Dismiss Notice
Save $5 when you subscribe to 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine and select auto-renew.

Subscribe now →
Dismiss Notice
Join Our Email List →

And we'll send you the latest updates and offers from BeerAdvocate, because knowing is half the battle.
Dismiss Notice

Pre-order your Respect Beer "Hipster" Hoodie today!

Plus: Free shipping (US only) on orders of $25 or more until 12/18/15. Just select "Free Shipping" at checkout.

Shop now →

Thomas Creek Deep Water Dopplebock - Thomas Creek Brewery

Not Rated.
Thomas Creek Deep Water DopplebockThomas Creek Deep Water Dopplebock

Educational use only; do not reuse.

100 Reviews
no score

(Send Samples)
Reviews: 100
Hads: 218
Avg: 3.41
pDev: 24.05%
Wants: 4
Gots: 15 | FT: 1
Brewed by:
Thomas Creek Brewery visit their website
South Carolina, United States

Style | ABV
Doppelbock |  7.00% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes & Commercial Description:
Beer added by: aracauna on 10-26-2002

30 IBU
Beer: Reviews & Ratings
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
firstprev| 26-50 | 51-75 | 76-100  | next → last
Reviews: 100 | Hads: 218
Photo of Hampton73
1.28/5  rDev -62.5%
look: 4 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 2 | overall: 1

The beer looks nice.

The smell is sour. There must be something wrong. This batch is contaminated or something.

The taste is sour and just not drinkable. I will have to throw out the rest of the bottles. Not good.

Thomas Creek is OK beer. I don't know what went wrong with this.

 289 characters

Photo of daliandragon
3.65/5  rDev +7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

I'm not sure why I keep trying the Thomas Creek beers; I've yet to find one I'm satisfied with and if they can't produce a proper red ale is there really any chance they've mastered something as complex as a dopplebock? At any rate, it is doppler season and this was the first I saw, so there's my excuse...

Pours nearly black with portlike tinges of ruby at the bottom wiith a nice head that doesn't stick around but leaves decent lacing. Nose is extremely sweet with tinges of coffee, caramel, and lots of chocolate. Unfortunately it is so thick and sweet it almost reminds one of raw corn syrup, but not too bad.

Initially pretty strong with creamy coffee tones and enough carbonation to suit the style but loses its way before the finish and then regains its footing somewhat for a mellow, respectable aftertaste. While not containig the depth or complexity of a classic doppplebock, this is a pleasant sipper that has me giving props to the boys in the Palmetto state.

 979 characters

Photo of harpo111
3.25/5  rDev -4.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

A: dark, cola like..thin lacey head
s: maltish, not too pugent
taste: malty, carmel..but not very strong
mouthfeel: moderately thick..not much follow through...not much aftertaste..
drinkablilty: not bad....would do a couple.
this is an ok beer...not much hops to it...but nice and malty, not too sweet...goes well with burgers and fries..

 344 characters

Photo of GCBrewingCo
2.86/5  rDev -16.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

The beer poured into the glass slightly hazy brown with an amber highlight and a tannish head which only rose slightly and fell quickly as it tried to lace the glass.

The aroma was lightly tart and slightly acidic in character. Some caramel was present and a light bit of chocolate, but most everything was masked by the tartness.

The flavor was malty with a chocolate and light coffee flavor. The acidic nature of the aroma had not affected the flavor except to dry it out. The chocolate and coffee of the flavor would make this a Porter and not a Dopplebock.

The finish was dry with a lasting light chocolate, coffee and very, very slight tartness into the aftertaste. The body was medium with a low carbonation. This would have made an acceptable Porter but was not much of a Dopplebock at all. The malt, if ever present, had decayed due to the acidity in the beer. Skip it.

12 ounce bottle. TCD-08 on label.

 923 characters

Photo of BEERchitect
3.59/5  rDev +5.3%
look: 3 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Always a sucker for a Dopplebock...even the bad ones. This beer falls somewhere in the average catagory. More boldness and maltiness than usually found in American renditions. They really piled on the chocolate malts to bring out a robust flavor along with mild over-ripened fruits. After the initial sip subsides, faint flavors of baking soda (soapy) and vegetables (corn) begins to come through. The beer falls apart a bit in the finish giving off a cola-like sweetness and flavor. I still liked it pretty well though.

 520 characters

Photo of Graebner
3.23/5  rDev -5.3%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

From notes compiled at the 2006 Southern Brewer's Fest:

Brown/black, no head, slight lacing.

Smells of port, coffee, caramel, spice, alcohol.

Light coffee taste, lots of dark fruit (cherries, prunes, blueberries), chicory and maybe coriander. Hoppy finish.

Light, but a bit heavyish on the finish. Alcohol noticable on the finish as well, but finishes dry.

Good, drinkable, a little too pronounced on the alcohol.

 428 characters

Photo of walleye
3.34/5  rDev -2.1%
look: 5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Thanks goes to Ross from another place for this. poured a deep mahogany with a nice sized tan head that left some nice lacing. aroma, a ni ce sweet chocolate malt with dark cherries or is it choclate covered cherries? got some caramel when it warmed. Flavor sour cherries, bitter sweet chocolate, malt, alcohol.

 311 characters

Photo of veech
2.74/5  rDev -19.6%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

I had this beer on tap at the Knoxville Brewer's Jam 2001 and really enjoyed it. I haven't had it since then, until now, and wow was it better on tap. This pours well but even the nose is soapy and kind of foul. The taste is very similar to the smell. Not much on the front end and a bitter unpleasant bite at the end. I will need to test it on tap again, but if this bottle is indicative of the beer, I must have been drunk 5 years ago.

 437 characters

Photo of rustymoore
3.56/5  rDev +4.4%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Pours a dark brown to black with a decent head and some lacing. Smells strong of chocolate and coffee...not the most pleasent I have encountered either. The taste is definitely that of a stout more than anything else. Too watery and sour though. The flavor is decent but not exceptional. I would recommend trying it if you are into stouts and bocks but maybe not otherwise.

 373 characters

Photo of SilentSabre
1.55/5  rDev -54.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 1 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

Wow..I am really sorry, but this is just awful....It looked okay, but the smell is just terrible!!! It literally smells like spoiled food, like bad cheese or milk. Some sort of bad dairy. The taste is bland and sour and that spoiled dairy smell just amplifies everything bad about this beer. This absolutely has to be a bad bottle...no way is this supposed to smell and taste this way....this is simply offensive...

EDIT: Certain that no beer would ever be crafted to taste this way, I revisited this one again on 09 Oct. 06.
This one was undrinkable, as well. It had the same awful characteristics.

 605 characters

Photo of blitheringidiot
3.9/5  rDev +14.4%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 4 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

12 oz'er pours out with an onyx mahogany hue barely allowing light through topped with a settled thin collar.

Deep scents of cocoa, cola and some baker's chocolate.

First swigs: Seems like a stout rather than a doppel. Crisp and roasty. Dry finish. Tons of flavor. Cocoa stout with a bit of Dr. Pepper.

Feel is medium bodied and frisky carbonation.

Last swigs: A cocoa stout. Thanks to Jredner for the bottle. Enjoyable.

 444 characters

Photo of Jredner
2/5  rDev -41.3%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Aroma is tart and sickly smelling like rotting fruits. Dark brown/mahogany in color with a quickly fading tan head. Fore is more rotting/overripe fruits..syrupy mandarin orange notes. Chocolate and caramel malts behind that. The finish is decidedly watery and off tasting.

 272 characters

Photo of MSchae1017
2.8/5  rDev -17.9%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 2 | feel: 4 | overall: 2

This beer was tasted in a Pilsner Glass from a bottle.

This beer pours a dark chocolate brown with an off white head that is delightfully frothy. The head dissipates to a thin film that laces nicely down the glass. The beer smells mostly of semi-sweet dark chocolate and is quite nice. Unfotunately this beer seems to fall apart at the taste There is the same underlying chocolate taste but there is a very forward overy sweet almost bad candy like taste to the beer. This is very unenjoyable. The mouthfeel is not to bad with the thickness and carbonation. Overall I cannot say that I would grab this one again. Poor taste just leads to a poor overall experience drinking the beer.

 685 characters

Photo of SaCkErZ9
3.78/5  rDev +10.9%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 4.5

Poured from a 12oz bottle into a pint glass. Extremely dark brown color beer. Nice head of about 1/2 finger. Small amount of lacing.

Smell is basically malt. Sweet and caramel malts. Very tempting. I actually detect hops in this one as well. Smells like one of those caramel pieces of candy one receives on Halloween after an evening of trick-or-treating.

Taste is just above par. Sweet tasting with malts caramel and toasted malts being the predominant flavors.

Medium bodied beer with a pleasant, creamy, smooth mouthfeel. Again, a touch of hops in the aftertaste.

Great drinkability and a great beer from Thomas Creek. I will definitely sample this one again.

 677 characters

Photo of bditty187
3.11/5  rDev -8.8%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3.5

My first South Carolina beer review…

Slightly hazy, reddish brown in hue; I’d like to see a darker beer. I had a leaky cap but it still opened with a “pifff.” Russet colored foam, I was surprised the head rose to three fingers in height! Yikes. Head retention was respectable; it slowly faded away leaving sticky lace in its wake. Wow, there is heaps of lacing; it looks like frayed wallpaper. A soapy cap lasted the entire consumption. If the liquid was more opaque, I call this beer damn attractive!

The nose seems a bit hoppy for a Doppel, grassy and faintly earthy. The malt offers some light roasted notes, acidic with hints of char. It is fairly airy plus there isn’t much depth. To brew a Doppel with this low of abv it takes a tremendous amount of skill; Iowa’s Millstream (IA has an abv cap like SC) failed to excel with their Doppel. That beer was merely good, I wonder if this beer will suffer a similar fate. The aromas are weak and I fear this beer will be frail in the palate. Overall, the bouquet is tolerable.

The palate is thin and a bit watery. There just isn’t the malty richness needed. If this beer was labeled as a Schwarzbier I wouldn’t complain about the malt. I like how this beer tastes; there is soft maltiness with acidic notes that become mildly sour. It is a bit smoky with some semi-sweet chocolate notes; plus some earthy hops at the back. The alcohol is well-hidden. I’m conflicted. What do I score this beer? As a Doppel it sucks. As a Black Lager, it is solid. I have to downgrade this beer, numerically, because of what the label says. But heed these words, enjoy this beer for how it tastes, it is well-made!

Medium-light in body, watery, there is not very much body here… low carbonation, it is a bit slick on the swallow. The mouthfeel needs improvement.

This is an easy drinking beer. I do like it. I’d drink a few in a row if I could. I’ll beat the dead horse once more; this beer is lousy as a Doppel but tasty if you just drink it as is. Thanks timtheenchanta for supplying me some South Carolina beers!

 2,076 characters

Photo of warriorsoul
3.3/5  rDev -3.2%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Thanks to lostbearbrew for this one...
Pours a cloudy dark rust color w/ no light passing through...a full two fingers of foamy tan head forms and produces decent lacing.
Scent is enjoyable...carmelized malt sweetness up front w/ some vanilla extract bringing up the rear.
Taste is decent...a bit weak in its flavors w/ smokiness hitting the pallet first and a carbonated taste lingering...a nice malt backbone w/ very little hop.
Mouthfeel is quite thin for the style IMO and the carbonation is just too high...making this a one and done for me. Many other fine examples of the style, but glad to get the opportunity to try this offering from Thomas Creek.

 661 characters

Photo of drewbage
3.32/5  rDev -2.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Drops into the glass with a thud, spritzy carbonation, but almost no head.

Color is dark chocolate brown with almost perfect clarity.

Aroma is milk chocolate and a slight coffee and fruit end before we get to the first sip.

First sip consists of a caramel coated cherry with a milky sweet middle body that's broken by a strong acidic roast nature before coming to an end on the palate.

Not bad, but the roast is distracting for what should be a dark and yet smooth beer.

 484 characters

Photo of UncleFlip
3.55/5  rDev +4.1%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Pours a nearly opaque cola colour, with mahogay notes around the edges. Loose head stays for a bit, and is gone.

Aroma is mainly dark, sweet malt- sort of spicy dark molasses. There's some hops here, kids- but not an over-abundance.

Flavour is kind of watery at the start, then the malt kicks in with a bit of burnt toast on the tongue, then a delicately hoppy finish.

The tight carbonation takes a second or two to get going, then swells fast and is gone. The finish is watery.

It's not the most drinkable beer out there. I think after a few, I'd be expecting something a bit more.

Be well

 611 characters

Photo of AlexJ
2.83/5  rDev -17%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 4

On tap at Frugal MacDoogals in SC.

Medium chestnut brown in color, revealing ruby highlights when held to light. Forms a modest and short-lived head when poured and a few spots of lace that are gone by the time my glass is empty.

Aromas are more in tune with a brown ale or porter. Chocolatey malts, light caramel, and some nondescript hop aromas.

Flavors follow suit with roasty chocolate and slightly floral hops. Very muted flavor leaves a lot to be desired for a dopplebock. It doesn't taste bad, just not true to style, so it doesn't rate very high with me. It lacks any sort of oomph. I think they should wait until the 6% cap is lifted and take another stab at this.

Body is light to medium with a grainy and dry sort of texture. You really can't call this a dopplebock, more of a black lager or shwartzbier.

 827 characters

Photo of brentk56
3.74/5  rDev +9.7%
look: 4 | smell: 3.75 | taste: 3.75 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.75

Appearance: Pours a clear dark brown color with garnet highlights; the modest head leaves a few shards behind

Smell: Caramel and dark fruit with chocolate undertones

Taste: Starts out with a chocolate, caramel and dark fruit mix (almost like a porter meets a doppelbock), but flattens out in the middle; the finish is slightly bitter which was a surprise, but not unpleasant

Mouthfeel: Medium bodied with light carbonation; a bit thin for a doppelbock

Drinkability: Although it is not on point for the style - not quite a porter, not quite a doppelbock - but somewhat tasty

 577 characters

Photo of rajendra82
2.95/5  rDev -13.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A Dopplebock brewed in sub 6% South Carolina seems like a very novel concept to me, and when I saw this new arrival on the shelves in Georgia, I had to snag a six pack to see how close they could get.

The beer poured out dark brown, bordering on black, and had a really small head and very little carbonation. The lacing was sparse and thin. The smell was not malty and floral like a Dopplebock, but more like a chocolaty roasty Porter, or a Belgian Dubbel.

The taste again confirmed the lack of malt in this beer. Roasty, chocolaty, grainy, soured, and a little burnt in the taste profile, this was more or less like a Schwartzbier to me. The flavors were not bad, but were just no match for the real thing. There was no explosion of fruity notes and grassy hop bitterness here at all. All I could detect was a steady and simple mix of the more basic flavors.

The thin body and the lack of strength made this a drinkable beer. Judged on its own merit, it is not half bad. But slapping a label proclaiming the contents to be a well known style does not make it so. And just for that atrocity, a few points were shaved off the rating.

 1,142 characters

Photo of finepaws
4.3/5  rDev +26.1%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 4.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 4.5

Got this on tap, to go, in a growler. Finding it hard to believe this is a dopplebock. Glad to see I'm not alone. My ratings reflect that it is a very tasty beer. But in no way reflect it to stlye. I couldn't give it bad ratings. Sorry, it's just too tasty. Reminds me of a porter. Great pour. Dark reddish, brown color with a tan head that lingered to a small lace. Smells malty, roasted, and with hints of chocolate. Tastes like a porter. Slightly watered, but good roasted malt flavor.Slightly bitter towards the end, and a nice alcohol linger. I can't believe it's such a low abv.
I was worried that the growler may go flat before I drank it all. Not to worry, it was gone before nite end. If you're looking for a bock, I say skip this one. If you're looking a really good, drinkable dark beer. This is up there. I've yet to have a Thomas Creek I don't like.

 864 characters

Photo of aracauna
3.46/5  rDev +1.5%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

Rerate 10/27/03: This beer seems to have changed from the first time I sampled it and it has changed for the better. I don't know what was wrong with my first sample of this stuff. It's actually pretty good. Nice extremely dark brown body with lumpy, long-lasting tan head. Nice malty aroma. Flavor is nicely porter-like with chocolate and a little roastiness. The body is far from thin. This is a little sweet, but not cloying. I still wouldn't call it a doppelbock. It'd pass for a schwarzbier, but I wouldn't have even guessed it was a lager if I didn't already know.

9/16/02: Dopplebock? More like just a dark bock. It's a bit hoppier than I like for a dopple as well.

 675 characters

Photo of Loki
2.73/5  rDev -19.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

This was my first experience with a doppelbock and I was disappointed by this beer. I had heard great things about the style and look forward to comparing this to many of the other doppelbocks I picked up in my recent road trip.

Beer poured a pale brown and due to festival tasting and 2.5oz shot glass servings I couldn?t fairly judge the head. The aroma was of malt and hops. The taste was malty but fairly hoppy which I wasn?t expecting and didn?t really enjoy. Very dry as well, I will have to revisit this after I?ve tried other, but I wasn?t impressed.

 561 characters

Photo of Jon
3.13/5  rDev -8.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

A little too thin and not malty enough to qualify as a true doppelbock in my opinion. Although the appearance is fairly good, it looked a bit too pale for doppelbock status. Taste was indeed on the malty side, but the hop bitterness didn't seem to fit well. It was quite drinkable, just not in the way it should be. A decent beer overall.

 338 characters

firstprev| 26-50 | 51-75 | 76-100  | next → last
Thomas Creek Deep Water Dopplebock from Thomas Creek Brewery
78 out of 100 based on 100 ratings.