gerdy555 (163) - Ohio, USA - OCT 4, 2002
2.7 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 9/20
this is probably the best light beer iíve ever had. thats not saying much. something new for the chicks.
GregL40 (97) - Massachusetts, USA - OCT 4, 2002
3.1 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 13/20
Best light beer Iíve ever had. Very impressed with the deep color. Solid flavor without that sweetness that most light beers try to pass off as hops. That combined with the lack of calories allows me to give it this relatively high rating.
beerguy101 (5338) - Newark, California, USA - OCT 3, 2002
2.3 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 7/20
Medium gold color, small head. Light malts, some hoppyness. Has the feel of a light beer, but has some flavor to it. Not bad for a light beer, but as a regular beer it’s a little weak. It is, after all, a LIGHT Beer. Mouthfeel is a little thin. Finish is clean and crisp. Aftertaste is slightly bitter.
AxeMaster221 (343) - Portland, Oregon, USA - SEP 28, 2002
2.2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
So glad I got this as a free sample from a vendor, and didnt have to pay for it. I really dont like light beers, but if i had to have one, this might be my choice. Its the usual yellow, fizzy, over-carbonated, rather bland concoction , but it still tastes better than a Coors Light, or a Bud Light. I just hope I never become a light beer drinker, but if you are, then this might be a good choice.
Aubrey (3501) - Bellingham, Washington, USA - SEP 27, 2002
1.1 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 3/20
Macros have made many feckless attempts to emulate micros over the years; I suppose itís time a micro emulated a macro? While I donít completely understand the logic here, Iím all for cutting into macrosí demographic. I just hope this isnít a trend that other micros will follow. Itís a step back, in a sense. Anyway, hereís what I thought: Very lively head with a rich, golden-amber color. Very unappealing nose is reminiscent of wet, rusty nails. Starts with a smooth mouthfeel; finishes overly carbonated and watery. Extremely hopless, but it does have some worthy malt flavors to speak of in the aftertaste, relatively speaking, of course. I suppose I was expecting (or hoping) for more from Boston Beer Co. Not a very impressive beer at all. Although, I might still pick it over a Lite or a Bud Light, if thatís all I had to choose from.
foduck (330) - Denton, Texas, USA - SEP 27, 2002
1.6 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 7/20
Only a step up from the usual crap. The Boston Lager is better. There was the tiniest hint of malt and hops in this, teasing me. Quite dry and bodiless. I guess thatís the whole point of a "Light" though.
21iceman40 (1735) - Grafton, Wisconsin, USA - SEP 26, 2002
1.6 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 4/20
Not a good beer. The regular sam adams doesnít taste good, so why would this. I have nothing else to say.
chunknuts (51) - Watertown, New York, USA - SEP 22, 2002
1 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 3/20
this beer is terrible it tastes exactly like the lager. it took me over 10 mins to get one of those puppies down and that is about 8 or 9 mins longer than avg.
Suttree (5631) - Knoxville, Tennessee, USA - SEP 18, 2002
2.9 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 11/20
Its the best light beer Iíve ever had, which is kind of like being the worldís tallest midget. Not horible by any stretch, but certainly not worth the slight reduction in calories. Decent Hop nose, some hops at the start, but it seems to disappear in my mouth. Almost no body at all.
maxhits (172) - Pico Rivera, California, USA - SEP 16, 2002
2.8 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
Okay... so itís 20% lighter in calories. Big deal. It also misses the taste and robust character of the original. I wonít be buying more.