themadmumis (347) - Westminster, Maryland, USA - FEB 12, 2011
3 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 12/20
12 oz. bottle. Not much going on here for an Imperial Porter... actually a little disappointing. Alcohol is blended well but it is just a toned down version of this style. I guess that is what I should expect for the price point... if you want a drinkable Imp. Porter and plan to handle a sixer, this is OK but if you want quality, invest in Victoryís Baltic Thunder-
Ratman197 (8468) - Arvada, Colorado, USA - APR 13, 2011
3 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 11/20
Bottle poured a clear dark reddish brown with a lasting creamy tan head. Aromas of dark chocolate, light carmel and light vanilla. Palate was medium bodied and smooth. Flavors of dark chocolate, light carmel and light vanilla with a smooth chocolate finish. EaSY drinking but pretty Ho-hum beer!
fishonmyplane (274) - Newington, Connecticut, USA - MAR 11, 2012
3 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
A bit weak for the style, both in palate and flavor. Compared to the modern microbrew scene, calling this beer "imperial" is a bit of an overstatement. The flavor is overly sweet, to the point of being a bit unpleasant. Too much cane sugar, toffee, caramel, and molasses flavors. Hops are undiscernable. I would not buy this again.
Huhzubendah (2157) - Washington DC, USA - JUN 29, 2012
3 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
A: Very dark brown, with a one inch head that leaves a fair amount lacing behind.
S: Slightly sour or lactic, roasted malt. Itís a bit odd, and I am for the most part missing the chocolate and roasted malt aromas.
T: I was really hoping this would be an awesome beer, but itís pretty average. There is a slight lactic sourness that I find a bit distracting. SH Imperial Porter lacks depth and complexity. The roasted malt flavors that are present are tasty, I just wish there was a bit more to the beer.
M: Medium bodied with a slight hint of chocolate in the finish.
D: I was ready to move on to something else after one of these. Overall not a bad beer, just mediocre.
BuckNaked (1230) - Tempe, Arizona, USA - SEP 12, 2005
2.9 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
Bottle: Deep brown, clear and filtered when held to the light, with a medium tan head that has nice retention. The aroma is smoky licorice, mocha, and a hint of nuts. Taste is sweet licorce, chocolate grains (not sweetened), vanilla. This is definitely filtered all to hell, which gives it a light-medium thin body. Carbonation is moderate, and thereís a slight alcohol bite here as well. I heard somewhere that they were contracting this one to Matt Brewing co., which would explain the lackluster body and filtering. To my taste buds it just wasnít the same as previous beers Iíve had from Southampton. Iím sure it gains consistency and shelf life, but it does suffer in quality for it.
Murphy (1759) - Fort Collins, Colorado, USA - NOV 13, 2005
2.9 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
Bomber. No head, murky dark brown. Very light aroma of cocoa, weak. Taste is soy, molassis, slight hop bitterness. Finish is watery, more molassis. I can see they are going for the baltic thing, but it just doesnít come together.
Aubrey (3356) - Bellingham, Washington, USA - NOV 18, 2005
2.9 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 12/20
Deep brown with a little ruby-redness; little head to speak of. Nose had a little roast and some chocolate. Smooth and soft; light carbonation. Sour chocolate and a little yeast. Perhaps a little too sweet. Kind of cloying with some residual yeastiness. Not enough bitterness, IMO. Not bad at all, but it didnít do much for me. I should add: I sampled the bottled, contract version.
jimbowood (1036) - Freeport, Georgia, USA - DEC 23, 2005
2.9 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
Courtesy of cornboy. Pours black with a small off-white head that quickly dissipates. Slightly metallic mouthfeel. Not much to this one. Needs more of everything to be called "imperial". Was expecting more here.
harmfuldrunk (288) - New Jersey, USA - MAR 21, 2006
2.9 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
my chemical mouth clashes with the fullness of this beer it tastes like starbucks frothy drink. sure its fine not too impressed.
Palidor19 (2841) - Brandon, Florida, USA - FEB 25, 2009
2.9 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
the aroma reminds of pure distilled water, which not bad by itself but as a stout it cant work. taste is weak flavor despite being a imperial stout. not much on the hop front either.