Dark Lord vs. Darkness

If you ever had the chance to try to the '08, you would not question it anymore. That vintage alone is worth the hype. Anything beyond that, yes, I agree, disappointing.

 

IMO, every Darklord vintage that I have tried are better after cellaring for at least a year. It really needs some time to mellow out-its just not that great when its first released-too green. Give it some time and it will improve!

 

I know that a lot of people here think that variations among limited release beers that are the same recipe year-to-year are fun, but it tells me that the brewer does not have control over the beer they make. If the recipe is the same every year the beer should taste the same. I've had Darkness every year since 2006, and it has consistently had the same great taste. I've only had 08 and 10 Dark Lord, and they tasted nothing like each other. The 08 was too hoppy to be enjoyed as a stout, and the 10 was too cloying to be enjoyed as anything. I'm not sure if Three Floyds is trying to produce different versions of Dark Lord every year, or if they simply don't have the skill to produce it consistently. With that said, I will continue drinking Darkness every winter, and passing on Dark Lord.

 

for someone who has done an 07- current year for the last 2 years (will do a 3rd this year) of Darkness, and someone who trade a ton of beer for 06-11 Dark Lord and have been to DLD for the last 2 years and Darkness Day for the last 4. I prefer them both. I prefer Dark Lord when I want an over sweet stout that has hints of dark fruit (fig) and burnt sugar and I choose Darkness for the (what did Todd focus on this year)'ness. Dark Lord to me has always been a sweet beer. Darkness has always been different year to year, for example, this year had a lot of cocoa/chocolate flavor with very little hop flavor to it. 2008? Still has hop character to it. So which one do I pick, depends on the day. And right now, I choose Woodford Reserve with 2 ice cubes.

 

I tried Darkness last year for the first time on tap at Churchkey in DC and I wasn't very blown away. I felt the same way about Dark Lord too though. There are plenty of imperial stouts that I'd chose over both of them.

 

I find them both FANTASTIC...... to TRADE :-)

 

Darkness.

 

This thread is a joke right?

Right...?

 

Judging Darklord by drinking a 2012 vintage is like drinking an 09 Abyss and hating on it.

Perhaps a bad example because Abyss fucking sucks every year but 09 was especially unpleasant with the infection.

2011 DL was fantastic fresh. Last I had one it was good, but not as good as fresh. I'd say it was in an awkward phase-- the coffee faded out but the malts haven't matured fully.
Currently 09 is outstanding.

I have enjoyed darkness many times, and I will say that Darkness is consistantly better FRESH than DL... but DL ages much better.

 

I cannot drink Dark Lord. Ask my friends on here, have tried many times. Darkness is an average RIS, but there are many on the shelf of my local that are better IMHO.

 

If you can't decide, just drink a Baller Stout and call it a day.

 

Still waiting for the punch line here.....

 

I've NEVER had Darkness, but I know the answer will NEVER be Dark Lord in a question of this format.

 

Dark Lord seems to change every year. I found the 2010 impressive out of the gate, but the 2011 was more challenging and the 2012 absolutely disgusting. We had a 2008 a while back that was pretty nice after all these years.

I would venture a guess that the only reason Dark Lord has such a high score is that it is a relatively easy limited-release to get and it has plenty of hype, so lots of newcommers get at it early in their drinking career. This might explain why I find it worse every year; when you've got more to compare it to, you realize how lousy it actually is.

Darkness, on the other hand, seems to be more consistent. Every year it's relatively good, with a strong hop profile, out of the gate, but seems to sweeten horribly over the next year or two. I found 2010, 2011 and 2012 all good fresh, but a little rough going after a year on them. Strangely enough, during a 2012 - 2008 vertical, the fresh one was the best, but the 2008 was the nicest vintage. The other two asked a lot of me.

In the end, these are both beers that are relatively easy to come by and many craft beer enthusiasts get to try them early on before they've got any real exeprience and can see through the hype. I am also guilty of this, as my reviews are very old and probably not accurate any more. Then again, some vets just love them, and that's understandable as well. For me, I will have to re-review with fresh vintages when I get the chance.

Cheers,
Jeff

 

Ok, I'm not done.....

Chicago Tribune February 19, 2013
The James Beard Foundation Awards, the lavish, annual tip-of-the-cap to chefs and restaurants, announced its semifinalist list for 2013. It's arguably the highest honor in the American culinary field....
Brothers Nick and Simon Floyd, and their father Mike, founders of Munster’s Three Floyds Brewing, are semifinalists in the Outstanding Wine, Spirits & Beer Professional category.

 

Only had 2009 Dark Lord. Just did a 2008-2012 Darkness vertical yesterday. I found that every year of Darkness tasted better than the 2009 Dark Lord I had.

 

This means what in the context of this conversation? This is a huge honor for Three Floyds but it does not mean they cannot make some awful beer. Dark Lord is still a bad beer in my opinion but my opinion of the brewery is not based off of Dark Lord.

 

I've had 05-11 Dark Lord and 08-11Darkness. For me, Darkness wins hands down, especially the hoppy 09 vintage when fresh.

 

Did a 11 DL and 12 Darkness over the weekend. Darkness was way better I thought. Even with almost 2 years on the DL it was still boozy and super sweet.

 

He's just a homer, and thinks that because people don't like one beer, from one brewery, one that he frequents, he has to prove that they're not bad.

I'm not sure why he took something on the interwebz so personal.