1. The wait is over! Download the BeerAdvocate app on iTunes or Google Play now.
  2. Get 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine for only $9.99!

Stock Porter - Telegraph Brewing Company

Not Rated.
Stock PorterStock Porter

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
79
okay

99 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 99
Reviews: 56
rAvg: 3.45
pDev: 16.52%
Wants: 4
Gots: 6 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Telegraph Brewing Company visit their website
California, United States

Style | ABV
American Porter |  5.70% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
Staying true to original porter brewing techniques, Telegraph Stock Porter is dark and complex, yet eminently drinkable, revealing a tantalizing combination of coffee, vanilla, and chocolate aromas married to a fruity, refreshing acidity. The name "Stock Porter" was the moniker 19th century pub keepers gave to the more expensive Porter that had been aged in their beer cellars, as opposed to "Mild Porter", which was a less complex, less expensive, and less characterful brew.

(Beer added by: JayTheFinn on 05-20-2006)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | Likes | High | Low | Top Raters
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 99 | Reviews: 56 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of WillCarrera
1.88/5  rDev -45.5%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

A- Pours a dark, oaky brown color. The first thing I'm noticing is that the carbonation is way off, even a verrry careful pour produces a massive, out-of-control, thin looking tan head.

S- Picking up roasted coffee and some bready malts, but also a sort of sweet/sour odor, might be infected.

T- Lots of coffee and malt, but here is where things really go wrong, there's an overpowering sour fruit flavor, combined with the coffee it produces a pretty unpleasant bitter/sour coffee ground flavor.

M- Medium to light bodied, over-carbonated, thin watery feel.

O- The sour flavors pretty much wreck an already problematic beer, I'm not sure if the bottle was infected (which is what I would bet on) or just a bad idea, but I've noticed that this seems to be a consistent problem with this brewery. I actually can't believe they bottled this and then charged money for it. Avoid this one.

From Batch No. 64 in case anyone is wondering

Photo of oline73
2/5  rDev -42%

Photo of tyanow
2/5  rDev -42%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

I had high hopes for this stuff. I usually like Telegraph products and typically like porters better than any other style.

This smelled, tasted and had the mouthfeel of soggy cereal. It looked decent coming out of the bottle but had a very bland and soggy taste.

Maybe it was a bad bottle but I tried it with 3 friends and we all agreed in was yesterdays cereal still sitting in milk - but not rancid.

Photo of cpetrone84
2.1/5  rDev -39.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

A-pours a dark brown liquid with some cloudiness to it and tons of over responsive thin tan colored head.

S-the nose is very sweet and seems a little off. there might be slight infection here. hints of roasted malt with a touch of burnt coffee. lots of malt sugars, toffee, yeast, rotten plums and a touch of vinous property.

T-still can't tell if this has an infection or lacks a real porter quality. slightly more roasted malts and vinous properties up front. some touches of sweet chocolate with, lots of fruity sweetness with plums, slightly rotten, and notes of citrus

M-medium to light body, soft on the palate and very light, a little thin in the finish with an agressive carbonation.

D-not very good, lots of issues, overly sweet and the sweetness doesn't seem right. potentially a slight infection or just a miss.

Photo of bernat1971
2.5/5  rDev -27.5%

Photo of Raziel313
2.5/5  rDev -27.5%

Photo of duceswild
2.5/5  rDev -27.5%

Photo of 2neardead
2.5/5  rDev -27.5%

Photo of WillClark
2.63/5  rDev -23.8%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Fault me for being a traditionalist, but the bottle I had has nothing to do with Porter, and call me an ass, but I know my share of Porter. Poured out of the 750ml bottle into two pint glasses (Montell, represent) with a nice color and decent head with retention, but the smell....oh god, the smell. I got all sour yeast, but Montell over here gets a hit of chocolate on his "light" sniff. But I get no roast, and that already turns me off. Taste is yeast. All I get from 'er is yeast...no malt to backbone anything, just effervescence and yeast. Light mouthfeel with tartness. Finishes clean, but no porter bitter/dryness.

This tastes like it was brewed with the wild organisms of Isla Vista. Keep it in your pants, kids. This one ain't worth getting hard over.

Photo of theopholis
2.73/5  rDev -20.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Appearance- Clear brown/maroon colored beer with a tall tan colored head. Ruby highlights when held up to the light. the head settles down quite quickly, leaving no lacing.

Smell- Quite bready for a Porter. Also hints of chocolate and a mild fruitiness. Also slightly acrid and ash-ee.

Taste- Unusually bready with some strong patent malt flavors. Finishes with a nice aftertaste. Hints of chocolate and coffee. Not much of a Porter, but tasty if you ignore the style guidelines.

Mouthfeel- Medium body, good carbonations.

Drinkability- As I said earlier, this beer is not to style, but it is still rather tasty.

Photo of mendvicdog
2.75/5  rDev -20.3%

Photo of NIX777
2.75/5  rDev -20.3%

A bit weak in taste. Kind of hoppy. A rather light tasting beer for a Porter.

Photo of brentk56
2.8/5  rDev -18.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Appearance: Way too much head lays on top of the coffee colored liquid; on the flip side, though, the retention and lacing were good

Smell: Vinous, red grape aroma dominates, with just a hint of roasty malt underneath

Taste: Although there are hints of black bread and chocolate on the front, the vinous flavors take over and add a sour dimension by mid-palate; after the swallow, there are hints of coffee and oak underneath but they are subsumed by the sour flavors

Mouthfeel: Overcarbonated, with a medium body underneath

Drinkability: Another disappointment from Telegraph, frankly; the beer was a noble experiment but it just doesn't work out

Photo of OBeerMeGreatOne
2.93/5  rDev -15.1%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Poured from a bottle with Batch Number 49 on the bottle. Pours a nice, deep, dark brown with a giant light tan head. The lace retention is very nice. The smell is of pale malts and dirt with a hint of grape and chocolate. The taste is a bit acidic. Banana up front, earth (mineral-style). The mouth is super thin and highly carbonated. It wasn't a drain-pour, just not...good. Sad to say that I'm not a fan.

Photo of ATLbeerDog
2.93/5  rDev -15.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

From a 750ml bottle - Pours a deep brownish red. Below average carbonation, and lacing. Smells of deep roasted malts, some chocolate and coffee. First sip is surprisingly light bodied with coffee and chocolate dominating. There are some other notes from the barrel aging process that IMO does not work On a whole not very good.

Photo of Jgrody
3/5  rDev -13%

Photo of ejimhof
3/5  rDev -13%

Photo of illidurit
3/5  rDev -13%
look: 5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

On tap at The Red in Santa Cruz. Pours very dark brown but transparent. Creamy tan head leaves tons of nice lacework. Aroma is rather faint. Milk chocolate, sweet red fruits, sourish alcohol. Flavor is dominated by wine character. Lots of jam and marmalade notes with only a touch of cocoa powder to signify the beer as a porter. No roast, no bitterness. Alcohol manifests almost like a rum note. I'm not sure if such a small beer (5.8%) should even be considered for barrel-aging, especially with wine. There's just no way it can stand up. Mouthfeel is a little flat, like it was on nitro. Could be good, needs to be retooled. As is, this beer is kind of a mess.

Photo of spunk509
3.08/5  rDev -10.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

A - light brown - almost like a robust porter. Although the cork did pop, it didn't fly as high as for others. A milt head coating. Not overcarbonated.

S - Bad. I love sours, but this beer smells sour. There's a hint of slight roast in the background, but I get sour more than anything else.

T - Sour. I don't know if this bottle went bad or what, but this doesn't taste like a porter. It's almost like the Shorts PB&J stout, but that's supposed to be part sour. I would like it if it wasn't supposed to be a porter.

M - Fairly average. Decent body. A little light.

O - A below-average porter. Disappointed.

Photo of Georgiabeer
3.08/5  rDev -10.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

On Tap at Beer Revolution. Pours black with little head. Smells of slightly soured grains and some roastiness. Tastes thin, with slightly sour graininess followed by firm but somewhat light roastiness- fine for a porter, but the sourness is offputting here. Not deep enough to be a true sour, but there is enough to distract from the more pleasant porter flavors. In the mouth it's smooth, slightly tangy. Meh, I should have ordered something else.

Photo of Ego
3.08/5  rDev -10.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

batch #132

eyes...
some audible sizzle rising from a 2 finger head off a off white foam cap, settles down in quick order but does not go the way of the dodo, lacing is OK - nothing special, most porters exhibit a brown or black hue but this one is a dark ruby, further inspection reveals organized columns of carbonation culminating into clans clamoring to the top, a decent enough looking brew

nose...
toffee with a strange faint hint of cherries, dry cocoa/chocolate notes, some faint notes of wet wood, cocoa powder would be the most obvious interloper here, overall a muted but nice quaff

taste etc...
almost starts off a bit watery and the carbonation is less smooth than it is prickly, there is very little flavor initially but then the aftertaste really kicks it into high gear, the wet wood taste is there, along with faint hints of smoke, some chocolate/cocoa notes, a definite dryness takes over in the finish... but. the taste is off putting, not pour me out but it is just off, if this is "stock" I ain't investing.

verdict?
I prefer my porters to be as smooth as woody allen's and roman polansky's victims derrieres, also the flavor is not deep, it is also off in my opinion. there are many porters out there vastly superior to this

Photo of mactrail
3.15/5  rDev -8.7%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

Usual dark brew but with a big foam up, though not excessive. Quite a lot of carbonation in the mouth. Dark caramel with a little bitter hops. Not much aroma but a pleasant nose of roasted barley. Malty in a light-bodied way. I don't get any sour taste, but it does seem lightly oxidized with a wet cardboard finish. A little burnt raisin toast. Ovaltine, that's what it tastes like.

Quite drinkable if you like this mild, murky sort of porter. Label says Batch 80. 22 oz bottle from Mega Liquors in Hemet, Calif.

Photo of acurtis
3.25/5  rDev -5.8%

Photo of ste5venla
3.25/5  rDev -5.8%

Photo of InfernoBoss
3.25/5  rDev -5.8%

« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Stock Porter from Telegraph Brewing Company
79 out of 100 based on 99 ratings.