zborgerd (185), Mchenry, Illinois, USA
| 2.9 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 4/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 11/20 | Apr 3, 2002 Average Lager. I wasn’t too partial to it. It tasted like a high-quality Budweiser to me. It’s drinkable, but for that price I can buy a decent 6 of some import. grymy (105), Bel Air, Maryland, USA
| 4.3 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 7/10 | 5/5 | 9/10 | 4/5 | 18/20 | Apr 3, 2002 great lager that doesnt fill you up that quickly, slightly dry but not in a bad way. damn good beer spydog (74), Tempe, USA
| 2.1 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 4/10 | 3/5 | 4/10 | 2/5 | 8/20 | Apr 1, 2002 Poor version of a Munich lager. This beer left a wickedly bad aftertaste. michaelm18 (118), Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| 2.5 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 2/5 | 5/10 | 3/5 | 10/20 | Mar 30, 2002 A little fruity and semi-refreshing. Like what other people have already said, a better version of Bud. dprior (118), Somerville, Massachusetts, USA
| 2.6 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 4/10 | 2/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 11/20 | Mar 15, 2002 Well, it’s like a crsiper, darker, more flavorful, less watery Bud. Seriously. If they put a buck more into a bud, they’d have this. Average. ToadMan (554), Washington, Washington DC, USA
| 2 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 4/10 | 2/5 | 4/10 | 2/5 | 8/20 | Mar 15, 2002 A litte beter than Bud, but not all that much. I realy dont like lagers. so maybe im not the best judge. StevieMSU (64), Kentucky, USA
| 3.9 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 7/10 | 5/5 | 8/10 | 4/5 | 15/20 | Mar 12, 2002 damn good jsquire (2113), St. Marys, Ohio, USA
| 3.2 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 4/10 | 4/5 | 7/10 | 3/5 | 14/20 | Mar 10, 2002 Nice appearance with a clean, white head out of the bottle but with an odd whiff in the nose for a lager. Clean enough taste and palate but not what I expect from a better lager. Easy drinking with food.
|