BrewEd (182), Wilmington, North Carolina, USA
| 1.9 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 2/5 | 3/10 | 2/5 | 7/20 | Jan 25, 2005 The aromawas really the high point with hints of malt and a hoppy presence. Taste was definitely downhill from the aroma - a bland, sweet, watered-down, malt liquor flavor. I can’t say this was a really bad beer - it just lacked any real distinction or quality. Osgood (6), Utica, New York, USA does not count | 4 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 5/5 | 8/10 | 4/5 | 18/20 | Nov 24, 2004 I enjoy this beer quite a bit. My partiality to this beer could be because that i’m a Utican myself or it could be the delectable taste for such a low price. mongkut4 (132), Florida, USA
| 0.9 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 2/10 | 1/5 | 2/10 | 1/5 | 3/20 | Aug 8, 2004 One of the worst beers I’ve had the misfortune to pour down my throat. I’m not sure what they were trying to create but if it was swill, they succeeded. Maximus55 (40), California, USA
| 3.1 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 3/5 | 5/10 | 3/5 | 15/20 | Aug 3, 2004 Oh come on people this stuff aint that bad now hehehehe, You shold at least give it a try and if you don’t like it then you at least tried it. It’s cheap itll get you drunk, have fun. shadey (1501), Rochester, New York, USA
| 0.5 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 1/10 | 1/5 | 1/10 | 1/5 | 1/20 | Jun 24, 2004 pee pee in a can. If you had ever been to Utica, you would understand. It needs to be cheap and it needs to keep you drunk. The taste takes a very distant third. VTHopHead (936), Barre, Vermont, USA
| 1.5 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 3/10 | 2/5 | 4/10 | 1/5 | 5/20 | May 30, 2004 Earlier comments mentioned its similarity to a malt liquor and I agree. A valid attempt at a balance with a dry, slightly bitter finish. Timbowl2 (10), USA
| 0.5 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 1/10 | 1/5 | 1/10 | 1/5 | 1/20 | Nov 10, 2003 At first tasta, i had concieved this beer to be a malt liqour. It had a flavour that was much to sweet for my liking, and the aroma followed suit. it did have a very nice appearance, however. Vac (2394), San Diego, California, USA
| 2.6 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 4/10 | 2/5 | 6/10 | 4/5 | 10/20 | Oct 20, 2003 This beer pours with a golden body topped by a thin white head with some lacing. The aroma is slightly sweet and rather well balanced between malt and hops. A slight tomato aroma is detected. The flavor is slightly sweet and malty with a touch of grassy hops and a touch of tomato like character. Light bodied and smooth yet slightly dry.
|