 eraserhd10 (226), new haven, Connecticut, USA
Dec 2, 2003
Why bother? Another one of those beers that I'll only drink if I "have to." I guess the fact that there's so few calories should account for something, but it certainly doesn't excuse the stagnet, tinny tasteless taste. Very watery and not even a lot of alcohol so by the time you drink enough to feel good about it, you might as well have had one or two better quality, more filling, higher ABV beers!
WakeandBake (148), Greenville, Michigan, USA
Nov 2, 2008 Bottle.Poured a pale gold with a moderate head,lots of carbonation. A grainy,corn aroma with a faint wiff of hops. Some flavor,little malt,little hops,with a crisp finish,thin body,kind of watery. Not bad for a light beer,but kind of steep in price, Drinkable
killjoy966 (108), USA
Oct 31, 2008 Probably looks like a pale yellow, but I couldn’t tell because I left it in the bottle. Smells like nothing, tastes like fizzy water. This is not beer, this is a travesty.
OldMrCrow (1057), Seattle, Washington, USA
Oct 30, 2008 Bottle.
<br /><br />
Why is it that the friggin Ritz-Carlton can’t come up with anything closer to beer than Amstel Light?
<br /><br />
Lightest, wateriest, tasteless-est crap I’ve had in a while. Nothing...nasty about it. It’s just barely even there.
SkyCop32 (139), Morlautern, Germany
Oct 29, 2008 The pours a lite gold with a little white head and no aroma to speak of. This has very little taste and this is why there aren’t many calories.
AgentSteve (919), SF Bay Area, California, USA
Oct 29, 2008 IMO, this isn’t all that bad of a beer. Especially for the caloric intake factor. Drinkable and a bit bitter, but definitely drinkable.
|
