1. BeerAdvocate on your phone?! True story. Try the beta now.

The Abyss - Deschutes Brewery

The AbyssThe Abyss

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.

4,271 Ratings

(view ratings)
Ratings: 4271
Reviews: 1608
rAvg: 4.53
pDev: 9.49%

Brewed by:
Deschutes Brewery visit their website
Oregon, United States

Style | ABV
American Double / Imperial Stout |  11.00% ABV

Availability: Winter

Notes/Commercial Description:
Aged in bourbon, Oregon oak, and Pinot Noir barrels.

65 IBU

Vintages (production numbers from Deschutes):
2006 - Released December 2006 (approx 90 BBL)
2007 - Released January 2008 (approx 350 BBL)
2008 - Released November 2008 (approx 350 BBL)
2009 - Released November 2009 (approx 600 BBL)
2010 - Released December 2010 (approx 600 BBL)
2011 - Released November 2011 (approx 600 BBL)

(Beer added by: BeerAdvocate on 12-24-2006)
View: Beers (117) |  Events
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Latest | High | Low | Top Reviewers | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of The Abyss Alström Bros
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 4,271 | Reviews: 1,608 | Show All Ratings:
Photo of pmccallum86


1.18/5  rDev -74%
look: 4.5 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

2009 Reserve

Pours a dark oily color body with a big bubbly tan coffee colored head that last forever.

Smell is of big chocolate and coffee with a funky barnyard smell normally associated with sours. Kind of strange, this must be one of the infected bottles.

Taste is chocolate and barnyard funk. Some acidic and vinegar notes as well. Yup, this beer must be infected. Imagine a wild ale had sex with an imperial stout, this is their lovechild.

Mouthfeel has high carbonation with a dry leathery feel. Not good.

I guess the rumor is true, the 2009 Abyss batch has gone bad. I am truly disappointed as this was my first Abyss ever and I was eagerly awaiting drinking it.

Serving type: bottle

07-02-2010 03:46:55 | More by pmccallum86
Photo of JamesMcPolin


1.27/5  rDev -72%
look: 4.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

In honor of finally getting my hands on a couple 2010 Abyss bombers, I'm cracking open an infamous 2009 release. I'm hoping and thinking it's not contaminated because I was aging two bottles. When I first heard from my buddy Jeff that they might be tainted I opened the other one a long time ago, just to see if mine were among the bunk ones. The other one still tasted excellent so here we go.

Poured from a bomber into a snifter

A beautiful looking brew. Thick, black, plenty of head that looks like frothy hot chocolate. Mmmmm, delicious looking. Good head retention while waiting for it to warm just a bit. (the garage was a bit colder than proper serving temp)

Uh-oh. Nose seems way off, getting a slight metallic smell or something that shouldn't be there. Maybe im just trippin because I'm nervous.

Ahhh damn it, this sucks. It's totally infected. Man, a year's worth of aging wasted. I should have listened to everyone's advice on BA and drank them all the minute I knew this was even a possibility. Anyways, at least I have a 2010 Release to open and comfort me. I'll review the 2010 and hit re-review later but right now I'm mad at both myself and Deschutes quality control lab for wasting my time and precious money. This 2009 is an F - literally "avoid". For anyone else out there that still has one in the cellar, hurry and drink it now to at least catch a buzz for your thirteen bucks because I think it's only getting worse with age. Mine's already pretty tough to even drink.


Serving type: bottle

01-19-2011 16:10:14 | More by JamesMcPolin
Photo of Wisconsinality


1.58/5  rDev -65.1%
look: 4.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1 | feel: 3 | overall: 1

Bomber poured into Delerium tulip.

2009 Vintage.

A- Pours a deep brown with a big two and a half finger mocha head. The head takes a while to die down and leaves some spotty lacing on the side of the glass.

S- My fears about this beer has come true. I have an infected Abyss. Smells like a wild stout. Some funkiness dominates the nose to go along with sour cherries, roasted malt and a little bit of milk chocolate.

T- Lots of infection, I mean funkiness. Sour cherries, a little smokiness and some chocolate notes. Nothing else is very apparent besides the tartness.

M- Medium bodied with ample carbonation. Dry on the finish but I am not sure if that was the way it was intended or due to the infection.

D- Pretty much a drain pour. I was hoping I would be one of the lucky ones but alas, I was not. Looking forward to trying to '10 though.

Serving type: bottle

11-27-2010 21:48:37 | More by Wisconsinality
Photo of chrislouden


2.15/5  rDev -52.5%
look: 5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Purchased from Side Door Liqour Store in El Paso Texas. $13

Bottle dated as best AFTER Nov 15 2011

Appearance: Darkest beer I have ever seen. Aptly named.

Smell: Strong malt smell followed by molasses

Taste: ... nothing kind to say

Mouthfeel: meh

Overall: Did not enjoy this beer at all. High expectations based on description on bottle.

Serving type: bottle

05-02-2011 05:41:52 | More by chrislouden
Photo of FlikkerDans


2.3/5  rDev -49.2%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

This beer...I mean, really? I missed the last release so I had been looking forward to trying this "gem" for almost a year now. Needless to say, when it was brought out this past Friday night it felt like life was finally looking up. I quickly finished what was left in my glass and eagerly poured a small sample to taste. It was much thinner than I had expected. I was anticipating a thick, syrupy imperial stout, but it was mostly just thin and bubbly, with a small and fizzy head. The smell wasn't bad, but nothing amazing. Burnt chocolate and coffee were the first things that come to mind. The first taste is what killed my hopes and dreams, and pretty much my entire outlook on life. It had a much too fizzy mouth feel, and tasted like a burnt stout. Not a stout with roasted notes to it, a burnt stout. Burnt chocolate and burnt coffee, like the smell. It was also way too bitter; as bitter as t0rin0 when his female roommates man-handle the bathroom on a Sunday morning. The only thing that saved the night was LL Cool J's "I'm Bad" faintly playing in the background.
This beer is completely and offensively over-hyped. I guess somewhere along the lines we never gained a strong sense of shame. Apparently the schools can't teach us everything. I heard that last years was amazing and much better than this years, and I would believe it. But for now I say screw this beer and the horses' ass it rode in on. Shame on those who give this an A just because it's hyped up...shame

Serving type: bottle

02-17-2009 15:39:28 | More by FlikkerDans
Photo of Tbone


2.3/5  rDev -49.2%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 4 | overall: 2

2009 Vintage

This beer is infected. The nose and taste are dominated by an offputing lactic sourness.
A very slight bitter roast note comes through. But any complexity, oak, or bourbon is gone.

Sad. I wonder if its a victim of the growing problem I've been hearing about of brewery's wild brews contaminating their non-wild brews.

Serving type: bottle

02-23-2011 01:55:46 | More by Tbone
Photo of charlesw

New York

2.65/5  rDev -41.5%
look: 5 | smell: 4 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

So, yeah. We had an RIS tasting. This was to be the highlight of the event.

Black. Nice head that lasts. Perfect. Unreal. Beautiful. Opaque like nobody's business.
Smells like an RIS - rich, dark, sweet, chocolate, coffee and more coffee, burned mesquite.
Tastes like mesquite ashes and coffee grounds. Bleh. Little residual sweetness. Lots of dark and bitter things going on. Another over-the-top beer. Sure, i can see why beer geeks would go crazy over it but it's not anything like, well, a good beer. Where is the balance in there, hmm? I'd think it would need more sweetness and a lot more time before being released before it was even close to being ready.
Seems to me that the body is on the thinner side but that's prolly just 'cause i don't think it sweet enough (for balance with all of the other stuff going on). It would prolly be fine if you toned the flavors down.
I would not seek this out (or even drink it) if it were readily available to me except for trading purposes because you all are so crazy for it.

So, in terms of the RIS tasting this was SOUNDLY panned as being poorly made, unbalanced, not very interesting. My score, here, is greatly inflated compared to the remarks given on this one. Heck, it was one of only 2 or 3 out of 20+ bottles we drank where there was some left at the end of the night - and we had this one fourth. So not worth the hype it isn't even funny.

Serving type: bottle

07-25-2009 23:18:21 | More by charlesw
Photo of 2xHops


2.85/5  rDev -37.1%
look: 4.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

2010 vintage bottle opened and poured into a Maudite glass.

Man, this stout is dark, dark, dark, dark, dark, dark, dark. It really did look very appetizing.

The smell seems so strange. It doesn't appeal to my nose at all.

The taste is not quite what I expected. It was very good, but it was heavy on the coffee flavor profile than I expected. I certainly can taste a hint of molasses coming though, the oak coming through slightly.

The mouthfeel is very, very dry. I felt like my mouth was shriveling up worse than a prune. This is after letting the beer breathe for a long while, and I feel like something's wrong. It's not normal.

Overall, I don't see the hype. I am starting to think that I may had gotten a bad bottle that is skunked or something. I imagine I will need to try another bottle to truly see if the consistency is there. I prefer Goose Island's Bourbon Rare Stout far more to this one. It's incomparable, so I only consider this to be a decent beer, but not world class at all.

So far, so what.... I'll have to revisit this review when I somehow get another 2010 bottle, or at least try the 2011 vintage somehow.

Serving type: bottle

11-08-2011 06:35:22 | More by 2xHops
Photo of francisweizen


2.9/5  rDev -36%
look: 4.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

I revisted this one last night from the bottle, and wow what a dissapointment. I must have been high as a kite when I wrote my first review, as this stuff is just not good. On the pour this beer looks great. Dark black/cola brown with a coffee whip espresso head of foam. Aromas are good too, slight chocolate, coffee, roasetd malts. Nice. However the taste is fine up front, but this is too sweet in the middle and the chocolate/coffee/roast flavors just turn to acrid bitter cold brewed coffee in the sour finish. Also, the mouthfeel is thin for an imperial stout. The thin mouthfeel and bad sour coffee aftertaste of overburnt espresso beans really kills the drinkability for this one. Maybe a bad bottle? Maybe, but it was fresh from the most recent release in a wax dipped 22oz bomber, so it seems unlikely. Not good.

Serving type: bottle

11-15-2007 23:53:22 | More by francisweizen
Photo of Bmoyer0301


3.1/5  rDev -31.6%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

The dreaded 2009 sour vintage....


This bottle has a very simple yet classy looking label with a wax dipped neck preventing any oxygen from getting into the bottle creating spoilage. As I finish up checking out the label I noticed they have a little piece of information on the side of the bottle that I never saw before, a "best after" date which says 11/16/2010. That's really interesting to see on a beer because usually you see "best before" dates telling to to consume the beer while it's still fresh and this is telling me to cellar this beer to attain optimum flavors. I had to get a knife out to pry off a small slice of wax before I could get my bottle opener under the lip of the cap which was a mild pain in the butt. After the cap was removed I got a healthy sounding hiss noise and no gushing which was a good sign so far that there wasn't any infection. I pulled out my Victory snifter and gave this beer a healthy straight on pour and was welcomed with a nice mocha caramel colored two finger thick head which hung around for quite awhile. When I hold the glass up to the light all I can see is black murky midnight with no light shining through and a medium amount of lacing sliding down the walls.


On the nose I am pulling out loads chocolate, and woody barrel aging with vanilla. The large amount of dry roast is there too almost like a freshly made Starbucks hot coffee with loads of molasses thrown in. I am not getting any sour or lactic aromas witch is yet another good sign that this is not infected, I guess I am feeling lucky today! In the finish I'm also pulling out a fair amount of prunes and figs that have been chard over a campfire.


Hmm...maybe I spoke too soon. The smell is much better than the taste at this point, surprisingly this beer is very thin and not quite like I remembered. There is a tinge of sourness lingering around which is not off putting but yet its not typical or expected in this style. I can pull out some bakers chocolate and a slight amount of woody undertones but over all this beer just isn't right. As I trudge on through this beer I am noticing some licorice that adds a small amount of spiciness to the complexity. I can sense some vanilla, and chard ashy taste but I keep coming back to the tartness in the finish and as I kept going it seemed to get worse and worse on my palate.


Overall, I am a little bit disappointed by this beer. I really thought that I was going to escape from the infection that everyone was talking about. As I finished up the bottle it became harder and harder to drink because I really could pick out the lactic funky taste. For a future reference I will be searching out other vintages of this beer because a lot of people have had great things to say about it and I would love to know how it taste fresh. If you come across this beer in any other vintage you should definitely give it a try and let me know what you think, as for the 2009 version all I can say is that you are taking a gamble on getting a bogus bottle

Serving type: bottle

07-29-2010 10:53:58 | More by Bmoyer0301
Photo of DIM


3.13/5  rDev -30.9%
look: 4.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

a: This was a very thick looking black with no highlights. It poured with the darkest mocha colored head I've seen yet.

s: This was surprisingly mild overall, smelling of molasses, cocoa, licorice, alcohol, and some vanilla.

t: This started out as an amazingly complex and superb imperial stout. Every sip seemed to be different. To varying degrees at different times I tasted molasses, vanilla, chocolate, mild coffee, toasted grains, and oak. no two sips were the same and if it weren't for the finish this would absolutely live up to the hype for me. I'm not a fan of licorice so the strong licorice flavor at the end was a turn off for me. But the worst part was the mentholated rubbing alcohol at the very end. The feeling it left in it's wake reminded of how my mouth feels after an altoids. Not the flavor, just that sinus clearing "fresh" feeling.

m: The body and carbonation are both outstanding, but the mentholated dryness at the end left me cold.

d: I'm very glad I had help with this one, eleven ounces was about all I could take. If you like licorice you'll like this more than I did. Thanks to JohnGalt1 for the chance to try this one.

Serving type: bottle

04-06-2008 14:47:21 | More by DIM
Photo of uberkane

New Jersey

3.2/5  rDev -29.4%
look: 5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

2010 fresh

A: A dark black, viscous looking beer. Pours with an impressive, frothy mocha head that dissipates very slowly. Tons of lacing.

S: Light roasted malts. Notes of vanilla and hints of chocolate. Sweet burnt toast.

T: Big bitter coffee/espresso with dark chocolate. A little harsh. Vanilla and bourbons hints. Dark burnt sugar is occasionally apparent.

M: Thick, with some velvety carbonation.

D: The thickness and harsh flavors bring the drinkability down, but for all it's complexities it is pretty drinkable.

Notes: Honestly, I was a little disappointed with this beer. I'm a big fan of big stouts, so I expected to be a big fan of this beer. However, the flavors seemed a little harsh in the wrong places. I have another bottle, and will give this beer another chance after a year of aging.

Serving type: bottle

12-31-2010 16:22:10 | More by uberkane
Photo of chrisgalvin


3.23/5  rDev -28.7%
look: 3 | smell: 3.75 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.75 | overall: 3

Clearly I am an arse because I was not really satisfied with this beer and I bought three bottles to be as subjective as possible -- I just wanted to see what the hype was all about. I just felt it was a bit average, just not balanced for my palate and bit too much.

Serving type: bottle

04-01-2013 04:21:11 | More by chrisgalvin
Photo of Beaver13


3.28/5  rDev -27.6%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

22 oz bottle. Pours a dark blackish brown with a frothy dark brown head that retains well and laces the glass.

The aroma is more subdued than expected - roasted chocolate malts, strong oak with a little anise, nitrogen(?) and leather.

The flavor is strong overpowering black licorice at first with a little oak and sweet chocolate malts leading to a charred bitter finish. The alcohol is well hidden. The mouthfeel is medium to full with low carbonation.

Overall, I tend not to like the black licorice flavors, and this one has it strong. As it warms (or as I get used to it), the sweetness starts to balance it out.

Serving type: bottle

01-28-2008 06:54:39 | More by Beaver13
Photo of schellsbeer


3.28/5  rDev -27.6%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 5 | overall: 3

Reviewed from notes from Early December 2008.

World Class...yeah...Not really. I really don't understand what all the hype is about. From our night of tasting, there were some many better expamples of Russian Imperial Stouts that we sampled.

A - Great example of a RIS. Black and thick syrup. Very nice.

S - Clean but really not much there.

T - Cream. Dark. Thick. Dark chocolate but no bitterness. Molassas. No alcohol present which is a definite plus but sort of bland on taste. Just average in my book. Single layered. No fuss. Plain and simple in my book.

M - Love the thickness. For this reason...a 5.

D - Ok if I could find this but can't. Also, at 11%, little high....just right though for a RIS. Would I drink again? Yes but I think a few more years of aging would do this beer wonders.

Serving type: bottle

01-01-2009 20:41:58 | More by schellsbeer
Photo of Crosling


3.3/5  rDev -27.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Around $ 9.00 per bottle in Colorado. I can’t appreciate subtlety in this style. Either smack me with hops (Yeti), blast me with oak (Bourbon County) or spank me with tons of malt (Expedition.) It’s a good, drinkable beer, but I didn’t find much complexity in my bottle.

Another bottle: I drank this one warm and still cant get why you people like it.

Serving type: bottle

05-13-2007 06:20:41 | More by Crosling
Photo of tr4nc3d


3.35/5  rDev -26%
look: 4 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

On to my quest of finding the best RIS. Next up for audition is a 2008 Abyss. Have some more for cellaring.

Pours a really black thick color with a beatiful brown foamy head that leaves some lacing behind.

Licorice, Molasses, vanilla, dark sugary chocolate

A little sweet upfront with a slight bourbon taste to it.Then its too much of a coffee bitterness which leaves you with a dry bitterness aftertaste.

I could not have more then one of these unlike Black Albert.

Overall I would say its nothing more then an average RIS, but it surely does not live up to the hype it gets

Serving type: bottle

01-06-2009 18:25:00 | More by tr4nc3d
Photo of lionchow


3.35/5  rDev -26%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

This review is for the 2010 batch.

Pours pitch black with a big, tan, finely laced head. Head slowly progresses to lingering rocky tan head. Very beautiful.

Aroma was very nice and filled with big wafts of caramel and molasses.

Flavor was huge right off the bat. Over the top with licorice and molasses, followed with more moderate caramel. Alcohol is beyond warming, seems a bit hot. Can taste some of the bourbon barrel up front, but quickly is overpowered by the other flavors. Bitterness is herbal and quite apparent.

Mouthfeel is creamy and lingers down the throat. Very nice.

Overall this beer had some interesting flavors that I felt were not well balanced. The licorice and molasses combined with the hop bitterness did not meld well for my pallet. There was not enough oak flavor for me. Some reviewers have said that they prefer this low oakiness to other over-oaked stouts, but for me it was too subtle, or perhaps just overpowered by the licorice, molasses and hop flavors. I wish it would have had more time in the barrel or a higher proportion of barrel aged beer in the blend. This said, I would like to save a bottle in the cellar for 1-3 years to see if the flavors become more harmonious with age.

Serving type: bottle

12-23-2010 20:04:25 | More by lionchow
Photo of dnrobert24


3.35/5  rDev -26%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 3.5

It’s amazing how certain beers gain legendary status. Often times that beer is a Russian Imperial Stout. In this case, we have a great brewery brewing a legendary style. So, of course, if you are a fan of the brewery (and I am a fan of this brewery), you will be prone to give high marks. But, when compared to other RIS’s, the Abyss just doesn’t stand up. Certainly, it stands apart. It is unique for embracing the smoky side of dark malts and for giving us the ever-enduring anise licorice flavor, but the beer itself is just too thin. Where it gives smoke and licorice, it takes away fullness and chocolate richness. The Abyss is certainly a contender in the imperial stout throne room, but it is a minor god, if you are considering the great Olympians.

Serving type: bottle

07-25-2011 05:53:13 | More by dnrobert24
Photo of Pencible


3.38/5  rDev -25.4%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

2009 vintage, reviewed December 2011.

A: This poured completely pitch black with thick tan head.
S: It smelled sour and tart - clearly part of the infected batch, which is a shame. There was still some chocolate and oak and coffee, with a little smoked salmon and alcohol.
T: It tasted like sour and tart oak, with dark chocolate and roasted coffee, and a little molasses and smoked salmon. It had a tart and bittersweet aftertaste that was a bit dirty.
M: It was oily with moderate carbonation. Nice slick body.
D: As part of the infected batch, this clearly isn't what it's supposed to smell or taste like, but I thought it would be interesting to review anyway. And it was still enjoyable enough to drink my glass...similar to Le Coq. It still looked great, and had great body, and there were definitely signs of this being a great stout under all the unintended sourness. Now I really want to try a good bottle of this legendary beer.

Serving type: bottle

01-02-2012 20:23:01 | More by Pencible
Photo of jwjon1


3.4/5  rDev -24.9%
look: 5 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

2009 Vintage

Wanted to love this beer: appearance and smell are near perfect for a BA RIS, and the mouthfeel isn't too far behind, though a bit thin. But the 09 vintage has so much bitterness that gets in the way of an otherwise great RIS. So much so, it took me a long while to get through a single glass. I'll let some bottles sit for a while to see if the edges soften up and re-review at that time, but I'm clearly not in the majority with this one.

Serving type: bottle

12-28-2009 03:41:51 | More by jwjon1
Photo of HalfFull


3.4/5  rDev -24.9%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Having had this beer on tap a couple years ago I thought I'd give it a go in the bottle and a bit closer to the brewers intentions I would guess. Bottle cellared for about a year and opened after its 'best after' date of 11/01/10.

Wax sealed bomber poured into a large wine glass. Pours dead black with a rich mocha head and offers good retention and lacing. A notably better pour than the draught version.

Nose is a bit of a reach. I pick up some oak but more of a wine barrel than whiskey, quite vinous in nature. Nice but not as advertised and with notable wine esters. Bit of earthy chocolate comes out with some warming, along with some sweet cherry.

Flavor is a bit thin for the style yet offers a lingering finish. Offers a touch of the whiskey barrel as the beer warms but still remains subdued. Feel is a bit thin as well. Overall a different animal than a fresh tap pour, pleasant yet unremarkable.

Serving type: bottle

11-04-2010 05:21:08 | More by HalfFull
Photo of Mavajo


3.43/5  rDev -24.3%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 2

2009 Vintage.

Pours a dark near-black body with a deep brown head. Good head and decent lacing.

Nose is of roasted malt, a hint of chocolate, smoke, and licorice. Taste brings much of the same. Roasty flavor with a healthy dose of anise/licorice and oak. All in all, I found the flavor profile to be rough around the edges. I didn't enjoy it, but I would be interested in trying an aged version of this. Mouthfeel is good.

All in all, I didn't enjoy this bottle and it took me hours to drink. But, to be fair, I think that may be my fault - I opened it before the best by date. This is from the '09 vintage, which has developed a reputation for being infected - however, I did not notice any problems with this bottle. I simply didn't care much for it. I'll have to try an aged bottle some time.

Serving type: bottle

08-07-2010 01:32:38 | More by Mavajo
Photo of ChadQuest


3.43/5  rDev -24.3%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

Black with a nice frothy cap that lingers a bit before dropping into a collar with lacing.

Yup this is infected. i can only smell it lightly,but it is easily recognizable and differant from what the last bottle of Abyss i drank was like, but it's not ruining the smell at least, more or less adding another element to the aroma. The only downer to it is it is making me want to drink a sour now, but i have a stout in my glass, it's making me salavate expecting tartness...Nope.
Aroma is where the licorice is strongest for me, and it's a positive addition i think, adds something interesting to really make this something differant. some roasty malts and warming alcohol that stops short of being hot.

Flavors are sorta like the aroma but there is some creamy vanilla flavors, and i am tasting some light off sour notes, nothing to ruin the bottle, but it is for sure putting a slight damper on it, as the finish is a bit dryer then i expected, interesting because this is pretty viscous. I can't say off the top of my head i've had a stout close to the impression of this one, at least in this lightly-infected state.

Feel is nice and viscous, i keep going back and forth between medium thick & just thick...i guess it's medium thick thick. Carbination is slightly strong for the style, maybe from the infection, or maybe otherwise. nice feel in any case.

This was still a good beer with the infection, it would have been interesting to try this infected bottle with another year or two for the little guys to work, just for fun, since it's only lightly working it's presence right now. But it is better in it's un-infected form.

Serving type: bottle

09-02-2010 04:54:41 | More by ChadQuest
Photo of n2185

North Carolina

3.43/5  rDev -24.3%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

2010 vintage

A: pours black with three fingers of dark tan head that fades into a thin cap with decent lacing.

S: graham, cocoa, vanilla, and some roasted coffee. Fairly muted.

T: very roasted tasting. Lots of bitter chocolate and some coffee. Faint vanilla and bourbon notes toward the finish with a slight alcohol burn.

M: thick body with low carbonation, this beer is nice and creamy.

O: a pretty decent imperial stout. The bourbon is almost nonexistant and the nose is very muted, though. Decent enough, though not worth the hype.

Serving type: bottle

01-10-2012 23:54:55 | More by n2185
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
The Abyss from Deschutes Brewery
100 out of 100 based on 4,271 ratings.