Stone 8th Anniversary Ale

 
overall
98
94
style
Serve in Snifter, Tulip

bottling
unknown

on tap
unknown

distribution
unknown

Add Distribution Data
RATINGS: 498   WEIGHTED AVG: 3.74/5   SEASONAL: Special   EST. CALORIES: 234   ABV: 7.8%
COMMERCIAL DESCRIPTION
The Stone 8th Anniversary Ale is, like all previous Stone Anniversary Ales so far, an adaptation of a previous Stone Brewing Co release. This year we set out to make a “Anniversary-ized” version of Lee’s Mild, a 3.8% abv limited release beer from 1999. For this beer we used some of the same malts that we had used in the Lee’s Mild, added more hops, less water (to bring the alcohol content up), and found a tasty balance of toasty/roastyness from the malt and a subtle (by Stone standards!) hop presence. To add further complexity, oak chips were employed to round out the character and give the beer a bit of vanilla/bourbon influence from the wood.

A tick is a star rating
  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


2.9
Schroppfy (2362) - Łódż, Warsaw, Poland; Michigan, Ohio, USA - SEP 2, 2004
A bit oily in the body, yet with a clear alcohol presence. Certainly nutty and warmly malty; carbonation leaves rapidly. Really quite strange; an imperial brown ale with vanillaey barleywineish elements? Missing a lot; no pungent smokiness or crispness - this is just a sor of murky slippery concoction.

2.8
omhper (25742) - Tyresö, SWEDEN - OCT 21, 2004
Bottled, thanks hopsrus! Dark ruby with richcreamy head. Coffee aroma. Sweet with soft mouthfeel. Raw and sugary, big on coffee. Oaky finish with medium bitterness. Has potential to age, but is too syrupy for me at this point.

2.8
Oakes (18851) - Vancouver, British Columbia, CANADA - JAN 16, 2005
UPDATED: JUL 20, 2005 Dark reddish-brown colour. Dull, no head. aroma of chocolate, nuts, woody/earthy hops. The palate is smooth - a little oily even - with nuts, chocolate and hints of smoke, too. The finish is peanutty and sweet. It has some okay elements, but the package simply is not compelling. Heavy on the Stone yeast, too, also not so compelling (for me, anyway).

2.7
dhlesq (233) - Thousand Oaks, California, USA - OCT 1, 2004
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 don’t find it to be spectacular. A pleasant brew though, and a bit out of the ordinary.

2.7
JensenTaster (1719) - DENMARK - FEB 1, 2006
(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.

2.7
Glouglouburp (6103) - Montreal, Quebec, CANADA - JUN 29, 2010
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 don’t remember having it fresh, I don’t 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 don’t remember. Five years ago this was probably a very good beer, but now it is five years old. I’m against aging beer but I’m exactly like everybody else, I don’t care about my opinions and I think I have an attitude problem.

2.6
User37895 (3085) - - JUN 11, 2006
Thanks to doulos31 for this one. However, this was the biggest miss I’ve 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.

2.4
Quixote18 (236) - Johnson City, Tennessee, USA - SEP 19, 2005
After all the good things I’ve heard about this one, I was very disappointed. I couldn’t finish it. Maybe I got a bad bottle. Then again, I don’t like Arrogant Bastard either. Perhaps I’m not "sophisticated enough".


We Want To Hear From You



Join us! RateBeer is made by beer enthusiasts for the craft beer community. Your basic membership is free and allows you to read all beer ratings. Click here to create your account... and give your opinion!

Join Us »



Page  1 « 47 48 49  50 
A tick is a star rating
  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5