IDogg (72) - Houston, Texas, USA - NOV 17, 2003
3.1 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 15/20
As my first beer rated, I have to give Shiner Bock a positive review, thought not stellar b/c it is a good beer. From casual drinking to heavy drinking, Shiner is a good all around beer that beats the hell out of cheap beer and stands out among other American brewers enough to give it praise.
heemer77 (5098) - Urbandale, Iowa, USA - NOV 10, 2003
2.6 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
Nice light beer. I see people here love to bash it. Goes down easy and once again, when the only other options are Mil-Bud-Curs, I will always get a Shiner. Just recently available north of the Mason-Dixon line. Yes it is fairly weak and has no distincttive flavoring, But it is also definitely not a skunky flavor!
PieTaster (32) - Humpton, California, USA - NOV 8, 2003
0.9 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 1/20
Absolute crap. Worst example of a bock beer I have ever tasted. Good use of rice or corn in mash as this beer has no body or mouthfeel what so ever.
sethdude (694) - St. Louis, Missouri, USA - NOV 3, 2003
2.6 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 12/20
Smells malty, lots of metal, which is freakin' nasty. POurs a deep red/brown, very very small head, extremely thin lace. Flavor is apples on the start, malty middle, and metallic fiish. Aftertaste of bitter apple core. Honestly, I thought this would be a whole lot worse...
Veldy (65) - Coon Rapids, Minnesota, USA - OCT 30, 2003
3.4 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
A tasty beer, and fairly good quality. I think it is mislabled and actually fits the description of a Dunkel more than a Bock. Not nearly enough malt and mouthfeel to be a Bock. Flavor is good with just a hint of hops, but mostly malt. A little bit thin overall.
Strykzone (4832) - Wood River, Illinois, USA - OCT 5, 2003
2.8 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
People in Austin seem to love this beer. It is everywhere you go there. Well, people near here love Bud Light, too, so there is no accounting for favorites. I found it to be a nice beer with a reddish color and ample foam (i had it from keg) that soon dissipated. And while the aroma was unpleasant, the taste was enjoyable. Very little substance to it, but it made for a nice beer.
wildchefbill (245) - Sarasota, Florida, USA - OCT 4, 2003
3.1 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
Dark amber with small dissapating head. Fairly stong malty aroma. Good neutral flavor. Not too sweet, almost no bitterness. Much better and more full bodied than other US brews at this price. Not bad.
BrewEd (182) - Wilmington, North Carolina, USA - OCT 3, 2003
2.8 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
I get this on tap frequently when in Houston. A couple steps above most macros. Ruby/amber in color with a nice toasted malt taste. Not exceptional but enjoyable.
JorisPPattyn (7816) - Antwerpen, BELGIUM - OCT 2, 2003
3.5 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 14/20
(draught) Mixture of brown, gold and greenish shine, totally clear. Virtually no head left after 30". Malty nose, like German dark malts, bready. Tast is a bit neutral-sweet. Bread-taste is authentic enough. An USA Bock for Germans. Filling without being full-bodied. Alcohol apparent, not overwhelming. It's convincing enough. Why all the bad critics? The manufacturer prejudice?
GreyHipster (12) - Hemet, California, USA - SEP 25, 2003
3.1 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 14/20
Compared to budmillercoors, this is the best beer ever made. For an American macrobrew, very good!