hopscotch (9858) - Vero Beach, Florida, USA - MAR 11, 2004
2.1 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 6/20
Crystal clear, light golden lager with a small, fizzy, white head. Good lacing. The nose is of citrus fruit and white bread. Big, lemony notes in the flavor. Tart and tangy. Well-balanced. Light-bodied with a watery mouthfeel and fizzy carbonation. Short, crisp, clean finish.
BigBastard (668) - L.A., California, USA - FEB 23, 2004
1.4 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 4/20
Thin, watery, very carbonated, not much flavor overall. Drinkable when it's ice cold, but tastes worse and worse as it warms.
fiulijn (15440) - Vancouver, British Columbia, CANADA - FEB 23, 2004
2.1 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
Blond color. Light hop aroma. Light malt and hop; quite strong bitterness. A common lager.
Ringo (963) - Loveland, Colorado, USA - FEB 3, 2004
2.6 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
UPDATED: FEB 11, 2004 I can recall that for a brief time in the early 1980's they tried to push this beer onto the American mass market. Apparently they weren't successful.
Gusler (2653) - Tucson, Arizona, USA - FEB 2, 2004
2.8 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
The beer evacuates the bottle a translucent gold color with the head massive in size, spumous in texture and a brilliant white color, the lace forms a thin skirt to let the sun shine through. Nose is sweet malt, also crisp and fresh to the senses, start is quite sweet, the malt adequate and the top skeletal in feel. Finish is modestly carbonated, the hops apropos to the style, drinkable, but I’m reaching to give it an average rating. Well it is “Good to be kind”!
Murphy (1759) - Fort Collins, Colorado, USA - JAN 23, 2004
0.9 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 3/20
Sad piss lager. I can taste serious metal here, this is a problem. Color is off, taste is way off. Drinkable, but it's not fun.
SubstanceT (1092) - Saint Louis, Missouri, USA - JAN 7, 2004
2.8 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 12/20
hmmm, it is definately not as bad as some have made out but it is definately uneventful. Golden clear with a thin white head. Good lacing on glass. The nost is faint and sort of skunky but not offensive. Barly and some wheat in the taste. Crisp, clean and somehwat acidic or metalic (from can maybe?) Thin body.
Sham (1845) - Seattle, Washington, USA - DEC 17, 2003
2.2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 9/20
Pours gold with almost no head and lace. Very light aroma of malt and a tiny bit of hops. Not much there. Sweeter malts fill the flavors out as it fades into slight bitterness at the finish. As noted before, there is a fairly creamy body. Not too shabby, not something I'd normally drink, but could be pretty refreshing on a hot day.
bfgill (120) - Tasmania, AUSTRALIA - NOV 12, 2003
2.6 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 11/20
I found it drinkable, with not really much to it, I wouldnt pay as much as I payed for it again though. Leaves palate quickly, slight hop finish - nice lacy head. ok. cheers
SDbruboy (1864) - San Diego, California, USA - NOV 9, 2003
2.8 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
Can. Poured clear and golden with a large white head that diminished rapidly, but left good lacing. Malty aroma with floral hops. Decent flavor, sweet with a little honey and clover - moderate hop finish. Light body with light carbonation on the tongue. Pretty standard yellow lager.