Silk Porter - Hoppin' Frog Brewery
Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
Ratings: 270 | Reviews: 153 | Display Reviews Only:
2.38/5 rDev -37.7%
Got this at De Bierkoning in Amsterdam.
From a bomber into a snifter.
APPEARANCE: Pours a thinner looking one finger tan/brown head that makes tones of crackling noises. Poor retention, head dissipates very quickly and disappears totally. Dark brown and some carbonation in the form of little bubbles. Resembles flat cola.
SMELL: Some smoky barley malt and mound so tobacco, perhaps even cigarette smoke. Hints of sweet caramel malt in the back and a faint touch of milk chocolate as well. Too weak to make a statement, and perhaps that's a good thing. I don't mind some tobacco aromas and flavors, but this is a little over the top.
TASTE: Smoky and roasted barley malt and bitter coffee flavors compete with caramel sweetness up front, which was quite a pleasant surprise. The tobacco makes an appearance, which borders on the unpleasant. Aftertaste is strong and long lasting, consisting of bitter-sweet milk chocolate, bitter coffee and smoky tobacco. A decent taste profile actually; much better than the nose advertised.
PALATE: Disappointing here again. Thinner body and, surprisingly, higher levels of carbonation. Mildly creamy going down, but carries too much air on the way. Finishes quite dry on the palate, almost too astringent. Not full or creamy enough for the style. A bit of a mess here.
OVERALL: I could certainly finish this one, but wasn't necessarily looking forward to the next sip. A big disappointment. I had higher hopes for this offering, from a brewery I otherwise enjoy very much. Am also a big fan of porters as well, but this one just didn't work out. Reminded me more of a weaker Baltic porter that missed the mark. Too heavy on the tobacco, too boring a look, and too light and astringent a palate, this is one I won't be picking up again.
12-07-2009 14:04:49 | More by Jeffo
2.42/5 rDev -36.6%
It pours with a nice caramel color but very little head and lies a bit flat. It had very little aroma, basically nothing which was disappointing. It has a decent caramel, malty flavor with a satisfying finish but not the best by far. Its drinkable but not something I would recommend or purchase again.
10-01-2009 00:38:14 | More by JerseyDevil980
2.6/5 rDev -31.9%
A/ this bottle poured a scant head that disappeared after a second, otherwise had a dark, chocolate-like body
S/ the smell was its best characteristic with a sweet, roasted malt earthiness
T/ disappointing due to being overly carbonated and having a sweetness that lingered too long
D/ discarded the majority of this bomber down the drain
Given some of the positive reviews, I wonder if this bomber was severely out of date. As it was, I would not purchase it again.
03-10-2010 00:14:39 | More by CaraAndMike
District of Columbia
2.83/5 rDev -25.9%
frothed well but the head lasted only so long. lacing looks like it might be good. very dark, of course...with a hint of red blazing through the darkness
sweet smelling to start with a touch of smoke. enough char to keep it firmly in porter territory. nondescript hop aroma. not complex, really
it's smooth, as (ostensibly) advertised...and disappears from my tongue in a jiffy. some early sweetness, followed by kilned bitterness (which fades into hop bitterness)(but not enough), but everything vanishes without enough of a fight
aftertaste is strange. frankly, (like i said) it vanishes rather serrepticiously. i guess "silk" translates to "sly"...but is that good? mild and session beers are meant to be drinkable, but i don't think that means innocuous
08-17-2010 01:41:12 | More by bruachan
2.9/5 rDev -24.1%
Brown glass bottle served into a Beck's flute in Castle Rock, Colorado. Reviewed live.
A: Three finger head of fair cream, great thickness, and good retention. Colour is a solid black.
Sm: Chocolate, toffee, nuts, and cream. A mild strength aroma.
T: Heavy chocolate, decent nuts, light cream, and light caramel. Complex enough, but badly built and balanced.
Mf: Smooth and wet; fairly complementary of the flavour but not the style.
Dr: Fairly high ABV, drinkable enough, and decently priced.
08-05-2011 03:02:52 | More by kojevergas
2.9/5 rDev -24.1%
22oz bottled early/mid May 2010.
Pours medium bodied dark brown with a one finger head, even with a vigorous pour, no real lacing, quickly reduces to a small ring, eventually to almost nothing.
There is some sweet chocolate, dark fruit, roasted malt, day-old coffee on the nose, although it is all quite subdued.
Flavor features good caramel, some dark fruit, chocolate, a tiny bit of citrus hops.
Finishes sweet, a little sticky, thin bodied, low carbonation, dull.
The flavor saves this, but an average Porter overall, and not a good value.
06-13-2010 03:24:34 | More by elgiacomo
3.03/5 rDev -20.7%
Poured from a 22oz bomber into a pint glass. No dating info. It was black in color. Slight carb in center and some lacing. It had a large tan head that slowly settled into a film and collar.
The aroma was dark fruit, weak coffee and roasted malt. Wasn't getting the chocolate that others mentioned. Not a big fan of dark fruit aromas. Also missed the chocolate and stronger coffee aromas that I usually find in this style. As is, it didn't really excite me that much. The taste followed the aroma. Tasted more like a baltic porter to me than an American porter - which goes counter to a lot of reviews and the recent switch here from baltic to American in style.
Overall, a disappointment for me. I've had 2 other Hoppin' Frogs that were excellent and AmPorter is one of my favorite styles so expected a lot and got a little. Mild recommendation if you like Baltic porters. For me, one and done.
08-18-2009 01:48:36 | More by TexIndy
3.03/5 rDev -20.7%
A - pours a pitch black with 2 fingers of tan foam that slowly faded leaving some good lacing all around the glass
S - nice roasted malts, vanilla, chocolate and coffee with a bit of an age problem.
T - taste follows aroma closely, there is a slightly burnt flavor, almost like a coffee bitterness, but I'm also picking up some chocolate and vanilla as well.
M - smooth and creamy with a medium body, the carbonation is a bit high and I'll detract for that
D - very nice flavor, not really anything special though. Very nicely balanced brew
10-01-2011 06:48:38 | More by mikereaser
3.05/5 rDev -20.2%
This was from a bomber I got recently at Sam's in Chicago. Poured with a fine bubbled tan head, little lace. Color was opaque brown to black. Aroma was a smokey, dark, ripe fruit. Flavor was the same with a bit of sour. Tad thin. Finish is a slight sour tang on back of tongue. Seems to me average at best.
07-31-2009 02:50:49 | More by drpimento
District of Columbia
3.1/5 rDev -18.8%
From bomber to Bruges hybrid glass on 2/11/11
A: This one is dark and ugly - better then I had expected. It's got a good 1.5 finger head that looks like one of Grandma's chocolate chip cookies.
S: Creamy toffee and black coffee on the nose. I also detect traces of cocoa nibs and smoked malt.
T: Ehh - it's ok. Maybe it's me, maybe I'm just getting older. But I'm really finding that a lot of the low ABV porters and stouts I've had recently taste like processed chocolate sauce in skim milk. More Ovaltine? No thanks.
There's also a trace layer of malt and hops that lay down and take it like a sissy from the Hershey's syrup.
M: No suprise here: it's got that patented Hoppin' Frog forced carb that sticks my tounge like a prsion shank. It makes the overall presentation come off like a carbonated Yoo-Hoo.
O: I mean no offense when I say this, but I'm over Hoppin' Frog. Their beers aren't bad (other then the Frosted Frog, which is an unmitigated disaster), they just don't wow me in any way. Ever.
02-16-2011 21:26:24 | More by Rhettroactive
3.15/5 rDev -17.5%
A "new" one from da frog - pours black with a fast dying tan head, not much in the way of lacing.
Aroma is loaded with cocoa with a sweet malty backbone. Quaff is very woody and burnt chocolate, almost astringent finish.
Not exactly a standout porter in my book (just IMO), I'm a bit surprised as I expected more from this brewery. I think the previous reviews were amped up due to the reputation of this fine brewery - I'd pass on this one in the future.
11-22-2008 20:16:01 | More by Vancer
3.2/5 rDev -16.2%
Pitch black with chocolate highlights. Small, tan head.
Aroma is fairly sweet with a touch of chocolate. Some vanilla as well.
Kind of bready in the flavor with some of that chocolate flavor gone. More breadiness.
Not bad. I cant say this blew me away or was awful. Average.
04-02-2009 01:20:51 | More by SaCkErZ9
3.25/5 rDev -14.9%
A solid pour into my 25cl tulip glass produces a three-finger thick, lightly browned, dark tan colored head. The beer is a dark, concentrated brown almost black color that shows some ruby highlights when held up to the light. The aroma smells of dark chocolate up front but then quickly becomes quite roasted with espresso notes, burnt grain husks, lots of toasted whole grain and even a touch of musty malt character. The aroma is definitely on the charred and burnt side of the spectrum, though it is not so much as to leave the aroma harsh.
Lightly sweet tasting up front, the beer has a medium'ish body to it that lightly coats the palate. The carbonation provides a substantial prickle as well as some sharp carbonic acid; after the carbonation is forcibly removed the beer becomes much more smooth and well integrated. Sweet malted chocolate and some roasted berry notes up front are tempered by a herbal hop flavor, a hop bitterness and a roast grain bitterness in the finish. Hmm, after stepping away from my beer for a bit, I think I know what makes this taste so sweet. There is a definite, though subtle, note of diacetyl here that adds a touch of butterscotch to the flavor. This definitely has a simplistic, at time annoying sugar sweetness to it.
This is a nice beer, I was definitely in the mood for some dark grain on this cold, by Tucson standards, winter evening and this has hit the spot. I could wish for a touch more smooth, chewy dark malt, with a bit less of the simple sweetness (more of a caramelized malt sweetness would have worked a little better here), but this is still a tasty beer. Well here is a bit of a dichotomy, the more I work my way through this bottle, the more cloying and annoying it gets. Not horrible, but I am really not digging the simple, sugary sweetness here; the body is just too light to support this amount of sweetness.
03-12-2009 03:37:40 | More by Gueuzedude
Silk Porter from Hoppin' Frog Brewery
86 out of 100 based on 270 ratings.