AceOfHearts (1374) - Mountain View, California, USA - JUL 25, 2003
3.4 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 14/20
Bottle. This beer impressed me because (1) It did not suck and (2) It was three months past the expiration date as far as I could tell from the Mandarin on the bottle, and it still did not suck. This is going to be 100% against the grain, but I thought it was a decent pilsener. Crisp, fresh, and yes, it was a bit watery but I couldn't get a trace of skunk or any other kinds of nastiness in the taste. I'd have guessed that it was something much higher regarded if I were blindfolded, like an attempt at cloning Pilsner Urquell. 4-5 of these went well with my $400 meal, which included a pigeon, shark fin soup, deep fried fish heads, a one foot wide New Zeland crab that was alive 30 minutes before we ate it, lots of other stuff that I have no idea what it was, this wonderful almond-cream pastry desert, and the owner of the restaurant coming to our table like every 5 minutes. Going out with Taiwanese vendors is great...
joeycapps (1468) - Waterdown, Ontario, CANADA - JUL 10, 2003
1.6 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 6/20
Pale yellow. White fizzy head. Light malt and some DMS on the nose. Light body. Clean, light malt flavour.
Nuffield (4083) - Roseville, Minnesota, USA - JUN 3, 2003
1.7 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 4/20
Brown bottle in NYC. Off-yellow color, a bit of head. Strong rice aroma but oddly attractive--on a blind tasting I might have confused this with a Belgian dark ale (aromas that shouldn't be in an American standard but aren't bad). But in the flavor the same elements come out wrong--a strong cardboard flavor with notes of dust and plastic. Passable body.
pondoshuffles (141) - Fitzroy Harbour, Ontario, CANADA - MAY 30, 2003
1.3 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
So, this is a beer? There is little beer flavour to commend it. Still, what flavour it does have is not objectionable. Maybe they could spend what they saved on the can graphics to add some flavour!
BeerPrince (1701) - Vancouver, British Columbia, CANADA - FEB 10, 2003
1.5 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
Grainy flavour. Bitter aftertaste, with a light taste. Not a bad beer, better than I expected.
orangelazarus (53) - USA - JAN 25, 2003
2.8 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 7/20
The flavor of the grains comes through. It's pleasant. Slightly bitter aftertaste.
Crit (3840) - Surrey, British Columbia, CANADA - JAN 13, 2003
2.5 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 11/20
Gold with white head. Stale beery nose. Clean light malt flavor.
CapFlu (5101) - Victoria, British Columbia, CANADA - DEC 16, 2002
2.3 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
From a can. Slight and light fruit flavour. Not bad other than the gross "floaties" that came from the can. I hope they get that water filter working again!
Cartoonkhaki (1254) - Brantford, Ontario, CANADA - NOV 30, 2002
1.6 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
UPDATED: FEB 18, 2003 It seems like all the effort went into naming it.
Turbotommy (32) - Westlake Village, California, USA - NOV 14, 2002
2.3 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 11/20
Very fruity, thin, but suprisingly good for a government managed brewery!