bkelley68 (467), Lakewood, Ohio, USA
| 1.9 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 4/10 | 2/5 | 4/10 | 2/5 | 7/20 | Feb 7, 2005 Straw color with a foamy head. Not much aroma, save for a little sour malt. Slightly bitter flavor accompanies more sour flavor. Simply not very tasty. argo0 (6907), Washington DC, USA
| 2.1 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 3/5 | 3/10 | 3/5 | 7/20 | Feb 1, 2005 (22oz bottle) Crystal clear light amber body topped by medium off-white head. Aroma is medium sweet, bready, caramel, some apricot. Taste is mild sweet, earthy, faint caramel. Light body. I can give them credit for trying something that has not been done much, but after the first time it came out this way I cannot understand why they continue to bottle it. Definitely subpar relative to their other beers. DocLock (4648), Lower Pottsgrove, Pennsylvania, USA
| 2.3 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 3/10 | 3/5 | 5/10 | 3/5 | 9/20 | Jan 14, 2005 Dark straw/copper colored, with aroma of malt, some hopcit and fruit. I didn;t detect any "off" aromas here. The taste was uninspiring, with some caramel malt, hops, and slight fruit presence. Did Fritz want to make a "small beer", or did Maytag have a bad fiscal quarter? ChrisPants (317), Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| 1.6 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 2/10 | 1/5 | 3/10 | 3/5 | 7/20 | Dec 22, 2004 Thin, smelly, clear, unimpressive.
Small beer is not supposed to be good. Considering the history and the process, Anchor’s effort is what it should be: not so horribly bad, but obviously not first-rate. It’s fun to see that some old-timey methods are still being used, but it’s easy to see why some methods have become mere history. JoeM500 (1876), Chicago (little italy), Illinois, USA
| 3 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 7/10 | 2/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 12/20 | Dec 20, 2004 Thin for sure, but not as easy to beat up on as most have done here! Nice limey/orange rind hoppiness and some thin malts that are actually sort of granly but balance well. Interesting style, light and refreshing, probably better suited for a hot day, maybe a good "lawnmower beer", but I’m sitting here watching it snow! beastdog75 (337), Brick, New Jersey, USA
| 2.3 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 7/10 | 3/5 | 3/10 | 2/5 | 8/20 | Dec 1, 2004 A disappointing brew. Nice color and hoppy aroma, but the flavor was way too watery. Hop presence detectable in flavor, along with wet cardboard and almost no malt presence. tiggmtl (4311), Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| 1.5 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 4/10 | 1/5 | 3/10 | 1/5 | 6/20 | Nov 24, 2004 Mildly hoppy, grainy nose. Light copper coloured with thick, large-bubbled white head that diminishes to thin ring. Lifeless looking. Husky flavours and strong bitterness without much supporting malt body. Seems like it’s both oversparged and overhopped. Light, watery body. Astringent. Bottle. Emil (6074), Copenhagen, Denmark
| 1.4 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 4/10 | 2/5 | 2/10 | 2/5 | 4/20 | Nov 10, 2004 Updated: Feb 18, 2005Dark golden color, light hoppy aroma, light smoked fish taste, light body, watery finish.
|