0.9 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 3/20 Bassikpoet (70) - Chicago, Illinois, USA - JAN 26, 2010
There is nothing to see here. This is not the beer you were looking for. Now go along and drink something else.
0.7 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 2/20 sigma23 (380) - , Maine, USA - JAN 25, 2010
pours yellow copper. aroma is grain and metal pipes. drinks smooth and metallic with very light grain. if its free and i dont have anything else, i’ll drink it
0.5 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 1/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 1/20 madbrewer1 (7) - USA - JAN 24, 2010 does not count
I think I figured out why they keep the Clydesdales around....Hmmm yuck....
1.4 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 5/20 edward_violet (63) - Michigan, USA - JAN 20, 2010
I’ve been surrounded by it my entire life.
Therefore I’m used to its presence, just never interested.
Dull, boring, inoffensive. Rice, corn, some metal. Small cereal malt presence.
Clean finish. Good... onto something better.
1.8 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20 hawthorne00 (1305) - Melbourne, AUSTRALIA - JAN 14, 2010
Straight from a bottle presented by a new acquaintance who looked pleased by his exotic purchase. Nothing like as bad as the last time I had it (when it tasted like the onset of the flu) presumably because it was fresher due to its increased popularity here now. There’s a empty corn/ rice middle where the malt should be and little in the way of hops. But a lot of the ratings here are therapeutic rants: this stuff is rubbish but there’s far worse to be had.
1.1 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 4/20 degbert (641) - Austin, Texas, USA - JAN 12, 2010
I took home a can of this to see if my tastes had changed or its taste had changed since the last time I drank some, which was around 1990. Nope. Still tastes like the can; thin, metallic, grainy, and mediocre. No hops, very little malt flavor; this is an American adjunct beer, the lowest common denominator of beers, and has about as much resemblance to anything substantial as Kim Kardashian has to Meryl Streep. Reliable? Perhaps. Reliably bad? Pretty much, yeah.
1.1 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 5/20 Tonkun (171) - New York, USA - JAN 6, 2010
Bottle. Light yellow with very thin and quickly disappearing head. Waterly with limited character and finish.
1.4 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20 otakuden (1490) - Vero Beach, USA - JAN 3, 2010
Ah Budweiser, how I was fascinated by thee when I was younger and far more ignorantly impressionable. From barking frogs to cute dogs to mostly nekkid hot chics getting paid to endorse your product, I knew more about your advertising than the actual beer itself. Fast-forward more than 20 years later…I know far more about your product now, though your nefarious marketing ways haven’t changed at all. In fact, they’ve gotten sneakier and more nefarious than ever. You know the saying: bullies don’t change, they just get older. Budweiser is exactly the same. They may be celebrating 130+ years of business, but their bullying ways haven’t changed a bit, they’ve just gotten older. Add to that marketing genius which relies on the ignorant suckerability of the lazy masses who would rather someone else make their drinking decisions for them, and voila: an evil empire is born, raised, and flourished. But I digress; there is a beer review to write and the beer is the original progenitor of evildom: Budweiser.
~cue the frogs~
From his bottle to my glass, golden yellow grains settle in where no head is to be found, just a thin border of meager white foam. He swirls with no lace, unsurprisingly. Teasing his golden depths, faint esters of wonderbread, key lime, ears of corn still green and awaiting harvesting from their green husks finish with a hard mineral bite. Soda water comes to mind. My first quaff is much sweeter than I was expecting with sweet butter rolls and honey-glazed bread. There is no finish at all, just a residual wetness at the back of my throat which reminds me that I just swallowed some sort of liquid. Lemon and lime zip across the top of my tongue while wet bread offers meager weight to his body. Furthering our journey of the damned, a typical dank and slightly rotten finish starts to rear its ugly head. Whether a product of inferior ingredients, the lack of enough ingredients, chemical additives, an unnaturally fast brewing process and far too short lagering time…or all the above, pretty much all inferior macro lagers waste no time developing that rotten dank finish. A couple more quaffs and it’s a wash, rinse, and repeat of the same. The only thing that progresses is the growing unpleasant dank funk and so the reputable giant, Budweiser, joins his rightful place down my kitchen plumbing.
Ever wonder why the large majority of your macro lager drinkers don’t finish their bottle or pint? As they near the end and the arctic chill starts to wear off, their tastebuds awaken to the horrible swill they have been enduring and proceed to scream for relief. Unfortunately, the relief usually comes in the form of another freezing cold bottle or pint of the same. Habit. Marketing. Nonchalance. Ignorance. Laziness. The reasons for why people choose to drink Budweiser are many, but that doesn’t mean I understand them any more or any less. Okay, understand maybe I do, but accept I do not.
|