egajdzis (6135) - Pennsburg, Pennsylvania, USA - JUL 26, 2003
2.2 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
UPDATED: SEP 21, 2003 Amber color with decent white head (larger than I was expecting). Malty, diactyl flavor, actually has more flavor than other beers at this price. Going to school in Philly, we lived off this stuff, now its a treat when a friend's got it for free.
RaginCajun (320) - Houston, Texas, USA - AUG 3, 2003
2.2 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
Okay stuff, only moderately better than macroswill. Very metallic (from the can?) and light; not much taste. Gets a little sweet after 3 or 4 12oz. though, but without that nasty macro aftertaste.
wildchefbill (245) - Sarasota, Florida, USA - OCT 19, 2003
2.2 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 9/20
Pours amber with a nice white head. Mild aroma with a little skunkiness. OK Malt flavor with very little hops. Better than most macrobrews, but not real good.
SledgeJr (3577) - Omaha, Nebraska, USA - JUN 29, 2004
2.2 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 9/20
In the 22 oz. bomber bottle. The bottle caught my eye, so I thought "what the hell." To my disappointment, it was a twist cap and could not be put into homebrew service. However, that was not the only let down to this little Pennsylvania favorite. Pours a rich amber color, but virtually without carbonation! No head unless you hop into the glass and splash around a little with your swim fins. Smells like water. Doesnít taste much different than aqua vitae either. After having a Frankenheim lager earlier this evening, I must say that this lacks the same lager yeast flavor. However, the two lagers are equally wet. I think that I must be missing something here, as the ratebeerians seem to respect the Pride of Pottsville.
BrooklynWallis (14) - Cols., Ohio, USA - AUG 4, 2004
2.2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
Not nearly as good as I expected. Tastes kinda flat, and doesnít have the "bite" I would have expected. A bit of a dissappointment.
flynnguy (14) - New Jersey, USA - JAN 25, 2005
2.2 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
Bland and overcarbonated. Going to school at Drexel University, this was a "quality" beer at the parties. I would certainly choose it over most of the stuff that they usually served but I donít think Iíd actually buy this beer. I think itís a little too orange for a pale lager and it canít be because of the flavor. Itís drinkable but thatís about all I can say for it.
gerbache (8) - Oakland, California, USA - JAN 30, 2005 does not count
2.2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
Seemed really bland and tasteless. Itís drinkable, but not particularly memorable. I suppose itís good for quenching the thirst, but I donít think Iíd buy this myself.
cazort (559) - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA - JUL 30, 2005
2.2 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 12/20
This one is a lot softer than the "regular Yuengling" a.k.a. "Premium Beer". Extremely soft, mild taste. Very grainy flavour. Hint of hops, but very little bitterness, no bite. Extremely smooth, almost sweet. I would not say watery, nor bland, but this one is way too smooth for me.
EithCubes (5633) - New Jersey, USA - DEC 11, 2005
2.2 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
UPDATED: MAR 15, 2008 Finally, to the scientific re-rate: Oh, the memories! Green bottle. Very little aroma, perhaps a little dust on top of old barely-there hops. Deep golden body with a quickly-fizzed white head. Taste is vaguely malty, sweetish cereal grains and a near fruity bg. Light body and an indistinct aftertaste. This tends to be a little sweeter than most pale lagers, and thereís a bit more caramel in the back. Smooth enough feel with some oblique crispness. Iíve had considerably mixed experiences with this staple beer; in peak form, itís clear better than BMC and even edges up toward the top of its bland category as a refreshing campfire/BBQ drink, but there have been far too many light-struck and otherwise skunked bottles and kegs to validate awarding any praise. A shame, Pottsville region, you nearly had something to pride yourselves in.
molassesfan (202) - Raleigh, North Carolina, USA - MAY 27, 2006
2.2 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
From my notes, August í04. Amber color with a thin white head. Slightly bitter taste. A bit dry and defined. Aroma of malts. Watery palate. Better than macro junk, but no match for their porter.