TravelByBob (15) - Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA - MAR 12, 2004
5 AROMA 10/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 10/10 PALATE 5/5 OVERALL 20/20
Delicious, smooth tasting Mexican lager. One of my all-time favorite beers. The head lasts a little longer than your typical American lager and is not as filling as some.
Kinz (3786) - Glen Allen, Virginia, USA - MAR 10, 2004
1.2 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 4/20
A typical American Standard. Pale yellow, head died completely. Slight corn aroma. Thin body, some corn flavors, just a hint of something citric going on. I've had worse.
Beaver (1764) - Fort Collins, Colorado, USA - MAR 9, 2004
1.4 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
The Dos Equis poured a very light, clear yellow with a fizzy head that was very quickly completely gone. It has a skunky, yet slightly floral nose. It's very thin and watery. There is very little flavor, just a sweetish starch and some slight skunkiness. Overall, it's a little better than some macros, but not by much.
Braudog (6582) - Yorktown, Virginia, USA - MAR 9, 2004
1.8 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 7/20
Clear golden yellow with virtually no head. Extremely starchy character, corny and sweet. A lime would help hide the bad aspects of this.
TBone (17085) - Pori, FINLAND - FEB 29, 2004
2.2 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
Can (sampled: Merida, Mexico 19.2.04)
Yellow with foamy white head. Aroma tight herbal. Soft palate. Watery. Another basic lager/American Standard.
BigBastard (668) - L.A., California, USA - FEB 12, 2004
0.5 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 1/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 1/20
Skunky, pale, watery, corny, yucky. Those pretty much sum this one up. But I must write more, so if you have to drink a Dos Equis, make it the amber.
bitter (1136) - Henderson, Nevada, USA - FEB 10, 2004
2.5 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
bottled: not much to note here, usually drank with some mexican food. your average non tasting lager. try the amber its much better.
GiddyBoy (121) - USA - FEB 4, 2004
1.9 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
How do you describe river water? This stuff hardly has any taste, and I ask myself why I should pay for it, when the tap (water that is) gives me more robust flavor for free?
hershiser2 (2807) - Charlottesville, Virginia, USA - FEB 2, 2004
2.5 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
Appearance: decent amber with a thin-bubbled head.
Smell: decent, but has hints of cheapness.
Taste: (going in the mouth) decent, (pulling the beer away from the lips) bland, (swallowing) decent. I guess that means average.
Mouthfeel: a little lower than average. Actually the mouthfeel is what I disliked most about this beer. Where it's not bad, it left something, I don't know exactly what, to be desired for.
It's a drinkable beer, but not something I'd really want to ask for in a bar.
caesar (6974) - Bunnik/Utrecht, NETHERLANDS - FEB 2, 2004
2.2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20
Weak aroma, bit malty. Clear golden coloured with a white not-lasting head. Taste is bitter, bit hoppy and malty. Watery and fresh palate.