LioNiNoiL (8) - Las Vegas, Nevada, USA - JUN 26, 2005 does not count
2.2 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 9/20
dark, thin-bodied, no nose; faint hop-free roasted malt taste with a clean watery finish.
KAggie97 (3529) - Ugly, Hot, and Humid Spring, Texas, USA - JUN 17, 2005
1.9 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 6/20
For macro crap, this one isnít bad. A nice nut aroma followed by a nut, roasted malt, and slight caramel flavor. All in all, if I had to drink macro from Anheuser-Busch, Iíd drink this one.
NYHarvey (2153) - New York, New York, USA - JUN 17, 2005
2.6 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
UPDATED: JUN 8, 2007 In the early 90ís this stuff was prevelant all over the Tampa area and I drank a lot of it because quite frankly it at least had SOME taste. Itís Olsen twin thin by my current standards and the malt component is just a farce of a suggestion of malt and itís watery tasting and mostly crap, but Iíd drink it if it was the only thing around of the Michelob lineup.
RateandPillage (426) - Atlanta, Georgia, USA - APR 25, 2005
1.9 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 6/20
Like others, I once that this one was pretty good and now just slightly above the average American swill. Guess Iíve become a beer snob. Pours brownish-red with medium off-white head. Malty aroma and flavor some slight bready/yeasty tones as well. Awfully thin for a dark lager.
AceOfHearts (1375) - Mountain View, California, USA - FEB 13, 2005
3.3 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
Bottle. Ima assume that this is the same as "Michelob Classic Dark", with Mandarin letters on the bottle, and 5 minutes of Google could not refute this. Joe thinks it might be Amber Bock, so Iím still not sure. Who hell the knows, itís probably a mixture of both. Thin, mahogany. Actually has some light fruitiness in the aroma which follows into the bread-malty taste...is that a hint of YEAST in something that AB brewed? Why, I think it is. Thereís hope after all...but I still canít call it more than "Very not bad for a macro"
robharing (82) - Ormond Beach, Florida, USA - OCT 26, 2004
0.5 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 1/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 1/20
had it it wasnt bad back then second dark beer i ever had a tast you have to get used to at first
RichJ7 (1175) - Cullman, Alabama, USA - OCT 18, 2004
2.1 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 7/20
This used to be one of my favorite beers ... but, then again, I didnít get out much. Like many before me have said, it was one of the only dark lagers available at the time and definitely a cut above most macros. Similar in taste to Michelob with the pleasing addition of roasted malt, giving it a toasty flavor. Smooth and drinkable, but not as good as your average craft beer ... or your below average craft beer for that matter.
mjg74 (2474) - La Mesa, California, USA - AUG 22, 2004
2.5 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 11/20
I used to buy this stuff alot back in the day. Tasted like an artificial dark beer. Seemed like the "dark" was just additives but for some reason I still enjoyed it.
REDDOGICE (202) - nantucket, Massachusetts, USA - JUL 6, 2004
2.2 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
Not the greatest but it has rank above swill in fact for a macro this one is ok. by my standards.
Ringo (963) - Loveland, Colorado, USA - JUN 20, 2004
2.8 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
This beer is ok, in a Beckís-Lowenbrau-St. Pauli dark sort of way. Or maybe in a Henry Weinhardís dark sort of way. You get the picture.