donvitozou (141) - memphis, Tennessee, USA - DEC 4, 2004
3.4 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 13/20
much better than regular lowenbrau. however, the "dark" label is kind of a charade, like heineken dark. it is still remarkably similar to original lowenbrau, just with an amber color and a thicker body. i was expecting more from a dark german lager, but this was tasty nonetheless.
SDalkoholic (2359) - Linda Vista, California, USA - AUG 11, 2004
2.7 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
Not as rewarding as a dark beer should be. This lager did give me a different aftertaste then im used to from a lager.
mohawksin (187) - Nebraska, USA - JUN 20, 2004
3 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
This was the first ’dark’ beer I ever had. I was a bit surprised at the time, having only drank crappy Wisconsin macros until then. But after a couple I really enjoyed it. Now, I would rate this as an average ’dark’. Nice color, good malt flavor.
punklawyer (100) - USA - FEB 15, 2004
3.9 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 16/20
I really like this one. A good full flavor with plenty of balance for sweetness and malts. I was impressed.
Gmku (300) - Baltimore, Maryland, USA - FEB 4, 2004
2.6 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
I wasn't expecting much and I didn't get it. Smells and looks kind of good. I'd take it over most mass-produced made in the USA swill, but not over most other German beers.
mullet (849) - Melbourne, AUSTRALIA - JAN 2, 2004
2.7 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
A bit of a disappointment. Clear dark copper colour, OK head.
Aroma of honey and some roasty malts.
Flavour is a bit roasty for mine and not enough base malt.
Drinkable but hardly memorable.
wulfhere (217) - Billings, Montana, USA - NOV 21, 2003
2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 5/20
In 1979 I used to drink this stuff when I got off work. It was one of the few beers around at that time that weren't pale American shit. Dark chocolate, with not enough head and what there is doesn't stay around long.
Cidery taste on the backend that is either hops or something fell from the pits of Hades.
It was OK back in the day--now it just sucks.
SirBeer1963 (14) - Tampa, Florida, USA - AUG 25, 2003
3.6 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 14/20
this is very good beer for a mass produced beer
but not easy to get in the USA
Gahan (1) - Kalispell, Montana, USA - JUL 3, 2003 does not count
4.9 AROMA 10/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 10/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 20/20
to bad you cannot get this in the US anymore. I will take this over Guiness anyday
Slick (1969) - Thief River Falls, Minnesota, USA - JUN 17, 2003
3.5 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 15/20
Nice brown color,small head that faded quite quickly.Nice malty aroma,a very slight amount of hops in the nose but it is almost undetectable.Mild carbonation and the taste was fairly decent,malty a slight sweet side to it with a mild hop presence.The after taste was malty very slightly hoppy with a some what thin watery feel to this brew.Not a great brew but still it wasn't bad and would make a very good high volume drinkable brew IMO.