Hophead22 (2880) - Redlands, by way of Wisconsin,, California, USA - DEC 23, 2012
3 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
Tap. Rating #465. This was better than I thought, picked up a little mustiness, but still decent. (2604)
cheap (3659) - Beaver County, Pennsylvania, USA - DEC 23, 2012
1.7 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 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 – the supplier of these brews, Justin Lithy – the ratebeerian who supplied the locale, Ben london101 – 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 wasn’t 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 volatile 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 – 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 I’ve ever head, heheh. There – you have it; VE ratings from a VE newbee.
Tinco (514) - Linköping, SWEDEN - DEC 23, 2012
3.4 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 15/20
Hazy golden color with small white head.
Aroma: I have NO idea what´s going on in this one. Cake, sweet cookies, some spicy lemon, feels like the original flavours have blended together. Bubblegum, sticky, rotten, strange moldy hay...
Taste is: funky, yeasty, banana, overripe fruits, orange, chocolate, tastes a bit moldy, pineapple and other tropical fruits.
More interesting than good...
kramer (4374) - Sunbury, Pennsylvania, USA - DEC 22, 2012
1.7 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
Bottle. Pours a clear bright gold body with a thin fizzy white head that faded pretty quickly. The nose is just as oxidized as the first two, which is to say plenty. No noticeable spice notes as far as the lime goes, though there may be a touch of yeast. The flavor is pretty poor, very thin and oxidized, though it’s a bit more drinkable than the first two. A little bit of alcohol on the finish and a little sweetness. Still not something that you’d want to drink a bottle of by yourself. Mouthfeel is thin and watery with light fizzy carbonation. Another clunker, that makes three in a row. Nothing even remotely resembling the commercial description left here.
DrSilverworm (4062) - Cincinnati, Ohio, USA - DEC 22, 2012
2.6 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 9/20
Sample from a 22oz bottle. Clear yellow orange gold color. Minimal khaki head. Some orange citrus floral nose. Kind of bigger body. Lighter but kind of pronounced carbonation. Light sour, mild bitter taste. Yeasty, bit medicinal? Not digging it
onceblind (3192) - Denver, Colorado, USA - DEC 22, 2012
4.3 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 5/5 OVERALL 17/20
At Falling Rock 12/15/2012. Murky kinda opaque golden/copper with a fluffy white head with lots of lace. Nice perfumy aroma of grapes, fresh cut flowers, spicy orange zest. Flavor was zesty and smooth with a kind of wine-like essence, nice floral yet subtle hoppy bitterness, a little orange, and some gentle oak and toffee. Very nicely balanced and smooth, with nothing offending or too heavy.
nimbleprop (3914) - SouthWest, Washington, Washington DC, USA - DEC 22, 2012
3.2 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
On tap at Churchkey. Pours a clear gold with one ring of white head. Nose of nail polish, fusel alcohol, paint, plastic. Flavor of apples, almost like an ice cider, pear, a little candy, light spice. Medium bodied, dry finish.
nickd717 (3400) - San Francisco, California, USA - DEC 20, 2012
3.8 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 14/20
On two at ChurchKey in DC. OMG THIS IS EPPICK!!! Beautiful golden color with a small white head and great lacing. Honey, lime, and wheat aroma with sherry oxidation. Nice but oxidized flavor with wheat, honey, lime, and sugar. Medium-full body with a smooth mouthfeel and lowish carbonation. Surprisingly tasty brew.
AndyReynolds (767) - Wilder, Kentucky, USA - DEC 19, 2012
3 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 11/20
Maybe it’s the age...but...not much aroma to this beer. If anything, reminiscent of a saké than anything else. Flavor brings out some more complexity and is sweet, but still a bit of a let down.
deekyn (862) - San Francisco, California, USA - DEC 18, 2012
3.4 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 14/20
A - pours clear light golden amber with no head, some lacing. S - very faint odors. Musky citrus leaves, lightly floral, hints of grains, honey. M - medium bodied. Simple sweet palate. No carb. Lingering sticky honey. T - overbearing honey, floral notes, up front. Honey, citrus notes, grains on the palate. Lingering sweet doughy (cheap sugar cookies) musty citrus leaves and caramel malts on the end. O - simple sticky sweet honeyed floral golden. 3.4
---Rated via Beer Buddy for iPhone