ivan9856 (191) - Arlington, Virginia, USA - MAY 28, 2003
Little aroma, but better than average appearance for a beer in this category; hops are almost wholly missing, and malt side is quite plain; slightly over carbonated but quite drinkable; light to medium body and dry texture and aftertaste. On the plus side, this lager beats the major labels hands down, is fairly priced, and has a storied history. If memory serves, I like the kegged product a bit better. In any format, although this beer won't win any accolades, I'll continue to choose it over similar offerings from A-B, Miller or Coors. Nuffield (4171) - Roseville, Minnesota, USA - JUN 9, 2003
A free bottle at a reception in PA. Blah. Only, it is Pennsylvania blah. Gassy and hollow. At least, not offensive. egajdzis (6588) - Pennsburg, Pennsylvania, USA - JUL 26, 2003
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
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
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
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. Doesn’t 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
Not nearly as good as I expected. Tastes kinda flat, and doesn’t have the "bite" I would have expected. A bit of a dissappointment. jon112981 (327) - Bristow, Virginia, USA - DEC 30, 2004
Not a bad beer at all. It’s too pale in a glass for me but I wouldn’t recomend it in a glass. It’s a great session beer. Little head, bubbly. It has a stronger flavor than your basic macro-brew and excellent for the price. flynnguy (14) - New Jersey, USA - JAN 25, 2005
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 don’t think I’d actually buy this beer. I think it’s a little too orange for a pale lager and it can’t be because of the flavor. It’s drinkable but that’s about all I can say for it. gerbache (8) - Oakland, California, USA - JAN 30, 2005 does not count
Seemed really bland and tasteless. It’s drinkable, but not particularly memorable. I suppose it’s good for quenching the thirst, but I don’t think I’d buy this myself.