Oakes (17676) - Vancouver, British Columbia, CANADA - DEC 3, 2000
Chocolatey, dry, with good complexity and balance, but only a touch of smoke. dolemike1 (1288) - Jeannette, Pennsylvania, USA - SEP 29, 2002
Not as great as i expected. Great dark color and nice malty aroma. Didn’t really notice much smokiness, but i did taste bitter chocolate/coffee flavors. However they just didnt impress me that much. I was hoping this would challenge one of my favorite porters but it fell way short. zborgerd (187) - Illinois, USA - JAN 3, 2003
More tame than most Stone beers that I’ve tried, the Smoked Porter still has a bit to live up to. It certainly tastes drinkable, but has a bitter edge. It isn’t to hopped up, but doesn’t have the smooth edge of other Porters, like Anchor’s. Tastes like smoked teriaki jerky with a kick. Has a bit of bite on the finish. I’m missing the "chocolate" taste that I’ve tasted in cheaper, more watery brews. It lacks malt definition for a porter. Overall, it’s not bad, but not something I’d drink every day. Frank (4194) - Chicago, Illinois, USA - APR 21, 2003
Nearly black with just a touch of red. Foamy, light tan head. Roasty, lightly smokey aroma with a hint of bitter hops--very pleasant. However, as far as taste goes, it's just too bitter for it's own damn good. The bitterness overrides many of the other flavors (coffee, smoke). Medium bodied. Not nearly as smokey as I'd hoped. Certainly not Stone's best work. bu11zeye (13029) - Frisco (Dallas), Texas, USA - DEC 21, 2003
(Bottle) Pours a dark chocolate brown color with a thick tan head. I typically do not care much for smoked beers, but this one had great character and flavor.
DavidP (1748) - Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA - MAR 30, 2004
Very dark brown body with a short-lived off-white head. Aroma has smoked apple, molasses, and bubblegun sweetness. The flavor features ritz crackers, apples/plum, and charcoal. Dry finish. I normally don't like smoked beers and this one isn't much different. The smokiness isn't terrible strong or offensive, but it contributes towards a strong dryness that isn't refreshing or enjoyable. I appreciate the quality of the beer and the new flavors (for me) but the fact that it's smoked still doesn't jive with me. Gazza (726) - Worcester, Worcestershire, ENGLAND - APR 29, 2004
Lovely sweet, caramelly nose. Strong flavour of burnt rubber, lots of bitterness, sweet caramel and some roast. Sweetish finish, quite bitter, with an astringent hoppiness and burnt character. This would be a good beer if it wasn’t for the feeling I was drinking liquified tyres! (Bottle from Alex Hall, NYC) estoppel (1028) - Buffalo, New York, USA - MAY 1, 2004
Very dark reddish-brown, big light tan head, very mild chocolate nose. Roasty, chocolate, hint of coffee, just a little smoke. Some finishing bitterness. BuckNaked (1230) - Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA - MAY 4, 2004
UPDATED: DEC 27, 2004 Tap (5/03/04): While very good, nothing better than your average porter. Aroma: smoked porter, sweet syrup. Flavor: sweeter than average porter, coal, coffee. Finish: almost meaty, classic porter. Very good, yet nothing unique. Draught (12/24/04) in buffalo: Deep, dark brown with a thick, creamy tan head. Aroma is quite roasty, lots of roasted malt, no smoke. Rating stays the same as previous. smoosh (536) - New Albany, Indiana, USA - JUL 18, 2004
Bottle - in my bottle the aroma is a bit odd. It had some smoke, but somehow a soapiness came through. An attractive appearance. Deep brown with a tightly bubbled beige head. Lacing was excellent. Soft on the palate. More roasty than smoky. It’s a good beer, but not quite what is implied by the name.