arventresca (512) - Charlotte, North Carolina, USA - MAR 1, 2013
1.9 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 5/20
Strictly from memory. This was a decent shot at a light lager, but fell short on everything as usual. However, it had street credit from that kayaker on the label.
basspro76 (423) - New York, USA - FEB 25, 2010
1.1 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 4/20
A carbon copy of almost every other American light beer. Flavorless, watery and thin.
Lubiere (9085) - Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA - OCT 30, 2005
1.9 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 7/20
Lightly hazed gold colour with a nice creamy white head. Slighlty cardboardy malt arima. In mouth, stronger signs of oxidation occurs, with corny adjunct malt definetely noted.Body of mineral water. Bought at CJs in Potsdam.
Pigfoot (2268) - Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA - NOV 18, 2004
2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 7/20
Appearance: clear, honey gold color, kind of pretty and appealing, head is a treat for the eye, too, bubbly, snow white, leaving a little lace, slowly simmering.
After that, it’s all downhill. Nose is nothing, though I searched and searched, my nostril aflared...nothing bad, anyway...
As for taste; a tiny hop drizzle appears for 1/1,000,000th of 1 second that fades away...body doesn’t exist...in fact, it stands as the very hallmark of negligibility!
There are small specs of flavor here and there, very small, and not enough to merit the term "flavorful" as it appears on the label.
I don’t understand the existence of this type of beer, though the majority of Americans seem to take them to their collective bosom. It’s even more mysterious when a small brewery or a craft brewer farts one of these things out.
BuckNaked (1230) - Tempe, Arizona, USA - OCT 25, 2004
2 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20
Bottle: Light straw colored with a large white head. Almost no aroma, and a barely discernable malt flavoring in the taste. Very watered down....just like I’d expect from a pale lager. I guess it’s better than coors or bud.
Lou18 (1353) - West Paterson, New Jersey, USA - JUL 10, 2004
2.2 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
why would anyone really make a LIGHT beer, or, for that matter, and why would they rate it?? It is ok, much better then standard lights, but, maybe next week it will low carb crap also.
DocLock (7223) - Lower Pottsgrove, Pennsylvania, USA - MAR 31, 2004
2.6 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
Pours straw colored, with good head. Flavor is watery, with some sweetness. Finish is slightly astringent. Not bad for a light. This light is far better than Bud, Coors, and Millers regular beers.
IPFreely (1470) - Sanborn, New York, USA - DEC 18, 2003
1.7 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 7/20
Decent for a light but way too watered down. Not all that offensive but there's nothing there to be offensive.
SiddFinch (155) - Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania, USA - NOV 9, 2003
2.3 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
Pretty straightforward. Not too much flavor but still beats most of the macros. Almost no aftertaste.
beastdog75 (362) - Brick, New Jersey, USA - NOV 3, 2003
2.2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 10/20
Not too bad of a light beer, but still watery. There is some actual malt flavor in there, and there are no foul off-flavors that are so common in many of the macro-brewed lites. Still pales in comparison to Sam Adams Light.