Ferris (8967) - Burnaby, British Columbia, CANADA - SEP 30, 2015
3 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 11/20
Draft - Light sweet malts. Clear pale gold with a decent whitehead. Light sweetness and not much else. Lights and wet.
MunBro (898) - St. Albert, Alberta, CANADA - APR 25, 2015
2.2 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 9/20
Not necessarily a bad beer, just mass produced and generic. Aroma and flavour of wheats and grains, with little else going for it.
Headbanger (3582) - Aurora, Illinois, USA - APR 15, 2014
1.7 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 7/20
12oz can (Old Notes)-Pours a clear golden with a small white head. Aroma of corn and grains. Taste of the same. A light bodied brew I would pound in college.
gramity (1582) - Edmonton, Alberta, CANADA - MAR 30, 2014
1.7 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 8/20
No real flavor, zero head, and slightest hops. Pretty gross stuff IMO. I literally found this under the seat while borrowing an alcoholics car. I'm glad I didn't pay for it. Disclaimer: I put it in the fridge, drank it in the house, and did not drive after. Can't say the same for the previous 5 from the pack unfortunately.
exeter (482) - calgary, Alberta, CANADA - MAR 15, 2014
1.6 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 4/20
Well itís a Canadian legend. Not not all legends are great in the end, just look at Lance Armstrong. This beer is like Lance in that it pretends to be something itís not. Is it a lager? sort of...
brleo (78) - - MAR 8, 2014
0.5 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 1/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 1/20
Complete garbage that gets by purely on marketing it as some kind of sign that one is an "islander" (Vancouver Islander, that is).
Aroma? What aroma? Thereís simply nothing there - air tinged with a hint of grain. Appearance is about the same as a Budweiser or any other macro lager - pale yellow and not much else. Taste is minimal, like club soda with essence of beer. Palate is faintly metallic, lifeless wisps of nothing.
Overall, I cannot understand why on earth this beer is popular, other than as a "camping beer". Even then, thereís a lot better choices out there.
WPGbeerman (1) - - FEB 8, 2014 does not count
3.2 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 18/20
I hate the phrase " it is what it is" but it totally applies here. When Iím at the lake or have plans to consume more than a couple, this is my thrifty choice. I enjoy many other types of beer but it also comes at different price points .
Reimer96 (1649) - Alberta, CANADA - FEB 8, 2014
1.1 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 4/20
For what it is its terrible... However since itís also cheap itís actually a good beer for the price and being a pale lager.
JFGrind (1937) - Glenside, Pennsylvania, USA - JUL 25, 2013
1.8 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
Cool logo, and iced cold from a tall boy drinkable. No real flavor, zero head, and slightest hops. I donít think Early Grayce would drink the Canuck version of Lucky Lager.
bulldogops (1402) - Edmonton, Alberta, CANADA - JUN 20, 2013
1.1 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 3/20
Known coloquially as "da luckies" e.g. Iím going to da store to get da luckies. This beer is shitty. 355mL Can, 5%, reviewed straight from can. Pale lager that doesnít even stand up to awful macros like Canadian or Kokanee. Taste like corn and malts left out near a hog farm.