steview (1037) - Petaluma, California, USA - JUN 15, 2006
2.1 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
bottle, liquor store in okinawa; somewhat thick and musty aroma, a bit stale, but not at all just unpleasant; the feel is actually not that bad, a little bit like it could become gel if it were heated--if that makes sense; not much. crops, water, fizz... oh, if only it gave quite the relief, it doesn’t.
bridge (659) - Sydney, AUSTRALIA - JUN 15, 2006
1.6 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 6/20
Smells and tastes a bit ricey. Ingredients lists shows water, malt and hops, so I don’t know how much of that it barley malt and how much is rice. Can’t really find much in the way of hops either, but that’s a bit typical. Not terrible, but not good.
farmboy (218) - Barwon Heads, AUSTRALIA - JUN 13, 2006
2.6 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
i don’t understand why you would want to drink with a reasonably high alcohol content in such a hot climate like Thailand. Two of these in the middle of the day in the heat, would flatten me. Still, the beer is reasonable, and you certainly can’t actually taste the high alcohol content.
thehipone (197) - AUSTRALIA - JUN 11, 2006
2.3 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
Not bad, a little bit sweet to start then absolutely vacuous. Ultra clean finish. Seems awfully light for a 6% lager.
eaglefan538 (3017) - Wilmington, Delaware, USA - JUN 3, 2006
3.3 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 14/20
The flavor on this was surprisingly better than I was expecting. The hop presence was the most enjoyable, as this lager’s malt base was well complemented by it. Pour was usual, color was usual (for a basic lager). May come back to this one, the Tiger lager, and the San Miguel, as they’ve all been pretty decent light summer beers.
stison42 (318) - Blacksburg, Virginia, USA - JUN 2, 2006
2.4 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20
UPDATED: JAN 22, 2007 Very light gold. Clear. Quick burst of flavor. Smooth with no aftertaste. The taste stays on the front of the tongue.
eboats (1082) - Omaha, Nebraska, USA - JUN 2, 2006
0.6 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 1/20
Poured lighter than piss with a white head. Aroma is rubber not fresh not burnt just used rubber. Flavor is slightly sweet BMC macro swill rice crap.
fuzznuts1 (6) - Texas, USA - MAY 30, 2006 does not count
2.5 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
Poured thin and golden from the bottle with a moderate white head. Smelled faintly of hops and fruit. Tasted like generic lager beer. Did what it was supposed to do as I ate my yummy Thai dinner
puzzl (3257) - New York, New York, USA - MAY 29, 2006
1.3 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 3/20
Pours ugly yellow in its own ugly tumbler. Looks like a glass I’d drink my juice out of. Flavor is sickly fruity, in a bad way. There is a lot more flavor in this than normal PLs but the flavor is off and crappy and not worth it. I’d rather just have something tasteless that I could quaff (if that’s what I were going for).
voota (765) - Melbourne, AUSTRALIA - MAY 29, 2006
2.7 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
Not a bad looking beer, nice big fluffy white head. Good stong malty armoa, without too much skunky hops. Good stong body, bitterness is stong but a little harsh. Probably not enough caramel in the body for my liking but as far as premium lagers go, this is the goods