RateBeer
Home >

Stone 05.05.05 Vertical Epic Ale

 (RETIRED)
overall
98
96
style

bottling
unknown

on tap
available

Regional Distribution

Add Distribution Data
RATINGS: 447   WEIGHTED AVG: 3.73   SEASONAL: Special   EST. CALORIES: 255   ABV: 8.5%
Share this beer with friends!
COMMERCIAL DESCRIPTION
A new Vertical Epic will be released every year, with the goal being to collect them all and have a Vertical Epic tasting once the final Epic is released on 12/12/12. Each new Stone Vertical Epic Ale will be release one YEAR, one MONTH and one DAY apart. This time around, we used no spices in the brewing of this beer. If you've tasted the beer before reading this, that may surprise you. The special Belgian yeast we used adds a distinctively spicy aroma and flavor. Roastiness, clove, hops, fruitiness, and those other great and funky phenols abound in the nose. What's in the flavor? You certainly get some dark roasted malts and alcohol overtones. What else? Hints of earthiness, chocolate/cocoa, hop spiciness, maybe even anise, and ... the incredible variety of complexities from the classic brewing ingredients of barley malt, hops, yeast and water, when applied with an artistic brewer's talent never ceases to amaze.


2.7
   AROMA 6/10   APPEARANCE 3/5   TASTE 5/10   PALATE 3/5   OVERALL 10/20
Mads Langtved (2245) - Copenhagen K, DENMARK - FEB 2, 2006
Bottled: Slightly sticky texture. Somewhat a bit too thin and sweet. Hops and some yeast are present in the finish. An average strong ale.

2.5
   AROMA 5/10   APPEARANCE 3/5   TASTE 5/10   PALATE 3/5   OVERALL 9/20
Treebs (872) - , Illinois, USA - FEB 17, 2013
22 oz. bottle served in a CCB snifter. A: Pours a dark plum color with some ruby highlights around the edges. An offwhite head forms on the pour and recedes to a thin ring. Some splotchy lace is left down the glass. S: Grainy malt bills, some light rice cake with some wet paper. This one did not age all that well. T: More of the same. A ton of cardboard, rice cake, and a little cocoa. Sweet cereal malts. The oxidation has really taken this one over. M: Medium bodied with a medium carbonation level. Wet paper finish. O: All the bottles had been stored the same so I don’t know this was a product of a poorly sealed cap, or the beer wasn’t strong enough from the onset to hold onto an semblance of the original flavor profile. Serving type: bottle

2.4
   AROMA 5/10   APPEARANCE 3/5   TASTE 5/10   PALATE 3/5   OVERALL 8/20
kramer (4979) - Sunbury, Pennsylvania, USA - DEC 22, 2012
Bottle. Pours a dark amber to brown body with a nice frothy beige head that retained as a thin ring. The nose is mostly oxidation, but there’s a little bit of a dark fruity note in there. Some light yeast and a hint of alcohol. The flavor is the best of the bunch so far, still a little too thin and oxidized to really warrant being called decent, but it’s pretty drinkable. It has actually taken on some positive oxidation qualities. Finishes with some dark fruits, light roast, a little alcohol, some minimal yeastiness. Still not resembling the commercial description by any means, but this is passable as an ’aged’ beer. Mouthfeel is a bit heavier and fuller than the previous with really nice fizzy carbonation that adds to the drinkability. I would actually be able to finish a bottle of this (though happy that I didn’t have to).

2.2
   AROMA 5/10   APPEARANCE 4/5   TASTE 4/10   PALATE 2/5   OVERALL 7/20
NVBeer232 (467) - Reno, Nevada, USA - MAY 7, 2005
Dark red pour, almost brown. Thick, creamy head. Cherries in the aroma, with a little yeast. Malty, with more cherry and astringent, tangy yeast. Reminds me of cherry cough medicine with edgy carbonation. Lots of alcohol on the finish. Quite muted and funky. I thought it might have been a bad bottle, so I opened my "save till whenever the hell I’m supposed to open all of these things" bottle to find that it was exactly the same. This is probably the last bottle of "EPIC" that I burn $7+tax on.

2.2
   AROMA 4/10   APPEARANCE 3/5   TASTE 4/10   PALATE 3/5   OVERALL 8/20
FROTHINGSLOSH (4918) - GREENSBURG, Pennsylvania, USA - DEC 26, 2013
Sampled in 12/2013 from a 22 oz brown bottle this beer poured a red-brown color with a medium sized foamy orange-tan head that left decent lacing. The aroma was metallic with notes of fig, port wine and Dr Pepper. The flavor was metallic with notes of fig, date, Dr Pepper and more metal. Long fig, Dr Pepper and metal finish. Medium body. Not good at this point.

2.1
   AROMA 4/10   APPEARANCE 4/5   TASTE 4/10   PALATE 2/5   OVERALL 7/20
cheap (4055) - Beaver Valley, Beaver County, Pennsylvania, USA - DEC 23, 2012
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 Beerman8868 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, 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, in all 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.

0.5
   AROMA 1/10   APPEARANCE 1/5   TASTE 1/10   PALATE 1/5   OVERALL 1/20
GKlein709 (4) - Jeannette, Pennsylvania, USA - JUN 24, 2005 does not count
Armoa, fruity but imature, apperance good dark, flavor good yeasty, imature, palate crisp and tight, overall very good should wait to open until 2012


We Want To Hear From You



Join us! RateBeer is made by beer enthusiasts for the craft beer community. Your basic membership is free and allows you to read all beer ratings. Click here to create your account... and give your opinion!

Join Us »



Page  1 « 42 43 44  45 


Tick this beer

for your profile
  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Copyright © 2000-2014,
RateBeer LLC. All rights
reserved.
about us
About RateBeer
FAQ
Contact/Feedback
New Beers
add
Advanced Search
Add A Beer
Add A Brewer
Add A Place
Events
membership
Log In
Edit Personal Info
Buy Premium Membership
Your Messages
the best
RateBeer Best
100 Beer Club
The Top 50