Chocolate Porter - Bayhawk Ales

kojevergas

California

2.68/5  rDev +0.8%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

1 pint 6 fl oz brown glass bottle with standard pressure cap acquired at Cap N Cork Market in Los Feliz for $3.99 and served into a Uinta pilsner glass in me gaff in low altitude Los Angeles, California. Reviewed live. Expectations are above average; I liked their honey blonde but the current ratings for this beer are exceptionally low.

Served straight from the refrigerator and allowed to warm over the course of consumption. Side-poured with standard vigor as no carbonation issues are anticipated.

A: Pours a four finger rich khaki-light tan head of good cream, thickness, and retention. Body colour is a very dark nontransparent black. It appears weaker than most beers in the style, not quite a solid black. Opaque.

Sm: Weak dark malts and stale cream. Comes off a bit like a poorly executed schwarzbier. Some chocolate malt. An average strength aroma.

T: Dark malts, horridly imbalance cream, a mess of chocolate malt, a strange faux-vanilla artificial note. Quite the hodgepodge. This is not a beer to examine for balance by any means. No real roast comes through. The chocolate is about as noncommittal as it gets. I don't know what they were going for but this is rather meh. Presence weakens in the third act. It lacks a consistent body.

Mf: Its best attribute. Smooth, wet, silky, even a touch creamy. Pretty well executed, if uneven around the climax. For a porter, this is actually a very well done mouthfeel. It's a shame it doesn't match the specific flavours here.

Dr: Drinkable but lackluster. I wouldn't get this again. Falls far afield of whatever it was trying to be. Very middling and undercooked. With the plethora of better beers in the style out there, this is sure to get lost in the mix. There are elements of the beer that really succeed, but ultimately its lack of balance really drags it down.

A poor candidate for aging.

I will say that it seems like others might be being pretty hard on this one, mainly by clinging too closely to their idea of style conventions. I imagine if the beer was the exact same only called "Chocolate Schwarzbier" and categorized similarly, it would have much higher ratings. An unfortunate truth.

C-

Serving type: bottle

10-30-2012 05:00:54 | More by kojevergas

Blackwolf

2.3/5  rDev -13.5%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Poured from a bomber to pint glass.

A- dark burgundy body, khaki head that settled quickly, very little lacing.

S- The aroma opened up more as the beer settled. Dark roasted malt, some light fruit. Kinda has a "guinnessy" smell honestly.

T- Light roasted malt and copper. Really not enjoying it too much. Some bittersweet finish, almost catch some coffee in it, but that metallic taste just consumes you! =/

MF- Too light bodied for a porter. Slick and bottoms out fast.

O- I couldn't wait to finish it just to get to my next review. I don't really enjoy much of anything about this beer, especially for the style. They could maybe get away with making a dark lager perhaps, but this is a very poorly crafted porter. Makes me very sad to say so.

Serving type: bottle

09-20-2012 04:38:39 | More by Blackwolf

charlzm

California

2.28/5  rDev -14.3%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 1.5

Consumed July 23rd, 2012. Served at 45 degrees F.

Beer pours into a standard pint glass a very deep, transparent brown with lighter brown highlights. A frothy three-finger light tan head erupts, settling down before too long to less than a finger of creamy foam that only barely sticks to the sides of the glass.

Aroma: very slight roasted malt with a hint of red grape. A touch of must and a slight metallic note as well.

On the tongue, this beer does not improve. Strangely sweet, lightly metallic and again featuring a slight red grape character, there is also the expected bitter roasted malt and yes, even a dash of weak chocolate. A little sourness as well. The flavor is a mess, but it's not straight up offensive. At least not at first...

Mouthfeel: as expected for a porter, this beer is medium bodied and a little creamy.

Despite my efforts, as the beer warmed above cellar temp, the flavors took on a less tolerable character until I finally had to introduce most of the bomber to the drain.

Serving type: bottle

07-24-2012 03:19:07 | More by charlzm

Beerandraiderfan

Nevada

2.6/5  rDev -2.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Thin brown presence in the bottle, beige head, could be thicker looking. Aroma did impart chocolate, so it delivered in that arena. Wasn't pungent or whatnot, but it was standard.

A little bit of chocolate in the taste, but really, this is a brown ale dressed up as a porter with some chocolate malt. Mild, super mild roast notes. They skimped. They skimped on the amount of malt. They skimped on the chocolate. They skimped on roasting. I've had some homebrews that claimed to be stouts, porters, black ales that were simply brown ale variations. This was reminiscient of those.

Cheap for a reason. Cheap in, cheap out.

Serving type: bottle

11-28-2011 22:52:59 | More by Beerandraiderfan

Murrhey

Montana

1.7/5  rDev -36.1%
look: 2 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 1 | overall: 1.5

22 oz bottle poured in a pint glass

A- Nice deep roast coffee color. No head to speak of. Even less lacing. Can't see any carbonation. Not off to a great start.

S- Roast (almost burnt) malts. Coffee. Can't smell any chocolate. Bummer.

T- Whoa. Very thin roast flavor. Not complex, little chocolate tones. Soapy.

M- Way too thin. This is an IPA trapped in a Porter's body.

O- Nope. This might be my first failing beer. Not happy with what I was presented at all. Bought the beer because of the price at BevMo...now I see why it was so low.

Serving type: bottle

11-08-2011 04:27:01 | More by Murrhey

DrJay

Massachusetts

3.03/5  rDev +13.9%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

Very dark with brown edges and a thin layer of tan bubbles coating the beer and sides of the glass. Bitter chocolate aroma with light roast and toffee. Creamy texture medium plus bodied with lowish carbonation. It's fairly bitter with mild malty sweetness, grassy with some alcohol and slight tartness present. I enjoyed the aroma, but the flavour seemed off to me.

Serving type: bottle

08-26-2011 00:22:17 | More by DrJay

timmos1

California

3.6/5  rDev +35.3%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 3.5

Oh how we love to jump on bandwagons good or bad. I drank this beer before reading any reviews. Wanted to see if anything good comes out of orange county. First, it doesn't taste like other choc porters. I will agree to that. But, there are a lot of choc porters out there and if you want to copy one then why bother. What I liked was the smoothness and sweetness. Im not a big fan of heavy coffee overtones and this is really lacking in coffee, but for me that is a plus. Its more like milk chocolate than dark chocaolate. I like this beer, its lighter and ok for summer. Its goes down easy for me and I like a change. Sweet instead of bitter ok. If I want a coffee or bitter choc ale then I go with others (firestone walker,rogue etc). This is unique I will give you that.

Serving type: bottle

08-11-2011 05:29:49 | More by timmos1

Retsinis

California

2.75/5  rDev +3.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Having this as I type this, on draft at McG's. Always passed on the bottle due to the reviews here, but they just tapped it, so I know its a least, well hopefully, fresh.

A: Served in a pint glass, the beer pours a dark cloudy brown with light beige hue on the edges. About a full inch of head slowly settled to about a quarter inch. It leaves a lot of sticky lacing. Looks pretty good.

S: mild dark chocolate, some coffee, a touch of brown sugar, and mild roasted malt.

T: pretty much mirrors the nose. All the flavors are there, but there a bit dull. Mild coffee, chocolate, lightly roasted malt, and a bleak mild bitterness.

M: medium to high carbonation, light feel, and thin for a porter.

O: barely average. It was light and a beer. It was a porter, but a forgetable one. It had some flavor, but didn't really satisfy. Fro
m the 60+ bottle reviews and only 7 or so tap reviews. It would appear that it is marginally better on tap...but that ain't saying much.

Serving type: on-tap

05-14-2011 01:20:18 | More by Retsinis

womencantsail

California

1.53/5  rDev -42.5%
look: 2 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 1

Now this is a beer truly worthy of tick #1900.

A: The beer pours an appropriate color for a porter: dark brown, or there abouts. However, the foam fills up about three-quarters of the glass.

S: Oh what have we here...green olives dominate the aroma (that can't be good). Other vegetables seem to fill the air as I sniff the glass. Definitely some vinegar and spoiled chocolate with a bit of roast and a generally acidic character.

T: It tastes like olives too. Acidic and acetic with burnt malts and no chocolate whatsoever. The intensely overcarbonated nature of the beer doesn't do much to help it out, either. Maybe some old coffee grounds, too.

M: The body is light to medium with an almost scouring level of carbonation.

D: Oh Bayhawk, you know how to bring the fail. This is just a terrible, terrible beer.

Serving type: bottle

02-01-2011 08:18:06 | More by womencantsail

imagese

California

2.28/5  rDev -14.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

A- dark cola with ruby hues at edges. Pour produced a 2 finger head that faded fast and lefty a soapy lacing

S- predominant chocolate malt followed by a mixture of soy sauce, vinegar, and a slight roasted malt

T- oddly tart chocolate and vinegar. Very one dimensional

M- medium body and decent carbonation. The odd flavor coats the whole mouth

D- pushed hard to get thru half the bomber, but the beer seemed to taste more and more like burnt sugar free cocoa...

Serving type: bottle

02-01-2011 01:16:10 | More by imagese

comfortablynumb1

California

2.42/5  rDev -9%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Popped this one as breakfast beer for the Miami Dolphins game. Didn't have to high of expectations considering the 3 dollar price tag...

Poured from a bomber into a Miami Dolphins pint glass...

A - Pours dark brown with a one finger tan head. Good amount of head retention , and lacing to be had. Nice. Maybe I found a gem here...

S - Chocolate, watered down coffee, and a hoppy scent. Not as excited with the smell as I am with the appearance...

T - This is where this one goes way down hill. Lots of chocolate followed by an overpowering sweetness. Also get a small hint of a metallic taste. Ends on a hop note (Kent Goldings?), that does note flow with the rest of the beer, and a hint of chocolate bitterness. Tastes like the next door neighbors home brew. Not impressed...

M - Medium bodied with a good amount of carbonation...

D - If you are in the mood for some metallic chocolate, followed by over the top sweetness; then this one might be for you. Otherwise, I would probably pass...

Cheers...

Serving type: bottle

12-08-2010 06:39:05 | More by comfortablynumb1

pixieskid

France

2.45/5  rDev -7.9%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

thin body, slightly slick mouthfeel, moderate carbonation.
mild malt presence with a hint of licorice upfront.
Roasted malt note throughout with a hint of chocolate,
finishing with a mild bitterness and an unusual tart note.

I knew I was taking a risk when I bought the $3.50 bomber, but I figured why not, it can't be that bad.

Then I read the reviews and had really low expectations.
Having said that, it's not that bad, definetely not good, but not a drain pour.
I ate a rich chocolate while drinking it and that helped out.

Serving type: bottle

08-18-2010 21:57:05 | More by pixieskid

ccrida

Oregon

2.15/5  rDev -19.2%
look: 4 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2

Appearance is a fizzy black, with a creamy mocha head with long last, leaving foamy lace.

Smell is strong and pungent - sweet caramel, major diacetyl. Pretty much as bad as it gets without being infected.

Taste is not as pungent, but has a big punch, malty, really vinous, caramel. Diacetyl is still very prevalent, but then dark malts struggle to provide a semblance of balance - and ultimately fail. Not as bad as the nose, but not good.

Mouthfeel is drier, medium bodied.

Drinkability is tenuous. This is a poorly executed porter with some serious flaws. The cheap price makes it and easy candidate for pouring down the drain and moving on...I made it about a third of the way through the bomber before I moved on...

Serving type: bottle

04-16-2010 05:18:17 | More by ccrida

mactrail

California

1.78/5  rDev -33.1%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 1.5

Sour dishwater.

I don't think this beer can be rated because it is marginally spoiled. The bacterial taste is taking over whatever else it might have once tasted like.

I think Bayhawk has a problem with some of their bottled ales, and they seem to be happy to leave them on the shelves for the unwary to buy. I'm going to look at my usual San Diego retailers to see where I paid $3.99 for this. This is the second of their beers I have tried and it too will water the garden.

Serving type: bottle

03-24-2010 05:11:42 | More by mactrail

ifnkovhg

California

2.1/5  rDev -21.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

This would be a decent smoked porter. Unfortunately, it's supposed to be a chocolate porter.

I've tried this beer twice now many months apart. No chocolate nose. No chocolate flavors.

Blech.

two hundred and fifty characters. Why punish the succinct?

Serving type: bottle

01-08-2010 05:51:20 | More by ifnkovhg

davexisxrabid

California

2.35/5  rDev -11.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

(Tried the beer before reading any reviews - this is one of the only times I was ever sorry I did that)

Poured into a standard pint glass. Poured dark brown with a nice 1 inch tan head, little retention, but decent lacing during the drinking period.

Aroma of chocolate and roasted almonds.

Taste it tart, like a raspberry porter and not a chocolate porter. Doesn't have the dark chocolate bitterness, its sour! I find this odd because it didn't smell funky and sour or infected. Odd, not what I was expecting from a chocolate porter.

Lingering sour flavor on the palate. Mouthfeel was really thin actually. Had an almost white wine vinegar effect on the palate.

Below average drinkability I would have to say. This is not what I expected at all. And from reading many of the reviews below, I see that I am far from being alone...

Serving type: bottle

12-30-2009 04:13:58 | More by davexisxrabid

beagle75

Iowa

2.6/5  rDev -2.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2

This is a review of my second encounter with this beer; the first was an obviously-spoiled bottle that I did not feel the need to review since many others have documented the undrinkable sour qualities of spoiled Bayhawk chocolate porter.

Poured from a 22 oz. bomber into a pint glass. I will consider this beer guaranteed-fresh since it was obtained directly from the Bayhawk bottle rep. one week ago and refrigerated at home since.

A: Dark brown (no light transmission) at the center of the glass, with coppery-brown around the edges. Less than one finger of beige foam head. No lacing remains.

S: Weak coffee, or old coffee grounds.

T: Immediate bitter chocolate followed by a slight tang that reminds of cola (without the sweetness). The bitter chocolate returns in the finish, and is probably the most pleasant part of this beer's taste. While it is fair to name this beer "chocolate," that flavor is not uniform in the beer. The overall flavor profile is unbalanced and gives the impression of what one of those beer mixes on the menu at the Yard House might taste like. One part imperial stout to two parts something else much lighter and tangier.

M: Medium body is creamy and coats the mouth. Carbonation is light. The texture is probably this beer's best quality.

D: I finished the bottle easily enough, but I would not look forward to having this beer again. If the tangy taste of this fresh bottle could somehow be lessened then I would consider it an improvement. It is no wonder that the old bottles take on an offensively sour taste when the fresh stuff starts out tasting like this.

Serving type: bottle

12-14-2009 00:23:24 | More by beagle75

theopholis

California

1.95/5  rDev -26.7%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Appearance- Body is a very dark brown with ruby highlights when held up to the light. The head was about 2 fingers of loose, tan foam that died down incredibly quickly. I don't think I've ever seen a head die this quickly. No lacing either.

Smell- Smells of dark bitter chocolate/coffee. A yeaty, wet diaper smell in the back-ground. Hope this stuff tastes better than it smells.

Taste- Nope. It's even worse. VERY harsh tasting. Acidic. Taste of burnt coffee. Bleh.

Mouthfeel- Mercifully thin, so there is no aftertaste. Normally, I would say the carboantion is to much, but the taste is so bad, who cares.

Drinkability- I dumped it down the sink.

Serving type: bottle

09-03-2009 07:38:34 | More by theopholis

papollo

Maine

1.25/5  rDev -53%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

How does this beer average a grade of "C"? I concur with the recent reviews. The first sip tasted like vinegar, and so did the second. I've never drain-poured a brew so fast, never mind one for which I had some high hopes. I noted that beer from this brewery averaged a "C" grade. Not goog, given the competition just in SoCal. I won't be back there.

Serving type: bottle

07-07-2009 23:42:29 | More by papollo

BeachBumC

Texas

1.4/5  rDev -47.4%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 1 | feel: 2 | overall: 1

Bought at Wades Wines in Westlake Village (great beer selection!)

I tried this beer initially a month ago and had such a negative reaction that I was sure it was just a bad bottle. So I went back and got another. Unfortunately, the results were no better.

Poured from a 22 oz. bottle into a pint glass:

APP: mahoghany/brown color, 1/4" head that dissipated quickly.

AROMA: Doesn't smell very good. After letting it sit for a few, I could get a light cocoa but really more of a vinegary aroma.

TASTE: This stuff is AWFUL! Wow! I never figured I'd find a porter, esp a chocolate style that would turn me off like this. It tastes astringent so maybe it is another bad bottle, I don't know.

MOUTH: Thin, watery, too thin for a porter.

DRINK: Absolutely not! I gave it a 2nd chance and in this case, it's two strikes it's out.

After a couple sips, it was in the drain. Not really sure how this one ever came to be bottled in the first place.

Serving type: bottle

03-23-2009 05:55:58 | More by BeachBumC

magictrokini

California

2.63/5  rDev -1.1%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

Coming out of the bottle, this looks great. Pours dark mahogany with a brown ring of bubbles. Too bad the nose and taste are all downhill from here. Nestle Quik aroma with burnt malt. Watered-down coffee and cocoa mixed with a touch of hops. Weak. This single beer has prevented me from trying any other of Bayhawk's products.

Serving type: bottle

12-05-2008 17:01:59 | More by magictrokini

bluejacket74

Ohio

1.58/5  rDev -40.6%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

22 ounce bottle. Served in a Sam Adams BL glass, the beer pours dark brown with about an inch tan head that went away quickly. The aroma isn't good at all. Initially all I could smell was vinegar. I did let this sit a while, and later I was able to smell some chocolate and roasted malt. But even after waiting 5 minutes the vinegar smell was still overpowering everything else. Unfortunately the taste is similar to the aroma, it's mostly vinegar, some sour taste I can't identify, and a little bit of chocolate and coffee in the finish. Mouthfeel/body is thin and watery, not pleasing at all. Drinkability is bad too, especially because I don't like drinking vinegar. I hope this is a bad bottle, but I don't plan on trying this again anytime soon. I had to drain pour this, I could only stand a few drinks of this before I couldn't take it any more. And after reading some of the other reviews for this beer, I'm not the only one who couldn't finish a bottle of this.

Serving type: bottle

11-28-2008 00:12:43 | More by bluejacket74

rkuhnel

California

1.4/5  rDev -47.4%
look: 1.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1

From a 22 oz bottle this poured dark brown with moderate tan head and some lacing. Nose is of roasted malts and some chocolate but there are some additional odd odors in there. Mouthfeel is light for a porter. Flavor is simply odd and not very nice.Regretfully this was too bad to finish. It is not often I pour beer out but I could not drink this stuff.

Serving type: bottle

11-27-2008 00:32:49 | More by rkuhnel

hopdog

Pennsylvania

3.48/5  rDev +30.8%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

22oz bottle shared courtesy of weeare138.

Poured a dark brown color with a smaller sized off white head. Aromas of cocoa and roasted malts. Tastes of chocolate, roasted malts, and light coffee. The chocolate wasn't as strong as I would have hoped for. Thinner body.

Notes from 1/5/07

Serving type: bottle

11-24-2008 01:45:07 | More by hopdog

beerhappy

California

1.2/5  rDev -54.9%
look: 3 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 2 | overall: 1

Let me start by saying that I LOVE porters... perhaps my favorite style of beer. But this one is a little hard to stomache. It's hard for me to believe that the brewer of this beer intended to offend the senses in such a manner. Pours a dark brown but not dark enough for a rich chocolate porter profile. Smells of over-ripe (on the verge of rancid) fruitiness. Tastes similar to this with a touch of vinegary ugliness to it. UGH... making my way to the sink to dispose of it. Tastes like a bad bottle but reading some of the recent reviews leads be to believe there is something that has gone horribly wrong with either the bottling or brewing processes behind this atrocity.

Serving type: bottle

11-20-2008 20:30:27 | More by beerhappy