Dormancy - Black Mission Fig And Maple Syrup
Deciduous Brewing Company


- From:
- Deciduous Brewing Company
- New Hampshire, United States
- Style:
- American Porter
- ABV:
- 9.4%
- Score:
- 85
- Avg:
- 3.76 | pDev: 13.3%
- Ratings:
- | reviews: 14
- Status:
- Retired
- Rated:
- Sep 19, 2020
- Added:
- Jan 06, 2016
- Wants:
- 1
- Gots:
- 3
Dormancy is our interpretation of an imperial porter, brewed with Black Mission Figs and maple syrup.
Recent ratings and reviews. | Log in to view more ratings + sorting options.
Reviewed by StoutElk_92 from Massachusetts
4.37/5 rDev +16.2%
look: 4.5 | smell: 4.25 | taste: 4.5 | feel: 4.25 | overall: 4.25
4.37/5 rDev +16.2%
look: 4.5 | smell: 4.25 | taste: 4.5 | feel: 4.25 | overall: 4.25
Pours dark brown maroon red nearing black with a frothy receding dark beige foam head. Smells like dark soy sauce, sweet maple syrup, figs, dark chocolate, slight red wine fruitiness, tart dark fruits, roasty coffee, caramel, toasty toffee, molasses, and earthy herbal piney hops. Tastes a little acidic upfront, tart dark fruits, red wine fruitiness, Mission figs, sweet maple syrup, roasty coffee, dark bakers chocolate, mild soy sauce, licorice, dark caramel, toasty toffee, molasses, and earthy herbal piney hops. Feels lighter bodied, creamy and smooth with moderate carbonation. Overall an interesting and unique tasting imperial porter brewed with Mission figs and maple syrup.
Aug 23, 2020Reviewed by ichorNet from Massachusetts
4.27/5 rDev +13.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 4.25 | feel: 4.25 | overall: 4.25
4.27/5 rDev +13.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 4.25 | feel: 4.25 | overall: 4.25
I had the Tayberry/Coconut version of this in March with the very same friend (now roommate) I'm sharing this bottle with now, about 9 months later. What a crazy year it's been, and how better to reflect than with a nice strong porter with an experimental bent to it?
I remember the other version definitely had a tart/wild/funky aspect to it, but this one, although certainly rustic and farm-y, isn't really lacto or even Brett-influenced. I remember thinking the other version had to have some kind of Brett influence considering its strength and dryness, but this is the same strength according to the bottle and feels a bit more well-rounded.
Pours a pretty heady dark, dirty brown color with a head that sinks to essentially nothing after about 5 minutes in my glass. Pretty unceremonious stuff here, but the color is nice and there's a certain charm to it when all's said and done. From my review of the other, it had a kind of purplish aspect to it, but this doesn't really have that. Regardless, it's a barebones-looking beer with a boring pour other than the initial spurt of off-white carbonation. Weird that the head doesn't last at all, for sure.
Nose is incredible, with a lot of sticky maple syrup, toffee, stiff Brett-like funk (not sure if it's actually Brett, but there's some rustic and slightly plastic-y notes here that tip me off to that aspect), dark and rich fruit notes sitting atop a grainy and rich malty porter base that highlights the rye quite well. Earthy as hell. I think the other version used rye, too, but a lot of it was lost due to the sour aspects from the berries. I somehow assumed there was lacto involved in the other version of Dormancy, but I'm not getting any here, and I'm even getting such a slight Brett note that I'm thinking this was just fermented with an incredibly attenuative more neutral-leaning ale yeast (perhaps a house English strain?).
Flavor brings to light some slight fruity notes of fig jam before doubling down on dark and sweet elements including B grade maple syrup, unrefined toffee, molasses and coffee. There's some orchard fruit here as well, including some unique McIntosh apple and caramelized apricot flavors. This is very, very jammy in consistency, with a hugely-sugary and sweet focus that nevertheless follows through with some nice, strong porter flavors.
Feel is, initially, spritzy and heavily-carbonated, but definitely gets heavier as my glass opens up. Eventually, it ends up as light-medium bodied with a sweet linger on the tongue that contrasts wildly with my memories of the berry/coconut version of this beer (which I recall being insanely dry and strangely tannic). I'm not sure how much of the difference here is due to age (been about 8-9 months since I had the other version, which was bottled at the same time) and how much is due to adjunct ingredients affecting the base beer... or whether a combination of those two variables had anything to do with the differences perceived here. All I can say is that these two have given me quite a wild ride that I won't soon forget. Interesting stuff, for sure!
Dec 14, 2016I remember the other version definitely had a tart/wild/funky aspect to it, but this one, although certainly rustic and farm-y, isn't really lacto or even Brett-influenced. I remember thinking the other version had to have some kind of Brett influence considering its strength and dryness, but this is the same strength according to the bottle and feels a bit more well-rounded.
Pours a pretty heady dark, dirty brown color with a head that sinks to essentially nothing after about 5 minutes in my glass. Pretty unceremonious stuff here, but the color is nice and there's a certain charm to it when all's said and done. From my review of the other, it had a kind of purplish aspect to it, but this doesn't really have that. Regardless, it's a barebones-looking beer with a boring pour other than the initial spurt of off-white carbonation. Weird that the head doesn't last at all, for sure.
Nose is incredible, with a lot of sticky maple syrup, toffee, stiff Brett-like funk (not sure if it's actually Brett, but there's some rustic and slightly plastic-y notes here that tip me off to that aspect), dark and rich fruit notes sitting atop a grainy and rich malty porter base that highlights the rye quite well. Earthy as hell. I think the other version used rye, too, but a lot of it was lost due to the sour aspects from the berries. I somehow assumed there was lacto involved in the other version of Dormancy, but I'm not getting any here, and I'm even getting such a slight Brett note that I'm thinking this was just fermented with an incredibly attenuative more neutral-leaning ale yeast (perhaps a house English strain?).
Flavor brings to light some slight fruity notes of fig jam before doubling down on dark and sweet elements including B grade maple syrup, unrefined toffee, molasses and coffee. There's some orchard fruit here as well, including some unique McIntosh apple and caramelized apricot flavors. This is very, very jammy in consistency, with a hugely-sugary and sweet focus that nevertheless follows through with some nice, strong porter flavors.
Feel is, initially, spritzy and heavily-carbonated, but definitely gets heavier as my glass opens up. Eventually, it ends up as light-medium bodied with a sweet linger on the tongue that contrasts wildly with my memories of the berry/coconut version of this beer (which I recall being insanely dry and strangely tannic). I'm not sure how much of the difference here is due to age (been about 8-9 months since I had the other version, which was bottled at the same time) and how much is due to adjunct ingredients affecting the base beer... or whether a combination of those two variables had anything to do with the differences perceived here. All I can say is that these two have given me quite a wild ride that I won't soon forget. Interesting stuff, for sure!
Reviewed by Alieniloquium from Florida
3.46/5 rDev -8%
look: 3 | smell: 3.25 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 4
3.46/5 rDev -8%
look: 3 | smell: 3.25 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 4
500 mL bottle. Pours deep brown with some reddish tinges at the edge. Nose has a lot of dark fruits, which I guess is fig. My knowledge of fig aromas is limited. Some earthy and roasted malts. Tastes sweet up front with a ton of fig fruitiness. Cut quickly by bitter, earthy roasted malt. Just a hint of maple in the flavor. Medium body, doesn't taste as big as it is, but does have an alcohol flavor. It's a little bit of a disaster, but I kinda like it.
Sep 20, 2016Reviewed by Dope from Massachusetts
3.64/5 rDev -3.2%
look: 3.75 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5
3.64/5 rDev -3.2%
look: 3.75 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5
No bottling date that I can see.
A: Pours black with a tall and airy brown head. Head fades like soda and disappears quickly with no lacing.
S: Well, smells like you'd expect. Figs, maple syrup and chocolate pretty much.
T: Huh. Up front it tastes like cola actually. Lightly carbonated cola. Some maple in there, getting stronger in the finish. Not so much a maple syrup flavor but more of a savory maple (think maple bacon). Not much in the way of figs, I'm searching for it but not really getting it. Some chocolate to go with that cola flavor...hmph.
M: Medium bodied, smooth.
O: I had the coconut/tayberry version of this last night, it was definitely the better of the two. It's hard to describe this one, it's basically like maple cola. I keep thinking someone poured some Coke in my bottle as a trick. No fig, no real porter quality. Odd but not bad. Just odd.
Aug 24, 2016A: Pours black with a tall and airy brown head. Head fades like soda and disappears quickly with no lacing.
S: Well, smells like you'd expect. Figs, maple syrup and chocolate pretty much.
T: Huh. Up front it tastes like cola actually. Lightly carbonated cola. Some maple in there, getting stronger in the finish. Not so much a maple syrup flavor but more of a savory maple (think maple bacon). Not much in the way of figs, I'm searching for it but not really getting it. Some chocolate to go with that cola flavor...hmph.
M: Medium bodied, smooth.
O: I had the coconut/tayberry version of this last night, it was definitely the better of the two. It's hard to describe this one, it's basically like maple cola. I keep thinking someone poured some Coke in my bottle as a trick. No fig, no real porter quality. Odd but not bad. Just odd.
Reviewed by StonedTrippin from Colorado
4.23/5 rDev +12.5%
look: 4.25 | smell: 4.25 | taste: 4.25 | feel: 4 | overall: 4.25
4.23/5 rDev +12.5%
look: 4.25 | smell: 4.25 | taste: 4.25 | feel: 4 | overall: 4.25
this is really cool beer, quite expensive, but i cant say no to a maple beer right? i like how raw this is, a very rustic, unfiltered, bottle conditioned strong porter with lots of yeast character to it still, and a nice rich chocolaty base without being sweet in the least bit. some might call it slightly unrefined, but i like it rugged in this context. the beer would be good as a base beer in its own right, but the addition of the maple and the black figs makes it pretty incredible, very unique, and highly memorable for me. the maple makes the whole thing distinctly sweet, while the dark malts balance it with a bakers chocolate sort of bitterness. the figs are all in the center, rounding out the edges, adding depth, and really interacting neatly with the maple. i pick up an almost blueberry sort of flavor from this, as well as s hint of burnt coffee. the yeast is sort of farmy, sort of english, not something i have seen much of in porter styles, its unique and it works too, the beer ends up quite dry for all the maple in it, and there is a lingering bitter malt thing too. overall a delicious and clever concoction, my first from these guys, who seem to to a range of styles really well. i would love to try the other editions they do of this one, i think the base porter is versatile enough to support all kinds of fun added ingredients. stoked on this one!
edit: this ages pretty interestingly, not sure if its supposed to be wild or not, but it sure drinks that way now, tart throughout it, but never sour. i seem to get less of the maple and more of the figs now, and it drinks light for its strength. weird beer, but supremely interesting...
Aug 06, 2016edit: this ages pretty interestingly, not sure if its supposed to be wild or not, but it sure drinks that way now, tart throughout it, but never sour. i seem to get less of the maple and more of the figs now, and it drinks light for its strength. weird beer, but supremely interesting...
Reviewed by SomethingClever from Ohio
3.1/5 rDev -17.6%
look: 3.75 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.25 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3
3.1/5 rDev -17.6%
look: 3.75 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.25 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3
A: dark body very little head with a light mocha color to the head
S: anise, figs, a little maple
T: Huge figs and a little maple some anise but mostly figs
M: almost flat to no catbonation beer felt like it was busted carbonation.
O: Very average beer interesting to see how much the figs come out in the taste, but itherwise it is an average beer. The porter is completely lost in the brew no nuttiness and no roasted malts just figs and maple. I do not like the low low carbonation either just an average beer.
May 29, 2016S: anise, figs, a little maple
T: Huge figs and a little maple some anise but mostly figs
M: almost flat to no catbonation beer felt like it was busted carbonation.
O: Very average beer interesting to see how much the figs come out in the taste, but itherwise it is an average beer. The porter is completely lost in the brew no nuttiness and no roasted malts just figs and maple. I do not like the low low carbonation either just an average beer.
Reviewed by smcolw from Massachusetts
4.1/5 rDev +9%
look: 4 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 3.75 | overall: 4
4.1/5 rDev +9%
look: 4 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 3.75 | overall: 4
Pours near black (no light passes). The initial head is impressive with a wonderful upward cascading set of bubbles. It settles quickly, though, and leaves only a few spots for lace.
The smell is curious: It has a solidly deep, rich porter aroma. The background has a smell I initially identified as sweeter wine, but I now realize is the fig and maple.
The flavor profile starts with as a lighter porter (semi-sweet chocolate, relatively thin body). The swallow draws out some bitterness from hops, darker chocolate. The aftertaste is drier than the initial sip. I don't get the fig or maple like I did in the smell. Also missing: any alcohol warmth, even with the abv of 9.4%. The complexity is a definite plus, I wish the body was a bit richer and the fig/maple would appear on the tongue to make this an exceptional offering.
Apr 22, 2016The smell is curious: It has a solidly deep, rich porter aroma. The background has a smell I initially identified as sweeter wine, but I now realize is the fig and maple.
The flavor profile starts with as a lighter porter (semi-sweet chocolate, relatively thin body). The swallow draws out some bitterness from hops, darker chocolate. The aftertaste is drier than the initial sip. I don't get the fig or maple like I did in the smell. Also missing: any alcohol warmth, even with the abv of 9.4%. The complexity is a definite plus, I wish the body was a bit richer and the fig/maple would appear on the tongue to make this an exceptional offering.
We love reviews (150 characters or more)! Check out: How to Review a Beer. You don't need to get fancy. Drop some thoughts on the beer's attributes (look, smell, taste, feel) plus your overall impression. Something that backs up your rating and helps others. Thanks!