nearbeer (1887), Knoxville, Tennessee, USA
| 2.4 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 4/10 | 3/5 | 5/10 | 3/5 | 9/20 | Feb 7, 2007 Updated: Jan 27, 2009Bottle - do they really serve this on tap? Some sort of "Modern Marvels" date stamp code - don’t have the industrial engineer’s handbook with me to figure it out - the undetermined date and minute of manufacture remains an enigma.
OK I really didn’t want to like this beer. I am pissed that A-B was not clearly marked on the bottle; feel hoodwinked again. But now that I have that out, I’ll give it a fair shot: Nice orange-gold body holds up an industrial five fingers plus head, more than the pint glass can hold. Aroma is first caramel, but fades quickly to typical pine/citrus/metallic hop. Taste a little hoppy (hardly wild!) and not bad at first, turns to slight skunky lager and pine oil not much later. Smooth and sorta dry finish, lingering malt aftertaste. It could be my imagination, but it seems this beer lost most of the original aroma and flavor in about five minutes! Palate is not bad. Now that I think about it, this beer would be the preferable alternative in one of the many places that only had other A-B drafts!.But a better alternative is to avoid those types of places altogether. A pretty good step up from the normal A-B factory output. djd07 (758), Houston, Texas, USA
| 2.4 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 2/5 | 5/10 | 3/5 | 8/20 | May 16, 2007 bottle. pours an amber color with a small white head. it has an aroma of caramel with some pine hops. the flavor is sweet and fruity and a very little finish. Alldaydrinker (558), Norwood, Massachusetts, USA
| 2.4 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 2/5 | 5/10 | 2/5 | 10/20 | Jun 23, 2007 Pours into a lager glass with a light amber colour. Medium white foamy head. Aroma of metallic, lemon, and spicy hops. Initial taste is slight spice hops complimenting the malt. Fades quickly with a weak aftertaste. Not bad but a common lager. Aubrey (2782), Denver, Colorado, USA
| 2.3 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 3/5 | 4/10 | 2/5 | 9/20 | Oct 29, 2006 Clear and gold-amber, with a quickly fading head. Beery nose. Fluffy malt flavors. Odd hop flavors ... kind of like sour/bitter flower petals doused with sugar to take the edge off. As a lager, it’s not very clean; I’d even call it a little "dirty" for a light ale, if it were one. Too many off flavors, as well as a synthetic quality ... ironic that it’s organic. Overall, I found it very one-dimensional and without depth. More like a kiddie pool lager. Then, the noticeable flavors that were there weren’t even that great. savitska (163), Smyrna, Georgia, USA
| 2.3 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 4/10 | 3/5 | 5/10 | 3/5 | 8/20 | Nov 8, 2006 This is like training wheels to actually drinking good microbrewed beer.
AB’s watered-down but drinkable answer to Samuel Adams. Hoss (602), Florida, USA
| 2.3 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 4/10 | 3/5 | 4/10 | 3/5 | 9/20 | Oct 4, 2006 For a mainstream beer not as bad as Bud but there is nothing wild about the hops. I found it a very common brew vyvvy (2069), Hazelwood, Missouri, USA
| 2.3 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 3/5 | 4/10 | 3/5 | 8/20 | May 27, 2006 Sampled at St. Louis Microfest - Pours golden brown with a generous tan head. Light grain and light hops on the aroma. Starts out smooth grain and then turns husky, light amount of sweetness. Finish is sour with some light spicy hops. Blah, not much here and what is isn’t that good. Shag (1923), Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
| 2.3 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 2/5 | 5/10 | 2/5 | 9/20 | Nov 2, 2006 An orange color with a soapy looking head. The aroma has a hint of malt it with some corn amd oranges. The flavor is almost non existent with a hint of citrus and corn. Watery and bland. It would be great for beer bonging in college. Overall its boring.
|