rougeau13 (1646) - Texas, USA - JUL 30, 2010
1.1 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 4/20
UPDATED: SEP 6, 2010 this is a waste of time. Itís a typical crappy green bottle light beer with not body aroma taste or other redeeming value
BMMillsy (716) - Florida, USA - DEC 5, 2012
0.6 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 1/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 2/20
Just gross. Managed to make RR even worse. Nice job guys. We didn't even touch this in college.
---Rated via Beer Buddy for iPhone
kramer (3909) - Sunbury, Pennsylvania, USA - OCT 24, 2012
1.4 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 6/20
Bottle. Pours a clear straw yellow body with a very minimal head that completely vanished. The nose is sweet corn and a light touch of hop extract. The flavor is pretty well all corn with a watery finish. Tastes a bit more like your average Euro Lager than the usual BMC macro stuff. Light bodied and watery with fizzy carbonation. Not exactly a great beer, but I can stomach this a lot better than Coors Light or similar.
beermanusa (77) - California, USA - MAR 7, 2012
1 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 3/20
No body, no aroma, no taste. Might as well drink a bottled water which is not a bad alternative.
seymour (1136) - Saint Louis, Missouri, USA - OCT 28, 2011
0.6 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 1/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 1/20
Sampled directly from bottle, thanks to a friend on an Atkins diet. Typical weak, mildly offensive aromas and flavors of an adjunct light lager. Even less color, aroma, flavor, body and alcohol than regular Rolling Rock, which is hard to believe would be possible. Barely beer.
halfonit (1062) - Fall River, Massachusetts, USA - JUL 24, 2011
1.1 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 3/20
This is similar to the regular Rolling Rock. The only difference between the two is that this is a little more watered down and carbonated. Besides that, I donít even need to describe the flavors and aromas. Just read my regular review on it.
wlajwl (2984) - Quad Cities, Iowa, USA - JUN 30, 2011
1.4 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 5/20
Adjuncts and sweet-cornish in aroma while the appearance anemic yellow. The flavor is mildly sweet and can taste the adjuncts. A typical macro lager, not undrinkable, though not worth trying again.
Thorpe429 (4945) - , Illinois, USA - APR 14, 2011
0.9 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 1/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 3/20
Reviewed from notes. Poured into a pint glass.
The pour is a faint golden color with a two-finger white head that dies down quickly and there is no lacing to be seen on the glass. The nose is a bit of grainy husks and some light grass. The taste is really off and astringent. My goodness is that bad. Peels over to the feel and is just wrong. Does not taste good and has a horrible feel; this is just a bad beer and Iím glad itís retired.
Serving type: bottle
Reviewed on: 11-14-2010
beernovice39 (2785) - Montana, USA - JUL 25, 2010
0.5 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 1/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 1/20
UPDATED: NOV 8, 2010 Pours a crisp clear yellow color with a small bright white head. Nose is lacking anything really, just smells fizzy and corny. Palate is thin and watery. flavor os water, some light corn notes.
Onslow (934) - Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA - JUN 2, 2010
1.6 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 6/20
Not sure if this is the same beer... Bottle says "Rock LIght" and "10" - the word íGreení does not appear anywhere. But, it clearly is not a 2003 vintage brew... Claims 49th parallel hops and roasted malt contribute to its flavor. Pours light yellow with a thin head. Weak corny aroma. Flavor is a little sweet corny grain and a slight mineral water taste in the finsih. OK, not bad, nothing notable though.No mention of it being low carb on this bottle - I drank a six pack and my stomach isnít any flatter, so maybe it is not low carb...