Volgon (2763) - Manchester, New Hampshire, USA - SEP 7, 2003
1.7 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 7/20
Light clear orange, small white head. Light stale hops aroma, has some beer taste, but not much. Way ahead of a typical budmillercoors product.
ericnixon (742) - Portland, Oregon, USA - SEP 7, 2003
1.5 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 4/20
Traditional = boring. Nice color. Aroma was 'eh', bordering on maybe kinda sorta starting to turn a little skunky. The flavor was..._empty_. that's the only way i can describe it. Not horrible, but then again there's nothing distinguishing about it whatsoever.
scoobyluv (511) - Asheville, North Carolina, USA - SEP 7, 2003
2.5 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
this beer has a special place in my heart. it was the first "real" beer i had after drinking bud light for many years. i thought it was the shit then now i find it rather bland and unimpressive. there is no taste of hops and it's watery. but it's inoffensive and at the bar where coors is the other choice, i'm going for this.
IPFreely (1470) - Sanborn, New York, USA - SEP 6, 2003
2.7 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
The only reason it's the oldest brewery in the USA is that all of the other old ones closed during prohibition. With that being said, it's a decent lager. Nice light amber color. Average malt flavor, bitter finish. Gets skunky easily, beware the green bottle.
stef92 (128) - Williamstown, New Jersey, USA - SEP 5, 2003
3.7 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 5/5 OVERALL 14/20
Refreshing, smooth, and very drinkable lager. Great beer for the price! Can sometimes be a little skunky if it has been on shelf for a long time. Would benefit from a born on date or drink by date.
r464 (2131) - Earth, Pennsylvania, USA - SEP 3, 2003
2.8 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 10/20
I would choose this over a traditional American beer, but not over much else. Not very interesting, but perhaps I am biased against lagers in general.
Probiere (992) - Pennsylvania, USA - SEP 1, 2003
3.3 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
UPDATED: APR 25, 2004 An appealing amber pour, but the head was too soapy and diminishing. Malt apparent at first sip, but was overpowered by bitterness before the swallow. Why? I don't know. It wasn't a hoppy finish, or a dry finish--just bitter. Somewhat unpleasant but drinkable. Would take it over larger macros.
jek803 (41) - USA - AUG 28, 2003
3.2 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 14/20
Smooth...light...nice lawnmowing and/or session beer. Decently balanced. I not a huge fan of this style, but I found it drinkable.
tsarman (794) - Northern, New Jersey, USA - AUG 24, 2003
3.3 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 15/20
UPDATED: SEP 7, 2004 Another winner (for a lager) by the oldest brewery in the US. Comparable in price to a macrobrew, but even a cursory glance could prove this was higher quality. This is a lager that doesn't look like the urine of macro US "American Standards." Infinitely drinkable for its type, I have to convince my college roomies to make this our keg choice.
DrinkingbuddyD (129) - Warsaw, New York, USA - AUG 18, 2003
2.4 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
One of the better lagers I've had. Nothing too great though. I'm not a big fan of the style. It is alot easier to drink than many of the other macrobrewed beers.