Duffbeer (192) - Pennsylvania, USA - SEP 25, 2002
3.3 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 14/20
A good beer. Available most places.
Slovak34 (99) - Raleigh, North Carolina, USA - SEP 25, 2002
2.7 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
This is a good lager. Not as heavy as most lagers and you can tell by the light color.
Valheru (17) - CZECH REPUBLIC - SEP 25, 2002
3.6 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 15/20
Good lager. Sort of "McDonalds among beers" (nothing wrong about that) - you can have it about anywhere around the world with a certain quality guaranteed and also have it quite often without risk of getting sick of it. Keep in mind itís not a vintage cherry to sip - it is a mass beer for mass drinking and itís good at it.
As ALWAYS - best served cold on tap (eg. in a pub in Amsterdam), never call it skunk after you had just one old bad-treated bottle - no beer is made to survive anything, you know. Also, donít call it overpriced - the prices of beer differ around the world - once I payed $12 for Budvar in London while in Czechia a pint of Budvar, Pilsner Urquell or any other beer costs less than $1 - now should I call such beer generally overpriced?
beerguy101 (5287) - Newark, California, USA - SEP 23, 2002
1.9 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 7/20
Lt gold color, large head. Light tasting lager, slightly citrus taste, slightly hoppy, not very malty. A little skunky. Mouthfeel is a little thin, kind of watery. Finish is clean. Aftertaste is neutral. A mass-market beer, nothing special or different. Also, not very fond of the “green bottle beer” taste.
Perdue46 (68) - USA - SEP 22, 2002
1.6 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
I did not enjoy this beer at all. Why should beer cost so much money.
chunknuts (51) - Watertown, New York, USA - SEP 22, 2002
1 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 3/20
this beer is richly over priced and not very delicious. personally i dont like lagers to me it isnt like your classic beers that u see your grandpa and fathers drink like pabst or genny or milwakees. not that those r great beers. overall i give this 2 thumbs down.
odelay (37) - fuquay-varina, North Carolina, USA - SEP 21, 2002
3.6 AROMA 10/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 14/20
i agree with most reviewers, that it is a bit chemical tasting. still, it smells very nice ní fruity, and itís very crisp and good with food. my, a person could do soooo much worse.
badgerben (4502) - Blaine, Minnesota, USA - SEP 21, 2002
2.5 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
Iíd qualify it as on the same par as Rolling Rock: itís better than the other mass swill, but nothing else.
davidoz (9) - AUSTRALIA - SEP 19, 2002 does not count
4.9 AROMA 10/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 10/10 PALATE 5/5 OVERALL 19/20
This is one bloody good beer!!!!!!
maupie (927) - Roosendaal, NETHERLANDS - SEP 19, 2002
3 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
UPDATED: JAN 17, 2005 This beer has a gold/yellow body - hue apperance and a coarse white scum collar. I have drunk the beer from the bottle and it had a medium carbonic acid. The initial flavor taste is bitter.