deftrager99 (7) - Grantham, Pennsylvania, USA - NOV 22, 2002 does not count
3.6 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 15/20
Am very biased towards this one. Was my favorite beer before I turned 21 and started drinking good beer. Quality really went down when miller bought company.
baobubba (455) - Starkville, Mississippi, USA - NOV 6, 2002
1.7 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 6/20
Some funky flavors. But OK if you have to drink it. Not much different from the other "premium" lagers (macroswill).
Slick (1969) - Thief River Falls, Minnesota, USA - NOV 3, 2002
1.8 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
blech!!! this is bad try again henry
HH (165) - Everett, Washington, USA - OCT 18, 2002
2.8 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 10/20
Tried this the other day. Beter than most others of this style. One can actually detect some hops.
senjiro (35) - Wheat Ridge, Colorado, USA - SEP 25, 2002
1.1 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 2/20
i started out thinking "ok, it’s a light lager, but i can smell it, so it’s not going to be too boring." I was wrong. bit of a nose, that promises more than taste delivers. absolutely no aftertaste, or body. hint of carbonation, no head. I had to spill the last 1/3 of the glass.
P-tor44 (886) - Anchorage, Alaska, USA - SEP 20, 2002
2.1 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
slight toast nose, piss color, clean, you get a sense of some of the hops, not a good beer by anystance.
beerguy101 (5284) - Newark, California, USA - SEP 17, 2002
3 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
I am going to be a little biased in my rating of this beer, as it was my first non-macro beer. Its not great, but it is a beer my Bud loving fishing buddy will drink, so I don’t have to drink Bud.
Light gold color, medium head. A light bodied lager style beer. Malts are slightly sweet and there is some hop bite. Nice smooth taste. Mouthfeel is full and round. Finish is clean and smooth. Aftertaste is slightly bitter.
Ringo (963) - Loveland, Colorado, USA - SEP 4, 2002
2.8 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
An early ’micro?’ It could be way worse. I can’t say that I drink it often, but if I was somewhere and it was this or ’pure macros,’ I’d sure be happy to see it.
uglybastard (101) - Riverside, California, USA - AUG 27, 2002
1.6 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
slightly less bright yellow than a corona with a medium sized head that fades down to nothing. Smells like water with a faint scent of sweetness thrown in. Has a watered-down, honey-like sweetness up front that fades into a kind of pool-water like flavor. (Yeah, that does sound gross.) I guess you could say it is better than a bud, miller, coors, but this beer kind of pisses me off. It is a bad beer that seems like the brewers try to dress with some flavor to gain acceptance in the micro world. This beer is pretty bad.
anticop (79) - Porterville, California, USA - AUG 26, 2002
2.7 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
this beer not so bad for a cheap beer, would buy it over other american standards