Aurelius (4576) - Tallahassee, Florida, USA - MAR 4, 2005
2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
Next to nothing. Pithy, bland aroma. Not distasteful, but woefully bland. Itís like Bud without hops.
Skrip99 (82) - Los Angeles, California, USA - MAR 3, 2005
1.2 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 4/20
Wow, Budís answer to Michelobís successful Ultra. If you are a healthnut or are watching youíre calories, then now you have another choice besides Ultra & Aspen. But I find of the three, this is the worst.
Cornfield (5570) - Oak Forest, Illinois, USA - MAR 2, 2005
0.7 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 1/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 2/20
I donít see the point to A-B making this "beer." Itís just Budís weakest sister. Ugly urine yellow with a sweaty armpit stench, this has a sweet corn flavor and is virtually hopless. And hopeless. At least the sweet metallic finish is pretty weak.
BuckNaked (1230) - Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA - MAR 2, 2005
1.5 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 4/20
Bottle: Thanks to the locals at the Grey Lodge for sending this one over as a joke....guess they thought I wouldnít rate it. Pours like water with pale yellow food coloring. Aroma is mild grass (hops!). Flavor is sweet grains, corn, light hops. Quite honestly this was better than I expected, and you really can get just a hint of hops here.
changxao (104) - South Carolina, USA - MAR 1, 2005
1.3 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
I didnít know what this was when I bought it, but when I drank it, I thought, "hmmm bud light light". Now it is apparent that this is competition to Miller Lite. Not much to say, just thin, carbonated, and light in color and flavor. Drinkable, just not too good.
crzybob77 (530) - Richmond, Virginia, USA - MAR 1, 2005
0.9 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 3/20
Hard to describe something with no flavor to rate. I guess this is their competition with miller lite.
Slick (1969) - Thief River Falls, Minnesota, USA - MAR 1, 2005
1.2 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 4/20
Decent pale golden color,small white head that faded quickly leaving little behind.The aroma was faintly malty with a bit of hops in the background,and fairly decently carbonated.The taste was another thing all together.Watery thin malt some adjuncts and just a very faint hint of hops in the end and the only thing really happening in this beer is the Carbonation which helps the beer keep going but to where i no not.if you can find a single of this itís worth trying atleast once but if you have to buy more then that iíd wait until someone else buys it then mooch one off of them.
wilkie (1208) - Raleigh, North Carolina, USA - MAR 1, 2005
1.1 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 3/20
Bottle. What a fucking joke. Is this Budís attempt at the South beach beer
drinker? Pale, tasteless, and Just downright nasty. I thought it was just a new
marketing scheme for bud until I asked a friend. Pisses me off.
BŁckDich (5464) - McCall, Idaho, USA - FEB 28, 2005
0.8 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 1/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 2/20
I could try to think up something witty about this to describe it but itís really not even worth it. Itís watery, pale and full of rice nose and flavor, less of a finish than drinking water. The rice is all that jumps up. If it werenít for the carbonation and the watery finish Iíd think this was watered down geikkekan.
hopdog (9580) - Lansdale, Pennsylvania, USA - FEB 28, 2005
1 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 2/20
UPDATED: MAR 1, 2005 After drinking and writing notes on 24 beers (hit up the Sly Fox then Victory then the Philly Gathering), what better way than to end it with this? Very weak aromas and tastes. Lightly sweet. Watery body.