Beer Review: Sam Adams Chocolate Bock

/MSG/

Uwaa OmO
I had to write a "descriptive" paper for my English class. Since that's basically what my beer reviews are, I figured I'd kill two birds with one stone. So that would explain the significant change in format from what I normally do. Also, it was damn near impossible for me not to use the words "proleish, profligate tongues" in the final paragraph.

12oz of Beauty
When people hear the word beer, a great number of images may come to mind. For most those images are of cold steel kegs, glossy red plastic cups, and near tasteless beverages to fill them. But for Beer Advocates like myself, we see much more. The subtle spice of a rye pale ale, the impenetrable blackness of a Russian imperial stout, or the fruity aroma of junipers and tea of a sah’tai are all things I know well. But none can compare to one of my favorite beers, Samuel Adams Chocolate Bock.
Upon first glance of the bottle, one would think it more of an antique than a modern beverage. The Olde English font cast unto the traditional dark drown bottle is a far cry from the aluminum cans of today. The cap too harkens back to a less modern time, requiring the use of an opener as opposed to a simple twist of the wrist. But these anachronisms conceal the beauty within.
Poured from its vessel, it revels its true color. A rich molten brown at first, as though it were an ebony stain to be placed on wood, it turns near black as it comes to a rest. Light does not penetrate, but instead bends around its surface, creating a dark hue similar to the final color of a burning ember. Atop it all sits a small head of rich smoky foam. Barely a fingers worth, it quickly dissipates until only a ring around the glass is left, a sole reminder of what once was.
As one moves closer, the distinctive aroma of chocolate wafts in gently. More bitter in nose than what one is typically accustomed to, it is closely followed by coffee, and roasted malts. These notes fill the nose, imparting a picture of significant sophistication. But the minimal presence of hops is curious, and draws the taster in further, to explore this mysterious and unique brew.
As the first drops hit the tongue, the taste is unmistakable. Rich dark chocolate flavors fill every bud on the tongue and in the mouth. It weighs heavily in the mouth, as though this was a meal in itself. As the chocolate subsides, the roast and coffee malts take over. The mild bitterness subdues the initially unexpected sweetness, and is followed by the hops. Milder than more heavily hopped beers, they serve only to balance and restrain the chocolate taste. As one drinks it, they would often forget that it is indeed a beer, as the complex character revels many tastes, but alcohol is not among them.
The feel of the drink is a new experience for those whose idea of beer does not venture past Coors Light. The weight is significant, but not overwhelming as one would expect. It flows smoothly and evenly, as though it were whole milk. The carbonation far more moderate, only becoming prominent at the end, is a delightful spark to entice yet another sip. As it comes to rest, it sits evenly in ones stomach.
Though it is rare to find bottles, this is not a problem for many. It is not a beer that one would drink for a kegger or frat party. Its significant weight and unique flavor preclude it to more civilized, more sophisticated occasions. Sipped slowly by the gentle fire on a cold winter day, or enjoyed with a slice of tiramisu after a hearty meal, this beer is more advanced than one would expect a beer to be.
Many would not consider such qualities to be significant when they choose a beer. Their sole purpose is inebriation, and beer is merely an economical means to that end. It is of little consequence however, as this fine example of brewing prowess would be wasted on their tongues. Its place is with those who enjoy the finer things in life. And that is why it is one of my favorite beers.
 
I had to write a "descriptive" paper for my English class. Since that's basically what my beer reviews are, I figured I'd kill two birds with one stone. So that would explain the significant change in format from what I normally do. Also, it was damn near impossible for me not to use the words "proleish, profligate tongues" in the final paragraph.

I had one the other night, you did a good job, and I can taste it all over again! thanks, now I want another!
 
I had to write a "descriptive" paper for my English class. Since that's basically what my beer reviews are, I figured I'd kill two birds with one stone. So that would explain the significant change in format from what I normally do. Also, it was damn near impossible for me not to use the words "proleish, profligate tongues" in the final paragraph.
Nice paper Billy. I would grade you a B+. Solid work but you have made repetitive grammatical and punctuation errors and you usually get dinged for repeating the same error. You also couldn't seem to help your self by transgressing from description to editorial and since you did that more than once you'll probably get dinged for that too. In all quite a good description as your description of appearance, taste and aroma are quite vivid.

I would have given you an A- if it wasn't for the last two paragraph's which are editorial in nature and not descriptions.
 
BTW Billy. I picked up a 6 pack of Schlitz made using the 1960 recipe. It was a very interesting experience. It's a very good beer and it gives you a frame of reference of how badly main stream commercial beers were severely diluted in flavor with all the additions of cheap extenders that were added to recipes in the 70's and 80's. Now don't get me wrong. It certainly isn't the best beer you'll ever drink but it's quite a good quality product and it gives you some interesting perspective too.
 
Nice paper Billy. I would grade you a B+. Solid work but you have made repetitive grammatical and punctuation errors and you usually get dinged for repeating the same error. You also couldn't seem to help your self by transgressing from description to editorial and since you did that more than once you'll probably get dinged for that too. In all quite a good description as your description of appearance, taste and aroma are quite vivid.

I would have given you an A- if it wasn't for the last two paragraph's which are editorial in nature and not descriptions.
Description can be used to convey an opinion, or editorial in your case. Also this was/is a rough draft. It's not the final version, that's due in 2 weeks.
 
Description can be used to convey an opinion, or editorial in your case. Also this was/is a rough draft. It's not the final version, that's due in 2 weeks.
In that case I would consider either revising the last two paragraphs or deleting them altogether and check your grammar and punctuation. You have a couple of run on sentences and you've misused some comas.
 
In that case I would consider either revising the last two paragraphs or deleting them altogether and check your grammar and punctuation. You have a couple of run on sentences and you've misused some comas.
That's a hard habit to break. With legal docs almost EVERYTHING is a fucking run on.
 
BTW Billy. I picked up a 6 pack of Schlitz made using the 1960 recipe. It was a very interesting experience. It's a very good beer and it gives you a frame of reference of how badly main stream commercial beers were severely diluted in flavor with all the additions of cheap extenders that were added to recipes in the 70's and 80's. Now don't get me wrong. It certainly isn't the best beer you'll ever drink but it's quite a good quality product and it gives you some interesting perspective too.

I haven't had a Schlitz since the 70's. Flashback!
 
That's a hard habit to break. With legal docs almost EVERYTHING is a fucking run on.
You're right it is. That and editorializing. That's probably a bad habit you (we) pick up here cause we do practically nothing but editorialize on JPP. However, when you're writing for a broader audience (or for a grade) it can be a bad habit. The hardest part about good writing is remembering that you are not writing for your self but for an audience. In this case, an audience of one. My point being, remember to write for your audience.
 
Nice paper Billy. I would grade you a B+. Solid work but you have made repetitive grammatical and punctuation errors and you usually get dinged for repeating the same error. You also couldn't seem to help your self by transgressing from description to editorial and since you did that more than once you'll probably get dinged for that too. In all quite a good description as your description of appearance, taste and aroma are quite vivid.

I would have given you an A- if it wasn't for the last two paragraph's which are editorial in nature and not descriptions.

:fu:

really mott? you really had to bitch and act like you're all that...capt has a greater gift for writing than you, yet you think you are so good, you can critique his work....with letter grades no less!

:fu:
 
For the record, I will state that these errors are minor enough that I'd get an A. Editorializing my paper is expected and not deducted from my grade. So all it is is some slight mechanical errors, which will be removed during editing.
 
Have you ever been published?

more than likely you haven't...so why are you asking me about my published writings? deflecting again mott.....?

if you have some work that is published, i'll grant you major slack. i have a writing that is "published"...but not published in the literary sense.
 
more than likely you haven't...so why are you asking me about my published writings? deflecting again mott.....?

if you have some work that is published, i'll grant you major slack. i have a writing that is "published"...but not published in the literary sense.

Well, yes, every post here counts as being "published". (legally, like)
 
For the record, I will state that these errors are minor enough that I'd get an A. Editorializing my paper is expected and not deducted from my grade. So all it is is some slight mechanical errors, which will be removed during editing.
If your open to a couple of more comments (and I'll try not to offend Yurt ;). You're opening sentence and your conclusion are fine but consider this. The first sentence should be more than an introduction. It should be a thesis statement that will tell the reader what the article is going to be about. The title states "a 12 oz beauty" and the article is a review of a brand of Sam Adams beer but the opening thesis statement leads the reader to believe the article is about beer in general. In other words, you may want to give some thought to doing some crafting on your opening thesis statement to better reflect what the article you are writing is going to be about. Same thing with your conclusion. Again it's not a bad conclusion but keep in mind that your conclusion should concisely summarize your review of the beer and not your thoughts on drinking quality beer in general.
 
If your open to a couple of more comments (and I'll try not to offend Yurt ;). You're opening sentence and your conclusion are fine but consider this. The first sentence should be more than an introduction. It should be a thesis statement that will tell the reader what the article is going to be about. The title states "a 12 oz beauty" and the article is a review of a brand of Sam Adams beer but the opening thesis statement leads the reader to believe the article is about beer in general. In other words, you may want to give some thought to doing some crafting on your opening thesis statement to better reflect what the article you are writing is going to be about. Same thing with your conclusion. Again it's not a bad conclusion but keep in mind that your conclusion should concisely summarize your review of the beer and not your thoughts on drinking quality beer in general.
See our thesis is supposed to be the final sentence in the opening paragraph. As for returning to it in the conclusion, the exact location is left up to my own whim. And the thesis, as presented in my review, is that it is one of my favorite beers. But I'll look at a way I can add some more detail to the last paragraph.
 
Back
Top