iwantalambic (1478) - St. Louis, Missouri, USA - SEP 21, 2002
2.9 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 12/20
I remember having only small sips of sam adams and basically spitting it out all over the place because of the soapy water flavour, but last night a good buddy of mine got me one at a blues bar in Chicago. Knowing that spitting wasn’t an option, I braced for my first swig. . .and was pleasantly surprised. There was a refreshing hoppy flavour that I wasn’t expecting. Though it wasn’t the greatest beer I have ever had, it was loads better than what I was bracing myself for.
urbnhautebourg (997) - Annapolis, Maryland, USA - SEP 19, 2002
3.2 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 13/20
In 1991, this beer was truly sublime. Floral aroma, beautiful lacing, complex amber malt which had a sensational give-and-take with equally complex hop flavors. It’s simply not the same now. The malt is monolithic and the aroma is nowhere near what it was. To get the old taste, I simply drink Brooklyn Lager now. A pity. (and their foolishness with mucking about with the label is inexcusable).
RaginCajun (319) - Houston, Texas, USA - SEP 18, 2002
3.4 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 13/20
I commemorated September 11 by buying a case of this stuff. Nothing like drinking a patriot on ’Patriot Day’ or whatever its called now. About the beer, sweet compared to the regular macrobrews. A couple of these makes a nice late night snack for me.
vwsteggie (684) - Paxton, Massachusetts, USA - SEP 17, 2002
2.6 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
UPDATED: MAR 12, 2003 I have to agree with MKRILL: The Budweiser of Microbrews...but overall a pretty average lager, nothing special. Re-Rate 3/12/2003: Has a nice amber color with little carbonation and a sweet malt/hop smell. Taste is malted at first and finishes into a medium hop bitterness. Overall not a bad lager, but nothing special.
dhurtubise (568) - Hamilton, Ontario, CANADA - SEP 17, 2002
3.6 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 15/20
They may have changed the recipe over the years to make it less hoppy, but this beer is still a good hearty hop supper. Very clean, quite hoppy, floral, fresh. Certainly one of the better widely available north american lagers.
gerdy555 (163) - Ohio, USA - SEP 15, 2002
2.9 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
i had never been very impressed by this beer when i had tried it previously. but i decided to try it again and its not too bad. decent hop and malt flavor but still its nothing that i would drink on a regular basis
getsomeplaya99 (19) - Waukegan, Illinois, USA - SEP 14, 2002
0.5 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 1/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 1/20
Hmm... has a malt liqour taste in a fancy bottle. It has a extremely bitter taste. If your looking for bad beer you might want to try of 40oz of malt liquor.. hey at least you get more.. If it wasnt brewed in Milwaukee its not worth drinking
stephen (308) - California, USA - SEP 14, 2002
2.7 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
Drinkable. Slightly grainy. Finishes dry. Almost tastes like a Cali Common.
Marc (486) - Yokosuka, JAPAN - SEP 14, 2002
3 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 13/20
Decent. Carmel in the nose with a little hops. Tan/ amber color, but not much in the way of a head. Tastes more like an american Pale Ale than a lager. Carmel notes with undertones of grapefruit, A little bitterness towards the end.
jpknight22 (171) - Charlotte, North Carolina, USA - SEP 13, 2002
3.2 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 12/20
Definitely an average beer and nothing I’d go out of my way to find. I’ve had much tastier lagers, and this one seems kinda sweet.