harlequinn (2744) - Tacoma, Washington, USA - JAN 18, 2003
2.7 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
Another winner from ABC, I love Laughing Skull and Rogue, always unique.
TheBeerCollector (633) - Woodstock, Georgia, USA - JAN 11, 2003
2.7 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
Cool label and cap. Interestingly different flavor that defies detailed description.
Ringo (963) - Loveland, Colorado, USA - OCT 9, 2002
2.2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
Can I just say that a beer sucks and be done with it? Because this sucks. It has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, unless you count the lack of a blatantly offensive taste to be a redeeming quality. This is boring beer to be bored by.
GABeerMan (48) - HOSCHTON, Georgia, USA - AUG 16, 2002
3.2 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 13/20
Slight malt aroma, cloudy golden appearance. Light tasting, slight malt, decent beer.
savitska (163) - Smyrna, Georgia, USA - AUG 14, 2002
2.1 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
One of the skunkier beers I ever drank during my college career. I’ve had it at the Vortex in Atlanta where it is the house brew, and it wasn’t significantly better.
aracauna (3094) - Georgia, USA - MAY 27, 2002
3.2 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
UPDATED: MAY 27, 2005 <P>Rerate 5/25/05: Yes, Atlanta Brewing has really turned their beer around. The problems that so many people including myself were noticing a year ago are gone now. The Peachtree Pale is a solid beer as is the Red Brick Ale. The Red Brick Bock is better than solid and reaches into really good. This loses the off flavors of previous years and is now simply a decent pils. There’s a dry malty body and the hops are noticeable leaving a clean bitterness and slightly grassy aroma. Actually wouldn’t make for a bad lawn mower beer.</P>
<P>5/27/04: Not overly impressed. All of the Atlanta Brewing Company offerings that I’ve tried have this weird taste to them that I can’t place my finger on. It’s a bit unpleasant. This beer isn’t too bad though. Really light.</P>
Volgon (2763) - Manchester, New Hampshire, USA - MAY 5, 2002
2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 7/20
This pilsener has a hazy orange color to it. Nice amount of maltiness that was offset by a strange aftertaste.
belgianhomebrew (646) - Acworth, Georgia, USA - APR 12, 2002
2.6 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 9/20
Light malty aroma, with some malt taste in the body. Not much hop aroma or flavor. Don’t really care for this style much.
Gusler (2653) - Tucson, Arizona, USA - MAR 25, 2002
2.6 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
Clear gold color, white head, fair lace. Nose, light malt, start is malt, very thin, finish, acidic with moderate carbonation, little hop presence. Love the label, the beer is a ’Typical Pilsner’, lacking in most aspects, but then I like BillB don’t care much for lagers/pils, although they do quench the thirst.
muzzlehatch (4424) - Burlington, Vermont, USA - MAR 24, 2002
3.1 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 12/20
Bottled, all the way from the Deep South thanks to BelgianHomeBrew. Starts out rather dark for a Pils, clean and clear and honey-amber. Aroma, whoa there’s a lot of sugar there; very caramel-ly but not a lot of hops. I like it, but seems odd for the style, again. Flavor again very malty, but the hops do come on in the end, and boy do they come on! Finishes pretty bitter, but with very little carbonation. Not really ’refreshing’ as a pils should be. This beer had me confused; is it a Pils or a Bock? A lager or and IPA? I don’t know; not bad, not good, but interesting.