mario (1) - yuma, Arizona, USA - DEC 17, 2003 does not count
2.5 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
this beer is not really bad after all..i think it tastes better in a bottle and has to be realy cold...pretty good in price
DerBiermeister (586) - Birmingham, Alabama, USA - MAY 6, 2004
2.5 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
Come again? I had heard that this was the worst beer there is. In fact, it’s not. People who say that obviously haven’t had such things as Honu from Hawai’i. But seriously. The aroma on this one is skunky and alcoholic and unappealing. The taste is more surprising in its maltiness and smoothness and coldness it is soothing. Am I crazy? Perhaps. But I can see why my dad buys this stuff. It’s cheap and affordable and actually, not as bad as Coors Light or Miller Lite, a dubious compliment.
stubby (334) - Santee, California, USA - JUN 6, 2009
2.5 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 9/20
Prior raters are entitled to their own opinions. This beer, however, is a very drinkable beer and a standout example of the style. It is not offensive in any way except for lacking in character, but that’s the way it is supposed to be: a thirst quencher. There simply isn’t enough flavor to be offensive. A classic example of pale lager.
Chad9976 (1024) - Albany, New York, USA - SEP 19, 2011
2.5 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
<br clear="left">I poured a 24oz can into a 1-liter boot stein.
Appearance: Like a urine sample in a glass: pale gold, crystal clear, extremely carbonated. Forms a large, frothy, bright white head initially and then fizzles away to nothing, but does leave some lacing on the glass (likely due to hop extract).
Smell: Cheap, stale grain with a notable sour/metallic undertone.
Taste: If you were born after 1970 you’re probably hip enough to know that Milwaukee’s Best is referred to as "The Beast" and for good reason. There are plenty of cheap macro adjunct lagers out there and plenty of malt liquors, but this beer seems to be in its own class of swill. There’s just not enough hops to truly be a pale lager, but the ABV is much too low to be a malt liquor - so what is it, exactly?
Lame - that’s what it is.
I realize I’m beating a dead horse here and probably regurgitating jokes and insults that have been used to describe Milwaukee’s Best over the years, but let’s get through this. It’s a bland, neutral-tasting lager up front. More watery than beer. The second half is where all the nastiness comes from - boiled corn water with a touch of expired, cheap grain. There’s a definite metallic and cardboard taste as well. Fortunately, it finishes quite clean with little aftertaste and just a slightly pasty sensation. It’s more accurately described as tolerable than horrible, but I wouldn’t argue with anyone who called it bad.
Mouthfeel: Extremely thin, fizzy, watery texture. Not as belch-inducing as you’d think, though.
Drinkability: Right out of the fridge, Milwaukee’s Best is about as refreshing as water. I don’t think I’d want to drink this on a hot day because if it warms a little its palate completely falls apart. The blandness and thin body make it quite quaffable, and it can be gulped in bulk considering it’s very light at about 4.5% ABV.
Overall, Milwaukee’s Best is deserving of its nickname. It’s a beer people drink for performance value alone, and it’s something of a challenge to guzzle it before it turns REALLY bad. But really, what’s the point in drinking a beer if you’re trying to avoid its flaws?
dekester1 (287) - Neenah, Wisconsin, USA - JUN 30, 2012
2.5 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
Poured a basic lager transparent gold with a light bubbly head that faded to minimal lacing quickly. Aroma was malt and adjuncts with a slight pear-like hue. Taste was slightly sweet with a malt slightly predominating over grain adjuncts. Very mild/low hopping. Palate was thin. Overall, this was easy drinking and a bit better than what I was anticipating. Certainly this is a cheap, drinkable thirst quencher.
jwp216 (2) - Texas, USA - AUG 23, 2013 does not count
2.5 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20
I have to say that this is a OK cheap beer i have always know it as the Milwaukee’s Beast but after trying it for the first time it is not to bad i was realy schocked on how good it was for what it was not to bad. i would buy this beer to supply a large party or if on a tight budget this is a good beer for the price
Puss Gutt99 (206) - Oldtown, Florida, USA - DEC 29, 2001
2.4 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
a good brew for senior citizens, no disrespect intended
chunknuts (51) - Watertown, New York, USA - SEP 21, 2002
2.4 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
i found this to be a quality product and a very reasonable price. it it was more expensive then i would not consume it but since it is cheap i am very happy w/this product
RSRIZZO (1843) - Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA - OCT 11, 2007
2.4 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20
Had this beer on 1/17/2001. Aroma is a light somewhat sour malt scent. Color is a light gold with light carbonation and thin head. Taste is crisp and clean. Starting with a light body it goes down smooth. Finish is clean with a nice mild malt flavor. Its good for a cheap beer.
jeffs515 (122) - Ogden, Utah, USA - JUN 12, 2012
2.4 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20
Used this beer to make some bread. 32 ounce can figured I would rate the 24 ounces left over. Not a lot to smell little sour malt yeast. Pours a golden yellow. Lots of carbonation white soapy head no lacing. Taste is a malty bitter sour yeast. Really thin watered down with a metallic finish. Overall not a bad beer by miller. Would probably drink by the case if I was 20 again. I just hope it makes some good bread.