MMM...Beer (385) - Las Vegas, Nevada, USA - SEP 4, 2004
2.9 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
-Aroma: Strong yeast smell with a hint of fruity
-Appearance: Very pale even for a pale lager
-Flavor: (see aroam) very yeasty
-Palate: Simply smooth and refreshing.
Nothing out-of-this-world but still a clean, refreshing brew
harlequinn (2744) - Tacoma, Washington, USA - AUG 8, 2004
1.9 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 7/20
on tap @ chattanooga. Light watery appearance, with a little bit of head. Musty damp cardboard aroma, with a flavor that I think if I may quote myself, just sucks. Bitter beer face alert.
PorterPounder (7303) - Tallahassee, Florida, USA - MAY 30, 2004
2.4 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 9/20
UPDATED: JAN 16, 2007 On tap at the Chattanooga location. Light pale golden appearance, little to no head; bit of a wet paper bag aroma. Has a tad bit of a sweet honey flavor to it, otherwise typical lager flavor. About par for a brewpub light - brewed for the masses.
Earlier Rating: 10/7/2003 Total Score: 2.4 Combined on 1/16/07 Had on tap at the brewpub in Jacksonville. Had a very light golden, pale appearance with a light white head. Has that patented wet paper bag aroma. There is not a whole lot going on here - pretty waterery with a brief hint of hop bitterness in the aftertaste. Probably the least favorite of the sample.
wunderbier (1434) - Tampere, FINLAND - APR 18, 2004
1.8 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 6/20
Pale gold body. Straw aroma with a light, piney hint of hops. Lightly sweet flavor becomes a very-lightly bitter finish. Grainy finish. Lightly body, watery texture, fizzy carbonation. The bottom line is: at least I only had to drink 4 ounces of this stuff.
Drinker101 (54) - East Ridge, Tennessee, USA - APR 18, 2004
1.6 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 6/20
Not very impressed. Very light color same as vegetable oil. Aroma was weak. Taste was defintely light due to there really wasn't much taste at all.
willblake (2654) - Bel Air, Maryland, USA - MAR 10, 2004
2 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
Tap, EPCOT, 3/04. Why do brewpubs insist on making light beers? Unoffensive, very pale clear yellow. No aroma...well, maybe soggy white bread. Strong, raw barley flavor. Wet. Great lacing. I've certainly had worse, no flavor is better than bad flavor.
BückDich (5464) - McCall, Idaho, USA - JAN 13, 2004
2.4 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20
Bland aroma and flavor, hops are weak and the malt is lightly toasty but barely present. Light beer means light body & lower alcohol, not less flavor, get it right.
hopscotch (10600) - Vero Beach, Florida, USA - JAN 3, 2004
1 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 2/20
UPDATED: SEP 15, 2007 Draft... Brewed to imitate Michelob Ultra and other low carb beers. They did a good job. Flavorless and aromaless with the exception of some very light honey notes. Perfectly balanced, but that’s not saying much regarding a beer with so little malt to balance out. Tastes like an N/A. Much like having sex in a canoe, this beer is fucking way too close to water.
firemedic713 (169) - Palm Bay, Florida, USA - DEC 28, 2003
1.5 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 1/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 7/20
Ok light but I do not like lights.light and clear with not much head. No aroma and the flavor is of some malt but not much hops.
hotstuff (4864) - Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA - DEC 17, 2003
1.6 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 5/20
Draft-Big River Brewery-Chattanooga, TN. A small sized white head with fine sized bubbles that mostly diminished. The nose was that of light malt and mild hops with a malty and hoppy flavor. The mouthfeel was somewhat tingly and smooth and it was light bodied with fair lacing.