snoot (286) - Anaheim, California, USA - AUG 11, 2002
4.3 AROMA 9/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 9/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 17/20
Very very good. One notch above Sierra Nevada, and that is a compliment. Very refreshing and easy to drink.
CE619 (81) - san diego, California, USA - AUG 9, 2002
3.9 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 15/20
very well made. perfectly balanced between sweet caramel malt and just the right touch of hops
Gusler (2653) - Tucson, Arizona, USA - AUG 6, 2002
4.2 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 5/5 OVERALL 17/20
Re-Rate 08/06/02: ’What the hell, been 7 months since I had a ’Stone Pale Ale’, been concentrating to Frigging Hard’ on this 5000th beer crap. Well, I’m going to fix that ’Rat Now’. Pours a deep amber to copper color, the head is generous, creamy and biege, the lace by the tons. Nose is a nice deep sweet malt, hints of caramel, and the little ’Hop Flowers’, I love so much. Front is malt sweet, top is medium, the finish is ’Hop Heaven’, dry, acidic, and still ranks as one of my top two pale ales. Ranks #206 on my current 1000 beer master list.
Volgon (2763) - Manchester, New Hampshire, USA - JUL 24, 2002
3.7 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 15/20
Pours with a large foamy head, on a clear orange body. Pleasant hops/fruity aroma. Caramel taste, not very bitter, ends dry.
nstal (237) - Houston, Texas, USA - JUL 24, 2002
3.9 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 16/20
Excellent pale ale: good transition between hops and malt. I’d love some more.
raindog (560) - Evansville, Indiana, USA - JUL 23, 2002
4.1 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 9/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 17/20
Classic pale appearance. Lacy creamy,rocky,head. Aroma is scary.Grainy,straw,earthy,aroma.Almost smells stale.Oh,no.Taste is stellar for a beer with this aroma.Well made taste. Sweet front,caramel&perfectly roasted grains follow.Finish has a perfect bitterness.Suprisingly tame for a Stone product.IMO that is a good thing.Very robust and very full of flavor.Excellent but not the best.
Sickboy282 (1115) - San Diego, California, USA - JUL 11, 2002
3.7 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 16/20
I was as impressed as most with this brew. It was a little bland, as is their smoked porter. Their are better pales out their.
firstname.lastname@example.org (3) - Glenview, Illinois, USA - JUL 11, 2002 does not count
4.9 AROMA 10/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 10/10 PALATE 5/5 OVERALL 19/20
Top of the pale ales. Obviously made with care to a balancing of flavor and aroma.
HoppedHead (106) - seattle, Washington, USA - JUN 28, 2002
4.5 AROMA 9/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 9/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 18/20
Beautiful, aromatic ale, perfectly done, these guys make great beers, floral hop aromas balanced to perfection with the malts, color is amazing pour this ine into glass to see this amber hue, on eof the finest pales I’ve ever tried!
Ernest (6319) - Boulder, Colorado, USA - JUN 9, 2002
3.1 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 12/20
UPDATED: SEP 18, 2003 Head is initially small, frothy, off-white, mostly diminishing. Body is clear medium amber. Aroma is moderately malty (caramel, cookie), moderately hoppy (flowers, resin, grapefruit), moderately yeasty (sweat, dough), with light notes of apricot and orange. Flavor is moderately sweet, lightly bitter, lightly acidic. Finish is lightly sweet, moderately bitter, lightly acidic. Medium body, velvety texture, lively carbonation. This second, fresher sample (been over a year since I first sampled this brew) has a serious raw sweaty yeast smell going on, unfortunately, which really ruins the aroma (it, well, stinks). Still has good flavor balance and mouthfeel, but the sweaty socks aroma is off-putting.