konair1 (66) - Chicago, Illinois, USA - APR 21, 2006
3.2 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
UPDATED: MAY 11, 2006 I like this beer. It is golden in appearance, has a thick white head, clean taste and is far better than miller lite.
gabrielsyme (66) - Ohio, USA - FEB 9, 2008
2.9 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
it looks the same going in as it does coming out. smells "beery" according to my friend. slick feel,
poolboy (66) - Lafayette, Indiana, USA - FEB 18, 2009
3.4 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 16/20
My favorite Pilsner. Early taste of grain and hops. Finishes bitter with a sharp whack to the palate. Great.
leo2x4us (65) - San Antonio, Texas, USA - JUL 22, 2013
4.1 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 5/5 OVERALL 15/20
Clear golden clear appearance with medium head. Taste is lighly bitter roses with medium malt.
branko (65) - Zagreb, CROATIA - FEB 4, 2015
2.5 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
Avarage beer for me. Grass aroma and golden color. Medium bitterness taste. Expected more from this beer
at_the_hop (65) - Worcestershire, ENGLAND - APR 17, 2015
3.8 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 17/20
A nice surprise. Honey and grass is obvious then a waft of hops. Leaves real bitterness at the back of the mouth and sweetness in the lips. Bitterness is just this side of too much. Carbonation is light for the style, generates a head but it doesn’t stick around long. At only 4.4% it tastes pretty grown up.
johnykat (65) - Pennsylvania, USA - JAN 3, 2007
2.8 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
I was really looking forward to this pils and was a little let down. Smell is OK for a pils and the taste reflects the same. Not bad, but not good. Clean, crisp but nothing note-worthy there. Little bit hops, little bit of flavor, ok. Not much else to say.
BetterRedFred (65) - Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA - NOV 13, 2007
1.6 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 4/20
Reminds me of my first German Pils; thin, bitter, and stinky, just not as good.
Decent for the style, but really now; why would anyone drink more than one of these, regardless of what else was available (Listerine anyone)?
I’m guesing that in a blind taste test (minus all the "original Pilsener" hype) this one would score MUCH lower than it has.
Sorry, I find nothing remarkable here, other than people’s amazing response to hype.
MrGregAD199 (65) - Medford, Oregon, USA - DEC 24, 2002
3.6 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 15/20
jahughey (65) - Franklin, Indiana, USA - SEP 5, 2005
4.9 AROMA 10/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 10/10 PALATE 5/5 OVERALL 19/20
Being the original has its advantages (see Paulaner Salvator, a very good beer, but nowhere near the best in its category), however Pilsener Urquell doesn’t need the advantages. It is simply the best pilsener on the planet, apart from its lineage. Its deep golden color is unique in pilseners, as is its
maltiness and sublimely spicy bouquet of Saaz hops, which evolve from bitterness to delicious flavor to, of course, uniquely spicy aroma. I have tried Budweiser Budvar, its Czech counterpart, 2 or 3 times and find Urquell still better. Sometimes the original is the best for a reason. Perfect.