Crit (3657) - Surrey, British Columbia, CANADA - AUG 6, 2007
2.5 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 10/20
Looks great,smells great, tastes like shit. The nose was very complex, but the flavor was one dimensional...Alcohol, grain alcohol and nothing else.
Marks for appearance and nose, but not much else
bfeldmann (1049) - Wilmington, Delaware, USA - AUG 23, 2007
2.5 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
Of the epics not good. Poured a goldenish color small head. Aroma was of ginger and cinnamon. Flavor was much the same, cinnamon was just way to overwelming to me. Just a plain mess.
jehoey (765) - Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, USA - SEP 16, 2007
2.5 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 8/20
This was an interesting, but very stange beer. I have never tasted anything like this... aroma was of spices and I picked up some mint, smoke, and some kind of cooked bean. the beer poured a deep gold with an orange hue with a head that quickly diminished to just a ring around the glass. Flavor is too sweet for style, and didn’t make for too enjoyable of a drink, espcially with the cooked bean aroma being one of the tastes that hit that back of your tongue as well. Palate was full. Overall this was not a beer I enjoyed, but one that intrigued and confused me from start to finish.
mmmbeer (1365) - Austin, Texas, USA - DEC 7, 2012
2.5 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
22 oz. bottle (from Liquor Barn in Louisville, KY) served in a shaker- poured a transparent yellow with a tint of orange color, aroma of faded pepper and a hot mess. Hits the mouth with a medium body, malt just tastes old straight up, some pepper in the middle, finish is meh. Not that great.
DYCSoccer17 (3549) - Woodland, California, USA - JUL 4, 2007
2.4 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
22 ounce bottle purchased for $4.99 at the Davis Food Co-Op. I dont understand why some places jack the price up to $6-$7...Aroma has some yeasty, fruity, esters with some banana aromas. A little bit of ethanol is also detected in the nose. Some light honey notes are there, too. Transparent, filtered golden-orange hued body with a VERY quickly dissipating fizzy yellowish head. Still, with no lacing. Looks like mead. A weird peppery astringency to start, which becomes very oily, chewy, and caramelly. Kind of burnt to finish with a little ethanol present. This is really oily and quite weird. Not very enjoyable.
Ernest (7032) - Boulder, Colorado, USA - JUL 23, 2007
2.4 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
Bottle. Head is initially average sized, frothy, off-white, mostly diminishing. Body is light amber. Aroma is lightly to moderately malty (toasted grain, malt syrup), with notes of lavender, candy sugar, bubble gum, canned pineapple, alcohol. Flavor is moderately to heavily sweet, lightly acidic, lightly bitter. Finish is lightly to moderately sweet, lightly acidic, lightly to moderately bitter. Medium body, watery/syrupy texture, lively carbonation, lightly to moderately alcoholic. Not a particularly good "epic" this year, and probably my least favorite of all of them...more than anything so far, it seems like a complete mess with no direction. A very unfocused, muddled aroma that seems confused by its over-spicing. Cloying syrupy-sweet flavor balance that just doesn’t have the acidity or bitterness to make it drinkable. This already seems kind of limp and canned-pineapple odored like an old Belgian beer past its prime, so I’m very skeptical about how well it will age. I’m a little shocked at my score, but it really was that unpleasant. Not flawed as in off-aromas or an unclean aftertaste...it just was very difficult to find anything enjoyable about it.
skortila (5002) - Baarn, NETHERLANDS - SEP 10, 2007
2.4 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
3rd LCRBM. Aroma is pure ginger with some citric background. Clear, copper-golden coloured with no head. Taste is sweet with loads of ginger, some citrus. Not even one hint of a saison or a triple. How can they make this up?
cheap (4886) - Beaver Valley, Beaver County, Pennsylvania, USA - DEC 23, 2012
2.4 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
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, 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.
stubby (334) - Santee, California, USA - JUL 12, 2007
2.3 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 9/20
UPDATED: FEB 25, 2009 Like others have said, this might age well. I do not like the spicing, but I might have a low threshold for ginger. I do look forward to this in five years. The vertical epic series is a lot of fun anyhow.
bierkoning (11677) - La Tropica, NETHERLANDS - SEP 10, 2007
2.3 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
3rd LCRBM. Golden color. Ginger aroma. Lemon aroma and flavor. Sweet flavor in which pineapple esters are present. Disappointing.