dondk (28), leetsdale, Pennsylvania, USA
| 2.9 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 3/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 11/20 | Nov 16, 2005 Pours apparently black, but is actually dark, dark red upon closer look, with a nice tan head. A little thinner than many porters. Okay flavor of chocolate & coffee. masedawg (156), Statesville, North Carolina, USA
| 2.5 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 3/10 | 4/5 | 3/10 | 4/5 | 11/20 | Nov 15, 2005 Smells more like an ale than a porter, full of pine. Dark black in apearance with a light tan head. Good bitter taste, but very watery. Someone needs an education in porters. Bailz316 (221), Mendham, New Jersey, USA
| 2.5 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 3/5 | 5/10 | 3/5 | 9/20 | Nov 15, 2005 Blackish-ruby pour with small tan head. Grapefruit prominent in the nose. Pretty lively for a porter. Roasty. Finish is bitter. A little too watery. tronraner (1933), Seymour, Tennessee, USA
| 2.8 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 3/5 | 5/10 | 3/5 | 11/20 | Oct 26, 2005 Bottle. Pours a deep, but transparent if you look hard, brown-red with a very small head. The aroma is malt and pepper. The body is not nearly as robust as I would lke. The flavor isn’t bad, but is a little bit hollow: chocolate and coffee tasting malts, some faint bitter hops, and kind of an omnipresent burned sourness. The flavor is kind of weak and doesn’t stick around long. Drinkable, but not up to my standards for porters. NachlamSie (1644), Tennessee, USA
| 3.4 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 4/5 | 7/10 | 3/5 | 14/20 | Oct 25, 2005 Updated: Jan 31, 2007bottle. Pours apparently black, but is actually dark, dark red upon further inspection, with a nice little tan head. The aroma is pretty faint and is musty with just a hint of chocolate behind it. The flavor is mostly of dark chocolate with something strange I can’t idenify that only is apparent during the first second of a sip. This is way too watery to be a good porter, but I guess I can drink it without any real problem.
(Draught during my NC brew tour.) This was labeled as Redhook Nitro Porter at the Flying Saucer in Raleigh. I can’t find any information on a separate nitro porter from Redhook, so perhaps it is just the blackhook on a nitro tap. I don’t really know at all. Anyway, this was much more enjoyable than my bottled experiences have been. The brew was much creamier and even a little more robust than I remember. It had just a faint sourness to it with plenty of chocolate and coffee. Very easy to consume. cfranz (261), Acton, Massachusetts, USA
| 3 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 4/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 11/20 | Oct 12, 2005 Very dark mahogany. Very malty and winy in taste - kind of flat. No head, but nice color. I used to drink this a lot, but I wasn’t too impressed this time round. howie (549), DeForest, Wisconsin, USA
| 3.1 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 3/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 13/20 | Oct 10, 2005 Updated: Aug 29, 2007Dark brown, no head. Looks like root beer. Very much on the chocolatey side of the porter spectrum. Not enough hops or roast to make this enjoyable. Easy drinking, I suppose, and appealing to the masses. ebarnes (213), Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| 3.6 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 7/10 | 3/5 | 8/10 | 3/5 | 15/20 | Oct 4, 2005 Bottle. Pours nice and dark. A little thinner than a lot of porters. Nice flavor though. Good mix of chocolate & coffee.
|