Porters: why bother?

I know that you've said that this isn't a 'troll thread', but you set forth a pretty difficult proposition: convince someone that they're wrong, based upon their own preferences and your best attempts to dissuade them.

The gap between the two (traditional) styles is so close that it can go either way, depending on the availability. E.g., at the bottle shop it is much easier to choose your favorite Stout from fifteen or twenty brands and seasonal sub-styles when you have at best a half-dozen total Porter styles (including imports) represented.

At the bar (and you live on the West Coast?) I have to imagine that it has to be pretty similar to Minneapolis, with bigger stouts and barrel-treated stouts outnumbering the basic and humble Porter offerings. I'd say that -for the most part- that the millions of Craft and Specialty beer hobbyists out there today share your preference in such (bottle shop and on-sale) scenarios.

Still, if I a choice between a half-dozen of my favorite porters and a half dozen of my favorite stouts --both on-draught-- I would choose from the Porter selection more often than the Stouts, as they are so rarely represented in draught lineups (at least vice Stouts) nowadays.

 

Why porters..

Because Great Lakes Edmund Fitzgerald exists, that's why.

 

All I can tell you is that my tastebuds tend to prefer porters over stouts.

 

It's all individual preferences. No right, no wrong.

 

Harviestoun Old Engine Oil....NO BOTHER AT ALL!

 

Fitzy. End thread. (ten char)

 

Porter is my favorite style to emerge out of the microbrew movement.

 

power of suggestion + general brewery convention of "if i have a 'stout' and a 'porter' in my line-up, the 'porter' is [lower ABV] or [not as full bodied] or [other thing despite not according with the last two] than the 'stout'." like IPA / APA.

 

/facepalm.

 

Try a Baltic porter and I think you may change you mind, specifically Arcadia Ales Shipwreck Porter, Ballast Point Victory at Sea is amazing also.

 

Yep, came here to say this.

Grab an Alaskan Baltic Porter

Or an Edmund Fitzgerald.

Different people enjoy different things

 

I've always looked at porters as being like more sessionable stouts. They are awesome that way.

 

Aren't there lower alcohol stouts? I believe there are. I know of many stouts that are 4-4.8% abv. Perhaps this is one of the reasons stouts and porters are considered pretty much the same now? Not sure exactly.

 

While I'm not with the brewery anymore: http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/859/3361

draheim

Washington

4.13/5 rDev +0.5%
look: 3.75 | smell: 4 | taste: 4.25 | feel: 4.25 | overall: 4

22oz bottle into an imperial pint glass. Pours a deep cola brown w/ a 2-finger tan head that settles to a dense pillow of foam. No real lacing.

Aroma is roasty, chocolatey, balanced, clean. Reminds me of Founders Porter, one of my favorite of the style.

Taste follows nose. Dark roasted malt, chocolate, coffee beans, vanilla. Excellent balance, just the right level of bitterness. Throw a scoop of ice cream in the glass and we're in business.

Mouthfeel is likewise balanced, smooth, easy drinking. Finishes semi-dry.

Overall a rich, satisfying, rock-solid porter. Again, comparable to Founders. Well done Snoqualmie.

Busted!

 

I like how 4 pages of people feel the need to tell the OP they are wrong. So what? We've all made stylistic mistakes and Stout and Porter are so blurred anyways. Give em a break.

 

I consider porters and stouts to be one and the same. I go for either one when I'm in the mood for a big, rich, roasty beer. However, I have a theory. I love Alaskan Smoked Porter. It's one of my favorite beers. But, I have NEVER had a smoked stout that I've enjoyed. I'm sure there is no reason for this other than Alaskan makes a great smoked beer, but I have convinced myself that porters lend themselves better to smoked malts. I know it's irrational.

 

Unless you have tried every single Stout and Porter you are making assumptions based on what you've had. And these in turn have depended upon what the brewer called them in the first place.
The simple fact is, as has been spelt out innumerable times, is that there never was a difference except in the water content and over time even this distinction has been lost. This has never of course stopped people from claiming otherwise. How else could pure drivel such as the use or non use of roasted barley have become a factor?