1. The wait is over! Download the BeerAdvocate app on iTunes or Google Play now.
  2. Get 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine for only $9.99!

Road Dog Porter - Flying Dog Brewery

Not Rated.
Road Dog PorterRoad Dog Porter

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
80
good

1,039 Ratings
THE BROS
83
good

(view ratings)
Ratings: 1,039
Reviews: 769
rAvg: 3.52
pDev: 13.07%
Wants: 27
Gots: 17 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Flying Dog Brewery visit their website
Maryland, United States

Style | ABV
American Porter |  6.00% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
This beer is retired; no longer brewed.

No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: taez555 on 10-30-2001)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Usefulness | Recent | High | Low | Top Raters | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of Road Dog Porter Alström Bros
Ratings: 1,039 | Reviews: 769 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of edchicma
4/5  rDev +13.6%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 4 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

Nice dark appearance...head dissipates rapidly, but lacing remains. Subtle smell,,,,Taste has a hint of coffee, with a bit of alcohol aftertaste. Definitely not a guzzling beer. Mouthfeel not bad, once you gert used to the alcohol bite. Drinkability is good, but sip...don't guzzle!

edchicma, Jun 20, 2003
Photo of kelticblood
3.35/5  rDev -4.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

A less than average head for a porter.It didnt last long but left fairly good lacing.Very weak aroma of just a sweet malt that I can make out.A bitter sweet taste of all malt.I dont taste any hops but there is a slight bitterness left on the finish.Very sweet and creamy with a rolling and flowing mouthfeel that goes down smooth.Moderate crispness on the mouthfeel with a full body.The color is a dark dark red.All the label says is that it is a Scottish Porter.The more i drink of it the more the bitterness shows its head.Caramel malt might be present.Offers a dry finish.Not really impressed with this one.I've liked all the other Flying Dog offerings except this one.I cant see what they are trying to get across with this one.

Note:Slight raisin aroma

kelticblood, Jun 10, 2003
Photo of 86MonteSS
4.05/5  rDev +15.1%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 4.5

Awesome.

It's great when you come across a brewery that does every style well. Samuel Smith's is that way. I haven't had a Sam Smith's I didn't like. Dogfish Head is almost that way; if their beers weren't so thick and sweet they'd rank higher in my book.

I haven't had all of Flying Dog's brews yet, but I've had a few. Tire Bite showed me how well they can do lighter beers, Road Dog shows me they can master darker ones. I'm totally thrilled about Flying Dog.... Granted, their prices probably won't allow me to quaff these brews en masse, but it's nice to know they're there.

I've bashed certain other porters and stouts but this one does the burnt flavor very well. I'm not left with the feeling that I've swallowed ash, instead, I feel I've had some sweetly charred barley.

Now I hate hippies, and when I think of Denver, I think hippies. But hippies or not, the brewers of Flying Dog deserve a lot of praise. Golf clap!

86MonteSS, May 25, 2003
Photo of BeerResearcher
3.9/5  rDev +10.8%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

Mahogany brown in color with a light tan slow fading head and trails of slow trailing lace. The light to medium caramel malt body is a little thinner than I expected. The aroma is of mild hops and sweet malt, with a whiff of alcohol. Medium citrusy and light tea-like bitterness. Lightly caramel sweetness and liquid and smooth. More like a Brown Ale than Porter, but pretty tasty anyway.

BeerResearcher, May 23, 2003
Photo of GeoffRizzo
3.78/5  rDev +7.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 4 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

Pitch black, thick and lasting head with patches of lacing. Has a strong malty aroma, some raisin to be noted. A fine blend of roasted malts, chocolate, rather full bodied with a smokey aftertaste. Holds more stout characteristics in my view, but still a decent beer. To quote the label - Good beer, no shit.

GeoffRizzo, May 12, 2003
Photo of jlervine
4.08/5  rDev +15.9%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 4.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Pours a nearly opaque brown. Very little light shining through, nice tan head. The smell is inviting - roasted malt, somewhat earthy, and a hint of alcohol nose. The taste rewards you with a strong roasted malt presence and a dry, almost astringent finish. The mouth is boring, perhaps undercarbonated or something. Somewhat drinkable, but the harsh finish - though tasty at first - could become an obstacle to making this a session beer.

jlervine, May 04, 2003
Photo of Crotor
3.48/5  rDev -1.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Now this is an odd one.

While this is closer to a porter than any other variety of beer, I think the use of that term is still a stretch. The beer had a nice head and a good dark color, though less red than other porters. The medium body and mouthfeel are comprable to that of a standard porter, but there the similarities end. The aroma and taste were comprised largely of a sweet maltiness and stong diacetyl. No noticable hopping beyond a slight balancing bitterness. I must praise this beer for its uniqueness, but it definatley rates lower than the majority of other porters.

Crotor, Apr 11, 2003
Photo of oberon
3.13/5  rDev -11.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Very dark brown in color with almost no head,some chocolate aromas.Taste was a little smokey with some chocolate malt taste.The taste was a little flat,and the texture was a little thin for me.I have had alot better porters,but this wasnt nasty or anything.

oberon, Apr 06, 2003
Photo of far333
3.73/5  rDev +6%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 4 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

Very dark brown in color, with a beige head that lingers about a half inch over the top of the liquid, and leaves rings as the glass is emptied. Almost no aroma. Very crisp and smooth mouthfeel, but a little watery. The flavor is very light, with very faint hoppiness, and a light malty/chocolatey/caramel finish. This beer is okay, but I would expect more from a porter and from a Scottish ale. The dark inviting color is deceiving. I thought there would be more body and fuller flavor.

far333, Mar 25, 2003
Photo of purplehops
3.2/5  rDev -9.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Road Dog poured a light amber-brown with a touch of red to it. The head was light tan for the few seconds that it was there and left little to no lace on the glass. The aroma was caramel and malt with some hints of coffee and toasted pecans. The taste started with some sweet malty flavors blending with flavors of toffee and faint citrus. The finish was a bit fruity with some sweetness present and a slight touch of hop bitterness. Aftertaste was faintly malty and non-lingering at best. Mouthfeel was medium-light and weaker than one would expect from a scotch ale.
Overall a light version of a scotch ale IMHO. Not bad but at the same time nothing special. A hot weather scotch ale?

purplehops, Mar 03, 2003
Photo of cretemixer
3.28/5  rDev -6.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Deep auburn in color with a medium tan head that fades to a thin layer rather quickly. Leaves a spotty lace at best.

Aroma is sweet and malty. Chocolate covered raisins comes to mind.

This beer has an unpleasant tangy bite to it. Malty and thin tasting, no bitterness to balance it, and a dry finish.

Good mouthfeel and decent carbonation, but I'd pass on drinking any more of these if I have the chance.

cretemixer, Feb 25, 2003
Photo of drizzam
3/5  rDev -14.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Another adventure in my weekend of taste testing Flying Dog's offerings. As I pour it I notice that the color can best be described as a dark brown with a copper red tint to it. The head was lacking, maybe I should have poured more aggresively. The smell was complex...a mixture of chocolate, molasses, coffee with hints of a smokey smell. It had a medium bodied mouthfeel...seems like most porters are a lot thicker, but I kinda like a lighter beer. A strange malty and hoppy combo, lighter on the hops it seems. Overall, not a bad beer...I may buy some more in the future.

drizzam, Feb 24, 2003
Photo of johnrobe
3.58/5  rDev +1.7%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Hmmm....a perplexing brew, imo. I enjoyed the aroma quite a bit...a combination of toffee, chocolate, a bit of smoke, and some citric hops. The taste seems, well, a bit odd. Not necessarily bad, just unusual. The smokiness is quite evident, and comes on most prominently in the finish, as is the presence of chocolate malt. But I also pick up what seems to be a green apple taste, which can mean the presence of acetaldehyde and could indicate that the beer needs more conditioning time. However, I'm not so convinced that this is the case here as I think it's just an unusual combination of malt and hops....just a theory. The brew is dark brown with red highlights.....one of the more translucent porters I've seen. The mouthfeel could be a bit thicker. Worth a try though and kudos for an original brew.

johnrobe, Feb 11, 2003
Photo of bditty187
3.68/5  rDev +4.5%
look: 3 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

Darkish brown, reddish and coppery highlights around the translucent edges. Head retention was lacking, soapy remnants remained, off-white. Almost no lace. The nose has a substantial hops bite with noticeable toasted, chocolate malts, rather inviting. This is a pleasant quaff, nutty-chocolate malts upfront, notes of citrus and hoppy bitterness intertwined. Some sweetness. Medium body at best… shouldn’t be a deterrent though. This is a fairly decent brew.

bditty187, Dec 29, 2002
Photo of mickeymac
4.03/5  rDev +14.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 4 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4.5

Not being a big fan of Flying Dog, I was at least mildly surprised by this one. I wasn't sure what style it was until coming here after drinking it; I wouldn't have guessed porter, though it does have the Scottish smell and taste. Notes of molasses are present along with a slightly peaty smell and taste.

mickeymac, Dec 25, 2002
Photo of philipt
2.6/5  rDev -26.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Average beer. Nice appearance, but nothing outstanding about it otherwise.

Dark ruby color with a tan-ish head. I was not impressed with the taste.

This was my second purchase of the Road Dog ale, I enjoyed my first purchase more. Maybe I unfortunately got my hands on a bad batch (I really doubt it though).

philipt, Dec 21, 2002
Photo of TheLongBeachBum
2.33/5  rDev -33.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Flying Dog, Road Dog Scottish Porter, 6.08% ABV. 12 fl.oz Brown Bottle.
With past poor head retention experience from Flying Dog beers, the bottle was inverted and dunked straight into my Imperial Pint Glass. It gulped, chugged and gasped for air as it exited with all the precision of spent fumes from the Pulse-Jet of a V-1 flying bomb. The head forms almost before the beer hits the glass, and the existing contents.
This heinous, almost criminal, method of pouring the beer is acceptable to me, as it creates a lovely deep fluffy brown head, with the smaller formed bubbles quickly settling to the base of the head, leaving a larger encrusted, collapsed head atop. Sadly, the head disappears all too quickly for my liking. However, it does add to the overall appearance of the beer, for a while at least anyway. Lace is spread on the glass sides like brown sticky mastic. The beer is a very deep brown, clear but quite dark. Held to the light, it is possible to see through it, it is a dark horse-chestnut conker brown.
Nose is rather suppressed, as is the head by now. Feint and rather weak aromas are barely detectable. I was able to dissect what appears to be a yeasty smell in character. Not even a decent malt odor, strange for a Porter I find. Taste, well before I could concentrate on the taste, I was stunned and surprised at just how thin this beer is. A very light mouthfeel, which contradicts the “Scottish Porter” description on the label. Initial tastes are crisp and very clean, but low in relative strength. At last some dark malt in the beginning, a cardboard taste in the middle, and some roast malt bitterness in the finish, though this appears quite some time after I swallow the beer, strangely enough.
Not impressed at all, this beer is a lightweight offering for me, I would struggle to justify the name in Court, because my belief is that it is certainly not Scottish, nor a Porter, but that’s just my humble opinion I hasten to add.
So that’s 4 Flying Dog beers that I have had, and in my local beer store they are located near Stone and Alesmith Beers. If my brain remains functioning over the coming years, I just can’t see it sending the required neural signals to my arms and allowing me to place my hands on any of the FD beers again to be brutally honest.

TheLongBeachBum, Dec 20, 2002
Photo of Gusler
3.23/5  rDev -8.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

The pour is an opalescent garnet to almost brown color, the head magnificent in size, frothy in consistency and tan in color, with the lace thick and clingy. Nose is malt, caramel, somewhat nut sweet and hints of yeast. Front is cloyingly sweet, the top skeletal, finish is reasonably acidic, attractively hopped, droughty aftertaste. Drinkable, but I think it lacks a bit of body, and needs just a tad more hops to be a decent Scottish porter, or any style porter for that matter.

Gusler, Nov 16, 2002
Photo of budgood1
2.68/5  rDev -23.9%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

pours out a very dark brown colour...crimson hues. a fine tan head with adequate lace. very pleasant dark roasted malt aroma...some bittersweet chocolate and caramel hits the nose. tastes ok...some light chocolate and toffee notes. some dry hop bitterness lurks around in the finish. the thin mouthfeel really kills this beer. i was expecting rich and full, i get weak and watery. how disappointing. drinkability is ok...it just goes down too easy and i don't remember anything of note to make it memorable.

budgood1, Oct 30, 2002
Photo of Bighuge
2.85/5  rDev -19%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Clear dark ruby in color. Medium sized airy light brown head caps it off and displays some very nice retention. Some definite chocolate and cocoa tones on the nose. Also some subtle west coast hops are perceived. Body is too light. Maybe medium at best but that's probably stretching it. The taste consists of burnt rubber, cocoa and java. There seems to be a sourness present in this Flying Dog as well. Hmmm. A flying dog trademark. Below average tasting beer.

This brewery is not impressing me much. Not as bad as the now defunct (I believe) H.C. Berger, but the only beer I might ever buy again from FD is their pale ale.

Bighuge, Oct 25, 2002
Photo of ZAP
3.28/5  rDev -6.8%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

Molasses in color....I like the aroma....some smokiness and cocoa.....big butterscotch taste on the buds..with some smokiness as well....finishes with that trademark "Flying Dog" tartness...it is pretty thin too so mouthfeel does not score well...overall it's interesting enough to try and has a pretty nice nose and taste while also being unique...

ZAP, Oct 19, 2002
Photo of beernut7
3.63/5  rDev +3.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 4 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

Although this brew pours with a deep reddish-brown thin looking color and the Scotch malty aroma is not very inviting, the head is thick and lasting and the flavor is surprisingly good. The heavier smooth body supports a bold chocolate roasted malt flavor with just a hint of lingering smoke. I ended up really enjoying this beer.

beernut7, Sep 04, 2002
Photo of Wildman
3.95/5  rDev +12.2%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 4 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

This beer poured a very dark amber color and formed an off white bubbly head which left some lace as it subsided. The aroma was of malt and toffee/coffee and chocolate. The flavor was of malt, toffee/coffee and a touch of chocolate. The finish was sweet. The body was a bit lighter for the style that the bottle says, which is porter. Yet it is listed and had been previously labled a scotch ale. So I am still not quite sure what type of beer this is trying to be.

Wildman, Sep 01, 2002
Photo of hyuga
3.88/5  rDev +10.2%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

Nice dark brown color. Impressive head retention and appearance, tan head reminds me of mocha or hot chocolate. Good malty smell, but doesn't hit me as much as I'd like. Great, unique taste, but in my opinion, it's not as much in the direction of porter as the bottle suggests. Not a striking mouthfeel, but the unique taste makes up for that. Overall, not a favorite, but something I would drink again.

hyuga, Aug 22, 2002
Photo of ADR
3.48/5  rDev -1.1%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Clear chocolate brown color, nice 1/2 inch head that's slightly rocky. Aroma is somewhat chocolatey, also husky and a little reminiscent of peanut shells. Starts off sweet, mostly slightly roasted chocolate. Fades at the mid mouth and back, with very little hop. But then, there's not a lot of hops even in Flying Dog IPAs...in some ways, reminds me of Anchor Porter but with much less body and a more fleeting flavor. What's a "Scottish" Porter? If this is a Scotch Ale, then its far subpar in mouthfeel...

ADR, Aug 19, 2002
Road Dog Porter from Flying Dog Brewery
80 out of 100 based on 1,039 ratings.