daboskabouter (1470) - Fergus, Ontario, CANADA - MAY 12, 2003
2.5 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 9/20
I this supposed to be good just because it's from Stone? Bright amber color. Fresh malty nose. Body is alcoholic with a big malt presence and some light citrusy hops. Could probably stand for some age, but right now its nothing special.
HighGravity (926) - Baltimore, Maryland, USA - JUL 28, 2003
2.5 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
UPDATED: OCT 2, 2003 The head fell fast on this russet brew. The nose was moderately potent with a hint of spice and candi sugar. The carbonation level was too low for the style. The palate was very sweet and fruity. The more sips I took of this beer the more it tasted like a winter wassail, which was unexpected. This beer is a sweet cloying mass that does not come together and become a total beer, too many loose ends. I think the beer would be better if it were drier, had a higher carbonation level, and if a Belgian yeast strain was used exclusively.
jbrus (4992) - Delft, NETHERLANDS - SEP 10, 2007
2.5 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
Bottle@LCRBM. Loads of butter and cookie dough in the aroma. Cloudy, amber color, off-white head, fair lace. Strange flavors with smoke, honey and lots of butter. Sticky mouthfeel. Looking at some of the other scores I guess itís just over the top already.
HonkeyBra (3370) - Lemont, Illinois, USA - DEC 14, 2013
2.5 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
Not to date myself, but I graduated HS in 2003. I had no idea what craft beer was. I certainly knew nothing of a brewery in California called Stone. Weíve all had out experiences with Stone. I think a big part of the craft beer journey is coming to terms with your relationship with Stone. Stone is what it is. But this. . . this is a 10 year old beer. There are a lot of people in the beer world who mistakenly believe that beer should be aged. I think this, this beer, while maybe not the start of this bizarre phenomenon, but it began popularizing it.
It pours a clear brownish with a medium creamy beige head. Aroma is muted with tons of oxidation. Text book oxidation right here. But, really, what could you expect? Flavor is cardboard, nondescript sweetness, some odd apricot notes. Medium bodied, finishes with lots of oxidation. Is it my fault for drinking it? Is it their fault for pouring it? who knows.
madmitch76 (15073) - , Essex, ENGLAND - NOV 24, 2012
2.4 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20
22nd January 2011
Cloudy brown beer, little white head. Nose of aged malt. Crisp aged malt. A little chocolate and cream. Mild minerals and the remnants of what once might have been hops. Clearly past itís best and hugely disappointing.
obxdude10 (2043) - Limerick, Pennsylvania, USA - APR 29, 2003
2.2 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
Very disappointing beer, the aroma was very nice & sweet, very typical Belgian style of a nose, but then the flavors were just plain aweful, I guess maybe I don't have the taste for these kinds of beers that taste like V8 and grinded up veggies, again I was very disappointed in the brew that I was looking forward to trying since it came out
brokensail (10916) - Orange County, California, USA - JAN 23, 2012
2.1 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20
Pours a murky copper color with minimal foam. Smells very oxidized and slightly metallic. A bit of sweet caramel and brown sugar malt notes, maybe a hint of overripe fruit, too. Not all that appealing, though. The flavor has a definite note of pennies to it. Still sweet and malty, but definitely some cardboard oxidation and a generic, muddled fruit flavor. Medium bodied with low carbonation.
harrisoni (13704) - Ashford, Kent, ENGLAND - SEP 17, 2007
1.8 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 6/20
Bottle at LCRBM3. Wow, thatís really disappointing. Just too much butter. This is a pretty nasty beer.
cheap (4053) - Beaver Valley, Beaver County, Pennsylvania, USA - DEC 23, 2012
1.5 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 5/20
I write this review for all of the Stone Vertical Epics from 333 -999 but the numerical ratings of each are different. I pen this review reflecting on my tremendous respect for Horny Devil James Ė the supplier of these brews, Justin Lithy Ė the ratebeerian who supplied the locale, Ben london101 Ė for his VE comments and Beerman6686 Dan - for the interesting insights. Prior to this RB Pittsburgh December 2012 Post Apocalyptic Beer Tasting, I could have cared less for some happy BS vertical beers. However, James and Justin, by providing carefully guided beer experiences, which adjusted the stereo typical stigma that I held about such beers, and there numerical family. After I saw James immediately pour a bottle of 333 down the drain, after we all had a sample was not only breathtaking, but it I had to pinch myself to make sure it wasnít a dream. I was cautiously thinking to myself, without speaking out loud, about my cheapness, that I would have drank that whole bottle, if it was one of my singular tasking sessions. Perhaps I would have got sick, who knows. Well, for the ratings, they all were rather old, musty and tasted about the same, except the 777. The triple 3 was a dark, flat, old, rude, coors cardboard and bitter; fer sure. The 444 had a somewhat spicy smell and looked like pale lager. Of course, it come across rather old too. The 555 was a dark beer. It had some decent co2 for a change. Bitter initially, then mellowed. However, I found more it acceptable than most IPA. The devil #666 was just that. Dark pour with a decent head. Smell is a little tart, pretty good olfactory. Some co2 on the palate. Not as bad as the first 3 VEs. 777 was the best of the bunch, again a darker ale. Smell is acceptable. Really strong taste but did not have many of those negative old beer thing attributes. Lots of CO2 which makes this more fun Ė IMHO the best of the bunch fer sure. I thought it was because it was the newest, but modified my impression after having the 888 & 999. With the 888 pour is pale yellah. It must be a strong ale & the medicinal bitterness is quite high. Finish is back of throat bitter bite that goes on for quite a while. And lastly the 999. Seems much older in personality that the 444-888. Actually, I get the impressions of an old barley wine on the nose. Strong & rude. A little over the top fer sure. Does not hide alky what so ever. Not the best VE Iíve ever head, heheh. There Ė you have it; VE ratings from a VE newbee.
kramer (4941) - Sunbury, Pennsylvania, USA - DEC 22, 2012
1.2 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 3/20
Bottle. Pours a slightly hazy dark amber body with a small fizzy off-white head. The nose is a ginormous load of oxidation, even more so than the 02. There is a weird almost menthol like note in here too, but itís buried below the oxidation. The flavor is pretty well totally destroyed, itís not even loaded with cardboard, itís just thin and watery with nothing positive to to say about it. An odd mix of alcohol and that weird menthol like note on the finish. Thin and watery with decent fizzy carbonation at least. The only thing positive to note about this beer is that the carbonation was still good. Worse than the 02 even, but itís a really tough competition.