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 (1448) - 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 (2062) - 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.
hennes (934) - Fountain, Michigan, USA - MAR 22, 2002
2.5 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
Some dark coffeish tones and hints of spice but it’s basically a cheap, watery porterlike liquid.
jcalbi (380) - Medford, New Jersey, USA - MAR 11, 2002
4.4 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 5/5 OVERALL 18/20
Nice black color with a deep roasted coffee aroma. Hints of burnt chocolate on the palate. Absolutely delicious.
Indra (2711) - Overland Park, Kansas, USA - FEB 18, 2002
3.4 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 14/20
Smoky aroma, which translates to an interesting burnt note on the tongue. Not a bad porter, but a little more thin than I usually like mine. This could maybe be a function of original gravity being lower than I like? Either way, there some nice chocolate flavors as well, and the finish is pretty smooth. Good as in above average.
Drew (2411) - Kent, Ohio, USA - FEB 17, 2002
4 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 16/20
dark, roasted coffee flavor. mouthfeell was surprisingly thin. above average porter.