Stone 9th Anniversary Ale

 
overall
95
85
style
Serve in Snifter, Tulip

bottling
unknown

on tap
unknown

distribution
unknown

Add Distribution Data
RATINGS: 484   WEIGHTED AVG: 3.64/5   SEASONAL: Special   EST. CALORIES: 234   ABV: 7.8%
COMMERCIAL DESCRIPTION
As has been a tradition, we have “Anniversary-ized” a recipe from our history by cranking it up, making it stronger and more assertive. With this year’s Anniversary we decided to look back at a wheat beer that we released a couple of Spring/Summers a few years ago: Stone Heat Seeking Wheat. While it was a plenty tasty beer, we ultimately decided that it wasn’t that reflective of what Stone was all about, and we unceremoniously dropped it from our lineup. For the Stone 9th Anniversary Ale, we carried some of the characteristics from the Stone Heat Seeking Wheat --- clear, not hazy; hoppy, not yeasty; combining a delicious hop bitterness and wheat tartness --- and made some…well…adjustments.

Tick this beer for your profile
  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


2.8
zug4abby (287) - San Diego, California, USA - SEP 8, 2005
I was very excited to try this new creation from stone... I promise! However, I was let down! It pours a clear yellow/straw color with a heavy yeast aroma and floral hints. I did not enjoy the flavor or palate at all. The yeast was way to much for me to handle on top of a warm feel through-out.

2.8
Rastacouere (6177) - Montreal, Quebec, CANADA - SEP 25, 2005
Floral mandarine/lemony bright hops shine amidst the sweet, bready, not very flavorful malts. Shining bottle-conditioned golden robe. The head is white, foamy, diminishing a bit fast for a wheat containing beer, but less fast than most other Stone beers. A very perfumey big weizen where the wheat comes out nicely, but the final result feels less exciting (lively, fresh) than say a gumballhead, yet I’d rather drink gumballhead. Light bodied, high crisp carbonation. Well contained alcohol, clean fermentation. Easy to drink, but a bit too bitter for what it is, though there aren’t the malts in there for the beer to be any interesting without that bitterness. Ultimately, it leads into a rather astringent, abrasive hop finish that brings back alcohol fumes. A vicious circle that, glad they tried something different though. A pale ale next year?

2.8
ChainGangGuy (4894) - Woodstock, Georgia, USA - JUN 10, 2007
Appearance: Bright golden-orange in color. Partial haze. Good carbonation allows the bubbles to organize a fluffy white head. Smell: Sharply citrus notes yield to a dominating bitter aroma. There’s some contrasting sweet fruitiness, but its got a somewhat sour twang to it. Taste: Predominant floral hop bitterness shadowed by some sour, pear-like flavors. The already sparse malts are squashed by the astringent bitterness. Finish is initially dry, but warmth brings forth some displeasing medicinal qualities. Mouthfeel: Smooth and sleek with a light oiliness. Drinkability: Not overly so, as it was a bit hard to supress myself from grimacing at the end of each swallow. I’m told it takes three times as many muscles to frown as it does to smile. My face is definitely worn out by now. I’ll admit I found last year’s anniversary ale to be infinitely more appealing...

2.7
Vac (2445) - San Diego, California, USA - SEP 12, 2005
Pours with a golden body topped by a thin head with little lacing. It’s slightly sweet and hoppy with a slight malt note and a yeasty note. Not all that great of a beer. Medium bodied, warming and tingly.

2.7
dhlesq (233) - Thousand Oaks, California, USA - NOV 16, 2005
Aroma of tangerine, pineapple, pine. Appears a crystal clear color of brass with faint effervescence and a well-proportioned yellow meringue-like head. Flavor is very bitter hoppy, with more tangerine, pineapple, and resin. Palate is thick, chewy, slick, syrupy. Overall, this beer is quite a bit less than the sum of its parts, mostly suffering from an unpleasant flavor.

2.6
Hairofthedog (419) - San Diego, California, USA - OCT 16, 2005
The aroma was big and full of grain, citrus, and alcohol esters. The flavor was grainy, slight honey note and oranges. The beer poured an orangish brown color w/ slight head and lacing. The mouthfeel was light to medium bodied and no carbonation. sucked.

2.6
theshocker (329) - Marietta, Georgia, USA - SEP 18, 2006
Pale yellow, hazy. Medium white head. Citrus and pine aroma, overall its pleasant but I detect a hint of catpiss. Medium body, bitter and hoppy. Basically like an IPA with wheat in it. And the wheat doesn’t actually contribute that much...overpowered by the hops. Cat-piss gets stronger as it warms. I like most stone products, but I have to rate this one like I see it. Its not a dumper, but its basically a poorly made DIPA.

2.4
temporrari (397) - Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA - OCT 18, 2005
UPDATED: NOV 15, 2005 Quite frankly, this beer sucks. Hoppy aroma, with cleaning chemicals. Taste is about the same, chemicals and hop bite, kinda dry. Soapy. Sorry Stone, you guys are usually great. Did not like this stuff at all.

2.3
Ernest (7658) - Boulder, Colorado, USA - SEP 25, 2005
Head is initially small, frothy, off-white, mostly diminishing. Body is dark yellow. Aroma is lightly malty (toasted grain), heavily hoppy (resin). Flavor is moderately sweet, moderately acidic, moderately bitter. Finish is lightly sweet, moderately acidic, heavily bitter. Medium to full body, velvety/creamy texture, lively carbonation, moderately alcoholic. Oh, YE GODS! One of the most medicinal, overwheming Pine Sol hop aromas I’ve had the displeasure of smelling in a long time. Totally destroys any other aromas this thing might have. I threatened to go below a 4 for it, but I do realize that this is what they were going for. So not a flaw, just...very crude and overdone in every way. Based on pure enjoyment, disregarding styles and Stone’s penchant for overhopping everything, I’d probably give this a 1.5. More than being undrinkable, it’s unsmellable. Horrific and a total drain pour.

2.2
Jeffsloane (10) - USA - OCT 26, 2005
Really a dissapointment. A refreshing aroma and a good clean and crisp palate, but there is really something very off about the flavor. Tastes like pine, or more accurately pine-sol. Way too strong for waht it is, i would stay on the safe side with their mainstays.


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 « 45 46 47  48  49
Tick this beer for your profile
  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5