JCB (3999) - Durham, North Carolina, USA - OCT 27, 2010
2.9 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
Bomber from Samís, Durham. Very handsome pour, a deep burnished gold getting close to the copper end of the spectrum. Crisp carbonation, thinnish head, but that seems appropriate for the style. Digging the nose, which suggests a dry-hopped beer with some substantial candi malts and floral additions. The grapes are faintly present in the nose, and the subtlety is appreciated. Problem is, it tastes like a wreck. Muscat grapes clash mightily with the hops and flowers, rendered dank by the sweet malts. I sincerely hope that ageing does this beer some good, but I wonder.
kp (10884) - Woodstock, Georgia, USA - DEC 25, 2011
2.9 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
Date: November 12, 2010
Source: Taco Mac, The Fred
Appearance: clear orange, fine off white head
Aroma: sweet and spicy aroma, citrus aroma, candy sweetness
Flavor: sweet fruity flavor, lots of spicyness, touch of clove, light bitterness
Overall: all spice and no nice, boozy and spicy
Aroma: 6/10; Appearance: 6/10; Flavor: 6/10; Palate: 6/10; Overall: 11/20
Score: ** /4
SimpsonsFan714 (3) - - DEC 10, 2012 does not count
2.9 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
Poured from 22 oz. bottle, in Stone Russian Imperial Stout snifter. This bottle has been aged at room temperature since it was purchased in early 2010.
**Appearance**: Orange in color and cloudy. It has a few slow-rising bubbles. Not much of a head, and it disappeared quickly leaving no laces.
**Nose**: Grapes, white wine and a slight vinegar briefly. Honey and citrus fruits like orange and tangerine. Maybe a tiny hint of pumpkin/yam.
**Mouthfeel**: Thin and dry. Thereís some bite at at the end, which may be the carbonation.
**Taste**: Spices and pumpkin/yam-like flavors. A lot of wine grapes (which taste similar to pumpkin/yam to me) and not much else.
**Overall**: Definitely my least favorite so far. Itís not horrible, and I can tell that itís a well made beer, itís just not to my preferred style. I ended up dumping about a third of the bottle because I just wasnít interested in drinking it any more.
**Room temp vs. cellar temp**: I aged this at room temperature and I didnít notice anything that would seem to be ill effects from the temp. I donít have a cellar-temp aged bottle to which to compare this one, so I canít say how it would have differed, but I see no reason to think it would be any different than this one.
tcane7 (1668) - Pennsylvania, USA - DEC 17, 2012
2.9 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 11/20
Draft at Stone. Pours cloudy gold with thin white head. Boozy, honey, some nots of wine.
Huhzubendah (2660) - Washington DC, USA - JAN 12, 2013
2.9 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
Thanks to the Thorpes for sharing.
The beer is golden hued with a thin white head. The aroma brings citrus, malt, light spice, oranges. The flavor offers candied oranges, malt, sweet, syrupy orange juice. Medium to light in body with fairly low carbonation. Ok.
DaSilky1 (2606) - San Diego, California, USA - OCT 12, 2010
2.8 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 12/20
From the nose I can already tell Iím not going to like this. Itís got an obnoxiously powdery, floral yeasty nose in the same vein as the yeasts used in past vertical epics, undertones of citrus, alcohol, and belgian yeast phenol spice with a malt-liquoresque quality to it as well. The beer itself is completely clear and bronze with little to no head formation and reminds me of lagunitas. Flavors are strange, the body is cloyingly thick and syrupy carrying with it some clearly non-complimenting hop bitterness, a grapey twang around the edges, and flavors from that floral, powdery yeast strain. The alcohol here doesnít help either, making it kind of quesy-feeling to drink...and the underlying sweetness just makes it all the more cumbersome. The grape influence is juicy and takes an already awkward tasting beer and makes it somewhat awkwardly childish in the finish. Strange mess of a beer and certainly not one youíd expect from what others like to call a "world-class brewery"...but itís something I have fully come to expect when Stone tries anything belgian-influenced...It just doesnít seem well thought out at all and certainly a "F-You" for all those that hype up the yearly epic releases, though, again..to me, itís not much of a surprise...who comes up with these recipes anyway? really?
gorditoabd (624) - San Diego, California, USA - OCT 13, 2010
2.8 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 13/20
Bottle. Pours a fey golden hue with minimal fizzy, fast-fading white head. Aroma is practically null, except for maybe a hint of white grape. Taste is malt and hay, followed by a semi-sweet white wine turn, but itís all wildly understated. A second sip reveals a touch more sweetness, but overall this brew is pretty bland. Hopefully, itís just immature and needs to bottle age.
Beerlando (3342) - Orlando, Florida, USA - DEC 5, 2010
2.8 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 12/20
Bomber, fairly fresh. Pours a crystal clear, standard golden color. A small, smooth, off-white head fades away quickly, leaving just a thin surface ring. Thereís virtually no hard lacing to speak of. The aroma is very much like a Belgian tripel, based in blonde candy sugar and cereal grain malt, hinting at lemon, and showing a strong influence of spicy, floral yeast. Chamomile is distinct, though that is not the only herbal element. The sweet grape juice varietals, while not individually identifiable, lend even further sweetness to the tripel base. Flavors follow suit, showing a blend of candy sugar, sweet grain, and white grapes as the base. The grape elements arenít particularly vinous, but rather, sweet and juicy, with a moderate, acidic edge. Floral spicing is ample and fresh, yet a bit overbearing for my tastes, chamomile leading the charge. Fruity Belgian yeast is unmistakable, sweet and doughy in nature. The palate sports abundant sugar content, coming across syrupy and rather lifeless. Bitter floral hops come out of nowhere to concentrate on the finish. As my reviews will show, Iím not a big tripel fan. This particular brew takes a boring, mundane, overly sweet style and pushes it even further into the realm of a hyper-spiced, doughy, candy-sweet tripel. Not my thing at all.
GreatLibations (1854) - Last Supper, Arizona, USA - FEB 13, 2011
2.8 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 10/20
I came to the realization that I totally forgot about this program until last week. To my surprise there were a few cases left at disty. Thats like forgetting to wish your wife happy birthday. Pours golden with a hint of amber with a tall head that dies the slow death and leaves just a bit of lace to remember. Smells of sweet and sour stonefruit nectar and jerky. Full nectar with good carbonation. The aroma follows through to the palate directly. This has a moderate sweetness. I like the attitude Stone has toward experimentation but this beer is awful.
eManu (462) - Kuala Lumpur & Brussels, BELGIUM - JUL 21, 2011
2.8 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 14/20
Pours a pale gold orange yellow, with a thin white ring around. Aroma of sweet and sour grapes, hops and malts. Flavors of grapes, hops and citrus. This is too sweet, the ending is not well balanced, as the sweetness of the ripe grapes takes over. long unplasant tart sweetness in mouth. Would not get this again.