Gusler (2653) - Tucson, Arizona, USA - JUN 29, 2002
2.9 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
Gee, I swear I’ve rated this beer? Clear dark gold in color, the head is white and frothy, the lace is adequate. Nose is malt, clean, slight citrus tones. Malt front, light top, acidic and dry, nicely hopped, and as its edging its way to 113 degrees Fahrenheit, its clean and easy on the palate.
ravidesai (949) - Bombay, INDIA - JUN 26, 2002
2.1 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
a light sweet beer, pleasant drinking on a hot day but nothing interesting.
disappointing from RedHook - theyt probably brewed this to cater to the mass market
MaxPower (961) - St. Louis, Missouri, USA - JUN 22, 2002
1.5 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 4/20
Nice appearance,water not much flavor, weak.
Flatline99 (36) - Durham, North Carolina, USA - JUN 22, 2002
3.2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 14/20
A good beer for a hot summer day or night; nothing spectacular, but insanely drinkable.
muzzlehatch (4420) - Burlington, Vermont, USA - MAY 29, 2002
2.3 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
At first glance, I wonder why all the really low marks; a decent looking beer, light orange and vaguely cloudy with a full creamy slow-diminishing head. Then I smell it; grainy but in a stale, rice/corn sort of way, and not at all sweet. Flavor actually is sweet and somewhat malty, a bit better than the nose lets on, but certainly nothing special. Finishes with, well, basically no finish at all. Ends is more like it. Yeah, probably the weakest beer from this mediocre pseudo-micro; best consumed a 6-pack at a time after a really good beer or two.
austinpowers (2826) - New York, New York, USA - MAY 28, 2002
2.2 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 2/20
I can’t help but notice that this is the lowest-rated of Redhook’s (sorry, Budhook’s) mainstream, readily-available beers. Then I tasted it and understood. It’s on par with the Peroni I had earlier in the night...and that’s NOT a good thing. This should be renamed ’Adjunct Ale’. The bottle says ’A compelling endorsement may convince us to feature you in an ad.’ Sorry, guys. I’m not your man!..........Turning to the beer itself, it has hints of corn?, rice?, I’m not really sure, but it’s a typical American Blond Ale. ’Nuff said.
joet (2386) - Santa Rosa, California, USA - MAY 17, 2002
1.5 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 6/20
Like an extra west coast pale ale, but soft, undefined hops.
Steak (124) - New York, USA - MAY 17, 2002
2.5 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 11/20
What is the purpose of this beer? To give the big macro drinkers something to not be afraid of trying? If so, then this beer is exactly that, a marginal improvement over beers with far less pedigree.
Aurelius (4657) - Tallahassee, Florida, USA - MAY 10, 2002
2.2 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 8/20
Nothing really to commend this beer, especially at its pricepoint. Aroma is citrus-hoppy, with a little of musty smell that I associate with wheat beer. Generic appearance, screw-off cap. Flavor is faintly ale-ish with a mild orange/rock candy tinge. Medium hopping. There is an unpleasant metallic undertaste and aftertaste.
hennes (934) - Fountain, Michigan, USA - MAR 22, 2002
1.6 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 5/20
So someone brought a bunch of redhooks to the st.pats/maple sugaring party i attended recently and i sampled the redhooks during the next afternoon cleanup. Appropriate time for such beer - garbage time. This one is particularly pathetic. it smells like beer, but comes on like Killian’s lite. Ugh. Especially not good foe use as a hair of the dog remedy.