thekmoonlegend (93), Lynn, Massachusetts, USA
| 2.4 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 2/10 | 3/5 | 7/10 | 3/5 | 9/20 | Dec 26, 2007 This beer is much better than Bud Light. Although still lacking much taste when compared to similar pale lagers (ex: Rolling Rock), it’s not the worst. And even though I never really care about the calories when I have a brew, at least you can feel kind of good about drinking a beer with only 99 calories. I’d take it on a hot summer day or with food. Angeloregon (2025), Portland, Oregon, USA
| 0.8 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 1/10 | 1/5 | 2/10 | 2/5 | 2/20 | Dec 24, 2007 On tap at some dive bar in Ft. Myers, Florida-Thin, watery, flavorless beer with no hop presence and hardly a malt bill. Refreshing in hot Florida sun. Too bad I was in air conditioned bar. pintsize (1042), Austin, Texas, USA
| 2 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 4/10 | 2/5 | 4/10 | 2/5 | 8/20 | Dec 24, 2007 12-12-07 bottle.
Oooh, this is a bad one. My goodness. it smells, looks, and seems to taste like watery urine. Yikes! I get so much disgusting corn in the flavor it is quite frightening! badbeer (433), Iowa, USA
| 2.2 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 3/10 | 4/5 | 4/10 | 2/5 | 9/20 | Dec 23, 2007 Pours a pale straw color with a decent head that dissipates and leaves a spotty lacing. Smell is of cream corn maybe, yeast, alcohol, it just doesn’t smell the least bit enticing. Taste is better than smell, but that isn’t saying much, very bland flavor, it has a corn flavor, but it’s very watery. Mouthfeel is very light, I would rate it higher but the carbonation is way too high. Honestly it’s pretty easy to drink, it’s not necessarily bad, but it just isn’t that good either. vmilaxer29 (144), Virginia, USA
| 1.6 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 3/10 | 2/5 | 3/10 | 2/5 | 6/20 | Dec 17, 2007 A very watered down beer that goes down smooth and tastes ok. Very pale color with a medium head that dies down quickly. Should be limited to backyard BBQs, tailgates, and house parties. Swalden28 (1514), McKinney, Texas, USA
| 1.8 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 3/10 | 2/5 | 3/10 | 2/5 | 8/20 | Dec 16, 2007 Updated: Jan 14, 2008Well, I believe this is the better beer they have made...Taste has improved, color improved, better use of malts and hops. Not as watery as it’s brother. Nicely carbonated. Head is white and thin, goes away quickly. This is how the original should have tasted. Illini08 (528), Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
| 2.1 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 4/10 | 2/5 | 4/10 | 3/5 | 8/20 | Dec 14, 2007 Couldn’t even begin to count how many times I’ve had this (being in college and all), I just never got around to rating it. Aroma is watery, grainy, not really any better than Bud or Bud Light. Appearance is only slightly darker than most pale lagers out there. Doesn’t taste like much, but its more palatable than anything else they make. lb4lb (2011), Austin, Texas, USA
| 2.6 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 2/5 | 5/10 | 3/5 | 11/20 | Dec 13, 2007 Had at the company Christmas Party as it was the only beer available at the bar that I hadn’t rated. Smell was an average pale lager like malt and yeast. Drank out of the bottle, but assuming it was pale clear yellow like all other pale lagers mostly. Taste was a definite corn like sweet malt, moderate bitterness for the style, and moderate to high carbonation. Very drinkable, especially out of the bottle. and actually I thought it was worthy of much better than the bottom 5% of the lowest style of beer. No bad or off flavors really. Just bland corn, crisp malt.
|