Mads Langtved (2245) - Copenhagen K, DENMARK - FEB 2, 2006
2.7 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
Bottled: Slightly sticky texture. Somewhat a bit too thin and sweet. Hops and some yeast are present in the finish. An average strong ale.
Treebs (872) - , Illinois, USA - FEB 17, 2013
2.5 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 9/20
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
kramer (4979) - Sunbury, Pennsylvania, USA - DEC 22, 2012
2.4 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20
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).
NVBeer232 (467) - Reno, Nevada, USA - MAY 7, 2005
2.2 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 7/20
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.
FROTHINGSLOSH (4918) - GREENSBURG, Pennsylvania, USA - DEC 26, 2013
2.2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20
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.
cheap (4055) - Beaver Valley, Beaver County, Pennsylvania, USA - DEC 23, 2012
2.1 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 7/20
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 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.
GKlein709 (4) - Jeannette, Pennsylvania, USA - JUN 24, 2005 does not count
0.5 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 1/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 1/20
Armoa, fruity but imature, apperance good dark, flavor good yeasty, imature, palate crisp and tight, overall very good should wait to open until 2012