Barrel Aged Ryan Sullivan's Imperial Stout
Moylan's Brewery


- From:
- Moylan's Brewery
- California, United States
- Style:
- American Imperial Stout
- ABV:
- 10%
- Score:
- 80
- Avg:
- 3.48 | pDev: 22.99%
- Ratings:
- | reviews: 17
- Status:
- Retired
- Rated:
- Feb 19, 2020
- Added:
- Jun 24, 2010
- Wants:
- 3
- Gots:
- 9
Ryan Sullivan's Imperial Stout racked into a fresh barrel from Heaven Hill.
Recent ratings and reviews. | Log in to view more ratings + sorting options.
Reviewed by Birdlegs from Washington
1.6/5 rDev -54%
look: 3.5 | smell: 1 | taste: 1.75 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5
1.6/5 rDev -54%
look: 3.5 | smell: 1 | taste: 1.75 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5
2016. My first foray into Moylan's. It appears, similar to a previous review of a 2014, that this was infected. It's difficult to tell if this was an imperial stout. Most of the reviews here are positive so I may try again with a different year sometime down the road.
Sep 09, 2019Reviewed by rodbeermunch from Nevada
3.58/5 rDev +2.9%
look: 3.75 | smell: 3.25 | taste: 3.75 | feel: 3.75 | overall: 3.5
3.58/5 rDev +2.9%
look: 3.75 | smell: 3.25 | taste: 3.75 | feel: 3.75 | overall: 3.5
Yet another beer tried for the first time at the Bistro's West Coast Barrel Aged Festival held on November 12, 2011. It was the 13th beer I had on the day, right after having the Lagunitas Bourbon Barrel Imperial Stout.
Pours black, tan head of greater size, 2/3", impressive appearance. Aroma was a bit more alcohol than hoped for, but still had the requisite notes of whiskey and roasted malt.
Taste didn't give way to the amounts of vanilla some speak of. This was a more bitter experience than smooth. Carbonation was appropriate. Normally Heaven Hill makes for a slightly sweeter product, but this one just leaned hot and bitter for the majority of the journey.
In relatively small quantities split with friends, its a decent beer. Also wonder what laying them down for a few years would do, if it tempered the booziness and bitterness, I think this vaults itself up into the very good category instead of merely just being a "good" beer at this stage.
Mar 29, 2019Pours black, tan head of greater size, 2/3", impressive appearance. Aroma was a bit more alcohol than hoped for, but still had the requisite notes of whiskey and roasted malt.
Taste didn't give way to the amounts of vanilla some speak of. This was a more bitter experience than smooth. Carbonation was appropriate. Normally Heaven Hill makes for a slightly sweeter product, but this one just leaned hot and bitter for the majority of the journey.
In relatively small quantities split with friends, its a decent beer. Also wonder what laying them down for a few years would do, if it tempered the booziness and bitterness, I think this vaults itself up into the very good category instead of merely just being a "good" beer at this stage.
Rated by HopBelT from Belgium
3.83/5 rDev +10.1%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.75 | feel: 3.75 | overall: 3.75
3.83/5 rDev +10.1%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.75 | feel: 3.75 | overall: 3.75
2016 edition...
Jul 21, 2017Reviewed by OnePuttBlunder from Arizona
2.98/5 rDev -14.4%
look: 4.25 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 3 | overall: 3
2.98/5 rDev -14.4%
look: 4.25 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 3 | overall: 3
2014 version smells and tastes of an infected bottle. Was a gift from manager of my regular bottle shop. Smell of sour butter followed by an equally unpleasant taste.
Dec 12, 2015Rated by largadeer from California
2.17/5 rDev -37.6%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2
2.17/5 rDev -37.6%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2
Diacetyl city.
Oct 24, 2015Rated by Skabiski from Maryland
1/5 rDev -71.3%
look: 1 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1
1/5 rDev -71.3%
look: 1 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1
2014 Infected. Should have checked BA before purchasing
May 06, 2015Reviewed by SierraFlight from Virginia
3.84/5 rDev +10.3%
look: 4 | smell: 3.75 | taste: 3.75 | feel: 4 | overall: 4
3.84/5 rDev +10.3%
look: 4 | smell: 3.75 | taste: 3.75 | feel: 4 | overall: 4
On tap at Beachwood bbq Seal Beach poured into snifter. Appearance is nearly opaque black with a finger of tan head and patchy lacing. Aroma is booze, chocolate, vanilla, oak. Flavors are similar with lots of sweetness and a touch of roasty malt. Medium-full bodied, thick, chewy, slick texture; long sweet, hot finish, low carbonation.
Feb 28, 2015Rated by tclipse from Virginia
1/5 rDev -71.3%
look: 1 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1
1/5 rDev -71.3%
look: 1 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1
Totally and utterly infected. Step up the quality control.....
Feb 20, 2015Reviewed by ThisWangsChung from Maryland
1.89/5 rDev -45.7%
look: 4 | smell: 1.75 | taste: 1.75 | feel: 1.75 | overall: 1.75
1.89/5 rDev -45.7%
look: 4 | smell: 1.75 | taste: 1.75 | feel: 1.75 | overall: 1.75
I'd like to add the fact that I managed to contact Brendan Moylan (the owner) himself via e-mail about this beer, and he admitted that the 2014 batch of this brew had excessive amounts of diacetyl - ergo, he asked all distributors carrying this product to pull it off the shelves ASAP. I feel bad for all those who bought this beforehand, but this is still a nice way of showing some signs of accountability. You live and you learn...
---
22 oz bottle into a teku.
Appearance: Pours a very dark brown color. The head is two fingers high and khaki in shade. It has the texture and duration of a good saison, rather than a BA imperial stout. This fact is slightly worrying me because that usually means infection. Having said that, and also in spite of the lack of lacing left on the glass, this is a good looking brew. (4)
Smell: Huh. It seems like there's something wrong with this brew. I do pick up some notes of dark chocolate, vanilla, and brown sugar - I also get lots of butter (not from oak barrels, but from diacetyl), paint thinner, shoe polish, and good ol' fashioned lactic sourness. This is definitely not what the brewers intended, and I'll leave it at that... (1.75)
Taste: Sadly, the taste follows the nose. Initial pleasant notes of dark chocolate and dark fruits last for a second, and is the best part of this brew. After that, it turns into shit, finishing with metal shavings, paint thinner, and plenty of diacetyl. No significant tartness - to me, that would have improved this some. It's not irredeemably bad, but it is still pretty damn bad. (1.75)
Mouthfeel: Overly fizzy and thin. This actually makes it somewhat drinkable, when I can get past the lousy taste that is. Even worse, it's turning my stomach some. :( (1.75)
Overall: The sad thing is, I can taste a decent imperial stout behind the infected mess. Maybe lacking in barrel notes, but nothing to complain about either. As it stands, though, it's very worthy of complaint - I normally don't review infected beer, but seeing as this cost me around $13, I'm definitely going to put out a caveat emptor for this. Avoid the 2014 batch at all costs. (1.75)
1.86/5: Infected beer makes me really sad
Jan 18, 2015---
22 oz bottle into a teku.
Appearance: Pours a very dark brown color. The head is two fingers high and khaki in shade. It has the texture and duration of a good saison, rather than a BA imperial stout. This fact is slightly worrying me because that usually means infection. Having said that, and also in spite of the lack of lacing left on the glass, this is a good looking brew. (4)
Smell: Huh. It seems like there's something wrong with this brew. I do pick up some notes of dark chocolate, vanilla, and brown sugar - I also get lots of butter (not from oak barrels, but from diacetyl), paint thinner, shoe polish, and good ol' fashioned lactic sourness. This is definitely not what the brewers intended, and I'll leave it at that... (1.75)
Taste: Sadly, the taste follows the nose. Initial pleasant notes of dark chocolate and dark fruits last for a second, and is the best part of this brew. After that, it turns into shit, finishing with metal shavings, paint thinner, and plenty of diacetyl. No significant tartness - to me, that would have improved this some. It's not irredeemably bad, but it is still pretty damn bad. (1.75)
Mouthfeel: Overly fizzy and thin. This actually makes it somewhat drinkable, when I can get past the lousy taste that is. Even worse, it's turning my stomach some. :( (1.75)
Overall: The sad thing is, I can taste a decent imperial stout behind the infected mess. Maybe lacking in barrel notes, but nothing to complain about either. As it stands, though, it's very worthy of complaint - I normally don't review infected beer, but seeing as this cost me around $13, I'm definitely going to put out a caveat emptor for this. Avoid the 2014 batch at all costs. (1.75)
1.86/5: Infected beer makes me really sad
Reviewed by RBassSFHOPit2ME from California
2.56/5 rDev -26.4%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2
2.56/5 rDev -26.4%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2
On tap today at the source.
Light and thin Barrel Aged Stout. No body or real complexity to speak of other than roast coffe, some vanilla and cherries. Where's the bourbon? Where's the sticky Barrel? I'm a fan of Moylan's for the most part but this is a huge miss. The least interesting barrel aged stout I've had.
Jan 07, 2015Light and thin Barrel Aged Stout. No body or real complexity to speak of other than roast coffe, some vanilla and cherries. Where's the bourbon? Where's the sticky Barrel? I'm a fan of Moylan's for the most part but this is a huge miss. The least interesting barrel aged stout I've had.
Rated by Codycusey from North Dakota
1.38/5 rDev -60.3%
look: 4 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5
1.38/5 rDev -60.3%
look: 4 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5
2014 was recalled by moylans because of high levels of diacetyl
Dec 24, 2014
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!