drismyhero (815) - Tacoma, Washington, USA - AUG 16, 2002
2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 7/20
UPDATED: FEB 20, 2005 It’s been some time since I first joined the sight and went on a macro rampage rating all of them betweet 0.7 and 1.5 - however if you truly consider 2.5 the absolute average, this should be right around the average it’s currently at; however, if we were to have a seperate scale for all of the macros, this would be right up there with PBR. I don’t encourage anyone to rate this as though it were seperate because it’s not, but just keep in mind that Rainier ("Ran-wah" as said by those who love it) is one of the better of the worst.
IslandHaole (1091) - Yokosuka-Shi, Kanagawa-Ken, JAPAN - AUG 14, 2002
1.7 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
Smells funky but tastes OK. Typical Macro swill, dirt cheap and has those puzzles in the cap. Reminds me of Lucky Lager when I was a kid.
Andrew196 (1091) - Katy, Texas, USA - JUL 23, 2002
1.7 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
This beer sucks. I had this beer a few times last Summer as an intern in Seattle, but only when I was really drunk and didnt know the difference. Light and watery.
HH (165) - Everett, Washington, USA - JUL 22, 2002
2.2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 6/20
Had on tap at Long Beach tavern. Was surprised it actually had a head and left foam stuck on the inside of the glass.
Your basic everyday beer. Nothing great but nothing bad either.
KingPinHead (390) - Des Moines, Washington, USA - JUL 15, 2002
2.1 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
I had to take my car in for service this morning, so for some fun I walked down the street into one of those taverns that opens at 7 a.m. This beer was the obvious choice! Aroma was mild but hoppy--not high-quality hops, but at least there was some effort expended. Color a lightish gold with thin head--acceptable lace, however. Flavor and mouthfeel both compromised by excessive carbonation, at least excessive for the mild countenance of both malt and hops, which provided flavor only in the front of the palate--a curious sensation. Finish was essentially neutral with trace sweetness. This beer holds a place in my memory cuz my high school mates and I could get a half-case of pint bottles of this stuff for the same price as 12-ouncers of national-brand macrobrew, so it has to rate some value points here!
Ringo (963) - Loveland, Colorado, USA - JUL 15, 2002
2.8 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 14/20
I drank this a lot when I lived in Seattle, and it was brewed by Rainier right there in the city. I loved the smell of the brewery when passing it. Must be consumed in Washington state to be appreciated. However, now that the brewery is closed I guess it doesn’t matter. Better than Bud and a sentimental favorite.
Bolt (117) - Boulder Creek, California, USA - JUN 5, 2002
2.5 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
Not bad, but I like Rainier ale much better.
Other than that it’s
Pretty clean tasting with a very distinguishing after taste.
MarshallMac (143) - West Vancouver, British Columbia, CANADA - MAY 6, 2002
2.5 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 12/20
this is a dirt cheap beer that will do the same justice as any other mainstream lager in the world
blueyedbeerguy99 (12) - Wallace, Idaho, USA - APR 23, 2002
4.4 AROMA 9/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 19/20
Has that great, distinctive Rainier taste. But I’m from Mullan too!
Nate (3727) - Indiana, Pennsylvania, USA - APR 15, 2002
2.4 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 9/20
Out of the can, this ’queer beer’ is no better than a lot of the other swill out there. However, fresh from the tap in Olympia, it wasn’t too bad.