Dismiss Notice
Subscribe to BeerAdvocate magazine and get 12 issues / year of fresh beer content delivered to your door each month.

Already subscribe? to manage your subscription.

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: 1,047
rAvg: 3.07
pDev: 19.87%
Wants: 26
Gots: 162 | 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
Reviews: 420 | Hads: 1,047
Photo of Hunter
2.09/5  rDev -31.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

The bottle's a bit of a turn off for me, with a screw-top cap and the look of a small whisky jug. Makes me think of trailer parks; should I blow on the bottle when it's empty? Upside: 32 oz. of beer :)

Serious head on the pour! Settles fairly quick into an admirable eggshell-white with strong lacing effects. I half expected there to be some gimmick allowing the advertised porter/pilsner blend to separate in the pour, but no - beer is a uniform brown-red, clear with thin carbonation.

Aroma is odd. You can detect the adjuncts in it (maybe from the pilsner?). hits of corn, scant hops, some chocolate (porter?).

Wow. What a bland-tasting beer. None of the character of a Guinness & Bass/Harp Black & Tan. This is uniformly blah. Thin mouthfeel with little taste of anything on the tongue. This is inoffensive to the point of being invisible. Allowing it to warm a bit doesn't seem to help, but it does bring out barely-there notes of chocolate and almond. Thanks but no thanks. (989 characters)

Photo of elricorico
2.11/5  rDev -31.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Pours a deep amber in colour, and a finger of beige head formed. The head recedes to a thin cap, but slowly. Not bad looking.

Started off a little too cold, but as it warms a bit of roasted malt and citrus hop aromas start to show. Further in it simply starts smelling like a fairly standard brown ale. A bit of malt sweetness with faint hop aroma. Nothing exciting.

This one comes of as tasting simply odd to me. At moments I feel like some character from both the pilsner and the porter are trying to show, but mostly if feels like a mixed mess. Especially notable in the finish, there is a sourness that battles with a pilsner's crispness and just comes accross as wrong.

The mouthfeel is actually not bad here, it has a fair bit of body and a medium carbonation, making it reasonable in this category.

While there are hints of good beer in this bottle, it is a struggle to find it. Instead of a harmonious mix of two styles, I find this one to hit a sour note. (976 characters)

Photo of andrewsporter
2.12/5  rDev -30.9%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

I bought this in a pre-packaged growler at the state liquor store. Intrigued by the packaging, even more intrigued by the dirty cheap $2.99 price tag. Lets just say you get what you pay for. Might as well pour the beer down the drain and keep the cool bottle.

Appearance - It actually looks like a very good beer, caramel colored, good head, impressive lacing on the pint glass as well.

Smell - Doesn't smell like much, slight hint of chocolatey, roasted porter.

Taste - Going down it is fine, the pilsner is a bit chalky and bitter.

Mouthfeel - on the lighter side, not particularly heavy.

Drinkability - It just tastes too bad to keep drinking more than the quart bottle it comes in.

Overall, pre-mixed black and tans have never been a huge hit in my world but why not? Probably stick to Yeungling B&T if thats what you're into. (837 characters)

Photo of hobojon
2.12/5  rDev -30.9%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 2

Poured from 1 quart screw cap bottle from Trader Joes.

App- filtered, brown amber, off white head dissipates to a fine layer.

Smell- sweet, pils malt, roast malt, lots of caramel, one dimensional.

Taste- much worse than aroma, light caramel and astringent roasty malt. sweet, very mellow noble hop bitterness. poorly brewed, rough finish. thin taste.

Mouthfeel- thin, fine low/med carb.

Drinkability/overall- not very tasty. drinkable, but not for the taste. watery. (472 characters)

Photo of HardTarget
2.12/5  rDev -30.9%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Aroma: A minor hint of malt, but mostly I’m getting an alcohol smell.
Appearance: Black which shows a clear ruby when backlit. Had a creamy tan head that left a little bit of lacing.
Flavor: Malty, but has a metallic aftertaste. Basically has a porter profile.
Mouthfeel: Light-Medium, with an alcohol/carbonation prickle.
Overall Impression: Cool bottle, but I can’t reuse it for homebrew (twist top). I expected a thicker, more intense flavor. This is basically a thin slightly off porter. I would look at the water source or the cleaning of the metal in the brewing system. That, or a re-evaluation of the hops. (630 characters)

Photo of AgentZero
2.13/5  rDev -30.6%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

A - Brown colored beer with some amber highlights. Bit of a white head, faded away quickly to some whisps of stick before disappearing altogether.

S - Some slight roasty notes and a lot of sweet pale malts with a bit of corn syrup. Smells a little too much like a sweet macro beer with some roasted stuff added to it.

T - Sorry, taste is worse than it smells. None of this is really offensive, it's just not a good beer. Very sweet, maybe some molasses, but this doesn't taste like a pilsner and some of the minor porter notes that it had on the nose was gone as well. Somewhat watered down.

M - Lighter bodied, soft carbonation, watery.

O - Well, pretty drinkable, but doesn't taste all that good. Best thing about this one was the nice novelty bottle. I picked it up only because I didn't want a six pack of anything at the store and cans of Fosters wasn't doing it for me either. Not recommended. (903 characters)

Photo of KarlHungus
2.13/5  rDev -30.6%
look: 1.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 1

This brew is pours a color that is neither black, nor tan, and certainly not both. Instead, it pours a clear blood red color with a small white head. It would look so bad for an amber or pale ale, but it is not what is espected for something called a black and tan. The aroma is rather pleasant; sweet roasted malt, nuts, fruit. The taste leaves a lot to be desired. It is faint, and mildy sweet. The mouthfeel is medium-light bodied with a lot of carbonation. Overall, this is a brew to be avoided. I seriosly can't see myself ever being in a situation where I wanted to drink a beer like this. (595 characters)

Photo of BeardedBoffin
2.14/5  rDev -30.3%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

A quart of Mississippi Mud, which, is said to be a mixture of classic porter and continental pilsner from the Mississippi Brewing Company, Utica, NY. Utica isn't anywhere near Mississippi, the Mississippi River, or an alligator like the one depicted on the faux stone bottle. Something a little amiss here?

A removal of the screw cap reveals a dark nutty brown brew with modest head that managed to leave some lacing on the glass. This, as I was soon to find out, was by far the best part of the beer.

The aroma was mostly caramel complemented by buttery toffee with some hops penetrating through. A thin palate disappoints. Malty flavors dominate in the beginning, but are usurped by an unpleasantness toward the finish that, unfortunately, lingers after the beer is through. Some have characterized the unpleasantness as metallic mineral water, and I don't disagree.

Not something I would not seek out again. The cheap price ($3/quart) and flashy bottle is, apparently, the marketing strategy of this beer, clearly not the repeat costumer. (1,045 characters)

Photo of KeefD
2.19/5  rDev -28.7%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 1.5

$2.50 for 32oz of beer? Sure, I'll give it a shot. Neat little mini-moonshine jug bottle. Mississippi Brewing Co, Utica, New York? Weird. Pours a dark brown color with an enormous tan head that falls slowly, becomes interestingly rocky. Crystal clear. Lots of little carbonation bubbles keeping good head retention. Aroma of weak porter and some light hops. Flavor profile of weak caramel and chocolate malts, very little hop bitterness. A bit watery. Slightly creamy, decent mouthfeel. Can I really drink this whole thing? I dunno about that. Yeah, this is a drain pour.

I've never had a pre-mixed Black and Tan, but this is nothing like the bar trick brews I've experienced in the past. Interesting it was a mix of Porter and Pilsner, but not something I would buy again, despite the very low price. (804 characters)

Photo of Goregazm
2.19/5  rDev -28.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

HAS EVEN LESS TASTE THEN THE MUD ITS NAMED AFTER

Appearance: Looks like a glass of Coke. Right after its poured, it actually has a nice, brownish head which was a good two fingers high. The head took awhile to go down, and left some decent lacing. Unfortunately, this is the best part of the beer.

Smell: I caught some malt and caramel, but other then that no strong scents here. Can barely detect anything that I'd expect to find in a black and tan.

Taste: Smooth, in a watery way. Not too bitter. In fact not much taste at all. Chocolate notes are buried so deep you'd need a backhoe to find them. The only real taste here is watered down malt.

Mouthfeel: Feels like a mouthfull of half-flat soda. Has a fizzy, bubbleless feel to it. The decent sized head of the beer goes nowhere. Barely any aftertaste whatsoever.

Drinkability: This is not a good beer by any means, and unless you enjoy the taste of a half-assed black & tan, I'd recommend staying away from this one altogether. Spend your money on something better. (1,025 characters)

Photo of jmc44
2.19/5  rDev -28.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Wow, I should have read the label on this beyond "Black and Tan". This brew combines a Pilsner and a Porter.

The nice thing is that you can taste each of the brews even though they are mixed together. The bad thing is that you can taste each of the two brews. They do not mix well. It makes a heavy pils and a light porter. Really more like, Pilsner with dark food coloring, as the pils was definitely the dominant taste.

It poured out of a 32-oz jug-handled bottle (which was half the reason I bought it) a dark brown color with 2-finger tan head. Head died back a bit but never disappeared. Aroma is complex, fruity but sweet and hint of citrus.

The beer is smooth and reasonably easy to drink, but not sure you'd want to. (735 characters)

Photo of feloniousmonk
2.19/5  rDev -28.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

I used to sample this quite a bit in the early days of my beery investigations...the quirky bottle (quart-sized moonshine jug, this time), the cool label and graphics, and perhaps I was new to the various styles available, although I'd gotten my feet wet enough with some stouts...I try it again, now, with much more beer experience behind me...
Appearance: dark violet, nearly black color, with a big, bubbly, creamy, frothy white (?) head.
Aroma: nullish, and nottish, full of nothing but nothing, creamy, maybe, but offering nothing else...soft and sweet
Taste...rather light, and insipid...blah...light, slightly fruity, but far too light..bland and brittle, nothing to it...
I have to admit my resistance and reluctance towards the "black and tan" style. and this particular brew is doing nothing to change that.I like my stouts STOUT, dammit!, and possessing some flavor, and this showed very little...it was a chore to finish this bottle, no joy at all! Far too light in body, texture, flavor, everything!
Will not return to this one again! (1,053 characters)

Photo of Clydesdale
2.21/5  rDev -28%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

A: A fizzy, clear medium brown color with a fairly large, foamy off-white head with decent retention and a bit of patchy lacing.

S: Some thin roasted malt aroma. Rather metallic and mineral in the nose.

T: Mildly sweet, toasty malts up front. A mineral hop quality. Extremely seltzery and metallic into the finish. A cloying, sugary taste as well.

M: Thin, seltzery, crisp. A riding, cloying, metallic finish adds nothing to the enjoyment of this beer.

D: Wow, I thought Yuengling's Black and Tan was uninspired and forgettable. This is one of the most disappointing beers I've tasted in a long while. (609 characters)

Photo of Tballz420
2.21/5  rDev -28%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

This is a cola colored brew, with a bubbly white head topping it off. Not much smell, malty. This tastes like a clean lagered brew, with the traditional black and tan taste. This one failed to impress me much, but the bottle is pretty cool. Thats why most people would probably try this, not for a stellar tasting brew. (319 characters)

Photo of Ellbert
2.23/5  rDev -27.4%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

This beer was not very good. It had a decent appearance but the smell was a bit rancid. The taste was not appealing either. It had a very different and strange taste that I am not used to. It tasted like the malt was stale and it also tasted like it may have been skunked. Not a very good beer. It comes in a cool bottle that is great to hold change in. (353 characters)

Photo of BuckeyeNation
2.25/5  rDev -26.7%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

When the sun goes down, the tide goes out,
The people gather 'round and they all begin to shout,
"Hey! Hey! Uncle Dud,
It's a treat to beat your feet on the Mississippi Mud,
It's a treat to beat your feet on the Mississippi Mud"

--James Cavanaugh and Harry Barris

I've seen these 'crocks' of Mississippi Mud in stores for years, but was never intrigued enough to buy one. When I spotted this smaller, less expensive version I figured I'd give it a shot. I'm a little disappointed that it's a black & tan though. Shouldn't a beer called Mississippi Mud be a thick, black, high-ABV American double stout?

Flawless dark orange-darkest bronze when backlit with morning sun. Unfortunately, it looks nothing at all like Mississippi mud. The toasted ecru head was large initially, but fell without fanfare to a simple, covering film and left the glass completely devoid of lace.

MM is a bit of an oddity in the sense that it isn't a combination of a stout and a pale ale, but a combination of a porter and a pilsener. It smells like neither, but rather like a weakly aromatic dark lager. There isn't much to go on, though I do pick up some faint cocoa notes. So far... not impressed.

After drinking, I'm still not impressed. Could this beer be any more wimpy, both in terms of flavor and mouthfeel? It tastes like a poor-quality dark lager that has been cut with water. What flavor is present tastes artificial, like dark caramel extract was added. A lousy porter (I'm guessing) and a lousy pilsener (I'm guessing), when mixed, can only result in a lousy (I know for a fact) black & tan.

There's nothing at all here that resembles good beer. I can't get over the fact that it tastes artificially-flavored. It doesn't help that there's a metallic, almost chemical aspect to the finish (maybe the brewers add a splash of Mississippi River water for authenticity). It's a little sour as well, which doesn't help. Even this small 'crock' will be a chore to get through. I have no idea about the ABV, but it doesn't drink very high at all. About 5.0%, I'd say.

The mouthfeel is as un-mud-like as possible. This is the lightest, thinnest version of the style that I've had (all three of them) and has no mouthfillingness whatsoever. The carbonation is finely bubbled and hangs on until the end, but it can't possibly save the mouthfeel from its pathetic self.

I had a feeling that I wasn't missing much each time I thought about grabbing a Mississippi Mud and didn't. It's a forgettable beer that continues to be brewed and sold only because of the novelty and distinctiveness of its packaging. I wish now that I'd been content to remain curious. (2,641 characters)

Photo of Phyl21ca
2.26/5  rDev -26.4%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Bottle: Poured a dark amber color ale with a huge slightly of-white foamy head with good retention. Aroma of weak sweet malt with a very subtle touch of bitter hops. Taste is sweet with a weak malt presence and not much hops. Watery body and overall a very uninteresting beer. (276 characters)

Photo of julian89
2.26/5  rDev -26.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2.5

This is by far the cheapest growlette I have ever seen.

Appearance: Pours a brown color so similar to coca-cola. I got a 1.5 inch head with good retention and a little lacing. It's a watery beer not syrupy in consistency. Not bad looking.

Smell: Malty, thats just about it. Maybe some slight brown sugar and spice.

Taste: Really the mouthfeel kills the taste here. It's sweet and malty with a poke at some spice of some sort, but really not much going on here.

Mouthfeel: Oh so light and oh so watery, meh.

Overall: Honestly, it's kind of what I expected. It's not horrible and i can drink it but I really bought it because it was cheaper to buy the beer and growler than just the growler alone, kind of like how cassette tapes of Hanson were cheaper than blank cassette tapes. (785 characters)

Photo of Thorpe429
2.27/5  rDev -26.1%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Bottle picked up a Total Wine in Alexandria. Served in a tulip.

Pour yields a dense black brew with a short off-white head and a bit of lacing. The nose begins all the problems. First of all, mixing a porter and a pilsner does not yield a black and tan. Second, even judging this beer on its own, it tastes like a watered-down porter that wasn't any good to begin with. Nose brings forward a bit of roasted malt plus some slight notes of chocolate. Anything resembling hops--Noble or American--is completely lacking. The flavor is similarly plain and one dimensional, containing nothing other than a bit of roasted malt. Feel is thin and a bit watery. This is a bad beer. (672 characters)

Photo of Oxymoron
2.27/5  rDev -26.1%
look: 1.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Put on your overalls, lose a tooth or two and sleep with your family. We are trying Mississippi Mud Black & Tan.

The black and tan is a beautiful idea of mixing two different types of beer, a English Pale such as Bass Ale and a Scottish Stout such as Guinness, and mixing them together. Making a distinct tan in ONE bottle and selling it would be, well, would be like drinking a dark amber to dark orange color beer with limited carbonation and head retention and no to limited lace.

So lets taste Mississippi Mud. The beer, not the river. Ok so I have had a traditional Black and tan and I can tell you that this tastes nothing like it. MS Mud has little malt flavor and has somewhat of a bit of hops. This should be smooth and easy to drink but really there is more bit than what I expected. The beer is not horrible but not really what I was expecting.

Well at least we get a full 1 pint on this beer. MS Mud has limited flavor and is not smooth so down on the mouthful although not difficult to drink. I guess if I’m in the south there are other beers I would want to try. (1,086 characters)

Photo of xav33
2.28/5  rDev -25.7%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Mississippi Mud Black & Tan
32 oz bottle
Recent brewing, drank 08/06
Regular pour in a tulip glass

Poured a clear reddish brown, with average frothy head.

Smelt of burnt molasses and a hint of licorice.

Taste was of light sweet bready malts and dying quickly with slight fruit and spice, and awkward bitterness on the finish. Mouthfeel was light, fizzy and astringent.

Overall, a classy beer to drink in public straight from the jug-shaped bottle, that will still draw ridicule from the monks. (509 characters)

Photo of tjd112
2.34/5  rDev -23.8%
look: 2 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

This beer is not the best of the Black and Tans. Its a bit too light for the style, the taste is somewhat watery, as if somebody mixed a porter with a macro lager, I detect a slight roastiness in it. Mouthfeel is light bodied, and its just mediocre in terms of drinkability. (274 characters)

Photo of drabmuh
2.34/5  rDev -23.8%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Bottle split by Thorpe. Thanks I think.

Beer is dark and clear at the same time, think a dark brown, minimal head. Looks about what I expected.

Smells like a lager with a mild porter mixed in. I guess this is what they were going for.

Taste like nothing mixed with ash. Me no liky. It has a mild sweet character at the lead off like a some lagers might if you were bad at making them and then a super weak bitter ash at the end of the beer, no after taste, this is a tick and nothing more, not a repeat just a random beer I've never had. (540 characters)

Photo of Mistofminn
2.36/5  rDev -23.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

I've always seen this cool looking bottle at multiple stores around the University, but I've never gotten it before. My girlfriend bought it for me because she thought it would be a cool beer to try...so here goes.

The bottle looks like a miniature growler in a stone beer koozie, with a growler like twist off top.

Pours a clear amber color, more brown than red, with a slightly off white head that shrinks to a thin layer before disappearing all together. Leaves no lacing.

The nose is very sweet, with a faint toasty character in the background. I imagine this one has been sitting on the shelves for quite sometime, so the hop presence is all but gone. However, I can see this had a pilsner-like hop character at some point.

The taste isn't much of an improvement on the nose. Sweet and lightly toasted, with the faintest of hops. Pretty bland if you ask me, not a whole lot going on.

Mouthfeel is light with a medium carbonation, nothing too overpowering. I almost think more carbonation would do this some good. Drinkability is fine, just not something I would want to drink a lot of.

Overall, the novelty of this beer wore off as soon as I started drinking it, realizing that the beer inside would never be as cool as the bottle it comes in. I'll keep the bottle, but won't purchase this again. (1,307 characters)

Photo of AndIWantYou
2.37/5  rDev -22.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

This beer smells awful! It reminded me of the so-called "macro swill" that everyone drinks. Luckily it tasted better than it smelled, but it still doesn't taste great. I taste some hops towards the end of this one, but I can't place most of the other tastes. Overall, it reminds me more of the "tan" than the "black" in black and tan. I need to learn to stick to actual black and tans instead of trying to simulate it with this type of mixture beer.

Admit it--you bought it for the bottle! I know I did. (506 characters)

Mississippi Mud Black & Tan from Mississippi Brewing Co.
71 out of 100 based on 420 ratings.