Dark Lord vs. Darkness

I just had surly darkness for the first time last night, 2012 vintage, and it was immaculate. I do have a 2011 darkness, as well as a 2012 dark lord. So the question is which overall brew is better. I have heard 2012 isn't the best showing for dark lord, but i'm just looking to get some opinions from people who have tried both, as well as some recommendations for how long to cellar each bottle. Thanks for the info, cheers!

I am doing a 2008-2012 Darkness vertical soon, will report back on how the '08 is drinking but have heard it is still fantastic.

For the last five years or so every year of Dark Lord has been worse than the last. We're talking to the point it has noticeable brewing flaws and most people dump it out at tastings now. It is kind of sad. Darkness is pretty much good every year.

I had an 08 Darkness about 6 months ago. It was still drinking great.

Darkness is excellent. Dark Lord is excellent for trading it to dipshits who THINK it's going to be a great beer (like myself).

'08 Dark Lord was better than '08 Darkness.
Every other year of Darkness superior to every other year of Dark Lord.

Just one man's opinion.

Cool where do I sign up?

I'll bring the '12!

I'm planing on doing a 10 vs 12 soon and can say I'm very excited for it.

I drank both dl 11 and darkness 11 in a short time frame from each other and I found darkness to be stellar. Dark lord had something in it that I didn't like to much, but it was still good

Looks like this is even more one sided than I expected, maybe I should switch it to Darkness vs. the only RIS i've tried that I thought to be superior, Abyss

Only having my first Dark Lord recently (2012 vintage), and being a homer I definitely would go with Darkness. Having only had 2012 Dark Lord the sweetness was overpowering. I still enjoyed Dark Lord but having had most of the vintages of Darkness there was not one year that I would rate lower than the Dark Lord. Seeing the above posts as well as talking to people, I realize that previous years may have been better and my exposure is limited, but in my experience Darkness wins by a mile.

Yes, it's called saccharin!

09 would actually go well over steamed rice. Not as salty as the low sodium soy sauce but has a tad more thickness and more prominent seaweed flavors...

I have heard DL is beer meets soy sauce. Don't have availability in my area so can't say this would be my opinion. But it might make for some interesting tasting stir fry, perhaps a marinade for a coffee crusted steak...hmm.

I'm a vegetarian and I wouldn't ruin a steak by pouring dark lord over it.

Curious to see how 07 Darkness is drinking. Can't recall if the Ny whale slayers drank one recently...

Or the '06 growlers - wonder if any of those 60 still exist.

DL was one of the worst beers I have ever had. Had a '12 - was absolutely a disgusting, cloying mess. How that beer gets hype, and how a barrel fixes it - I have no idea.

I fall into that category as well. Dark Lord definitely has the highest hype to lowest quality of any of the hyped beers I've had. I've had a few worse imperial stouts, but only a few and none of which was as difficult to obtain.

I'm not sure who you're drinking with, but this just seems like nonsense/lies/people with bad palates. I haven't had '12, but '11 was fantastic fresh and even better with a year on it. '10 was great fresh, better with a year, and even better with three years on it (had a '10 last night). So if by "last five years" you mean "just vintages 2009 and 2012," you have a point.

I have only had Dark Lord, so far, 2012 and it was amazing. I love Three Floyds, but Surly is underrated, looking forward to sampling Darkness, one day.

Qualifier: do you like Black Tuesday? Do you like aspartame?

I was going to do that on December 22 for a we survived the end of the world party, but all my beer geek friends were busy. I would be interested to hear how you think they compare side by side.

http://beeradvocate.com/community/threads/rank-these-stouts.41539/#post-521671

Oh...wait....this has a poll....

I just did a 2008-2012 vertical with a couple of friends last month. We all thought 2008 was too sweet, but it was also too sweet in 2008. 2009 and 2010 were great. Then we opened 2011, and while it didn't seem like a bad beer, we all found it challenging to drink. We figured it was palate fatigue, but we opened the 2012 anyway, and thought it was fantastic. Back to 2011, and nobody could finish it.

I couldn't really put a finger on the problem. All I know is none of us enjoyed 2011 anywhere near as much as the others. Even 2008 was easy to finish.

I say Darkness. Dark Lord is too sweet IMO.

Not even a contest for me. Darkness by a billion miles.

Many off the shelf Imperial Stouts > Darkness >>> Dark Lord.

As far as I am concerned Dark Lord is an awful beer.

I think it's because every year the continue to grow the production and its not a simple task to do so. I've only had 12 Darklord and even though I like it I can see why others do not. It's overly sweet, it does have a soy sauce smell and taste like some say. And hopefully I can get to the rest of my bottles soon.

I thought Darklord was pretty terrible. I'd rather drink 90% of Imperial Stouts from my local store than it. Sam Adams Imperial Stout > Darklord

Darklord is trash.

Fresh Darkness wins over fresh Dark Lord. Though a well aged Dark Lord, paired with the likes of a grilled steak and smoked blue cheese, is a much finer treat than any Darkness I've ever had ('10-'12)

I loved Pappy Dark Lord, but if you have to fix a broken base beer by aging it on an excellent bourbon, I have my reservations. Although the 2011 Darkness I had was excellent, I wouldn't say it was memorable. It did make some mean beer pancakes the morning after!

Is that what you call the beer shits in Belgium?

Rarely have I laughed out loud at a forum post. No, literal pancakes, they were gorgeous but they sure did stick to the pan and make a mess.

Here's to hoping "pan" isn't slang for toilet anywhere in the world.

Threads like this confuse the shit out of me. Every other person is bashing dark lord like it's going out of style, yet it has a 96 rating? Does bashing good beer make you cool or something?

All the old timers rated it 5+ years ago when it was good and all the noobs don't know what they're doing.

This thread is ridiculous. As a loyal and local fan of FFFs, I would admit last 3 years that Darkness may be a slightly more attractive taste profile thanDL. I even went to Surlys Darkness release and marveled at how it played out. But to say DL is trash and a drain pour, is due to either unsophisticated palates or unfiltered jealousy at not really having access to FFFs.

I'm doing the same vertical tomorrow!

If anything, claiming Dark Lord is still good is the mark of an unsophisticated palate. I don't know of any reputable person who would say 2012 Dark Lord is a good beer. Can you not pick up all the soy sauce and green apple off-flavors?