Hellshire II - Oakshire Brewing
Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
Ratings: 62 | Reviews: 27 | Display Reviews Only:
1.45/5 rDev -51.2%
22oz bottle poured into a Pint glass.
A - Pours a dark, deep brown with no head at all.
S - Funky, sour, soy sauce. Hmmm.. Not good.
T - Woah, Way off. This tastes like a cat crapped in my beer. Not good at all. Tainted and infected. My first run in with an infected bottle.
D - No carbonation.
O - Infected, badly. Tastes awful. Ask my sink how it tasted.
01-16-2012 04:18:48 | More by HuskyinPDX
1.73/5 rDev -41.8%
Thanks UncleJedi for the taste! PNY 2.
A. No pop from the (nice artwork!) bottle. Purple wax job is a beaut. Goes into the glass a very pretty deep walnut with cherry-red highlights, but no head, no lace, no foam.
S. I can't believe it's not butter! Massive diacetyl - butter butter butter all the way. Slick and heavy and offputting, to say the least. Past that, if you can, an unusual red wine / acidic note that I'm sure isn't supposed to be here. Otherwise, coconut, roast malt... I dunno, I don't really want to smell it anymore.
T. Ugh... variations on acidic / sour and slick / buttery. The base beer is, sadly, completely overshadowed by these flaws. There's some bourbon in there somewhere, but this is bordering on undrinkable. It's a real shame.
M / O. Did I mention this is virtually flat too? The body is heavy and oil-slick. The finish lingers but is gross, clearly a multitude of things went wrong here. I take no pleasure in executing harsh judgement on Hellshire II (well, okay, maybe a little) but a few hours into it, this is the worst beer I've had all year.
01-02-2012 03:36:52 | More by kkipple
2.28/5 rDev -23.2%
Aggressive pour into tulip resulted in minimal flat head and very little carbonation.
Initial flavor picked up is dark cherries. Aftertaste, a feel of wet towels allowed to mellow in the hamper for a few days.
A normal person would drain pour this puppy. I'm not normal. I'll drink it anyway while watching Tim sink into the abyss.
My only regret is that I have two more I picked up as a result of the hype surrounding Hellshire I and the release of Hellshire II.
Oh well. Can't win 'em all.
A definite swing and a miss with this one.
12-24-2011 21:14:23 | More by NWer
2.28/5 rDev -23.2%
Appearance: Despite an increasingly hard pour, no head arose over the espresso brown liquid
Smell: Dark chocolate, espresso, bourbon and sour tones
Taste: If you keep this beer isolated to the sweet receptor cells on the tip of the tongue, it is rather nice, with dark chocolate, coffee and bourbon tones; sadly, if you move the liquid back and wash it over the receptors on the sides of the tongue, the sourness from what appears to be a lactobacillus infection become apparent and overwhelm the stout flavors
Mouthfeel: Full bodied with almost no carbonation
Overall: Sorry to see what has happened to this beer but recommend that those who have a bottle drink it sooner rather than later as the infection spreads as I doubt that it is what Matt intended; I really enjoyed his beers when he was at Flossmoor so I know about his capabilities; better beers are coming, I am sure
Thanks, chumba526, for the opportunity
12-25-2011 17:25:00 | More by brentk56
2.38/5 rDev -19.9%
22oz. waxed bottle poured into a snifter. Thanks to Jason for the bottle!
(A)- Pours a rather thick pitch black color. Produced a small cap of brown froth and lace.
(S)- Tons of dark fruits. Prune, raisin, plum, cocoa, and maybe faint bits of coconut and vanilla. Very dense in the dark fruit area.
(T)- A small, but very evident tart sourness and soy component that takes over most of the beer's flavor profile. Still, some of the dark fruits poke through though.
(M)- A very mellow carbonation level. Clearly infected with that sour kick. All the dark fruits are nice, but just adds to the infection bit. Very sweet and fairly thick too; even for the style.
(D)- Unfortunately, this is clearly infected. However, it is not an infection that completely makes this undrinkable. Honestly, it is not horrible with the sourness it has, but obviously not intended. It does show some interesting flavors, but you just cannot get around the sour infection.
01-29-2012 16:46:59 | More by sweemzander
District of Columbia
2.58/5 rDev -13.1%
Thanks to archenemybrew for this. Pint glass.
A: Pours motor oil black and viscous with an espresso-foam head, just around the edges. Good retention and minimal lacing.
S: Rich cocoa, charred coffee, with a little bourbon and vanilla underneath. Smells decent although the char is a bit much.
T: Thin, sour cocoa and coffee. Pretty one dimensional. Ugh.
M: Thinner than expected, medium-light body and almost completely flat.
O: Drainpour. An infected mess. Only a glimmer of what it could have been.
05-20-2012 01:14:42 | More by pmarlowe
2.7/5 rDev -9.1%
Thanks to Joe for the chance to try this. Poured into a snifter, the brew appears black in color with the faintest line of clarity and brown around the edges. When held to the light, there is a faint redness along the perimeter. A dark brown finger of head appears and as it slowly recedes, leaves spots and a webbing pattern of lace. A swirl revives a full finger worth of dark brown head.
The smell of this brew initially has cocoa, coffee and roasty elements with a hint of oak and vanilla. Those initial pleasant suggestions dissolve into a tangy fruit character and a touch of sulfur mixed with dirty diaper. More smells bring out more notes if sulfur that mixes with a mineral character.
The taste is tangy alcohol that is accented by whiskey with both flavor and warmth. There are faint notes of chocolate, oak and vanilla. Just like the aroma indicated, there is a dirty taste of sulfur and diaper that is off-putting a bit. The aftertaste is somewhat vinous with earth, tobacco and light coffee to cocoa quality. Unfortunately the unpleasant character to this brew outweighs the positives.
This is a medium bodied brew with a modest level of carbonation. Very big alcohol inclusion here even while served colder than ideal. This currently tastes a bit off and was not very enjoyable. I was happy to have a chance to try it but not something I'd be terribly excited to have again.
12-21-2011 17:36:17 | More by stakem
2.73/5 rDev -8.1%
So from the reports Oakshire has put out, this beer has been spoiled with lactobacillus, which makes the beer taste acidic and tart. I'm still going to give it a shot, since I have a bottle after all, and not all of the beers were reported spoiled. An extremely aggressive pour leads to only a tiny, one quarter of head, honestly I'm surprised I even got that much. The head is a solid brown, maybe even dark brown, one of the darker heads I have seen in quite a while. The head has now faded down to just a sliver, and is pretty much all medium sized bubbles, more bubbly than even a head really. I can't really tell how the lacing is going to be, we will have to see as I get down the glass. The body is just pitch black, I mean crap this beer is dark. No light getting through, not visible carbonation, no sight of any kind, completely pitch black. The lacing will for sure play a big role in this appearance because it's so dark I can't tell the carbonation, or cloudiness, etc. As it is now, it's a decent looking beer, the head was not very good, but it did have a nice color, and the body being extremely pitch black is nice. On the smell it's hard to tell whether what I'm smelling is the sour lactobacillus smell, or just the barrel, heavy alcohol smell. I mean honestly I'm just getting a nice big bourbon aroma, with a very substantial chocolate aroma as well. Oakshire says this beer has coffee in it as well, honestly I'm getting more sourness than I am coffee, and I'm not getting too much sourness at all, so basically there isn't really much in the way of coffee here. Like I said it's very hard to tell what exactly I'm smelling, on some sniffs it smells more like sourness, and on others a nice bourbon smell. Either way you can tell it's a boozy beer. Even though I could very easily give this beer a 4, there is for sure some sourness, and to play it safe I'm going to give it a 3.5 for aroma, because my nose isn't painting a clear enough picture for me. If the sourness truly isn't there all that much I will bump up the grade for the taste. Yeah this is a damn sour beer. I mean is it undrinkable? No, but I'm...damn confused first of all. I mean the sourness really just makes it taste like they mixed wine with a stout, it's very sour, but you can also tell there are heavy malt, chocolate, etc. in the background. I mean the alcohol is really the only consisted, not super weird and surprising thing about this beer, it's boozy, as expected. Frankly not as boozy as a 10.5% could be, but for SURE there non the less. After that it's like I said, biiiig sour wine like flavor up front, then followed by some chocolate, big dark malts, a a bourbon flavor. I mean is it undrinkable? No, like I said. However, this is going to be hard getting through this 22. I know this isn't normal either, because unlike some barley wines, I can drink imperial stouts without any problem, a normal imperial stout would not be this "difficult" to put down. Anyways, what more can I say about the flavor, it's a sour ass beer that makes it taste like wine mixed with a stout. A 2.5 is about right, because it does have some good flavors. In fact it could even get a 3 because the sourness is dying down, but it's a spoiled beer, 2.5 is ok. The mouthfeel is actually the worst part of this beer, really no question about it either. It's an incredibly thing mouthfeel, almost nothing going on at all, it's like water. The carbonation is extremely low, there is barely anything there. I would go as far as to say I might not have a difficulty finishing this beer if the mouthfeel wasn't horrid. Drinkability is terrible as one would expect, I don't think this beer will be as hard to drink as the Hellshire one, because even though that was a decent beer, it had a burn like no other, this at least has some malt and other stuff to get me through the sourness, at least a little bit. Overall what more can I say? It's a bottle of wine mixed with an imperial stout, not a very good combination. Not the worst beer I have ever had, probably not even in the top 5 worst, but it's not a very good beer. I'm going to give it a 3 overall because I went a little rough on the taste, and overall it's not an awful beer, but for sure not good.
The appearance turned out to be much like what I expected, not too amazing. Other than a small amount of foamy patches here and there, there was no lacing to speak of. A small rim of "head" did stick around for most of the beers life, but like the original head, it was extremely bubbly and just not that good. I mean even though this beer had a nice body color, the head was bad and the lacing was bad. A 3 seems about right.
05-12-2012 11:10:17 | More by MaltsOfGlory
2.73/5 rDev -8.1%
The first infected beer (affirmed by the brewery) I've ever had. Here goes.
22oz bottle into a snifter. Pours a deep black color w/ a frothy, rich mocha head w/ oily little bubbles. A really beautiful beer, nice thick lacing clings to the side of the glass.
Aroma is chocolately w/ espresso and a hint of fruit - black cherries maybe?
Taste is dark roasted malt, chocolate and a slightly sour wine/cherry taste. Must be the lactobacillus infection. Tastes like it was aged in wine barrels, not whiskey. Not especially off-putting, it just doesn't taste right for a bourbon barrel aged imperial stout. I'm also not getting any of the vanilla, bourbon or coconut described on the label - perhaps they're overshadeowed by the sour cherry taste.
Mouthfeel is smooth and dry, clean.
Overall this is about what I'd have expected if this were an imperial stout aged in cabernet barrels. If I'd been looking for a stout with a slightly vinous, sour element I might not be that disappointed - although to be fair this just doesn't taste all that good. Because this is supposed to be a rich, chocolate vanilla coffee bourbon stout, I have to dock points for falling short of the mark.
As the beer warms the sour cherry thing becomes more prominent and this ends up a drainpour. Too bad because this was a pretty expensive beer and the only way to get a refund on the other bottle I bought would be to take it down to Eugene. I'll try my luck returning it to Whole Foods, but unfortunately even though they know it's infected Oakshire won't make any guarantees.
01-22-2012 06:40:05 | More by draheim
2.78/5 rDev -6.4%
On-tap at Strong Ale 2011
Pours essentially black in color with a finger or so of tan head. Smells strangely lactic and acidic. Quite a bit of coffee as well as roast, oak, and and whiskey. The flavor has a sharp acidity and astringency to it. Some oak, vanilla, and whiskey flavors. A little bit of cocoa powder and weird hint of a dusty sort of flavor. A bit thin in body for an imperial stout with medium carbonation.
12-06-2011 18:05:00 | More by womencantsail
Hellshire II from Oakshire Brewing
71 out of 100 based on 62 ratings.