savitska (163) - Smyrna, Georgia, USA - APR 14, 2003
3.3 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
This definitely trends more towards an ale in taste an a lager in body. The flavor reminded me of Dogwood Pale Ale. I enjoyed it.
Diablokev (161) - Lakewood, Colorado, USA - MAR 27, 2003
3.7 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 16/20
The aroma is a bit yeasty light hoppy. The appearance is a honey like amber with a thin off white head. The flavor is light hoppy with a hint of a yeasty aftertaste. The beer is clean and smooth. Overall anothe ok brew from the brewery.
Panzuriel (1380) - Westerville, Ohio, USA - MAR 18, 2003
2.1 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
Amber color with a nice head. sharp and tangy aroma. Flavor is somewhat lacking. A bit watery and finishing quickly. Decent if a bit watery texture.
Shag (2655) - Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA - MAR 18, 2003
3.5 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 15/20
This is my favorite of the steam style. Although I see nothing that great about the style. Kind of a middle ground between a lager and an ale. Anchor invented the style but its well copied here. Overall a good beer especially for the style.
dwyerpg (4755) - Las Vegas, Nevada, USA - MAR 13, 2003
2.8 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
Nice red-orange color. Interesting flavor that finishes with a nasty taste in the front of the mouth-whatever taste buds those are. Not amazing but not bad, at first, but as the beer goes on, I feel like not finishing it, just like the in-heat wheat
BillKismet (3412) - Seattle, Washington, USA - MAR 6, 2003
2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 7/20
Orangish red appearance with a head that fades into a ring and a mildewy aroma of stagnant hops and steam. Very bland tasting, the flavor has been steam-rolled out of this beer--what remains is a flat, lifeless pablum, drinkable but with a taste like rubber water why bother?
drismyhero (815) - Tacoma, Washington, USA - MAR 3, 2003
2.5 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 9/20
Once again art lures me into buying a bad beer. Well, not bad but not good either. This was a bizarre amber (I'm not familiar with the "California Common" labeling) that trades any and all hops for water - on top of all this you've got a very pervasive malt presence that does little more than sit around trying to be productive, but only lets you know what isn't there rather than what is. I can list a hundred things this beer is lacking, but little it has. This is not what beer should do. I'm not a lager drinker so this isn't tailored to me anyhow.
cb (810) - Roeland Park, Kansas, USA - FEB 25, 2003
2.3 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 6/20
Watery. Looks like it would taste awesome, nice head and beautiful amber color. Sadly, this is not the case.
BeaverBrown (245) - Portland, Oregon, USA - FEB 14, 2003
2.8 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 15/20
Not much to offer in means of flavor. Good carbonation, mmmmmm fizzy. Overall pretty drinkable.
kwoeltje (2233) - Manchester, Missouri, USA - JAN 25, 2003
2.7 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
UPDATED: JAN 31, 2003 quite pale for an amber. Nice white head. Faint hops aroma. Starts like a lager, finishes with a hint of citrus and very light hops. I'm not sure why it's classified as a California Common--the Flying Dog site calls it a Kölsch, which seems more like it (I upgraded my ratings when I saw that, because it 'fits' that style). This would be a good "step-up" beer for American Lager drinkers.