Panzuriel (1627) - 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 (2738) - 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 (5088) - 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 (3659) - 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.
Ernest (7034) - Boulder, Colorado, USA - JAN 20, 2003
2.2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20
Head is initially small, frothy, off-white, mostly diminishing. Body is
clear dark amber. Aroma is moderately malty (caramel, toasted light
bread), lightly hoppy (flowers), with a hint of acetone. Flavor is
moderately sweet, lightly acidic, lightly bitter. Finish is lightly
sweet, lightly acidic, moderately bitter, metallic. Medium body, watery
texture, lively carbonation. Slight chemical waft and metallic finish
means no fun for Ernest.
notalush (5562) - Denver, Colorado, USA - JAN 11, 2003
2.9 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
A decent, mildly sweet lager with a pleasant, wheaty finish, but nothing to write home about.