alimcb (23) - ENGLAND - JUL 11, 2003
2.5 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20
Basically, Tennent's Lager is as good (if not better) than any of the other cheap lagers in the UK. People drinking Carling or Fosters in pubs across England don't know what they're missing. On the other hand, it's a chemically brewed lager and fundamentally it has nothing to recommend it.
jercraigs (9722) - Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - JUL 11, 2003
2.4 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
Oct 2000 - noticed an odd spicey flavour that wasn't expected, possible the hops? Would not buy again.
clvand0 (350) - Lexington, Kentucky, USA - JUL 10, 2003
1.9 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 7/20
This beer pours a darker yellow (slightly amber) color with a nice bit of carbonation, but a small head and no lacing on the glass. The aroma has hints of maltyness and just a tiny bit of skunkiness to it. The flavor reminds me of really cheap domestic beer such as Coors or something like Rolling Rock. Kinda skunky taste. Not a fan of this one.
krisfleet (130) - Sharon, Pennsylvania, USA - JUL 6, 2003
0.9 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 3/20
Not nearly as good as the tennents scotch ale. This reminds me too much of a cheap domestic american standard. Flavor is skunky, and aftertaste resembles watery bud light. Not only was I unimpressed, I was disgusted at this speciman.
deprogram (115) - Renton, Washington, USA - JUN 25, 2003
3 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
12 oz. bottle Pungent, acrid hop aroma, feel is smooth and forgiving (as a lager should be), taste is nice and sweet, almost lemony. A quite acceptable lager, and a nice change of pace from all the strong stuff I seem to be drinking these days...
Rockinout (966) - Kent, Ohio, USA - JUN 25, 2003
1.7 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
Decent lookng golden color but it stops there. Very "ordinary lager" tasting and some kind of finish I can't read in my notes. I hate that!
SubstanceT (1092) - Saint Louis, Missouri, USA - JUN 15, 2003
2.3 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20
Mild nose and kind of a bland, light or watery wheatish flavor. Kind of dilute. Leaves a lot to be desired.
BeerLimey (2154) - California, USA - JUN 5, 2003
2.1 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 7/20
Looks OK in the glass, bright golden color, well carbonated and decent head formation. Noticeably sweet on the nose and tastes very sweet too. Cardboard lieke dryness in the finish spoils and sours a little but remains sweet and even sugarry in the aftertaste. Pretty much run of the mill lager and easy to get a hold of,
Nate (4170) - Indiana, Pennsylvania, USA - MAY 12, 2003
2.1 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 7/20
Light sweet malts and rubbery hops aroma. Dark clear yellow with white thin head, no lacing. Medium high carb and medium watery body. Bit of alcohol taste and adjuncts. Little rubbery. Tasted like a poor standard lager, actually more like a malt liquor. Wouldn't have again.
mrkimchee (1414) - Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - MAY 11, 2003
1.3 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
it seems every country has to have a blands lager pretending to be good beer. scotland is no exception. I'll take a single malt before this cardboard juice anyday.