dhlesq (233) - Thousand Oaks, California, USA - OCT 1, 2004
2.7 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 12/20
Aroma of pineapple, strong strong pineapple. Appears with little to no head, but with a deep reddish-crimson hue. Sweet and oakey at the start with a nice hoppy finish, ends with a pine astringency that is somewhat unpleasant. Hint of vanilla shows up after warming a bit. Palate is somewhat thin, but also refreshing, and somehow conceals the alcohol content. Overall, this beer appears to be greater than the sum of its parts, however I still donít find it to be spectacular. A pleasant brew though, and a bit out of the ordinary.
JensenTaster (1719) - DENMARK - FEB 1, 2006
2.7 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
(on bottle thanx Rasmus)Dark brown, small white head. Cloying, carameled, ryebreadaromas. Small carbonation, and a small hopflavour. Dominated by dark cookies and korendertastes. Small lash of alcohol to the finish.
Glouglouburp (6103) - Montreal, Quebec, CANADA - JUN 29, 2010
2.7 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
In short: An past-due-date fruity, nutty caramelized beer. Too late.
How: Bottle 22oz. Consumed when around five year of age. Bottle sent to me as a bonus(!) by CaptainCougar, thanks a lot Tom
The look: Cloudy redish-brown body topped by a very small beige head
In long: Rich nose of caramel and dark fruits and a light oxidation. Taste is unfortunately dominated by oxidation. Lots and lots of cardboard. Underneath the oxidation is almonds wrapped in caramel, dark fruits. Also some maderisation with Sherry notes. Adequate medium carbonation. The beer is obviously way past its prime. There might be bottles well cellared that are still good but I fear most bottles are now just like the one I just drank. I donít remember having it fresh, I donít know if I ever had it fresh. This was probably once a very good beer because despite its obvious aging problems the beer was still quite drinkable. I did hesitate before entering my rating on a beer that is so obviously past due-date. But given that there is still a market for this 5 year old beer (as well as much older Stone beers) I think it is fair that I voice my opinion and say that this beer is now gone. I probably had it fresh in my early ratebeer time. I donít remember. Five years ago this was probably a very good beer, but now it is five years old. Iím against aging beer but Iím exactly like everybody else, I donít care about my opinions and I think I have an attitude problem.
eaglefan538 (3027) - Wilmington, Delaware, USA - JUN 11, 2006
2.6 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
Thanks to doulos31 for this one. However, this was the biggest miss Iíve ever had by Stone. In fact, take away the label, and this beer is nothing. The pour yielded no head and no lacing with a red-brown color. The aroma was a sour caramel, nothing else. The flavor was semi-sour caramel mostly with light chocolate mixed in. Light touch of coffee as it warmed. An annoying diacetyl/buttery type touch was present throughout. Hoppy finish with light pine present. The mouthfeel was the lowest part of the experience, just like water, kinda nasty. Not a very enjoyable beer for me.
Quixote18 (236) - Johnson City, Tennessee, USA - SEP 19, 2005
2.4 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
After all the good things Iíve heard about this one, I was very disappointed. I couldnít finish it. Maybe I got a bad bottle. Then again, I donít like Arrogant Bastard either. Perhaps Iím not "sophisticated enough".
bitter (1136) - Henderson, Nevada, USA - AUG 23, 2004
2.3 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
on cask at stones 8th ann. beer festival:
in my opinion these high rates are way off. im a huge fan of stone... but this is the worst beer ive tasted from them. i waited in a line that was about as far as the 50 yd line and took about 30 min just to get 8 oz of this stuff. they were pouring on cask through a sprinkler. very little carbonation present with a brown haze look to the beer. nose was staight up malt and sweet. flavors followed the nose, couldnt detect much hop flavor at all and some slight alcohol feel to the beer but not bad. mostly sweet crystal malt mixture almost an unfermented taste. dead on the palate with little body. ive had several british cask beers and this one probably was much better as just the mild??? but still thin and uninteresting. a huge disapointment.
Crosling (1864) - Fort Collins, Colorado, USA - OCT 4, 2004
2.3 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
Aroma of mainly malt (mixed nuts, burnt bread, tar, coffee and caramel), yeast, spices (ginger) and a hint of hops (algae and green plants). Easy to describe, but dull as hell.
This is a muddled, cloying, malt driven mess in a bottle. It really is. Dry, roasted and toasted malts with hints of coffee, vanilla and brown sugar. The finish is rather alcoholic (bourbon), has a well established hop presense and is pretty annoyingly bitter.
jgb9348 (5610) - Arlington (Pentagon City), Virginia, USA - NOV 12, 2004
2.3 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 9/20
Pours a deep ruby tinted amber/copper colour with almost no head at all. Nice looking beer aside from the non-existant head. Aroma of strong hops, caramel, honey, pale malt oak and some cardboard thrown in the mix. Medium-bodied; Sharp pungent bitterness showing some hops but basically all bitter maltiness. One-dimensional with little else. No aftertaste at all to speak of, also. Some sweetness detected in the taste, but the aroma is much better than the taste, and that isnít saying too much. Overall, not a good beer, and should be respected no more than any sub-par lager from sam adams. Just like the commercial description dictates: they set out to make a ístrongerí mild, and unfortunately that doesnít seem to work at all here. This one seems like a mix between a bock, a mild and an apa. When will people realise that these beers are not as good as other people tell them they are? I will be the first to admit that stone makes some good beers (IPA still top on my list and Imperial Stout definitely up there), but most of their beers are not good. Name is not a factor on my rating, iím basing my score strictly on the beer itself, the bottle/label aside. I sampled this 65 cL bottle purchased at Whole Foods in Clarendon (Arlington), Virginia on 12-November-2004.
maltdog (621) - Colorado, USA - JUL 26, 2005
2.2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 7/20
Deep brown/red, the color of dried blood. One-finger head is dense and tan, nearly yellow, with exceptional staying power. Unpleasant winey and caramelly nose, with stewed fruits and currants, pumpkin pie spice, and charred wood. The slightest bit of bubblegum as well. Tastes very "brown", very muddy, sour, alcoholic, spicy. Hops are in perfect balance, though. Palate is full and velvety soft. Roasty, woody, bilous, and extremely tannic aftertaste. Like eating mulch and tea leaves. It gets worse with time. I canít believe Stone didnít dump this failure. What a f***ing waste of money.