Simon (42) - Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA - JAN 31, 2005
2.3 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
Thin short-lasting white head that leaves very little lacing. Ho-hum in the flavor department, not much different than any other domestic American lager. I’ll never choose this one over it’s Bock sibling again.
MrBunn (2609) - The Wet Side of a Dry Town, Pennsylvania, USA - JAN 25, 2005
1.9 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 7/20
Not a whole lot to describe. Looks very thin out of the bottle, extremely pale and transparent. Nice carbonation builds into a white head that quickly dissipates. Aroma is weak... Taste is more like you would expect from a mass produced macrobrew like Bud or Miller. Directionless and rather weak. Fortunately it was on sale for a mere $5.00 which might still be a little high. Could be worse.
Terminus (3407) - St. Louis, Missouri, USA - JAN 24, 2005
2.6 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 11/20
bottle-pours a very pale yellow golden hue with a nice sudsy white head. vigerous carbonation. german hop, spritzy, hay, grass aroma that was much better than i expected. grassy hop flavors with some trix, bread, cereal. thin body but thats to be expected. a decent beer that was not offensive in any way. could be a decent lawnmower beer.
jigglyjock (165) - Longmont, Colorado, USA - JAN 9, 2005
1.3 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 5/20
Has some malty and hops aftertones. The color of you know what. I like the Bock but the blonde did not impress me at all.
robertsreality (2460) - Minnesota, USA - DEC 1, 2004
1.5 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
Light Gold Coloring. Not My Style So Hard to Be Merciful On This One. Lightly Bitter...And Sweet Right in the Beginning. Some Grain and Hops.. Not Terribly Horrible...But Trying to Be.
KAggie97 (3529) - Ugly, Hot, and Humid Spring, Texas, USA - OCT 31, 2004
2.4 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20
If Shiner doesn’t watch out, it will gain a reputation as an overpriced version of your choice of mass brewers. This stuff, while slightly better than the aforementioned, is still overpriced for what you get. If you’re gonna fork over $7 for a six pack, get a REAL German lager, not a pale immitation. Pun intended.
wildchefbill (245) - Sarasota, Florida, USA - OCT 20, 2004
1.9 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 7/20
Pours clear pale gold with a nice white head. Aroma is weak malt. Starts sweet with a lame attempt at hop bitterness. Clean and crisp, but so is cold water. Thin body with heavy carbonation. Not bad, but not great.
darkstar (69) - Eureka, Missouri, USA - OCT 20, 2004
1.7 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 5/20
Yellow collar. Nice head. The flavor was nonexistant. I can’t believe I payed 7 dollars for a six pack of this stuff. It was almost exactly like budweiser. Very disappointing. Sorry I didn’t read the reviews on here before I bought it.
thegreenrooster (3641) - St.louis, Missouri, USA - SEP 19, 2004
1.9 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 6/20
Pours is a very clear yellow with a fizzy head. No real aroma and the flavor is dull and flat. You get some hops and malts in there but again very dull and flat. Not great but better than bud and cheaper too.
Pigfoot (2268) - Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA - SEP 19, 2004
2.1 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 7/20
Appearance: utterly transparent, pale yellow head, nice head of foam.
Aroma is bare, shy, emitting no flavors to speak of, bone-dry.
Taste:not bad, but not much. Very minimal. Extra-light body, tiniest texture, slick and nearly buttery, finishes on the dry side.
Nothing wrong with this lager, great "lawnmowin’" brew, just doesn’t offer anything I can use...though if there was nothing else available in some certain situation, I’d endure it.