Frank (2223) - Chicago, Illinois, USA - APR 27, 2004
3.2 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 14/20
You know, I don't think many people here have really given this beer the chance it deserves. They see the fact that it comes in cans and cost $3 for six and give it a point five. That's hardly the kind of behavior we encourage here at ratebeer...
Anyway, it pours a rather nice golden color with a decent head of mostly small bubbles. In terms of flavor and aroma, it's more in the league of American-style lagers than what most people would expect from an ale. That being said, it's really very flavorful and easy drinking. So much so that you could almost mistake it for a pilsner or maybe a helles given that the hop presence is pretty low. Try this with an open mind and you'll be surprised. Or, you can be pig-headed and not enjoy it if it makes you feel superior to pan cheap beers without regard to their quality.
Duke (117) - New York, USA - FEB 23, 2004
1.1 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 3/20
One of the worst beers I have ever had. Yellow/gold with a foamy white head. Skunky smell. Off the bottom shelf of a local quick mart. Really bad, maybe been very old stuff.
qwak (25) - Yokosuka, JAPAN - FEB 3, 2004
0.5 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 1/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 1/20
don't bother unless you're broke and it's 25 cent draught night.
Shagnasty (130) - Rochester, New York, USA - JAN 26, 2004
1.1 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 2/20
Bad beer. It may be one of the most over rated beers on this site. This is much worse than the 1.4 average lets on.
djrevnoir (26) - Buffalo, New York, USA - JAN 7, 2004
1.4 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
On tap. There is but a single reason that one should drink this beer (it happens to be the reason I do) - because one is broke and this beer costs either 25 cents for an 8oz draught or $2.50 for a 64oz pitcher. This stuff is an awful imitation American lager.. it looks like a lager, tastes vaguely remniscent of one, and smells like ass. The only thing it matches a standard (read: sub-sub-subpar) American lager in is palate, and that's just because American lagers suck. (you'll forgive me for being cruel, but Golden Anniversary makes me a rather mean drunk). rudolf and I decided to rate it this evening - we force it down whenever my band plays a certain open-mic night.
rudolf (2304) - Buffalo, New York, USA - JAN 7, 2004
1.4 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 5/20
Draught. Smells like cigarettes with a tiny bit of malt. But maybe that is just because I'm standing next to qwak. No real taste at first other than sour. I guess some flavor is better than none, but not by much. Still, what can I expect for 25 cents?
JdoubleyouS (82) - Erie, Pennsylvania, USA - JAN 5, 2004
2.2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 11/20
Tastes almost exactly like Busch, not recommended. A slight metallic flavor. Drink up, if your broke.
surfmurf (85) - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA - DEC 26, 2003
1.6 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 4/20
Cheap beer in a somewhat similar packaging like Michelob. Tasted about the same for a heluval lot less. Not bad for the price but noth the best I've had.
vwsteggie (684) - Paxton, Massachusetts, USA - NOV 18, 2003
1.4 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 5/20
Has a clear yellow color with some carbonation and a tinny, corn smell. Taste is also a bit tinny and finishes slightly bitter. Overall not the best of the cheap, but not that bad.
BigSkyman007 (202) - USA - NOV 1, 2003
1.3 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
Watery, light, slightly skunky, very bland tasting. I have had worse beers...but this is the epitome of cheaper beers.