DerBiermeister (586) - Birmingham, Alabama, USA - MAY 6, 2004
1.8 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 7/20
I find it wet-towel-smackingly ironic that ’premium’ so often translate’s to the layman’s terms as ’inferior’. This case is in my opinion no exception. What I mean is that Yuengling Light is a better tasting, better palated beer than Yuengling Light Premium; what’s up with that?
shadey (2076) - Nashville, Tennessee, USA - MAY 5, 2004
2.5 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 12/20
Not nearly as good as the original but for an american lager from a large scale brewery I give then all kinds of credit for not tasting like a coors or bud.
Jayb0 (1156) - Cherry Hill, New Jersey, USA - MAY 3, 2004
2.3 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 9/20
As light beers go you could do much worse. Typically pale yellow coller. Some malt in the nose, also a faint vinegar. Suprisingly creamy body with some malt and hop presence. A decent clean finish. I think I’d take this over any other light beer I’ve had.
DocLock (9857) - Lower Pottsgrove, Pennsylvania, USA - APR 13, 2004
2.3 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
Pours pale yellow. Some aroma of malt. Tastes slightly malty with some hops. Crisp and pretty smooth at the finish.
Prostman (1077) - Pennsylvania, USA - MAR 7, 2004
1.4 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
This is not Yuengling's best work at all, but it still managed to be somewhat refreshing. The light lager is better than the premium.
KarmanGhia (276) - Tallahassee, Florida, USA - FEB 25, 2004
1.7 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 6/20
UPDATED: MAR 16, 2005 This is a light beer with some flavor. Now, really, I can honestly say that I didn’t expect much, but this is better than what I expected. The appearance is no different from any other light beer and the head is weak and sewer looking, but the lacing looks okay. The smell isn’t High Life bad, but it isn’t great. There’s some flavor! A little malty (just a little) with that crisp carbonated light beer taste, with a nice trailing, slightly sweet and very natural and dry finish. The "Light Lager" is quite a bit better.
RichJ7 (1175) - Cullman, Alabama, USA - FEB 11, 2004
2.1 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20
Poured a pale gold color with an almost nonexistent head. Light, thin aroma with a hint of hops. Taste is typical of a light beer ... better than most macros, but still a light beer and thin in taste.
rabuc (143) - carlisle, Pennsylvania, USA - JAN 15, 2004
1.8 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 6/20
sampled from bottle and looked like typical macro-brew. when i tasted this beer it had a cheap manufactured flavor. not an impressive beer.
zach8270 (4022) - Henrietta, New York, USA - DEC 30, 2003
2.2 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 9/20
UPDATED: DEC 12, 2008 [bottle] Pale gold color reminiscent of nearly every other light beer I have tried. Not much of an aroma and a very watery taste. Good carbonation and a slightly sweet taste. I will stick with the lager though.
Frank (3970) - Chicago, Illinois, USA - DEC 26, 2003
2.2 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 9/20
Headless, pale golden. Nose is slightly sweet with a hint of toffee. A bit of diacetyl unpleasantness. Light to medium bodied with brisk carbonation. More flavorful than many light beers but still not very good.