Sexual Chocolate - Foothills Brewing Company - Downtown Brewpub

Not Rated.
Sexual ChocolateSexual Chocolate

Educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
91
outstanding

437 Reviews
THE BROS
-
no score

(Send Samples)
Reviews: 437
Hads: 1,190
rAvg: 4.09
pDev: 7.58%
Wants: 1,262
Gots: 316 | FT: 25
Brewed by:
Foothills Brewing Company - Downtown Brewpub visit their website
North Carolina, United States

Style | ABV
Russian Imperial Stout |  9.75% ABV

Availability: Winter

Notes & Commercial Description:
Beer added by: SaCkErZ9 on 02-15-2007

No notes at this time.
Beer: Reviews & Ratings
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Reviews: 437 | Hads: 1,190
Photo of JAXSON
1.59/5  rDev -61.1%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

To be straightforward, this beer was badly infected. Extremely high carbonation, flavors focused somewhere between charred malt and vinegar. The more interesting discussion is whether a beer/brewer should be punished with a very bad rating for an infected bottle. I believe in this case the bad review is warranted as a large number of bottles seem to be infected and pretty much undrinkable. Quality control should be a major focal point of commercial breweries and considering the lengths people go to to get this beer every year, this is unacceptable.

Back to the beer, I said it already, it was all pickles, vinegar, yet heavily bitter and charred, high carbonation. Not drinkable. (687 characters)

Photo of MonkeyBread
1.75/5  rDev -57.2%

Poured from bottle into tulip glass.

Lot of head bubbling up. Quality lacing, oh wait who gives a crap about lacing.

Smell is of bitter dark chocolate and generic powder coffee. That's about it, not too complex.

Taste is exactly the nose. A total one note of bitter dark chocolate and roastiness. The body is fairly smooth yet finishes bitter and astringent.

I have to be brutal here and say despite having high expectations for this well regarded stout, I find it one of the worst stouts out there. It has no complexity. Solely dark chocolate and the worst tasting gas station coffee caught up in a horrific amount of bitterness throughout the beer and especially in the finish. The IBUs are absurdly high, 85, why would you do that in a stout? This is brittle, miserable and painful to drink. It's a struggle not to drain pour. (836 characters)

Photo of oglmcdgl
1.78/5  rDev -56.5%
look: 4.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 1.5

A 2010 bottle from a trade that I wish I hadn't done. Booerns.

A- two nice big fingers of mocha colored head from a stiff pour that holds for a bit the settles to leave a thin tan skin on top. Black in color with super dark brown edges.

S- oh no! Well this doesn't smell right at all. It shows the signs of a pretty bad infection on the brewers part. Burnt malts and acrid coffee mixed with cherries and rotten fruit.

T- off. There's some old fruit and again old coffee. Burnt toast and funk with a long lasting dirty tart finish, like a cherry with white pepper on it.

M- on the thin side of medium and a bit overly carbed.

O- well this is not a good beer, nope not at all. I'm glad I opened it now rather then waiting till winter. Who knows how bad it would have been by then. (788 characters)

Photo of ktrillionaire
2.05/5  rDev -49.9%
look: 4 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Big thanks to HeyOhh for sharing this

Why review an infected bottle? Because it is still the product they put out, intentional or not. This bottle was generously shared at a tasting, and it was very disappointing to all of us who were expecting more. It must've been a huge disappointment to HeyOhh who brought and shared it. I know he traded some good stuff to land it.

A - Stout. Good.

S - Like charred cocoa, chewing tobacco and asphalt mixed with a McDonald's apple pie. But worse than that could possibly sound.

T - Interestingly, the infection and the flavors of the intended beer seem to stand apart, unlike, say, Black Tot where the infection and the flavor melded and crossed over. Regardless, this tastes gross due to the infection. It seems like a 'B' grade stout got knocked down to a 'D'.

M - Like a violation.

D - ISO clean Sexual Chocolate, so I can re-tick. (880 characters)

Photo of chase2634
2.22/5  rDev -45.7%
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! (558 characters)

Photo of TonyBrew
2.29/5  rDev -44%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

Pours a dark brownish black with a dark tan head on top. Nice lacing around glass (tulip). Happy with the looks of this Chocolate IS.

Very Strong Chocolate on the nose. Not too much but chocolate on the aroma, but perhaps a acetic acid along with the chocolate.

BIG Chocolate at first on the taste and a bit of a roasted characteristc to the chocolate taste, along with a bit of a resin likeness. The aftertaste is actually horrible, it is more like a cheap american stout taste with a helluva lot of chocolate added, rather then an imperial stout finish. NOT creamy, not smooth!

As for the body, BLAH! This is so thin, I cannot beleive they call it an Imperial Stout. This should be a dark chocolate ale or even more of a porter rather then a stout. Plenty of carbonation but somewhat watery.

This is a rare ale that does not measure up to the hype it has. You have to keep in mind there are only 500-600 bottles a year so it can build up a hype about it with that few bottles. We had bottle 5 of 600. Very dissappointed with this ale! We had it at a blind stout tasting and most of us gave it very low grades then. Now with 4 of us sharing a bomber, we are still highly dissappointed with this stout. Perhaps we had two bad bottles between two years, but I doubt it! This is far from the definition of Imperial Stout! (1,323 characters)

Photo of mullenite
2.3/5  rDev -43.8%
look: 4.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 1.5

Pours black with a tall, dark tan head. Excellent retention and some decent lacing.

Strong acetic acid in the nose. Nothing else comes through aside from vinegar/acetic acid.

There is some chocolate and roasted character to the taste but primarily it is acetic acid and sesame seed oil.

Body is thin and somewhat watery with excessive carbonation.

Overall, this beer was not good and is primarily hype driven in my opinion. The three of us who split this bottle all got vinegar/acetic acid in the aroma and sesame seed oil in the taste. I'm really hoping this was just a bad bottle because it was really bad. (612 characters)

Photo of Axic10
2.44/5  rDev -40.3%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

Bottle #966/1000 2010 vintage, poured into a snifter.

Appearance: Pours a pitch black with two fingers of head that settles quite nicely.

Smell: Burnt chocolate, roasted malt, cocoa, some sourness. Improves as it warms.

Taste: Roasted malt, some chocolate...HEAVY sour fruit taste. I think I have an infected bottle.

Mouthfeel: Thin and watery.

Drinkability: I have another bottle, I think this one might have been infected, if that one is better I'd seek out again, if not I wouldn't, hence the average rating. (520 characters)

Photo of ChadQuest
2.45/5  rDev -40.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

The pour looks a bit thin, more along the lines of a traditional stout then an imperial stout really, some light shows through the edges, but maybe i am just used to pouring so many black holes like hunahpu & darklord, no where near that.
The aroma seem to have a bit of a lactose and coffee note to it, more roasty then chocolate.
Now that we are at the flavors there is something of a burnt vegitable note, i would say asparagus that was burnt. I am very familiar with asparagus. There is afor mentioned high level of roast that is the main game player, the chocolate that the bottle claims only really presents in a powdered coco sort of manor, really dry overall and leaves a lot lacking.

If this was on my local shelves labled year round as something else, i wouldn't buy it, it doesn't taste good. (804 characters)

Photo of Arbitrator
2.7/5  rDev -34%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Lightly chilled '09 vintage into a glass. From a trade with sincereNc. Thanks, Ian!

A: Pours a beautiful black body with slight edge penetration when held against a lamp. The dark mocha head billows up to fill 1.5 fingers of space in the snifter, and it falls over 30 seconds or so into swirls of fine bubbles on top of the brew, with a thin collar at the edge.

S: Milk chocolate with a lactic sweetness and twang, bordering on anise / dark fruit. Caramel, roasted coffee.

T: Nicely chocolatey up front, but as noted in the aroma, it has more of the straight milk sweetness than bittersweet dark chocolate. It is accentuated by very noticeable lactic twang associated with it; at times I feel it's similar to an anise / dark fruit blend, but this doesn't quite have that tartness that suggests one one of those two. Regardless, this particular aspect is so strong that I'm tempted to think of this as an imperial milk stout.

M: Light-medium bodied; it's thin for the style. The flavor gets decidedly watery in the finish. Carbonation is appropriate for the style. No heat or even warmth. The flavor falls off fast; it doesn't have much heft to it.

D: The girlfriend and I polished off a bomber quite easily. This beer goes down nicely and is tolerable. I didn't love it enough to seek it out again, though. Certainly not worth the prestige and hype it has on here. (1,373 characters)

Photo of jcartamdg
2.7/5  rDev -34%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

Poured into a ccb snifter. Pours dark black with a 1 finger head that lasts seconds. A thin ring forms around the glass with very little lacing. Aroma isn't bad, coffee and chocolate all the way. The taste is where there is a problem. Chocolate then coffee then a really off taste, something I'd never like to taste again. I don't like to throw around claims of infection but if this isn't infection what the heck are they putting in their beer. Very disappointing for a very hyped brew. (487 characters)

Photo of gueuzer
2.71/5  rDev -33.7%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

App- Black as night. Can see the carbonation bubbling. Almost looks like a coke.

Sm- Looking for chocolate, but having to strain to find it. Get some soy sauce and toffee.

Ta- Stone fruits, roasted malts, chocolate, soy sauce.

MF- Very thin bodied and over carbonated.

DR- The taste doesn't make we want to drink a ton of this.

Disappointing. Very over-hyped. What I would expect from a mediocre corner brewpub's RIS. (422 characters)

Photo of TWStandley
2.72/5  rDev -33.5%

Poured into a snifter.

Appeared a dark brown/black color with a light brown head.

Smelled hoppy. Wait..is this a black IPA or a stout?

Taste was hoppy and unbalanced. Why does this have 85 IBUs?

Mouthfeel was fine.

Overall this missed the mark for me. Hoping the BA version is better. (292 characters)

Photo of Bendurgin
2.74/5  rDev -33%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Bottle shared by the generous Josh. Poured into a tulip. This one pours dark brown and sits black in the glass with a finger of tan head that settles down with a little bit of sticky lace.

A little bit of a smokey char aroma comes right away. Very faint chocolate aroma here. Instead of roast, I mostly get char though. This has a leathery flavor with little bit of smoke and lots of char. Honestly seems like this one was simply burned.

The feel is a bit thin for an RIS and the carbonation is soft but there.

Overall this one is a little dissapointing. Nothing bad or offensive here but just not what one would hope it would be. (634 characters)

Photo of Mora2000
2.83/5  rDev -30.8%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Thanks to Exiled for sharing this bottle. This is a beer I have wanted to try for a long time. 2010 vintage.

The beer pours black with a tan head. The aroma is roasted malt and chocolate, but I also get a little bit of tart cherries. The beer smells like it may be infected.

The taste confirms that an infection is at work here. I get a lot of tart dark fruit with some roasted malt, chocolate and coffee. I think the base beer may be good, but the infection really makes things taste funky.

The carbonation is about right for the beer, but the mouthfeel is all wrong. The beer is very thin and almost watery, which I assume is caused by the infection.

Very disappointing overall. (687 characters)

Photo of airohead2001
2.96/5  rDev -27.6%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Let's go hawks! Thanks glazeman.

Appearance is nothing too special - black with a one finger light tan head that fades to a nice film of bubbles.

Smell is nonexistent. I get nothing. Reminds me of a Guinness...

Taste is the best part for sure - harsh coffee roasts through out are the most dominant flavor. There is a little bit of chocolate and dark fruits as well.

Mouthfeel is too thin.

Overall, this beer is thin, bland, and way overrated. (449 characters)

Photo of Kaydogg
2.98/5  rDev -27.1%
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 (655 characters)

Photo of pollox87
2.99/5  rDev -26.9%
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. (542 characters)

Photo of tjthresh
3/5  rDev -26.7%
look: 5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

The pour is black with a billowing light brown head with some very nice lace. Aroma? What aroma? I get next to nothing here. Seems to me hops are leading the way in the nose. I bit apple-ish. There's roast and chocolate, but over all the nose is much to weak to earn a high score. The flavor, to me, isn't really anything to brag about either. There's some roast and some chocolate, but there supposed to be. I do pick up a tad of molasses. Really, the flavor is pretty pedestrian. The mouthfeel on the other hand is quite good. Big body. Above average carbonation. Dry finish. Full palate all the way through. OH-VER-RAY-TED! (626 characters)

Photo of abecall98
3.03/5  rDev -25.9%
look: 5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 4

Thanks to Bucketboy for this beer.

A - Pours a semi dark black, with a bright tan head. The beer looks oily, and the head lasts and sticks inside the glass. Perfection.

S - With a nice lasting head, there was quite some nose in this sucker. However, not the best. I expected more chocolate. I get a lot of roast and sweet malt, but where is my Dark Chocolate? If you are going to advertise a Chocolate, and talk about it on the bottle, represent. Sweet malt dominates the nose, and it isn't the most pleasing aroma.

T - Ah, there is the cocoa. Right as the first wave of flavor dashes in, the cocoa hits you, but it quickly diminishes. Where did it go? Where is the chocolate buttery goodness? It's gone. Quick to make up for the flavor loss is roasted malt, with a slight coffee kick. No dark fruit sweetness like the label describes, just roasted and smoky, almost burnt tasting, malt. Oh well, I will continue to enjoy my initial flavor wave with every sip. The ending flavor of the beer is just not good. Don't smoke the Chocolate Beers please, bad combo.

M - very well done. If any improvements could be made, perhaps a tad more carbonation for an added boost of explosion. The beer coats the mouth, the body is very noticeable, and this is not a weak thin stout, and that deserves praise.

D - At 10%, this beer is one I could drink all night. If not for the taste being rather lack luster, this beer would score a 5 on drinkability.

O - The beer is a huge letdown. I expected more cocoa and buttery sweetness, like other delicious chocolate stouts. What we have is another roast bomb. I hope the BA versions could top this, and mellow out that harsh roasted flavor, as I have 2 of them. Biggest disappointment of 2011 so far. Shame too. Glad I got to try it though. (1,778 characters)

Photo of AleWatcher
3.06/5  rDev -25.2%
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. (1,186 characters)

Photo of kzoobrew
3.06/5  rDev -25.2%
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. (2,028 characters)

Photo of ShanePB
3.08/5  rDev -24.7%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

My girlfriend and I opened this bottle after our Valentine's Day dinner. Poured into a tulip glass.

A: Deep dark black with a very dark brown upper edge. Fluffy, rocky and full tan head. Nice retention cap and big sticky lacing along the glass wall. Great looking beer.

S: Astringent oak, char, slight smoke, dark chocolate and even some faint coffee beans towards the back. It smells nice but all the aromas don't blend very well together. The initial pungent oak-bitter aroma sticks throughout.

T: Well, I hate to say it but this is all hype. Again the initial bitterness of its aggressive hopping (85 IBUs) is still present over a year later in the bottle. Oak, dark malt and more roast come through. There's a nice diversity of flavor but it's not as smooth and easy drinking like others in the style. This is very chaotic in its structure, not very balanced.

M: Slick, smooth and creamy. Nicely carbonated, it feels good in the mouth. Quite dry on the finish though, perhaps from the bitterness?

This wasn't bad by any means although it's nothing world class or even at the top of the Russian Imperial Stout style. And where the hell was the chocolate? There were good amounts of different flavors but they were too choppy, and unbalanced. I have the barrel-aged version which I hear great things about, let's hope that one is a bit better. (1,350 characters)

Photo of oline73
3.11/5  rDev -24%
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. (770 characters)

Photo of FosterJM
3.13/5  rDev -23.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

728th Review on BA
Bottle to snifter
22oz
2010 Vintage

Clusterfork7

Thanks to Gurudel for this one.

App- It was a nice mix of browns, reds for a stout but just too light. A nice one finger slightly lighter khaki colored head was there but receded quickly.

Smell- What the hell happened here? This is sexual chocolate? Its a mix of smoke, bacon and wood. I think something went very wrong.

Taste- At least on the taste of the beer its not so bad. Its still a pretty good stout but dont see what all the fuss is on this one. Nice run of the mill stout flavors and has a subdued malt presence. Not a hoppy stout either. Has a good roast note but just a tinge of that woody bacon flavor.

Mouth- A medium bodied stout with a paired carbonation level. A little velvety on the residual flavors. This was best part of this beer.

Drink- It was unremarkable for as much hype as this beer gets. I hope this was just a bad bottle or the vintage isnt as good as other. I probably wont trade for any other years after this one. (1,020 characters)

first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Sexual Chocolate from Foothills Brewing Company - Downtown Brewpub
91 out of 100 based on 437 ratings.