pootzboy (1590) - Hawgville, Ontario, CANADA - MAY 26, 2004
2.2 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 9/20
This is not the same Rainier I had in Seattle many years ago. The gauntlet of the Stroh-Pabst-Miller purchases has done something to the unique brewing recipie/process of this beer... it was a pale, tart, well hopped standard US lager without adjuncts. The Rainier I had in Glacier Park yesterday was weak tasting and the tart hop quality was nearly undetectable plus I detected something like a rice or corn sugars in the flavour. The aroma was weak....what a let down. I had been looking forward to this trip to the western US to reacquaint myself with their old standards (like Olympia, rainier Coors etc) and this was a foreboding start. All in all this New Rainier is probably one of the best US standards but it certainly has lost it’s distinct character since miller bought the brand.
Bov (9492) - Bienne, SWITZERLAND - MAY 15, 2004
2.1 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
I had this beer many years ago at one time when I was only giving ratings to the beers but was too lazy and stupid to write down my thoughts. I will update this as soon as I get my hands on this beer again.
Jayson2425 (167) - Box Elder, South Dakota, USA - MAY 10, 2004
4.8 AROMA 9/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 10/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 20/20
Good tasting, cheap, and reminds me when i drink it that i live in a shit hole. I would drink this just as much as schmidt, another good tasting white trash beer
OD40oz (773) - Box Elder, South Dakota, USA - MAY 9, 2004
4.9 AROMA 10/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 10/10 PALATE 5/5 OVERALL 19/20
I brought some of this home when I went to see my girlfriend in Montana and it quickly fit my standards. It is cheap, white trash swill, just my kind of beer. The worst part about living in South Dakota is I cannot find Rainier or Blatz beers.
sama1982 (2) - Bozeman, Montana, USA - FEB 18, 2004 does not count
4.6 AROMA 9/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 9/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 19/20
My favorite!!! Goes down easy and is relatively inexpensive. The only beer I drink when I go out.
hershiser2 (1227) - Charlottesville, Virginia, USA - FEB 2, 2004
1.5 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
A not so yummy, yet cheap beer. Good for taking to family gatherings to get your relatives sloshed, while you sit back and enjoy a nice Stone IPA.
rabuc (143) - carlisle, Pennsylvania, USA - JAN 13, 2004
1.7 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 6/20
another bad miller beer! it brings back memories of living in the northwest! not a good aroma when poured. tasted ok - very watery, with mild grainy flavor.
dirtymike (2016) - Manchester, New Hampshire, USA - DEC 15, 2003
2 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
GABF '03 Wow, can you really be expected to write anything good about this? Hmmm, how about, it didn't make me vomit.That's positive right?
Reid (1898) - Salem, Oregon, USA - NOV 15, 2003
2.2 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
UPDATED: APR 14, 2013 Ok bought at the local cheapo canned food warehouse 99 cents for a 24 oz can..nice enough can..Mt Rainier all in silvers and white
The appearance is not great just above average for a macro..least its golden ( pale) in colour..and has a small white head.
Smell is sort of weird..like rainwater..and some chemicals..hard to place.
I have to say the taste ain’t all that bad really for a cheap macro..sort of Like Miller High Life but a little less sweet.. a lot of corn..but I believe i taste a ghost of some hops in the end.
Mouthfeel is not so hot..too carbonated and watery.
Overall not a good beer but ok if you want a cheap beer to wash down the dust after some strenuous physical work.
kyzr (1152) - Belgrade, Montana, USA - OCT 1, 2003
2.4 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 9/20
Not a lot to speak of for the aroma. Almost looks the same as most standards. Same typical taste that one would look for in a get drunk beer. Rather sweet and easy to drink.