Hellshire II - Oakshire Brewing
Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
Ratings: 62 | Reviews: 27 | Display Reviews Only:
3.85/5 rDev +29.6%
Bomber, my only one, picked up when it was first released and properly cellared since. Poured into my Delirium Tremens snifter, Hellshire II is pitch black with a ruddy, dark tan collar leaving light lace.
Smell is caramel, waxy, a blast of roast, a touch fruity.
Taste is, bam, sour cherries, lacto, with a very roasty finish. Quite good actually, reminds me a lot of older viscosity. Not at all the intent from my understanding, and not what I was expecting for a bourbon barrel imperial stout, but frankly it hits the spot and better suits my taste.
Mouthfeel is on the thin, slippery side.
Drinkability is interesting. First off, if you don't like lactic beers, you're out. I do, and find the attenuation increases the drinkability, as well as increases the complexity. Nice pucker, with the big roasty stout backbone, it's got a lot of depth. Nothing from the Bourbon barrels, but the bugs I guess.
01-08-2013 03:37:21 | More by ccrida
3.9/5 rDev +31.3%
A: poured a dark brown in color with brown highlights and a thin head that left very little lacing sticking to the glass.
S: weird tart quality upfront in the aroma with traces of chocolate, dark fruit, roastiness, and caramel with acidic notes that I feel are not suppose to be there. Not really any booze barrel character to speak of though.
T: the tart character was more apparent on the palate alongside some fruit berry notes, slight chocolate, more of a wine barrel flavor than bourbon, hints of acidic notes, and very little coffee coming through at the finish.
M: the brew was medium in body with a moderate amount of carbonation which had a sweet, fruity, slightly chocolatey, and tart finish.
O: I'm sure the way it turned out was not suppose to happen but was not as bad as other infected beers. I really wish I would have experienced the real deal, Oh well.
10-17-2012 22:31:50 | More by Gobzilla
2.98/5 rDev +0.3%
Shared at Alex's Birthday Bash @ Pipeworks!
A - Pours a muddy brown color, mocha-head, sticky lace.
S - Dark fruit, diacetyl, oak, light coffee. Slightly tart, sweet, and boozy..."interesting", to say the least.
T - Chocolate, berries, peat, lightly acidic, dark fruit, booze. The tart notes aren't actually all that bad, but I know this isn't exactly what the brewer was trying to achieve with this one.
M - Medium to full body, good carbonation, creamy tart finish.
O - Another "meh" beer from Oakshire. They're 0/2 on their Hellshire beers, so here's hoping for a home run on their next at bat. Can't say I'd want to have this one again.
06-28-2012 15:52:33 | More by Sean9689
2.93/5 rDev -1.3%
Thanks to Mike (AgentZero) for bringing this rarity to my birthday. I suspect he's been waiting a while to pay me back for all the 'great' beers I've shared with him. Served in a taster glass.
A - Tan foam settles to a thick collar, leaving a few wisps on top but minimal lace. Black body.
S - Smells a lot like the infected Alpine stouts. Tons of lactic and buttery flavors, mingling with roasted coffee beans, milk chocolate, and more butter.
T - The taste has more cherry tartness amid the coffee grounds and chocolate, and a bit less lactic and buttery flavors. Not terrible, but very strange for a bourbon barrel-aged stout.
M - Smooth texture, medium-full body, low carbonation, well-hidden alcohol, and some tannic dryness in the finish.
D - Strangely this was more enjoyable to Hellshire I. For an infected barrel-aged coffee stout it was reasonably palatable. Actually, it's better than a lot of dark sours I've had.
06-15-2012 05:51:06 | More by MasterSki
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
2.73/5 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
2.38/5 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
3.45/5 rDev +16.2%
One of a couple I bought around Thanksgiving at the local Zupans Market ($14.99/ 22oz. bottle, purple wax seal). Served out of the cellar on a pretty chilly day, so temperature is in the 40s, I'm certain. Tulip snifter.
First off, I'm not going into Hellshire II blindly. I've seen some reviews and read the banter in the BA forums, including some very forthright explanations from brewer, Matt Van Wyk, regarding the 'infection'. For what it's worth, I'll be as impartial as possible.
A: Perfectly dark, 'BLACK' for all intents. It's the way a heavy imperial stout *should* look: impenetrable. Crown with a thin layer of tawny cream, impossible small bubbliness, with a dollop of floating froth. Good lace, a sheet that breaks apart but holds as a constellation of speckles, a few loose strands.
S: A nice coffee roast, very earthy and vaguely smoky. chocolate and a little vanilla sweetness. A little papery... or is that cocoa powder? Mild tart fruit, but nothing overbearing. Good strength.
T: Had to mull this one over before filling in this category; given the unintentional tartness, it's a curious thing to rate. Dark and pungent, coffee and chocolate form a solid base, with an ashy/woody huskiness. Then there's the vinous, pucker-inducing cherry/lemon and sour grape that ebbs and flows, sometimes playing nicely with espresso and cacao, sometimes overruling it. Interesting and, for me, not offputting.
M: Rather thin feel and moderate-low carbonation. 'Smooth', yes, but also slick and somehow 'juicy' (my salivary reaction to the tartness). Long-lasting finish holds the worst of both the bitterness and sourness.
O: This reminds me a bit the love it/hate it 'infected' porter that Cascade released a couple years ago; the sour-lovers rejoiced while many others balked. Know what? I like this beer. Sure it's tart and oddly thin, but I had no problem finishing the bottle...and, frankly, wanted more at the end. Here's to unintended consequences and to Oakshire continuing to make forward strides...
01-27-2012 21:59:51 | More by msubulldog25
Hellshire II from Oakshire Brewing
71 out of 100 based on 62 ratings.