Chocolate Ale | Boulevard Brewing Co.

very good
274 Reviews
no score
Send samples
Chocolate AleChocolate Ale

Brewed by:
Boulevard Brewing Co.
Missouri, United States

Style: American Strong Ale

Alcohol by volume (ABV): 9.10%

Availability: Spring

Notes / Commercial Description:
One of the brightest stars in a city filled with culinary treasures, Christopher Elbow has been handcrafting masterpieces in chocolate for more than ten years. In that time the reputation of his artistic delicacies has spread around the globe. Elbow’s sweets are distinguished by their use of unusual and sometimes surprising flavors and ingredients; in that adventurous spirit we joined forces to bring you a very special Chocolate Ale.

In developing this beer, Elbow and Boulevard brewmaster Steven Pauwels sought to harmonize the interplay of chocolate and malt, with each supporting and enhancing, but not overwhelming, the other. Just the right chocolate was essential. Elbow recommended a rare variety from the Dominican Republic, prized for its robust flavor and aroma, and a personal favorite. More than a mere flavoring, the chocolate — in the form of nibs, or crushed, roasted beans – was incorporated into the brewing process itself.

24 IBU

Added by HOPPYKC on 02-09-2011

This beer is retired; no longer brewed.

For Trade:
User Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Reviews: 274 | Ratings: 963
Photo of ajzbedo73
1.63/5  rDev -56.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 1.75 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1 | overall: 1.5

Been waiting 3 years to try this! Lucked into 1 bottle. Here goes.

A: Poured from a 750ml bottle corked and caged into a tulip glass. 2 fingers white/cream head. Body is amber and murky. Minimal lacing that disappears quickly.

S: Hmm. No chocolate. As a matter of fact, its the goddamned green beans! Damn it!

T: A little boozy. A tootsie roll, a damn tootsie roll. WTF! The finish is funky. Like...well, the green beans I smelled. Dirty green beans. Unpleasant to say the least.

M: Watery, watery, watery...did I mention watery? Damn it!

O: I wanted to love this beer. I'm a boulevard freak. But I'm let down big time. A waste of 14 bucks. I hate that I hate it. I feel like I'm betraying you boulevard. Maybe it is you that betrayed me! I got caught up in the hype. I feel stupid. You should feel stupid, because the beer is horrible. A damn tootsie roll? After all the hype I get a goddamned tootsie roll that smells like dirty green beans? I will never, never buy this beer again!

Note: I realize people smelled and tasted green beans from the "infected" batch 2 years ago. That did not influence my review. I smelled what I smelled and tasted what I tasted. I'm starting to think the batch wasn't infected at all. Its just a bad, bad beer.

 1,253 characters

Photo of Fender616
1.76/5  rDev -53.3%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 1 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

I was really excited when I bough this beer, completely happy to pay around $14 for it. Boulevard is an amazing brewery, and produce some of my favorite beer. This little nugget was unfortunately nowhere close amazing, and pretty far off from decent.

A - Definitely not the color I was expecting. Amber, not dark at all. Fine, cool, whatever.

S - Dingy liquid Motrin. Vague Tootsie Roll smell. Smell's like the spray they use in the Hershey's gift shop.

T- Truly terrible. Hardly any "chocolate" at all, except for that weird off-Tootsie Roll flavor. Something akin to cough syrup.

M - Fine, well carbonated, light bodied.

Overall- Really, really disappointed. What the impression I came away with was a Michelob Ultra flavored with Tootsie Roll extract.

Definitely not worth $14. If you're curious about trying this beer, I'd save your money. Or get your friend to buy it. Total disaster, I literally poured this down the drain.

 939 characters

Photo of Rhettroactive
1.79/5  rDev -52.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 1.5

From 750mL C&C bottle to Portsmouth glass on 3/29/12
*From notes

-- Thanks, Eric. Well...sort of. --

A: Huh. You'd think a beer called "Chocolate Ale" would look, you know, chocolatey. It doesn't. It's a clean amber color, not too dissimilar to Vienna Lager. Heck, maybe a bit lighter, even. A generous pour yields a .5 finger head that fades too quickly for my liking. No lacing or collar.

S: Terrible. Just God awful. The group thought it smelled like green beans. I thought it smelled like the rotting veggies you see crammed in the back of a refrigerator on A&E's "Hoarders". Letting it warm doesn't help a bit. It just becomes more pronounced. Even if I tried, I couldn't brew a beer that smelled this rank.

T: Meh. I get more white chocolate (which isn't even chocolate) then milk or dark, though it certainly doesn't scream "CHOCOLATE!" Lots of off-putting minerality and baby powder. Very geen, with more of that rotting vegetal quality.

M: Just ok. It's fairly thin. You'd think this would have a thick, liquid chocolate mouthfeel. But but like the rest of this mess called a beer, it dissapoints.

O: Not good or even close to it. Boulevard brews some solid beers. This, though, ain't one of them. Nothing here would ever get me to return to it. Easily one of the bottom five to ten worst beers I've had the displeasure of quaffing.


*This is not from the infected batch.

 1,393 characters

Photo of Mein_Bier_Stein
1.9/5  rDev -49.6%
look: 2.25 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.75 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 1.75

750ml 09-2014, tulip, drank 2/2014

Loud pop, too much carbonation. Not what I was hoping. Have had previous iterations of BCA. They were MUCH better. They had less carbonation, more sweetness and a fantastic aroma, but not this bottle. Have had previous years, both 750s and on tap.

A - Copper / amber color, very much what I expected. Lots of carbonation, not expecting this. Halfway expecting a dry finish beer due to bottle fermentation. Head dies quickly, light lacing.

S - Yeast. Where is the chocolate? Where is the vanilla? If you wait minutes and sneak up on the glass then you can get a faint chocolate aroma. I get more chocolate aroma from a reeses peanut butter cup package, ugh. If you want to smell the cocoa, then you will have to wait again for it to come back, because it goes away very quickly. Never got vanilla from it this time.

T - Dusty, dry finish slightly bitter finish that may be due to the bitter cocoa. Tangy. Guessing that is what they intended because the bottle reads 'fruity cocoa', but more Saison like.

M - Bit of carbonation bite, after it sits while awaiting the cocoa aroma. Much more carbonation at the first pour.

O - A disappointment. Seriously, avoid this.

I could claim I was spoiled by the previous BCA offerings, but I do not think so. I get more chocolate aroma from beers that lay no claim to using chocolate in the brew!

General commentary; I do not know what is going on with Boulevard, I have had plenty of misses with their smokestack 750ml and this is certainly one of them. Yeast poisoning? Remember a couple of years ago they pulled BCA off the market? Yep, due to yeast poisoning. Read the reviews of on tap vs 750 for the 2014 BCA, they seem to vary greatly.

 1,722 characters

Photo of Azeotrope
2/5  rDev -46.9%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

As far as chocolate beers go, I didn't feel very good about this one. Smog City's The Nothing and Caldera Brewing's Mogli are better as far as chocolate go. I didn't even want to finish my glass of this and dumped it. I don't know how to rate things this way if they are dumped, but apparently my rating is an outlier.

I don't mind how beers look or smell if they taste great but these aspects of look and smell were fine. Nothing bad. The feel also was fine. It's a beer. I prefer carbonated to nitro beers. The taste, however, was not great. It tasted closer to old Halloween chocolate that has been found after a year or two and has changed color. Just bland, not well mixed, the chocolate did not come through well to me. As I said above, I would recommend trying this beer alongside "Mogli" or "The Nothing" if you want to try a chocolate beer that does chocolate right. Even Deschutes Black Butte XXVI has more chocolate flavor than this! I bought it because of the hype and ignored the 3.72 rating (specialty beers below 4 seem to be pretty hit or miss on this site, but I thought what was the worst that could happen?).

Strongly would not recommend, particularly if you like chocolate or stouts in general already.

 1,224 characters

Photo of RyanLigeia
2.04/5  rDev -45.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Appearance- 3.5 Looks interesting, not what I was expecting. Orangy/brown in color, somewhat cloudy, not much of a head on this one.

Smell- 2 Not a fan. Small hints of cocoa but I cant name what this mostly smells like. Its just...odd.

Taste- 1.5 Again, I can't even pinpoint what the most prominent taste is here. An earthy sort of cocoa powder comes secondly maybe? No hops, no caramel or vanilla like the bottle claims just some sort of intense, bad taste. Did I get a bad batch? The strong ABV is what earned it the .5 only because I like that boozyness in most of my beers.

MF- 2.5 Medium to heavy body with a fizzy carbonation level.

Overall- 2 One of the most unique beers I have ever had but NOT in a good way. Very surprised/let down by this beer. First time boulevard has ever failed in my eyes. Maybe its just a fancy culinary move by Christopher Elbow that went over my head, maybe its just an awful beer. Either way I will NOT be rebuying this one OR recommending it. Pissed I spent $11 on this bottle.

EDIT- Turns out it was a bad batch and the company reimbursed me 100%! VERY VERY cool of them! I'd love to find this beer again and have the chance to give a review on a good batch

 1,202 characters

Photo of DominoDoug
2.19/5  rDev -41.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.25 | overall: 2.5

Copper appearance. Almost a tart/sour smell to it. Zero chocolate flavor. I saw people raving about this and had to buy a bottle. Brewer commented via twitter that "it's not a chocolate bar". What about any chocolate at all? Rather persuaded to see if I can return this bottle for a refund after feeling rather cheated.

2014 vintage

 333 characters

Photo of BatManuel
2.3/5  rDev -39%
look: 4 | smell: 2.75 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Not a fan. It just seems like the are trying to cover a poor base beer with some chocolate that doesn't really present itself in the bottle. The chocolate is more present on tap but still seems to miss the mark for me.

 218 characters

Photo of UrbanCaveman
2.34/5  rDev -37.9%
look: 3 | smell: 4 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 1.5

Bomber, poured into a snifter at approximately 40 degrees F.

Appearance: This pours like some sort of amber ale, complete with massively frothy head.

Smell: Sugar and chocolate waft out of the glass, as if the contents were liquefied candy.

Taste: And the aroma lied. There's nothing sweet about this beer at all, and no taste of chocolate that I could detect. The entirety of the flavor profile was earth and wood, bringing to mind a pile of old pallets left to sink slowly into a rainy field. Spices were also along, a muddled jumble of white and black pepper with something like ginger along.

Mouthfeel: Medium of body, and otherwise unremarkable.

Overall: I truly dislike when a beer is billed as having a particular adjunct, and yet nothing of that adjunct can be found in the flavor. It feels like false advertising, even if said adjunct is actually in the beer. I'm also not a fan of expecting something sweet and getting hit in the tongue with a clod of wet, woody mud. Not a repeater.

 998 characters

Photo of billab914
2.44/5  rDev -35.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Thanks to IrishColonial for sharing this one the other night. Poured from a 750ml bottle into my CBS snifter. It poured reddish copper in color with a thin white lacing. Color was nice looking but not at all what I expected for a chocolate beer.

The aroma has a very strange green bean flavor to it. Some Belgian yeast spice is there and a hint of chocolate but the combination just comes off so vegetal like. I can't stop thinking of green beans every time I take a whiff.

The taste shows a little more chocolate to it with some cocoa lasting into the finish. The Belgian yeast gives it a bit of a earthy, spicy flavor. A little too much cocoa powder like though. It doesn't come together well at all for me.

The mouthfeel is thin with carbonation being high. Overall I didn't think this was a good beer at all and most of it got dumped in the sink. The green bean aroma was probably the strangest aroma I've ever encountered in a beer. It didn't taste as bad as it smelled, but it wasn't that great either.

* I didn't write down the batch number on the bottle but we looked it up before we opened it and it was not one of the reportedly infected batches they are offering refunds for.

 1,193 characters

Photo of craytonic
2.48/5  rDev -34.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Appearance: brown-amber pour with a fizzy head

Smell: Not the delicious chocolate I was expecting, some artificial chocolate, vanilla, bread and toffee

Taste: toasted bread, brown sugar, caramel, hint of fake chocolate

Mouthfeel: thin, over-carbonated

Overall: I was very disapointed in this one. Tastes fake and one dimensional.

 333 characters

Photo of Mebuzzard
2.58/5  rDev -31.6%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

Well, I've loved all the other Smokestack brews from Boulevard, but this one I couldn't finish.

Pours a murky, dark copper with a very large head..about 5 fingers. Just billowed up with white froth. Lacing was nice.

Aroma is chocolate forward with vanilla and some earthiness. That's about it, really. It's not bad and really backs up the name. But it seems basic, not very complex.

Yeah, taste is the same. Very faint earthiness up front and in the middle, with a chocolate finish. Yet the chocolate doesn't seem rich or smooth. Stale comes to mind. Vanilla provides some sweetness, but it's a bit much. Hops don't seem to be around. The chocolate is intruding and not all that good.

Thin, could use something else. Perhaps a stout version would be better. I don't know. This one didn't sit well with me.

 809 characters

Photo of VTR
2.58/5  rDev -31.6%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Chocolate ale? I was highly anticipating this one. I caught maybe a hint of chocolate in the nose. But I did not get any in the taste. Not sure what they were going for on this, but if I set aside my expectations for chocolate it was not a bad beer otherwise. I do not plan on getting this one again.

 305 characters

Photo of scruffwhor
2.62/5  rDev -30.5%
look: 4.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Great foam, head and stickage. PLus some great lacing in this dar bronze colored beer. Looks like a sipper to me.

Tart cocoa nibs with medium toasted crackers. But the undeniable undertone of Virgin grean grapes and Granny Smith Apples is undeniable. This does not smell like a chocolate beer.

Tastes lie green apple, green apples, vinegar, toasted malts, and a little cocoa powder.

Not a good beer really. Interesting, but not much to recommend.

 451 characters

Photo of snargles
2.63/5  rDev -30.2%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.25 | overall: 2.5

I must agree with many of those who have tried this 2014 batch of Boulevard chocolate ale, the chocolate is faint and barely noticeable. Two years ago I kept going back to BCA because it was quite simply one of the best beers I've ever had. It was a surprisingly easy drinker back then as well, which was strange for a chocolate beer (of course it's not a stout or porter). The balance of chocolate was spot on, a perfect blend that was just sweet enough. It appears this beer has fallen victim to the cost-cutting methods or alternate recipes so many brewers implement to stretch out ingredients and increase production on high-demand limited release beers. I had been eagerly awaiting this beer perhaps more than any other in the last two years and am severely disappointed with the bottle I drank. I just paid 13.99 + tax for a beer that had absolutely no business being in a high priced bomber. Sure it's a solid "3.0" beer to be put in a 6 pack for 7.99 and sold as a typical craft amber ale or something, but with chocolate that isn't pronounced, and sold as "chocolate ale" for around 15$, ratings should be adjusted accordingly. The difference between the bottles I bought in 2012 and 2014 was night and day. I even think 2012 was clearer copper color, while 2014 looked cloudy when poured. I have one more bottle I'll put away and pray for some miraculous aging and I'll try to find it on tap to compare, but wow. MAJOR letdown. Looking at all the wildly variable reviews on this beer... maybe it's just one of those inconsistent beers where every now and then you get a special batch. *sigh*

 1,601 characters

Photo of bobhits
2.63/5  rDev -30.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 1 | overall: 2

I'd like to write a lot on this one, but I'm just not feeling it.

Chocolate, vanilla, caramel, and some fruity mix at the very end. The beer is orange with some red hints. Carbonated like a sour, fades fast.

The feel on this is really bad. Medium body with this crappy poor fizzy body that would be nice on a sour where a dry finish is nice. That isn't what is called for here. It tastes pretty good, but the mouth feel and poor finish just ruin it.

 458 characters

Photo of Oxymoron
2.66/5  rDev -29.4%
look: 3.75 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

New release with big hype. Pours a mostly brown color with crystal clear clairty. A soft white head with bigger bubbles and good retention.

The nose is limited. Mostly a soft malt tone with a caramel and vegi undertone. Some minor chocolate but really needs more. Some fusel notes and noticeable green bell pepper note. Some minor yeast but mostly clean. A touch of green apple.

The taste is limited as well. The higher alcohol is hidden as it leaves a lack of depth. A soft caramel note with a hint of tobacco and chocolate. Really would like more chocolate notes here. Veg notes come out more vs nose. Some yeast notes come out more vs the nose but noticeable off notes.

The body is moderate to mod light. For the ABV would like a bit more complexity. Carbonation is good. Overall a bit disappointing.

 806 characters

Photo of Sludgeman
2.7/5  rDev -28.4%
look: 3.25 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.75

Full pour at the Public in Wichita.

Strong ale? I guess this style category can be a catch-all for all higher ABV beers not otherwise easily categorized. That said, don't expect your typical arrogant bastard-like ale tinged with some chocolate. Could not finish the pour. 2.75

A - Pours a cloudy amber with minimal head. Its appearance certainly does not align with its flavor. - 3.25

S - Dish water. Very odd. - 2.5

T - Malty, followed by too much chocolate, with some bitterness. - 2.5

MF - Overall not too sweet and certainly smooth, but there is a blast on chocolate sweetness in the middle that for some might take away from the final herbal bitterness in the finish. 3.5

 684 characters

Photo of teromous
2.73/5  rDev -27.6%
look: 4.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

A: It's an interesting beer right off the bat. The body of the beer is a very hazy orange light brown color, with a fairly light eggshell white head.It has an enormous amount of carbonation, and I want to emphasize the importance of a careful pour with this one. The head is ridiculously huge. I had a bit of a gusher, but I eventually got it settled down. Aside from the foam fountain, the beer really is fantastic looking!

S: I get some spice on the nose. It's a bit hard to place, it is just very spicy. It's a bit of a conundrum, because the beer smells quite wonderful but I get absolutely no smell of chocolate! The beer says "Chocolate Ale" which leads me to believe there is chocolate in this. I get zero chocolate aroma. I suppose I will just go on to describe this wonderful spicy aroma. It's slightly peppery, and smells a bit like crushed salad greens. I am rating this beer as outstanding because it is quite wonderful, but I want to make a public declaration that this smells nothing of chocolate. As the beer warms up, the scent of alcohol begins to voyeur. This beer is leading a double life. It is quite good smelling but for all the wrong reasons! I feel that perhaps I have received a beer that was mislabeled or bottled incorrectly? In the grand scheme of things it still smells outstanding...just no chocolate...

T: Very uneventful in the taste department. I get some alcohol and a tad of caramel. Where is this mythological chocolate that the label claims?! For shame!

M: Admittedly it is hard to focus on something as simple as the mouthfeel when I am cheated at taste. It's fine. I'll rate it "okay" because I am quick to move on with this beer. Adjust your expectations accordingly.

O: No chocolate. That should be enough to deter any drinker with the literary aptitude to read a bottle. I can't say in good conscience that it is a horrible beer, but it is quite poor. I feel that my expectations have been ransacked; that I've been bamboozled! How could a beer boast the proclamation of chocolate and stand with nothing to offer? For those who live in the world of summation and "buzz-words," where is the chocolate???

 2,149 characters

Photo of JuicesFlowing
2.75/5  rDev -27.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Poured into a New Belgium globe glass. The beer is a muddy, hazy burnt amber? An off-white cream colored head slowly fades to a thick film. No lacing. The beer smells like alcohol and muted tootsie rolls. The beer tastes like it smells, alcohol and muted tootsie rolls. That they call it "chocolate" is beyond me. The mouthfeel is medium to full bodied with a dry alcohol finish.

I'm more than a little disappointed in this. The taste profile is bland and I feel that there is way too much alcohol involved. I want a chocolate ale to taste like chocolate. This beer tastes like a 9% ABV amber more than it does anything else.

 626 characters

Photo of GuyFawkes
2.79/5  rDev -26%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.25 | feel: 3.25 | overall: 3

Unknown vintage; drank 6/12/15 on draft @ the Village Inn.

Murky orange rust appearance.

Khaki head; decent lace.

Mildly sour fruit in the nose. Odd.

Medium mouthfeel.

Faint chocolate flavor with a stale, sour garbage water finish. I hope the line was dirty or something; this was gross.

 297 characters

Photo of BigE90
2.8/5  rDev -25.7%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

a) Great color, a dark amber clear pour with a 1 finger head that was slow to dissipate.

s) Chocolate was evident right away followed by a sweet malt fragrance. All indications that this would be a great tasting chocolate infused ale.

t) Wow, got hit with a bad bitter chocolate after taste that is spoiling the other flavor profiles in the beer if there. I love my dark bitter chocolate but in this configuration it is not just working for me. The chocolate here is not complimenting the beer rather dominating it and it just taste bad.

m) Very thin and light, expected for a regular ale, I would say right on par with the style.

o) Just not a beer for me. All indications were that it would be tasty but it just hit my taste buds wrong. Surprised as I have had great success with other Smokestack series beers.

 816 characters

Photo of zac16125
2.82/5  rDev -25.2%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.75

750mL bottle into a tulip
No bottling dates

A: Murky, browish copper, small white head that dissipates quickly and leaves no lacing. 2.5

S: Aroma is interesting. There is chocolate there, but also something else that seems a bit off, malted wheat maybe. There an almost spicy character to it. There’s just not a long going on here. 3

T: Taste is ok. I’m not really sure what the base beer style is, in fact I have no clue which after closee to 950 full reviews doesn’t happen to me often anymore, my guess would be wheatwine (looking it up I see its an American Strong Ale). There is some chocolate, but its not particularly strong, or even good. Also some bitterness. Not much else. 2.75

M/D: Mouthfeel is fuller bodied, carbonation on the higher end, ABV is well restrained, drinkability is average. 3

O: I’ve generally found the Boulevard Smokestack series to be really good, but honestly this is just a huge miss for me. I’m not really sure what they were trying to do, but regardless I think its pretty safe to say they did not succeed. My recommendation would be to pass on this one. 2.75

 1,123 characters

Photo of demuzik
2.83/5  rDev -24.9%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

The beer pours a heavy orange-fading brown. The aroma is dominated by a warmth loving yeast and unusual, unfamiliar scents.

The first sip on this is magic; tastes like a very sweet old ale, which lingers, then suddenly cocoa is scraping across the tongue. The sensation is so interesting you go for another sip... only to find the chocolate notes get buried amongst the heavy, thick malt. The description writes "lightly hopped" and they are certainly right; far more 'malt heavy' than hop, certainly not a 'balanced' brew.

All in all, a heavy old ale style that loses its chocolate edge; once that initial chocolate flair is gone, its time to get creative to choke the syrupy stuff down. Interesting one sipper - won't need to try again.

 740 characters

Photo of Chirpie
2.84/5  rDev -24.7%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

I've had around 6 bottles of this stuff over the last few years. You'd think by looking at my rating that I would've stopped with 2 at the most. LOL

My first introduction to this beer was the infected version (Some Brett yeast infection from another part of BLVD's brewery was infected with this) and I must say... I think I preferred it. Not by much, but the mouthfeel, choco character, and aroma of the 2014 batch have all helped me decide that I'm officially staying away from this beer. I wish I could have my money back and put it towards buying more Saison-Brett, a completely superior beer in every way.

Almost no carbonation to speak of, flat as day old soda.

Barely there smell, and nothing jumps out at you. Not in a well-balanced way, more in an underwhelming way.

Those who say there's almost no chocolate flavor to be had... are right. They could completely change the label and one wouldn't be the wiser. Again, not well balanced or subtle, just disappointing.

The only upside is the appearance. (Damning with feint praise.) It's a friendly auburn color that looks attractive with any light shining through it.

If you're new to the Smokestack series, avoid this one, BLVD can do so much better.

 1,214 characters

first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Chocolate Ale from Boulevard Brewing Co.
3.77 out of 5 based on 963 ratings.
  • About Us

    Your go-to website for beer (since 1996), publishers of BeerAdvocate magazine (since 2006) and hosts of world-class beer events (since 2003). Respect Beer.
  • BeerAdvocate Microbrew Invitational

    Join us June 2-3, 2017 in Boston, Mass. for beer, cider, mead, kombucha and sake from over 70 small producers.

    Learn More
  • Subscribe to BeerAdvocate Magazine

    Support uncompromising beer advocacy and award-winning, independent journalism with a print subscription to BeerAdvocate magazine.