Sexual Chocolate - Foothills Brewing Company

RedneckBeerz

North Carolina

4/5  rDev -3.1%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 4 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

Tryed this on tap @Lindley Park Filling Station last night (2-10-12) and it's the 2nd time within a week that I've had Sexual Chocolate. I had the pleasure of experiencing the 2010 Sexual Chocolate Barrel Aged over Cocoa Nibs last Saturday @ the 1st Annual Raleigh Rare & Vintage Beer Tasting. Now that was 1 hell of a great beer. The 2012 draft version was not that impressive. Don't get me wrong, it's a great NC beer by a great NC brewer. But as far as a great beer in the grand scheme of Russian Imperial Stouts, it's excellent; but not great. While it is a brilliant marketing ploy to release 4000 bottles directly at the brewery only (which would piss me off if I was a store carrying all Foothill's other brews). Lesson learned, don't buy into all the hype/local cultist following; judge for thine self. There are just to many superior Russian Imperials (Old Rasputin, Brooklyn Dark Chocolate, Stone, Samual Smith's, Founders, and Siberian Night .. to name a few) that are readily available seasonally to even consider standing in line for 6+ hours (although I'm sure the beer share in line is way cool) on pre-release morning. Don't get me wrong, I am not bitter, nor mad; I like Foothills and love thier brew pub. It's just dissappointing to experience my 1st Sexual Chocolate year, with all of it's hype and national news coverage and then to experience it and have your sails deflated. If this brew came out of Wyoming, they would be lucky to sale 4000 bottles in a season, but here in NC that amount dissappears in less than a dozen hours. Kinda sad really. I'll try it again on tap if it's available, but for me; actively seeking it out is not on my things to do list.

Serving type: on-tap

02-11-2012 11:07:04 | More by RedneckBeerz

VaterRoss

North Carolina

4.3/5  rDev +4.1%
look: 5 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 4.5

on-tap at Fat Frogg

Appearance is as near to black as possible with a brown creamy head and clinging cream lace. Very dark coloration. The head recedes to a ring. Smell is roasted malt, coffee grounds, and, for lack of a better word, wetness. Taste is deliciously malty and full with smoky roasted notes and a good amount of coffee. Some alcohol warming in the throat and a bitter finish. Mouthfeel is extremely creamy and heavy body with a slight metallic feel.

Well, this is the most I've paid for a pint so far (10 bucks). This is a great beer but doesn't meet the hype (what does?). A nice and full beer that, despite the name, doesn't have that much chocolate going on. Very drinkable and hides its alcohol well. No wateryness to speak of and nothing wrong with it at all. The metallic notes remind me a bit of a Baltic porter.

Serving type: on-tap

02-09-2012 18:02:57 | More by VaterRoss

brstls4drmrs

North Carolina

4.03/5  rDev -2.4%
look: 4.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 4 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

2012 brew

A - Pours a dark coffee/black color with a light brown head. The froth looks as if its a creamy foam mixed in with cocoa giving it a brown color.

S - Earthy, coffee dry malt bomb. There's actually a burnt malty smell in there as well which is different. Some dark sweet fruit in there too.

T - Hints of dark chocolate with a big malt flavor. Some hints of coffee in there as well.

M - Mild to medium carbonation and a smooth texture.

O - Always enjoy waiting in line for this one.

Serving type: bottle

02-06-2012 03:03:17 | More by brstls4drmrs

tdm168

North Carolina

4.25/5  rDev +2.9%
look: 4.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 4.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

On tap at Wine 101 in Wake Forest.

Pours pitch black with a big cappuccino head that has great retention. The nose is rich, chocolaty, and roasty. The flavor is also rich and chocolaty as well as roasty and coffee-like. The finish offers some faint alcohol phenols. The mouthfeel is a little thin, but the carbonation is just right.

This is smooth, drinkable, and very enjoyable. The mouthfeel could be a little fuller, but overall it's warm, delicious, and very enjoyable. It's worth checking out.

Serving type: on-tap

02-05-2012 01:47:09 | More by tdm168

Mantooth

North Carolina

4.15/5  rDev +0.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 4.5 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 4

Poured into a Foothills glass (which somehow wound up in my car at the end of the evening).

A: Jet black pour, proud foamy head & gentle lacing throughout.

S: Malty chocolate goodness.

T: Malt, bittersweet chocolate, molasses and a smidge of alcohol.

M: Typical RIS, little thinner than I would expect but that's always been the case for this brew and I can't fault it for that.

O: It's tough to measure the worth of a beer with this much hype. I fully understand folks who work their butts off to try this and find it falling short of their expectations; however, I live in NC - couple hours from the brewery, so I'm lucky enough to have this beer on draft (bottled if I work for it) many times each year, and while it's hyped to the nines, it's also a damn good beer. The rarity definitely drives the craving for this beer but let's not lose the fact that it's damn good.

Serving type: on-tap

02-04-2012 23:31:49 | More by Mantooth

wedge

North Carolina

4.38/5  rDev +6.1%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 4.5 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 4.5

2011

@ Woody's

Ah, my yearly single glass of Sexual Chocolate. At least it was a big pour. Pitch black body under a slim creamy coating. The initially mild aroma began to come alive as it warmed up...dark chocolate, molasses, and purple fruit. It's not super chocolaty so much as a hefty dose of roasted malt with dark chocolate undertones. More of a chocolate presence in the mouth - though again, nothing overly rich and decadent. Semi-sweet chocolate, abundant roast, dark fruity tartness, and ground espresso beans. Full, silky smooth mouthfeel goes down very easily without any perceivable alcohol.

I've never had this from a bottle - standing in line in the cold, pre-dawn doesn't interest me...too much hype. On tap though, when I can find it, it is always excellent.

Serving type: on-tap

02-03-2012 13:44:57 | More by wedge

doppelmeup

North Carolina

3.75/5  rDev -9.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

After hearing the hype for so long, I finally was able to get a pint on tap. Overall I really felt like this beer, while good, was nothing special and rather disappointing in that regard.

A: Looked like a stout -
S: The best part of the beer - some chocolate, some roasted malts.
T: Again, a good stout but nothing that really grabbed my attention. Not nearly as sweet as Southern Tier Choklat (which may or may not be a good thing depending upon your taste). For me, I would expect a stout with this name to be sweeter and have more a pronounced chocolate flavor. Noticeably bitter finish.
M: Not bad. Very stout-like.
O: Not a bad stout, but IMO didn't live up to the hype.

Serving type: on-tap

02-01-2012 19:13:00 | More by doppelmeup

bballmj2k

North Carolina

4.3/5  rDev +4.1%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 4.5 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 4.5

Managed to get a couple bottles of this rarity. Had 2011 vintage on tap once last year and was pretty impressed.

A - Hard to describe this style without being redundant. Pitch black, creamy mocha head that sticks around for quite a while.

S - Good not great. Chocolate dominates, dark, bitter notes along with some fruity characters and a hint of alcohol.

T - Huge bitterness up front (85 IBU) - most of flavor has that rich coffee and dark dark chocolate. At the end there's a bit of that fruitiness that tends to come up in this bigger stouts.

M - Creamy, medium-full, but not viscous. It works with that light carbonation - not sticky/sweet.

O - I think this is a really good imperial stout. It's worth seeking out but I wouldn't stand in-line for it at 3 am. Doesn't quite hit that upper tier but is really nice.

Serving type: bottle

02-01-2012 07:37:43 | More by bballmj2k

VncentLIFE

North Carolina

4.25/5  rDev +2.9%
look: 4 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 4.5

I had to rush over to Tyler's in Carrboro to try it from a keg to save my bottle to share with dakkon54!

Had to be forcefully poured from the tap. White head floats atop a black body.

Hm smell is actually reminiscent of Siberian Night. Light for a Stout, but still a good bit or dark roasted malt. Decent amount of dark bitter chocolate and espresso,

Hm taste isnt what I expected. With a name like Sexual Chocolate, I was expecting extreme chocolate, but what I get is an upfront bitterness from the dark chocolate and espresso that fades into a clean dark chocolate feeling. Still really good, but not world class.

Serving type: on-tap

01-31-2012 01:26:57 | More by VncentLIFE

CuriousMonk

Virginia

3.43/5  rDev -16.9%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Pours black in color with a dark brown head which leaves behind a one-finger lacing throughout. Lacked the nice aromatics I was hoping to pick up on with this special-release brew which was the suggested big chocolate aroma with notes of espresso, blackstrap molasses, dark sweet toffee and dark fruit as the brewery suggested. There was a rough dark chocolate backbone with complex notes of coffee, dark toffee and dark fruit that didn’t sit well with me. I was hughely disappointed with this brew as I traded big for this one and Draft Mag rated this a must-try top 10 beer in 2011.

Serving type: bottle

01-04-2012 19:47:52 | More by CuriousMonk

zhanson88

California

3.43/5  rDev -16.9%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

2010 vintage poured into some Lost Abbey stemware.

Appearance: Pours out dark brown that looks almost opaque when in the glass. I do detect some garnet hues around the edges, which is unexpected. About 1" of khaki colored head forms, which has nice retention and lacing. Seems a bit light in color and in body, but the head retention makes up for that somewhat.

Smell: Well this is a big smoke and roast bomb. Extremely big smoke component in this. Not really getting much else on the nose to be honest. Possibly a bit of sweetness. Milk chocolate?

Taste: Big smoke and roast component, once again on the palate. There is some sweetness that shows in the form of liquorice notes. Tastes better than it smells, but still too smoke dominated.

Mouthfeel: Body is definitely short of full; more in the medium body range. Moderate to low carbonation, which is the only reason this beer drinks smoothly at all. Overall, this is an interesting take on a RIS. Too smoke heavy and one dimensional. Definitely not my favorite from this style.

Serving type: bottle

01-02-2012 03:24:06 | More by zhanson88

aasher

Indiana

3.58/5  rDev -13.3%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

2010 vintage, courtesy of thagr81us in a massive trade awhile back. Thanks Calton!

It pours a full bodied dark, dark brown with a mocha colored one finger creamy head. It smells of sweet milk chocolate and little else. It's just a chocolate bomb, as to be expected. The flavors are initially very bitter with heavy roast as it eases into sweet milk chocolate. It definitely wasn't this bitter the first time I had it. It's somewhere between milk and dark chocolate because of this. It's solid, but nothing spectacular. It drinks medium in body and is a nice beer. It just isn't very complex and isn't as refined as it could be.

Serving type: bottle

12-31-2011 04:32:51 | More by aasher

oline73

Maryland

3.1/5  rDev -24.9%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

2010 bottle opened at the tasting this past weekend. Poured into a snifter.

Appearance: Pours almost black with a reddish ring around the edge when the light hits it. There is a layer of tan head that fades quickly.

Smell: Sweet and very smokey with some alcohol heat. Smells like this is going to be a bitter stout.

Taste: This beer is too bitter. Really roasty with some smoke and hop bitterness as well. There is some dark fruit, but the bitterness seems to hide any chocolate that could be found. Not very smooth.

Mouthfeel: The body is on the thin side for the style with tingly carbonation and a dry finish.

Overall: This beer is a lot more bitter than it needs to be. I really would have liked this beer to be smoother and have a stronger chocolate presence.

Serving type: bottle

12-20-2011 04:35:41 | More by oline73

pollox87

California

2.95/5  rDev -28.6%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

2010 22 oz

A - Poured black with little head, dark beer with little lacing.

S - Smelled a bit smokey roasted, but a bit of a chemical smell to it.

T - It tasted like smoke and roast, none of the richness that I want in a RIS. There was no smoothness and it was a bit too astringent.

M - way too thin for the style.

O - There are many off the shelve beers that I would rather have, I didn't want to penalize the rating because of how hard this was to get, The beer should stand on it's own rare or common, and this one was just not good.

Serving type: bottle

12-10-2011 22:57:53 | More by pollox87

kzoobrew

Michigan

3.05/5  rDev -26.2%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Reviewed from notes. 09-11 vertical courtesy of dosbeerigos. Review will describe each vintage, score is an overall rating.

All three years had a very similar appearance. The body was deep brown bordering on black. Each fell short of being opaque, noticeable light breaks the surface. One to two finger malted milk colored head sat atop each. Retention was decent, moderate lacing left behind.

The aroma is where we can first start separating the vintages. 09 was heavy on the chocolate in the nose. Dark sugars and roast fill in just behind, this was the best smelling vintage. The 10 was very smoke forward, nearly to the point I felt it should be labeled a smoked stout. The roast is more prominent and the chocolate subdued in comparison to the 09. The 11 fell somewhere in between the previous two years. The smoke was less prominent but the roast was assertive. The chocolaty sweetness emerged a bit more than the 10. The 09 deserves a good rating, the 10 and 11 were average at best.

The flavor follows the trends identified in the nose for the most part. 09 was once again heavy on the chocolate. Supporting roast and caramel flavors compliment. The 10 still manages to be dominated by smoke. The bitter chocolate and smoke flavor clash, simply not that enjoyable. The 11 once again finds a middle ground. The chocolate flavor is offset my a decent amount of roast. The contrasting flavors work rather well. Based on taste the 09 is a 4, 10 probably a 2.5 and the 11 a 3.

The mouthfeel was rather similar among all three vintages. Medium bodied beer, falling just short of full. The carbonation is on the lower side, this is probably a good thing for this thinner body. Each lacked a viscosity I would like to see in an Imperial Stout.

If you give me an 09, I would happily drink that often. Unfortunately I cannot say the same about the 10 or 11. Overall this beer is decent but there are many readily available beers which can match or surpass the quality. Worth trying but not worth going out of your way for.

Serving type: bottle

12-02-2011 14:36:41 | More by kzoobrew

Kaydogg

Pennsylvania

2.98/5  rDev -27.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

2011 - about a 5-6 oz pour

A - black/brown with a one finger light tan head that fades to a rim of bubbles..looks pretty well carbed.

S- Really not much on smell..was really trying to pull something out..roasted malts

T- What what what...sexual smoke. - harsh coffee roasts through out with a very smokey aftertaste. I honestly cannont taste any chocolate.

Mouthfeel is way to thin, watery and light. Reminded me of Beer Geek Bacon, or a smoked porter

Overall, very disappointing.. surprised reviews are all over the place..this is not a stout let alone a stout with chocolate in it.... thin, and boring. Hype train..choo choo

Serving type: bottle

Serving type: bottle

11-30-2011 03:26:23 | More by Kaydogg

AleWatcher

Illinois

3.08/5  rDev -25.4%
look: 2 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 1 | overall: 3

Reviewed from notes.
Shared by DSC-- check my review of the barrel aged SC for more details!

08-11 vintages all tried side by side.
The 08 was the handsdown best, and the 10 was the worst. The 11 was slightly better than the 10.

The 08 was thick, velvety, and luxurious... Just a nice beer, and exactly what I'd hope for this beer to be.... Sadly, my pour of that 08 was too small to review... This review is of the 2010 bottle.

Thin. Very thin. Watery, thin, and light feeling. The beer is dark, but it looks brownish and red with garnet and amber hues. A wispy cloud of bubbles is all that's left after the head vanished abruptly. It looks really thin--- and thus, I am not surprised when I find it feels very thin too.

Big boozy bite at the back end. A very roasty malt quality borders on being smokey while covering up a lot of any chocolate malt that one would expect to find. Some toffee and coffee, molasses... Meh. It is what it is.

Feels thin and undercarbonated. Feels slick and oily.

Overall-- not really working for me at all. If this were available on shelves, I might pick one up to see if 2 or 3 years will help this one reach the platform on which the 2008 stood.

Serving type: bottle

11-27-2011 04:55:15 | More by AleWatcher

chase2634

Pennsylvania

2.2/5  rDev -46.7%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

A: Dark as night with a decent tan head.

S: Smoke, some roasted malts, char and more smoke.

T: Not sure if i got a bad bottle but this was as smokey as Surley Smoke, but not as good. Tasted Nothing like the flavor profile was supposed to. A real let down.

M: Oily, Slick

O: All 10 people at our tasting thought this beer should have been called Sexual Smoke. There was very little sweetness, coffee or chocolate and we had it before we tried the barrel aged version which was 1000 x's better. I won't bother trading for this one again. Terrible let down!

Serving type: bottle

11-13-2011 22:36:21 | More by chase2634

claytong

Vermont

4.1/5  rDev -0.7%
look: 4 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

2010 vintage 532/1000

appearance - dark chocolate in color, small deep mocha head, decent lacing

smell - very sweet, milk chocolate, brown sugar, honey, cocoa nibs, caramel

taste - taste so much like the parabola. dark bitter chocolate is damn strong. minor sugar. dark malts.

mouthfeel/overall - thick bodied, good carbonation, a little sticky in the mouth.

Serving type: bottle

10-29-2011 17:08:29 | More by claytong

ne0m00re

Ohio

4.15/5  rDev +0.5%
look: 4 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 4

10/09/11- Review of bottle number 1/750 of the Feb 2009 release.
A: Opaque black with a dark caramel head and slow lacing.
S: Sweet dark chocolate (I feel like saying "check!" after this, for some reason), molasses, light banana--nutty like banana bread--subtle bacon smokey, some port oxidation. Good.
T: Dark chocolate throughout, clean fig and cranberry, cigar smoke in the finish, almost cloying sweet to a more dry earthy finish.
M: Thick and syrupy immediately turns light and almost crisp and lingers sticky.
O: Good. Between BORIS and BCBS in a good way.

Serving type: bottle

10-21-2011 03:40:35 | More by ne0m00re

KickInTheChalice

Illinois

3.63/5  rDev -12.1%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Poured from a 22 oz. bottle into a tulip. Thanks to goodstrongbeer for bringing this out.

Appearance: This is a good looking pour. The beer itself has a deep ebony hue while the cap retains a coffee and cream color. The head never obtains a very large volume, however, and it slowly settles to a collar around the glass.

Smell: As advertised, the aroma does tend toward the dark chocolate and roasted malt side of things. Not really sweet, but rather dark unsweetened chocolate is the primary aroma, with roasted malt, and some smoke and tobacco in the back.

Taste: The flavor matches the profile of the aroma without matching the intensity. The dark chocolate and roasted malt flavors again dominate, with some roast coffee, smoke, and light dark fruits present as well. The finish is lightly bitter.

Mouthfeel: This has a surprisingly light body for a 10% stout, I was expecting this to be much more full and viscous. The carbonation is creamy and smooth, but the light body detracts a fair amount from my enjoyment of the beer.

Overall: This was not significantly better than any other number of imperial stouts and doesn't seem to warrant the praise it receives.

Serving type: bottle

10-12-2011 22:03:12 | More by KickInTheChalice

Schmittymack

Colorado

3.68/5  rDev -10.9%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

On tap at GABF; two samples.

Pours dark brown or even black with a very thin head. Aromas of chocolate, roasted sweet malt, and a touch of coffee. Taste of bittersweet chocolate, roasted malt, dark fruit, and a hint of alcohol. This is another of those elusive brews I was glad to have tasted but just don't get the hype. A very quaffable brew but I'm not going to trade away the cellar to acquire a bottle of this.

Serving type: on-tap

10-02-2011 04:31:30 | More by Schmittymack

rockyfire

North Carolina

3.85/5  rDev -6.8%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

Pours black with a short head and a nice ring of lacing.

Scent of chocolate, raisins, oats, roasted malts, dark fruit, sugars, and a hint of alcohol. While not particularly impressive it had a good depth and balance as well as some nice complexity.

Taste of bittersweet chocolate, roasted malts, dark fruit, and molasses. Has a nice bitterness to it with nearly unnoticeable alcohol. A tasty brew.

Mouthfeel is very smooth and heavy bodied with a small amount of carbonation.

This is a good beer to try if you can find it. I just don't understand all the hype. Good Luck finding it, I had to trade my left n.. to get a bottle of it!

Serving type: bottle

09-27-2011 03:07:06 | More by rockyfire

nhindian

Pennsylvania

4.2/5  rDev +1.7%
look: 4 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 4 | overall: 4.5

22oz bottle poured into a Mikkeller wine glass. Bottle generously provided by thagr81us as an extra, thanks a ton Calton!!

A - Pours a smooth, sensual, dark mocha brown, and I'd feel comfortable calling this as close to black as you can get. There's only about a finger of sand-colored head, which doesn't last very long before reducing to a thin cap and small bubbles. The lacing almost seems to repel itself, breaking apart in strands rather than form a cohesive covering, but this leads to some neat topography ripe with ridges and canyons of lace.

S - The nose on this is, as would be expected, exceptionally rich in chocolate. Unlike Southern Tier's Chokolat, however, this is a bittersweet cocoa smell rather than the sweet, fudge-like chocolate in Chokolat. Besides that, there isn't a whole lot else besides some fresh espresso roast. There may be traces of darker fruits and alcohol afoot, but if present, is quite faint.

T - Surprisingly, the strong cocoa presence in the nose gives way to more roast in the taste. I guess this gives it a bit more balance, but I would've loved to see the chocolate be the dominant feature in a beer that is named, well, Sexual Chocolate. It starts off nicely enough, with a baker's chocolate flavor mixed with some sweeter malts to give it a nice toffee or molasses edge. From there, I'm actually getting a big, big burst of coffee that begins to overpower the other flavors. This roast continues into the finish, where again, I'm getting traces of dark fruits, but they are buried far below the espresso.

M - Mouthfeel is moderately heavy-bodied with medium-low carbonation. Despite the lowish carbonation, it doesn't burden the palate or get too heavy. The head, while it lasts, lends it a nice creaminess, like the bloom on a freshly-pressed cup of coffee.

D/O - Drinkability is pretty high. I'll start with a disclaimer: Overall and generally, I felt this was a damn tasty beer throughout and really enjoyed drinking it. The issue I take with it, however, is that I don't think I got an overwhelming chocolate presence that would justify it being named after it. I'm not bashing the beer or it's name at all; for all I know, Foothills could've just picked the name based on it being catchy and exciting and because this beer actually does exhibit a semblance of chocolate. That being said, I can't say I didn't come into this beer expecting dominant chocolate ala Chokolat. I love coffee and coffee stouts, though, so I didn't mind the hostile takeover performed by the espresso in the taste. I hope I get the chance to try the barrel-aged version of this, because it seems like the bourbon would really transform the nuances of this beer.

Serving type: bottle

09-19-2011 05:45:14 | More by nhindian

claaark13

Indiana

3.48/5  rDev -15.7%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

Thank you morimoto, I opened a bottle of this and passed it around on DLD, not getting the pour I needed. You provided me with a 2nd chance to give it a deserved taste.

A - Pours a fairly dark, +1.5" brown head. Doesn't appear to be that thick, but rather an average or slightly above average RIS body. Looks nice overall with good head retention. A little better looking than par, but doesn't have the long thick legs I'd expected.

S - Smoke and roasted malt. Nothing special at all here for me. The guy next to me likes it, but this isn't his review.

T - Smokey. Roasted Malts. Smokey. Tries to get a little sweet, but then it doesn't and instead stays smokey. I get a little cocoa, NOT CHOCOLATE, towards the end. As I sip on it more, chocolate comes out in the middle of the flavor. Slightly bitter, definitely smokey finish. I think the smoke takes away from the chocolate potential here. I'm not sure where the anticipated chocolate went....maybe it evaporated and rained over at the Bruery. Seriously though, I dislike that I have to drink 1/2 a glass to get that cocoa flavor. I'm starting to enjoy the beer a bit towards the end, but at a tasting I'd be bummed.

M - Good enough body for a RIS. Not as thick as I'd prefer, but there aren't many that are. I respect the thickness. Creamy mouthfeel is positive.

O - I am disappointed with this one. The smoke takes away from what I think is a decent amount of potential. It is evident throughout my entire 10-12oz pour. Chocolate only comes out after 6oz or so. Otherwise, I have to fight to find it. I'm not going to kill the score because I find it to be unique and it does get a lot better as the glass empties. Less smoke is my request. However, I can see how some people could really enjoy this. I think this is a smoked beer drinker's paradise. Unfortunately, it isn't my preference. I think the BA version will probably benefit from the smokiness though.

Serving type: bottle

09-17-2011 01:33:22 | More by claaark13