Evans Chocolate Porter

Color: Dark Ruby
Body: Medium
Aroma: Dark Chocolate &
Fine Espresso
Taste: Creamy & Chocolaty on
the palate
Technical Data:
Original Gravity: 1060
Grist: Chocolate, Crystal, Pale &
Black Malts
Hops: Perle, Liberty & Willamette
Type of Beer: Top Fermented
English Porter
IBU’s: 35

2.7

178 reviews

Irvine, United States

Community reviews

3.3 22oz bomber pours a nice and dark darkness with a dark tan head of foam. The mild aroma is mostly dark roasted malts and a sense of malt balls. The taste is similar where a thin body offers up modest notes of dark roasted malts and then some burnt malts and a light dash of chocolate as it heads into the finish.

3.0 22oz-----> glass vessel - No...no, no! This thing is more off balance than an American teenager. Why am I only tasting spicy hops in a poter???? No damn sense, and it doesn’t work either. Initial aroma is enticing though. Black IPA, maybe, but this is certainly no porter.

3.4 Very good chocolate porter, dark, coffee, lots of chocolate, overall very tastey yum

2.7 Bought at Plaza in Tucson. Served at 55 F. A light tan head is one finger and the body is black with visible carbonation raising. The nose is fudge and cocoa. The flavor is not pleasant. Hops mix poorly with chocolate. The result is sour and oddly herbal and is medicinal. Two words for this beer are "No" and "No " again.

3.2 Bottle. Pours a dark brown almost black color with a longlasting off-white head. Has a roasted malty chocolate and caramel aroma. Roasted malty chocolate and caramel flavor. Has a roasted malty chocolate finish.

3.6 Bottle. Weak nose, dark pour. Nicely chocolate & malty for the taste, some minor black licorice.

3.6 Bottle like the picture. Deep, dark chocolate body under a quick-dissolving head and sticky, brownish lacing. Aroma oddly like a skunky chocolate powdered cocoa with tea but very appetizingly chocolate. There’s a caramel note in the aroma that carries in the tasting - sweet and salty. There’s also a mustiness in the aroma that opens in tasting. Palate is very smooth and frizzy in the front but flat in the back. Overall this is an interesting beer worthy of a much higher than average rating.

3.8 22oz bottle. I’m a little fascinated by the rating history of this beer, and the fact that it has a style rating of 5. An overall of 26 puts this beer on par with Budweiser American Ale and is actually 11 points less than Michelob Porter. What!? I’m intently looking for the sour/vinegar/tart aroma/flavor that reviewers of the last few years have given this beer and I honestly can’t find it at all. I don’t know what that means. New recipe? (There has been only 1 rating prior to this all year...). Anyways, to rate this, and this probably ruins all of my credibility, but I’m not a Porter fan at all. But this one, I really like. Pours almost completely opaque with small tan head that leaves a nice halo for quite a while. Aroma is sweet chocolate, some roastiness. Flavor is bitter chocolate with some booze. Watery mouthfeel, slightly sticky, some lingering chocolate on the finish. For whatever $3-$4 this beer cost, I’d say it’s a deal, and I promise you I’m buying more.

2.4 Pours dark brown with off-white head. Aroma is malty and chocolate. Flavor is alcohol and bitter chocolate. Not one I’d get again.

2.1 Pours an almost black dark ruby red with a light brown head.The aroma is a very light roasted malt sent.The flavor is of water down burnt food.The body was thin and the finish was a bad bitter aftertaste.Overall the worst porter I’ve ever had.

2.9 Bottle pours dark brown, thin light brown head. Aroma is cocoa and roasted malts. Flavor follows suit but is fruity with dark cherry notes. Cocoa is bitter and noticeable in the finish.

3.1 Bomber. A rather old one, as far as I can tell. Pours deep brown, almost black, with a small tan head. Nose is a bit of cocoa, a little toasty, with caramelly malt. Flavor is somewhat watery... A bit of chocolate and toasted malt here or there, but overall pretty bland. Just not a very exciting beer.

3.3 Sample, from bottle, thanks George! Pours clear dark brown, with a small off-white head. Aroma is toasty, malty (especially chocolate), nutty. Palate is smooth, perhaps a touch light but not inappropriately so for a porter. Flavor starts with toasted nuts, caramel, bittersweet chocolate. Some raisin manages to peak through in the middle, but in general the nutty, malty notes dominate. Finish is satisfyingly off-sweet. Probably Bayhawk’s best.

3.2 A: The pour is a nice dark brown color with a fluffy cream colored head on top and some mild lacing. S: The nose is not overly robust, but does offer up some roasted malt, dark chocolate, and maybe a touch of coffee. T: Like the nose, the flavor is pleasant, but not necessarily intense. The roast is prominent, but there’s a pleasant sweetness and a bit of bitter chocolate on the finish. M: Medium in body with a bit of a smooth and creamy mouthfeel. D: Not a bad beer at all, and probably the best of the "house" beers on tap at Lazy Dog.

1.9 From a 22oz bottle, black beer,white head,looks nice , but holy shit why is this beer sour?

1.0 I thought initially that my beer might be bad, but the general consensus on here seems to be the same. The smell wasn’t enticing to me at all, in fact it was the opposite. The beer finishes very harsh and bitter, almost sour I’d say, I couldn’t even taste the chocolate. I rarely recommend people to stay away from a beer, but this one’s a dud.

3.0 Bomber. Pours a dark brown with almost no head at all. Aromas are OK... a bit of cocoa, some coffee... Flavor is weak porter with weak chocolate. Nothing bad or offensive, but just not very assertive.

2.6 Bottle shared with MrBunn. Pours a cola color. Thin white head is quick to fade. Aroma is not encouraging, as there is a tart note in there that I wasn’t expecting, mingled oddly with the pseudo-chocolate that I was expecting. Taste is even less impressive than the aroma. Sort of a flat, baker’s chocolate with a touch of weak coffee, dry leather, malts, all swimming around in a relatively watery mess. Not bad, just not good. I won’t buy it again.

2.7 Bottle: The aroma consists of sour cherries, vinegar, light chocolate, and roast. It pours a dark brown with minimal orange highlights around the edges of the glass and a small off-white head that quickly fades to a very thin ring. The flavor starts with faint chocolate that is quickly followed by sour cherry and light vinegar. The finish has some light roastiness. Clearly the beer is not supposed to be sour and is infected. However, while not great, it’s not terrible and could probably be re-labeled as a sour cherry porter.

1.0 Poured dark brown with an off-white head. Aroma was off. Flavor was off. Infected. Drainpour. Will try again some other time.

3.5 ( 22oz bottle thanks to cavie) Pours clear medium brown, nose of sour cherries and oak, vinegar, apple cider. Taste follows. If you rated this beer as a sour, I think it’s nice. That’s how I rated it. If you expected a porter this was terrible. I was either hammered or truly thought this better than my friends.

0.7 ( 22 oz bottle, provided by Cavie ) Pours an amber-brown body with a small beige head. Aroma of vinegar and some chocolate and roasted malt. Flavor of vinegar, caramel, chocolate, and roasted malt. Infected. Drain pour.

2.4 Bottle from cavie. Dark brown pour. Aroma was sour. Flavor was sour, hint of chocolate and smoke. Seemed infected.

2.2 Thanks Cavie. I was going to post about how this was probably a bad bottle due to being so thin, sour, and tart. Then I saw how many people also got "bad bottles". I don’t know, it just wasn’t anything like a porter. Sour chocolate ale?

2.4 Clouded red brown pour. Some chocolate on the pour. Mostly sour scents. Slightly tart taste with some sweeter elements. Tasty yet strangely not to style.

2.3 Bottle thanks to cavie. I have seen this so many times without actually picking it up. Pours with a fading tan head and a brown body. Aroma is vinous, with grain, chocolate and dark fruit. Taste is vinous, wet leaves/compost, chocolate, cocoa beans, and badness. Light bubbles and dry. Barely drinkable.

2.4 This beer is terrible, like a previous person mentioned this was very unpleasant at first because it is not what you would think. Some malt with sourness, bad fruit, and grain. After drinking a bit more I can pick up very slight amount of roasted malt. This is not good at all, dont try this.

2.9 Three different levels of beer drinkers were present for the tasting and all agreed: this isn’t a chocolate porter at all. What’s funny is that it would almost work as a sour or sort of summer session. First sip was unpleasant, but mostly because I was expecting something else. Once I got to drinking it and forgot what it’s called, I didn’t mind it so much. Obvious acidity and sour notes that don’t try to hide themselves. Pretty light despite the color. What I wish Sunset Wheat would taste like. Maybe this is all a practical joke on Bayhawk’s part. I could get behind a brewery that names its beers after things they totally aren’t.

3.0 I had this a long time ago and the only notes I took down where: A bit tart/tangy. Hmmm...

2.5 22 oz. bottle from BevMo in North County San Diego. I didn’t detect any of the sour flavors that other people did, maybe the one I got was more fresh due to close proximity to the brewery. This beer is so bland you wouldn’t even know it was a chocolate porter, it just looks, smells, and tastes like a watered down porter with very little character. Can detect almost no hop flavor or aroma, body is too light. thin on the palate, just a big disappointment. It is the Bud Light of porters. Too bad, I want to support local breweries. Maybe I should stick to San Diego County breweries, they rarely disappoint.