1. Extreme Beer Fest tickets go on sale Sat, Sep 27 @ Noon EDT.
  2. The wait is over! Download the BeerAdvocate app on iTunes or Google Play now.
  3. Get 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine for only $9.99!

Sleeman Fine Porter (68*) - Sleeman Breweries Ltd.

Not Rated.
Sleeman Fine Porter (68*)Sleeman Fine Porter (68*)

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
72
okay

101 Ratings
THE BROS
70
okay

(view ratings)
Ratings: 101
Reviews: 80
rAvg: 3.08
pDev: 18.18%
Wants: 2
Gots: 1 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Sleeman Breweries Ltd. visit their website
Ontario, Canada

Style | ABV
English Porter |  5.50% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
The first in the John Sleeman Presents series, Sleeman Fine Porter is straight from page 68 of the family recipe book. The original Porters were the drink of the working class in 1700s England where they were seen to be more nutritious. Take a sip of history today and experience this brew just as George Sleeman presented it back in the 1800s.

(Beer added by: maxpower on 11-06-2005)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Usefulness | Recent | High | Low | Top Raters | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of Sleeman Fine Porter (68*) Alström Bros
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 101 | Reviews: 80 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of becktone
1.78/5  rDev -42.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

Eye: Here is the redeeming quality of this beer. It has a rather nice creamy tan/tea stained head. As the head eventually recedes into nothingness lacing it leaves is quite good looking. Its only been a minute or two since I poured it and already its almost a film.The color is dark copper-reddish brown. A bigger head, with better retention is needed here if this beer wants to be eye candy. The carbonation also looks to be a bit high for a porter.

Nose: Very poor nose for an American Porter. It smells rather dull, very little malts in the aroma. As a matter of fact it smells more of hops than of chocolate and black malts. Smells a bit watered down and like a green bottled import from Europe. Very, very faint crystal malt in there. It just doesn't smell anything like it should.

Tongue: This beer sucks. Besides the dark color it is nothing close to an American Porter. Those damn Canadians at Sleeman should just stop while they're ahead. Don't try to brew a style if you're going to come nothing close to it. There's a bit of black malt bitterness, a tiny bit of smokiness, and a whole lot of watery tastes.

Mouthfeel and Drinkability: Where to start, there a just so many flaws with this beer. I brewed a kit porter from Brewer's Best-I think it was my first homebrew-and it was better than this. The feel of Sleeman's ' 68 Porter is mostly like that of tonic water. Real thin body, much thinner than one would expect for a porter. In my opinion the carbonation levels are too high as well for the porter style, however since the body of this beer is so-damnably light higher carbonation actually does it justice. However, since porters are supposed to be lighter in carbonation and heavier of body this is off. This is a beer I'll not be buying again, ever. It completely sucks.

becktone, Mar 05, 2007
Photo of charliedango
1.88/5  rDev -39%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Poured from 12oz bottle into pint glass. Prior descriptions have pretty much nailed the overall look and smell of the beer. I got a 3 inch head out of my pour though. This particular porter is quite bitter and not as rich as I'd hoped due to the excessive carbonation. The mouthfeel is slightly frothy (as expected with this level of carbonation) and the aftertaste seems to be more alcohol than anything else. At only 5.5% ABV I'm surprised the alcohol flavor is as noticeable as it is.

Overall, not what I would call a good representation of the style.

charliedango, Jun 28, 2008
Photo of slitherySOB
1.98/5  rDev -35.7%
look: 2 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

I'm reviewing this beer cold. I mean cold as a Bud served at a biker bar cold. As this beer warms, it gets worse. This porter pours a muddy black colour, with a bit of coffee coloured foam that quickly disipates. Their is one ring of lace at the top of the glass, where the top of the foam reached its peak. That is all. First smell is skunk. Not surprised. The glass is clear, and this bottle came from Canada to Africa. But I had the rest, and they were all the same. And, considering some of the disappointments I've had with Sleeman before, I'm considering it safe to assume that this would smell and taste the same if I bought it at the LCBO and drank it straight away. After awhile, I smell a bit of caramel barley and chocolate. Taste is skunky. But, it also has a caramel and chocolate flavour that reminds me a bit of a chocolate bar. Too sweet, but the skunkiness balances it out. Surprising, eh? Skunk actually balancing something. Mouthfeel is a bit thin, and almost oily like a fish. It's pretty undrinkable, I find. Something I won't partake of again.

slitherySOB, Jan 15, 2005
Photo of bashiba
2/5  rDev -35.1%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Poured into my glass looks exactly like a glass of cola.

Smell is bitter and slightly pungent.

Taste is very bland, and the taste that is present isn't very pleasing. I don't know how to describe it other than not good.

Mouthfeel is thin and watery, especially for a porter.

Overall not the most drinkable beer, I will be avoiding this in future.

bashiba, Jan 23, 2006
Photo of DaPan
2/5  rDev -35.1%

DaPan, Feb 13, 2013
Photo of Blakaeris
2.03/5  rDev -34.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Pours rather thin and watery. Head dissipates quickly to a very thin ring.

Smell is bitter with burnt dark malt and not much else.

Taste is similiar to smell but much stronger. There is a strange smokiness to the beer. Unfortunately it is not well balanced. The flavor seems disjointed.

Mouthfeel is very thin for a porter. It seems to be watered down.

I will not have this brew again. I am surprised that this brew is so poorly crafted.

Blakaeris, Jan 23, 2006
Photo of masikon
2.08/5  rDev -32.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 1 | overall: 2

This poured a near black with some ruby highlights, chunky head but receded quickly leaving crusty lacing. Nose is of indistinqushable burnt malt, perhaps some bitter chocolate scent if I really think about it being there. Taste is awkward and pretty vile, again very mild flavorwise with typical roasted bitterness. Mouthfeel is completely off, very light and watery..doesn't match the taste at all. Overall not a good porter, no redeeming qualities with so many better examples available.

masikon, Jan 07, 2006
Photo of woemad
2.1/5  rDev -31.8%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

12oz bottle purchased at Jim's Homebrew in Spokane for $1.66. First time I'd seen it. I'm always up for a new porter, but things I'd heard in the past about Sleeman were less than complimentary, so I opened this one with few illusions. No freshness date to be found. I found it odd that there's no mention of the location of the brewery beyond Canada. Last time I checked, Canada was a big place.

I was pleasantly surprised by this beer's appearance. This poured a dark brown/black color that took on a reddish hue when held to the light. A big tan head sat atop the proceedings. A spotty lace was left behind. Sadly, this would be the highlight of this beer.

This is one of the more anemic-smelling porters I have encountered. There's a vague bitter dark chocolate scent and a more sweet caramel scent... and that's about it. No hoppiness to note. As this warms up, the sweet aspects become more cloying. This begins to smell like an overly sweet brown ale with some coffee thrown in.

The nose is remarkably similar to the smell, except that it's more watery - not the quality I look for in a porter, to be sure. The vaguely bitter roasted malt taste is first, then quickly is beaten down by a watery sweetness, before the proceedings finish with a dry steel note. Ugh.

Mouthfeel? What part of watery didn't you get from what I said above?

This is vaguely drinkable in comparison with some of the worst macro swill imaginable, but it really doesn't shine when compared to anything else. This porter richly deserves the rating it's come to have on this site. I shan't be buying any of these again.

woemad, Mar 02, 2006
Photo of SuperSnake
2.13/5  rDev -30.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

I was so disappointed in this beer. Drank this along side fuller's london porter and it does not stand up.

A: Deep brown light enough to see a reddish colour

S:Slight sweet smell but very macro grain smell also.

T: Bitter with a weird fruit licorice roasty taste.

Mouthfeel: Light bitter

Drinkability: Not good

Not goo get Fullers London Porter for sure

SuperSnake, Oct 02, 2010
Photo of Phocion
2.23/5  rDev -27.6%
look: 4 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Number three from my Sleeman sampler pack. 330 ml. bottle poured into a pint glass. Dark brown with hints of red when held up against the light. About one finger of a creamy beige head that holds decently and sticky but fairly thin lacing. So far we're off to a better start than the previous Sleemans.

Okay, let's forget that last statement. One whiff of this thing and I get...well, almost nothing. I have to stick my nose straight into this one to get just a tiny hint of chocolate and roasted malts. This is a porter and I've had light macro-lagers with more of an aroma than this. Disappointing.

Thankfully the flavor profile is a bit more than the non-existent nose. Chocolatey roasted malts and a bit of a metallic twang of bitterness. Not impressed.

Extremely watery for a porter. Downright unpleasant. Avoid at all costs.

Phocion, Jan 29, 2008
Photo of happygnome
2.25/5  rDev -26.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

a: amber color, easily seen through. Eigth inch of tan head that dissapears fast leaving a little lacing
s: light smoky malt aroma with hints of hops, kind of a bland smelling ber
t: smoky flavor with hints of chocolate, surprisingly hoppy for a porter
m: light to medium bodied with average amount of carbonation

overall this is one of the worst porters ive had, there is supposed to a dark dark color, not an amber color, there are a lot of hops for its style

happygnome, Jun 12, 2007
Photo of biegaman
2.25/5  rDev -26.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

For a style that is so often thoroughly black it's a bit unexpected to find that Sleeman Porter is hardly black at all: it's complexion is perfectly clear and dominated by flaring auburn highlights. (Considering the brewery's portfolio and reputation, however, perhaps this shouldn't be so shocking.) To its credit, at least, it generates a decent head.

At best, this aroma could only generously be described as that of a dark lager. It is nothing even abstractly like what a porter should smell like. There's scarcely any roast barley, nothing chocolaty or nutty or sweet - just cheap caramel and a nasty bout of diacetyl. The poor quality (and stingy use) of ingredients is made immediately apparent.

There's a colloquial expression that captures my impression of this beer: yuk! Any remotely robust or dark flavours taste synthetic and/or spoiled: chocolate (cheap, dollar-store kind from three Easter's ago); coffee (yesterday's, with the grinds floating in it); and malts (or, rather, the chemical- and corn syrup-based kind used only by industrial breweries).

But forget the taste, it's the mouthfeel that's truly a heroic monstrosity. So bad, in fact, that in a strange way it's almost commendable. The way in which cloying, synthetic corn sweetener is blended with that astringent, acrid "roast" element is applaudingly awful and must have required someone who really had no clue what they were doing.

Likening this to any halfway-decent porter is like considering Steven Segal's movies to be thought provoking and emotionally stimulating. You'd have to be stupid to believe this is a real porter. I'm all for Sleeman drinkers expanding their horizons and trying different, less pedestrian styles but it's obviously a bad idea for the brewery itself to try to do the same.

biegaman, Feb 02, 2011
Photo of maxpower
2.25/5  rDev -26.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

11.5 oz thick brown bottle pours a clear dark brown color with a small head of large bubbles that leaves some lacing in my glass. Chocolate aromas, caramel, chocolate and smoke flavors, light to medium bodied with a watery and thin mouthfeel, not much going on with this porter.

maxpower, Dec 19, 2005
Photo of Tim2000
2.45/5  rDev -20.5%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Dark brown brew with a short-lived head that leaves a decent collar.

Subtle roasted coffee aroma.

The flavour is quite underwhelming. Slightly malty and nutty, followed by a astringent grainy taste leading to an indistinct hop bitterness. Quite dry all the way through, this porter is definitely lacking something. The body is very thin and carbonation is high.

Not much to say, a watered-down interpretation of the style.

Tim2000, Sep 18, 2005
Photo of kinger
2.48/5  rDev -19.5%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Porter? no way not with this one. Pours a transparent dark amber with thin head and a decent amount of lacing. Looks more like a dunkel or amber ale. Aroma is faint and sweet, trying to locate some hops or malts and keep coming up short. Mouthfeel is too thin and watery for a porter, but it is clean and slightly smooth. Flavor is decent, a bit too sweet for my liking. Again the taste doesn't resemble a porter, but it is enjoyable in small doses. Not a big fan of this offering from an otherwise solid brewer.

kinger, Aug 04, 2008
Photo of sauron681
2.55/5  rDev -17.2%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Pours a very dark amber, that is clear. Not much carbonation. Head is rocky, but thick, and light tan. Nice aroma of cocoa, and fruit (apple?) Tastes of light chocolate, with a sweet hint of malt. However, it quickly finishes to a chalky, burnt grain taste. Hard to distinguish any hops whatsoever. Halfway through the session, there was a real alchohol bite to it. Fairly difficult to finish the bottle, I lost interest with its lack of overall flavor.

sauron681, Jan 26, 2007
Photo of Naes
2.55/5  rDev -17.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

This porter is almost black in color with reddish hues around the edges. The head is a small frothy layer of light tan foam. Lacing is good.
The aroma is faint, but is of malts.
The flavor is a bit watered down for a porter. It’s slightly roasty, with a bit of bitter chocolate and a mild hop presence.
Mouth feel is light and mildly carbonated.
This is not the best of porters.

Naes, Nov 29, 2005
Photo of Brent
2.58/5  rDev -16.2%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Not bad, but possibly one of the most boring porters I've had. Poured dark brown, but a bit lighter than average. General roasted malt aroma and similary nondescript roasted malt flavor. Doesn't really go anywhere, just bland - like a bit darker version of the equally unimpressive dark ale.

Brent, Mar 10, 2006
Photo of beertaster13
2.58/5  rDev -16.2%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Pours a nice dark ruby with a mocha/tan head, that settles into lacing. The smell was of alcohol and lightly buttered grains. Alcohol ruled the scent. The taste is of dark roasted malts, hints of toast. The alcohol is strong and overtakes all other flavors. This one just didn't blend well, the alcohol was too noticeable, while it is called a porter, it looks like a porter, but it just doesn't quite have that porter taste that I have come to love.

beertaster13, Aug 10, 2006
Photo of Drew966
2.58/5  rDev -16.2%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Sleeman Porter 68* pours a dark chocolate brown color with an off white head from a brown 11.5 ounce bottle. There is only the slightest tinge of roasted malt in the aroma, I think I can smell some hops too, just barely. I can't help but think that I would like a thicker mouthfeel, but this one is at least marginally adequate. There is a slight roasted malt taste, mostly in the aftertaste, and a bit of hops in the middle, but really just a little bit. Caramel flavor becomes more apparent as the beer warms. My biggest complaint about this beer is that it just doesn't have enough flavor. What little there flavor there is, it's gone in a moment. Disappointing, but not awful.

Drew966, Oct 09, 2007
Photo of BuckeyeNation
2.58/5  rDev -16.2%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Blood-soaked tobacco with bright orange trim. The head is three fingers after a spirited pour and looks better than decent. It's malted milk in color, with a soft frothiness that still permits a mild rockiness. It falls in sections and is beginning to leave fine tatters of lace that don't quite cover half the glass. Note: much more lace is seen in the end.

Sleeman Porter looks like a porter, but it sure doesn't smell like one. In fact, it doesn't smell like much of anything at all... except maybe an exceptionally weak, mineral-infused, hopless Euro pale lager. I know that doesn't sound appealing. Believe me, it isn't.

The flavor has more guts than the nose. However, in the grand scheme of things, it's still virtually gutless. This is hideously undermalted beer. Minimally roasted barley is the only thing greeting my taste buds. The flavor profile can best be described as watered-down chocolate and weak tobacco tea. A near complete lack of sugar allows what hops are present to deliver their full complement of bitterness.

The mineralness noted in the nose is present on the palate, but isn't bothersome. As I drink, I'm amazed by the amount of bitterness and find myself wishing for more malt to alleviate the dryness of the finish. A little more flavor is available with warming. In the end, this is tolerable beer more than it's good beer.

The mouthfeel is light. I'd even go so far as to call it thin. It's off the bottom end of my 'porter mouthfeel' scale, but it does fit with the rest of the beer's attributes.

After tasting Sleeman's abysmal Honey Brown Lager, I had no illusions that Porter 68 would be great beer. The 68 is supposedly a reference to this beer's page number in an old beer recipe book found in a family member's attic. Anyway, I can't bring myself to recommend it for any purpose (cooking maybe?), even though it isn't horrible and gained some measure of my respect by the final ounce.

BuckeyeNation, Feb 17, 2006
Photo of drpimento
2.65/5  rDev -14%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Poured with a GINORMOUS tan,foamy, frothy head and a slathering of lace. Color's a dark, clear brown. Aroma is quite mild, chocolatey, and malty. Flavor's a little more complex with the above characteristics, but also a bit of fruit, a bit of bitterness, a bit of hop, and a hint sour. On the thin side. Not too bad, but it seems they're a bit over frugal with the malt bill here. Finish is - eh...

drpimento, Jan 05, 2009
Photo of emerge077
2.68/5  rDev -13%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Pours a deep crimson color in the light. Big, irregular foam, with sheets of lacing as it settles.

Smell is basic and average, just a grain odor that could be applied to any random beer. No roasty aroma. Also a mineral smell that i've only noticed in eastern euro lagers and pilsners. Could have something to do with age, but this bottle has been in my fridge for 3 mos. Who knows.

Taste is sweet, very mildly bitter, not roasty. Style-wise this is more of a Dunkel lager. None of your typical porter characteristics. Stale tobacco and metallic notes unfortunately linger in the finish.

Thin and sweet, kind of gross. Not sessionable, avoid this.
Part 3 of my personal average porter tasting aka "cleaning out the fridge".

emerge077, Apr 19, 2007
Photo of DrJay
2.68/5  rDev -13%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

The package indicates that this is a limited edition beer for 2004 and that we can expect a new offering each November from Sleeman.

Clear, dark brown with ruby highlights topped by a tan head of fine bubbles. Moderate retention and nice lacing on the sides of the glass. Light roasted/chocolate malt aroma mixed with a light floral (almost noble) hop character and a very noticeable licorice or cola smell. The flavour starts with a weak malty and roasted sweetness, followed by a sharp bitterness that becomes quite strong at the finish. The licorice character carries through as well. But overall, the flavour is kind of mild and is missing the maltiness that I expected. Fairly dry, not quite astringent finish. Medium/light body with medium/low carbonation.

341 mL clear bottle.

DrJay, Oct 30, 2004
Photo of BEERchitect
2.7/5  rDev -12.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

There's enough in there to be called a porter, but not enough to be called a good porter. The chocolate, coffee, and caramel flaovrs are present, but do little to improve the character of the malt. There are low level bittering that really don't balance the medium malt base. The flavors are quite separate and don't meld well. The caramel flavor seems a bit artificial. The body is what I'd expect from an amber ale (Amber Bock-ish), and never shows creaminess or smoothness. It's a beer that's has 'value engineered' the quality out. I don't think it was intended to be a good beer.

BEERchitect, Jun 09, 2006
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Sleeman Fine Porter (68*) from Sleeman Breweries Ltd.
72 out of 100 based on 101 ratings.