Norton (333) - Southside, Richmond, Virginia, USA - NOV 20, 2008
1.3 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 4/20
<b>Draft. </>Blatant attempt to copy Samuel Adams’ Boston Lager. Inferior in every way. Watery aftertaste. Next time somebody shows up with this at a party, slap them.
jefcon (1656) - Arlington, Virginia, USA - NOV 27, 2008
1.3 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 5/20
OK -- this beer was marketed to me, I admit it. After seeing 3,000 commercials for it, I gave it a try. Sparkling honey-gold. Caramel and toffee on the nose, alongside a muddy, musty aroma. Super-sweet malts on the tongue. Lots of carbonation and a sweet, papery finish. Unimpressive.
MONZA (18) - Kansas, USA - JAN 28, 2009
1.3 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 3/20
Served in pint glass on tap. I dont know what they are proud of on this one. I dont taste any "robust flavor" and the dry-hopping is weak at best. The only thing I liked about it is the color, which is surprisingly beautiful for a macro. The mouthfeel is very thin and watery. ever so slight hop bitterness. Not very malty. For an "Amber Ale" this one will never find a home in my fridge. I would rather drink PBR
Odeed (1799) - Bakersfield, California, USA - JUN 11, 2009
1.3 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 4/20
clear bronze body with a small white head.the aroma is loaded with diacetyl.flavor is as well.it really dominates the beer.thats about all i get out of it.
Alphadelic (2171) - Portland, Oregon, USA - JUN 13, 2009
1.3 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 3/20
Tawny with a fine film. Wet tobacco aroma. Sterilized beyond belief, tastes like a dentists tools. Nothing redeeming here.
FrostedMug (8) - California, USA - JUL 12, 2009 does not count
1.3 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 1/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 5/20
It looks like a pale ale. Other than that it is of no real value. It was hard to finish the six pack
Songerfdi (2) - , Kentucky, USA - OCT 4, 2008 does not count
1.2 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 2/20
Initial taste has the malt starting with a flair of hops, unfortunately, it finishes flat. If you like Budweiser amberbock or amber ultra you will most definitely like this. However, when I taste it ( and this may be a bias) I get a sense of a carefully computer caliberated beer. On paper it works, but doesn’t meet realistic expectations.
puggy211 (712) - cordova, Tennessee, USA - OCT 8, 2008
1.2 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 2/20
they can do better...and should. expecting a beer that would be a slightly more malted up bud with more sweetish malt clean and with a tight finish. and somewhere in there the hint of hop in the German style only weaker. the color to be nut brown like with a less than moderate but carbonated palate. the carbonation weak after about 2 minutes. UHHH....pour down the drain.
onecrazybreeze (21) - , Colorado, USA - NOV 20, 2008
1.2 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 4/20
Bottle. I too had hope for this beer and did not want to discount it immediately because it is made by Budweiser. Poured an translucent amber color with almost no aroma. Taste reminds me of Gak. I’d say a pretty big letdown.
drfood (26) - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA - SEP 29, 2009
1.2 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 3/20
draft, bar in harrisburg. Although clear and pretty in the glass with an attractive head, this beer is really disappointing. The aroma is forbidding, a little bit like a mineral-clogged pipe. There’s a sweetness on the palate and then the bad plumbing effect returns. I took a sip, then a second to make sure, tipped the barmaid and left the rest.