jstu9 (402) - Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA - DEC 2, 2001
2.1 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20
I rated this a 1.2 on 4/7. This is a pretty common beer ’round these parts. This is not a great beer but it’s better than a 1.2 which I would put as Budweiser territory. This is just a below average beer. It has much more flavor than something like Bud or Rolling Rock but pales in comparison to something that is actually good.
chach11599 (2) - USA - AUG 20, 2001 does not count
2.1 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 5/20
Gregory (357) - Pullman, Washington, USA - APR 21, 2002
2.1 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
eh, I thought it was pretty bland, and watery, very unimpressed, there has got to be better beers.
wilkie (1208) - Raleigh, North Carolina, USA - DEC 8, 2002
2.1 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
Has a nice malty aroma but that is where it
ends for me. The taste is ruined by rice malt
and some kind of nasty chemical taste. No hopw
to mention. Better than the Black and tan
though. Reminds me of that phony Killians
LiebeBier (808) - Annapolis, Maryland, USA - MAR 29, 2003
2.1 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
Better than Bud and Miller products, but worse than most other options. I had it on Draught because Bud and Miller were my only other "cheap" options. Good beer for certain situations.
sorrowsinger (3) - North Carolina, USA - MAR 14, 2005 does not count
2.1 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
Light amber in color. Starts off with a nice thick head, but quickly disipates. Little hop aroma, but more than most American Pale Lagers. Weak mouthfeel. Malty taste, little hops. I can almost taste corn in the aftertaste. When compared to other American Pale Lagers, Yuengling is pretty good, but it’s nothing special when placed in the vast spectrum of beers.
Hoss (607) - Florida, USA - NOV 15, 2001
2 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20
Like the history but the beer is anything but historic
fly (1441) - austin, Tejas, Texas, USA - JUN 4, 2003
2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 7/20
More of a Chesterfield man myself. After a long day in a suit I was anxious for liquid relief. Okay, I admit I was drinking at the reception, but there was a visit with a great aunt after it. Too sweet for my taste. Just like I remembered it - watery, sweet, of tasting, just in the realm of palatable, but not by far. So glad to be done with it, out the door and off to better fare.
tidiaguy (168) - Hawley, Pennsylvania, USA - OCT 24, 2003
2 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
If you are from Pa this is the party beer. Everyone will drink it and enjoy it. It's not bad but, far from great. One of the best macro's for sure. I hate the green bottles, had 1 to many skunked. Had quite a few that were flat too.
pkbites (738) - Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA - JAN 5, 2004
2 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 1/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
Had this last week for the first time. Deep golden color. Wonderful nose, a really nice aroma. Pours a thick, rich, creamy head.
A truely beautiful beer.
Then you taste it!
Little flavor. Drinks like a light beer. Only slight hoppyness. Almost no after-taste. Watery. If this beer tasted as good as it looked it'd be the greatest American beer ever. It's not.