 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 15/20
Nice aroma and color, plus a decent bitterness. Felt a little watery, but a fairly pleasurable ale.