Dismiss Notice
Sneak peek! BeerAdvocate magazine #104 (September 2015) featuring Leah & Oscar from Highland Brewing in Asheville, North Carolina. Learn more ...

Mississippi Mud Black & Tan - Mississippi Brewing Co.

Not Rated.
Mississippi Mud Black & TanMississippi Mud Black & Tan

Educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
71
okay

420 Reviews
THE BROS
-
no score

(Send Samples)
Reviews: 420
Hads: 1,048
rAvg: 3.07
pDev: 12.7%
Wants: 25
Gots: 163 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Mississippi Brewing Co.
New York, United States

Style | ABV
Black & Tan |  5.00% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes & Commercial Description:
Beer added by: brewdlyhooked13 on 10-15-2001

No notes at this time.
View: Beers (2) | Events
Beer: Reviews & Ratings
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Reviews: 420 | Hads: 1,048
Photo of hardy008
1.43/5  rDev -53.4%
look: 2 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1

Pours a brown cola color with a small off white head which fades quickly. Had almost no head, even with a fairly aggressive pour. the aroma has some roasted malt, and not much else. Pretty bland.

Tastes very watered down, with some roasted malt and some sugar. No hop flavor at all. This is really bad.

Thin, watery, and bland, with low carbonation. I would not drink this again, or even try it again, not even if it was offered for free. (440 characters)

Photo of klewis
1.49/5  rDev -51.5%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1

From the 1 quart jug

Normally, I wouldn't buy something like this, but the bottle caught my eye, and then the interesting name. I picked up the jug from the bottom shelf thinking "what the hell is this shit?" and was about to put it back. Then I saw the price tag, and figured what the hell, and I put it in the cart. What can I say, I'm a sucker for good marketing. Here goes...

A: pours a reddish copper hue with a small foamy head.

S: Vague aromas of malt and hops. That sounds stupid, but that's about as descriptive as I can be.

T: What taste? There's a very slight oxidized taste, but not much of anything. Seriously, was the malt substituted with food coloring?

M: Watery and thin with an abrasive carbonated texture.

D: Was this worth what I paid for it? Sure. I've at least got a story. But in the future, it won't be worth any more than the price of a bottle of club soda, because that's basically what this is. (939 characters)

Photo of Brent
1.56/5  rDev -49.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 1 | feel: 3 | overall: 1

I can only describe this as a gimmick beer, because the bottle was interesting, and the beer awful. Funky metallic/brown sugar nose. Malt had an odd dimension, which, coupled with the alcohol in the beer, hinted at cheap sour mash whiskey. One of the few beers I have poured out half-way through and gotten something (anything) better from the fridge. (351 characters)

Photo of BierBreath305
1.58/5  rDev -48.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

This thing pours a brownish red, much like a cola. It gives you about a finger or so of head that dissipates within a minute or so.

It smells much like a pilsner with hint of malt and an odd, almost metallic note to it.

It has that clean, crisp lagerish taste and feel to it but there's only a vague touch of malt there and there is definitely some grain or cereal there.. There is also something almost metallic and unpleasant in there as well.

It is well carbonated and watery. Watery as hell for a beer of this color. Crisp? Sure. Refreshing? Eh. Lacing? Yeah right.

I regret buying this and I don't say that often. This is a basically a cheap , dark adjunct lager with a nasty undertaste. The bottle is the only good thing about it.

Stay away. Far, far away. (767 characters)

Photo of jsapunor
1.65/5  rDev -46.3%
look: 4.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 2

Bought this on impulse because of the great looking bottle. The appearance was quite nice. The smell, however, was not impressive and the taste, what taste there was, was in a word awful. I agree with the other reviewers that it tastes like over carbonated water with some metal and a little stale beer flavor. Alka Seltzer is better.
A promising start but it turned out to be a drain pour. Never again! (403 characters)

Photo of kkleu357
1.65/5  rDev -46.3%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

Poured a beautiful color brown. Wonderful aroma of malt and beer. Amazing sweet malty taste. Actually, this beer is not very good. Hard to get through the 1st glass. (165 characters)

Photo of Riccymon
1.66/5  rDev -45.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

Poured a plain amber-brown with a finger or so of head from the novelty bottle, which, let's be honest, is a big reason I bought this one. I'd enjoyed Saranac's bottled black and tan and was hoping for something similar out of Mississippi Mud.

The metallic odors coming from the pint glass foreshadowed what was to come, though the bit of maltiness that also came through gave me hope. Sadly, the taste was all oxidized pennies and rusty railroad ties. I searched for the faint notes of malt and roastiness, but they were few and far between. Only slightly less disappointing was this beer's mouthfeel, which was too carbonated, thin, and watery. I could've finished the entire 32 oz., but its sheer mediocrity made it a drain pour, even after I attempted to mix it with a respectable amber. (793 characters)

Photo of Tbn2
1.67/5  rDev -45.6%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1

Poured from bottle to pint glass.

A-Very dark brown, cherry red on the sides, with a creamy head that left some lacing on the sides. Didn't look like "Mississippi Mud." I was expecting something rather dark.

S-Not the best smelling. You could smell some toasted malts and hops that didn't seem fresh. I checked for a date and I couldn't find one.

T-Wasn't very impressed. It didn't find a good balance of hops and grain. The grains didn't add a very good flavor and the hops seemed stale. Some toasted taste to it and some lsight hints of coffee.

M-Didn't like it. Body was thin and beer seemed over-carbonated.

I picked this up when I was on vacation in Florida because it was the only "micro" I could find. Should have just stuck with Sam Adams or something I could count on. (782 characters)

Photo of dizknee24
1.7/5  rDev -44.6%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

Piicked this up so cheap for about 3 bucks

the bottle looks very interesting but its plastic wrapped around plastic...not that cool.

A disgusting color of clear brown

S no smell none....what is this water

T not good tasted really unfresh. idk it was a drain pour after a few sips

M thin

D never again! (308 characters)

Photo of GnomeKing
1.74/5  rDev -43.3%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 1.5

So somebody dipped a wet, rotting piece of wood into a pot of molasses, liquified it, and stuck it in a cool looking glass. That's what you'll taste. It's sweet in a bad way. This is like hard candy gone wrong.

I think these NY state brewers didn't want to be associated with this brew, so they called it "Mississippi Mud" to distance themselves. Blame it on the dirty south.

I though the brew would be a cloudy deep brown color based on its name, but it's a medium brown and a little thin. The smell is strong and off-putting. (534 characters)

Photo of mjurney
1.74/5  rDev -43.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

[Appearance]: Bronze color, clear, lots of bubbles, soapy head that disappear really quick, lacing is alright.
[Smell]: Aroma is weak, faint caramel malts and maybe some little spice from the hops.
[Taste]: The flavor is pretty bland, it's almost like drinking a watered down ESB/Bitter, I could detect some hint of roasted/caramel malts and metalic.
[Mouthfeel/Finish]: Light bodied, carbonation is fair, has a weird sharp aftertaste.
[Drinkability]: Couldn't drink anymore, it's watery and has a weird aftertaste. (518 characters)

Photo of bashiba
1.81/5  rDev -41%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

Poured a dark copper color with about 2 inches of head that disappeared quickly.

Smell is a rather non descript slight malt.

Taste is very light with just a touch of detectable toasted malts.

Mouthfeel is very thin and watery.

A boring beer in a fancy package I would never seek out. (295 characters)

Photo of tesguino
1.83/5  rDev -40.4%
look: 2 | smell: 4 | taste: 1 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1

this beer seems not very good to me, its flavor causes a little to me acidity, but nor to speak of its presentation one of the best and but simple ways to present/display a beer, its package, its label, the beer that I take from this mark is the one of a liter, with a predominant flavor to porter but that to they american to lager, it smells or and it leaves good flavor of mouth (381 characters)

Photo of uabigdaz
1.86/5  rDev -39.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

I wanted to like this, I really did, but...

Pours a dark brown with a decent tan head which dissipates to a thin layer. This beer's look is the most positive thing I have to say about it. The smell is rather malty... okay, the smell is all malts. This beer tastes like someone took a semi-decent porter and mixed it half and half with sparkling water. Really, the smell indicates it is going to be a thick full beer, instead you get stingy thin swill. Mostly malts, but not a clean taste (I guess that should have been obvious by the name). Again, I really wanted to like this beer. Feels thin and bubbly in the mouth, not pleasant in my opinion, and I rate the drinkability at 1.5 because I can't imagine wanting another drop after I finish the 32 oz that I have. Try it if you must, avoid it if you can. (808 characters)

Photo of granger10
1.86/5  rDev -39.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

The bottle was kind of cool, in a hickish way, so I decided to give it a try. The appearance was medium brown in color, much lighter than I thought it would be. There was a moderate head and good lacing. The body of this beer seems to be missing though. Tastes like a bad homebrew to me. Too sweet and thin up front with no bakbone. Hops are little noticed if at all. Maybe some earthy flavors arise but this is not a good beer. I'm not wasting my time with this stuff ever again. (480 characters)

Photo of SilentSabre
1.86/5  rDev -39.4%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Well the outcome of this venture certainly didn't surprise me at all. I was fairly certain that this was going to be very un-impressive. Well, it was. Appearance was not too bad. Dark reddish brown color with an eggshell white head that vanished in about 6 seconds. More carbonation that I would have expected. Smell? Sweet and malty. Quite sweet, in fact. I was not impressed. Taste? Get a glass and fill it halfway with tap water and the rest of the way with club soda, then toss in two shots of Guinness and dissolve two teaspoons of sugar in it. There you go, you just made your own "Mississippi Mud". There were trace amounts of malt roaming about, but nothing note worthy, for sure. Mouthfeel was ultra thin and I cannot imagine ever drinking this foul liquid again, much less spending money for it. Not "absolutely terrible", but you can see "absolutely terrible" from where this is standing.
Blessed Be
-SS (916 characters)

Photo of TastyTaste
1.9/5  rDev -38.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

Pours a color that as nothing to do with Mississippi Mud. I live near the Mississippi. This stuff has the appearance of flat Coke. Smells vaguely like a porter, pretty weak. A little hint of chocolate and malt. Tastes like soda water. Tastes of chemicals and fizzy carbonation. Not much of a beer. Not worth buying. (315 characters)

Photo of donkeyrunner
1.92/5  rDev -37.5%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 1

More beer should come in mock clay jug form.

Looks alright: a large tan head over a medium brown/ruby liquid. Gets bonus points for sweet packaging.

Smells like brown sugar and a sweaty handful of coins.

My traditional view of black and tan is Bass (English pale ale) with Guiness (Irish dry stout). Mississippi Mud elects to to combine a continental pilsner with an English porter. The result is an overcarbonated pilsner beating down a wimpy, subpar porter. Tastes like sour cola. (485 characters)

Photo of jmichaeldesign
1.96/5  rDev -36.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

The mini-growler packaging begged me to buy it.

I expected something similar to a Yuengling Black and Tan, but this was worse.

Pours lighter that expected, much less black than tan. A little bit of head, not much.

Smell was iffy, not too bad, but reminiscent of macro lager.

Taste was okay, a little malty but reminiscent of artificial sweetener from start to finish. Finishes far too sweet, not clean at all.

Mouthfeel was a bit watery. Once again the finish is far too messy.

Too sweet for me to drink, I finished the pint I poured and dumped the rest.

Overall I'll admit I just wanted the bottle to put some homebrew in. (647 characters)

Photo of BeanBone
1.97/5  rDev -35.8%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2.5

Appearance: Mahogany with ruby highlights and a clear body, this beer doesn't really look much like mud. Pours a pleasant off-white creamy head that slowly settles into a creamy skin and then mild lacing.

Aroma: Medium malt with some of the coffee and chocolate notes you'd expect from something that's half Porter combined with hints of sweet, slightly hoppy lager - not much more here.

Taste: Watered down medium roasted malt body with a bit of dark fruit and the tang of cheap hops. It finishes with hints of weird metallic tones (think Shiner Bock). This doesn't resemble the real deal at all, it's closer to a shitty, watery macro attempt at a Stout, Porter or Dark Lager.

Mouthfeel: The mouthfeel is certainly nowhere near mud - fizzy, thin and watery.

Drinkability: Easy enough to drink I suppose, but really, what's the point? I don't even really want to drink the rest of this glass, let alone the two 32 ouncers in the fridge.

Verdict: Watery and thin, with the lackluster taste to match, the brewery has some stones to call this "Mississippi Mud," it's closer to St. Louis runoff. I'm assuming that the "Continental Lager" mentioned on the bottle is clever code for a typical American macro-lager. And it certainly does taste like a middle-of-the-road, bland, Porter mixed with swill and given a fancy name. While I certainly did not expect this to be as good as a real B&T, I had at least hoped it would be a somewhat decent analog. But alas, this beer lets down it's awesome bottle, name and premise. All marketing, no beer. (1,542 characters)

Photo of stegmakk
2/5  rDev -34.9%
look: 4 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

This beer looked good...
Dark black with alot of foamy lite tan head...
Aroma...hmmm...how to describe it...dank...smelled like old beer on a fraternity floor for 7 days in the sun...
Taste...well thank god the aroma is not what it tasted like...the taste was very watery...a hint of coffee flavor and an end bitterness..but extremely light...more pure watery flavor
Mouthfeel...watery...see taste...
If I want a beer to simply look at..maybe I'd get this...If I wanted a beer to drink...I would never buy this again (521 characters)

Photo of cheapxceptbeer
2/5  rDev -34.9%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

The most boring beer ever. There is no porter in this, maybe a weak pilsener was used to wash out a weak brown ale, but there are no interesting flavors, it is the blandest beer I have ever drank, I think the Heinz corporation had something to do with this. (257 characters)

Photo of brdc
2.03/5  rDev -33.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

This bottle always begged to be taken at the local store, and this time I gave in.
Dark brew with a light tan head, little retention.
Aroma is quite limited, a little alcohol, a little sweetish, nothing else.
Taste and body are as expected from the smell: light, almost like drinking water. It tastes like any macrobrew, perhaps a little bit better, but I have little to comment here.
No particular nose or taste, no complexity at all.
I will not have this again. (469 characters)

Photo of Knapp85
2.03/5  rDev -33.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

I bought this because the bottle was awesome looking. I thought I'd enjoy this beer much more than I did. The beer is on the light side, not by color but by mouthfeel. I know it's a blend I just think ofnmud as being thick and I was expecting this to be like that too. The color is a dark yet transparent brown. Flavor had too much grass in it and not enough porter/stout. (372 characters)

Photo of Mthom
2.06/5  rDev -32.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Is it just me, or does this taste like Schlitz Malt Liquor? Or Olde English 800? Or, well, you get the idea. Swampy smell and taste. Nothing like the package suggests. "Continental Pilsner"?, "robust English Porter"? My arse. Definitely won't buy again, BUT will keep the bottle. Very cool bottle. (297 characters)

first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Mississippi Mud Black & Tan from Mississippi Brewing Co.
71 out of 100 based on 420 ratings.