WesBeerGuy (62), Rocky Hill, Connecticut, USA
| 2.6 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 4/10 | 3/5 | 6/10 | 3/5 | 10/20 | Jun 1, 2005 Huh. Can’t really smell anything at all, except a faint generic beer flavor. Looks like beer, tastes like beer. Pretty decent for a generic lager, I suppose. I guess I could drink a lot of it without complaining, because it’s good, but it is not THAT good, especially not for $3.99. Ok, but I won’t buy it again. Worst Sam Smith out there. SDalkoholic (1196), Chula Vista, California, USA
| 1.9 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 2/5 | 4/10 | 2/5 | 6/20 | May 26, 2005 Grassy nose that isnt to pleasant unless you like pale lagers. That undeniable aroma of corn and cheap malt crossed between a grass or rice smell. A clear gold that looks like piss and has a fizzy head. The flavor is unbearable and i would say is the worst beer from Samuel Smith. It’s like drinking a mexican beer. No qualities worth mentioning and definitely not worth the 3 bucks i paid. I got jipped. gearbike (418), West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
| 3.4 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 3/5 | 6/10 | 4/5 | 15/20 | May 22, 2005 Very drinkable but nothing of special note. Light amber apperance can taste the hops claimed on the lable nothing good or bad after that. Just had to try an organic brew. BeerBlockaid (548), Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| 2.4 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 3/10 | 3/5 | 4/10 | 3/5 | 11/20 | May 16, 2005 Friend of mine split this with me. Very clean yet mild oil-like carry. The head was huge and white. A hoppy appearance and taste, yet not in your face. Very grainy.....offsetting. One of the better lagers I guess I’ve had but, what am I to rave about? How tired it made me afterwards? thegreenrooster (1841), St.louis, Missouri, USA
| 2.8 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 4/5 | 5/10 | 3/5 | 11/20 | May 12, 2005 Pour is yellow with a huge white head. Aroma is grainy and malty. Flavor is typical lager with a bit more hops like it says on the bottle. If it wasn’t for the metallic aftertaste this would prob be an above par lager. Pigfoot (2226), Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| 3.5 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 4/5 | 7/10 | 4/5 | 15/20 | May 11, 2005 Clear, pale amber, big, fat white froth atop...nice looking lager.
Aroma is soft and faultless...nice, again...grainy, maybe, but that’s it...has some character, at least, which is more than many lagers can claim. Solid.
Taste: swift and sure. Definite malty, crisp, caramely, light and tangy, but very mellow, subdued, and well–controlled...this is easy-drinking defined, with the flavor the very perfection of a lager. Wow! I’m very impressed by this one!
Very clean, with cereal certain in the flavor, but, dude, you can drink this happily and proudly.
I’m not normally a lager-lover, but find myself favoring this one highly... if it’s your style, grab on to this one, fast and sure...share with your friends and spread the organic goodness around!
A beautiful beer.
DocLock (4648), Lower Pottsgrove, Pennsylvania, USA
| 3.3 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 6/10 | 3/5 | 7/10 | 3/5 | 14/20 | May 3, 2005 Pours dark straw with minimal head. Aroma of malt and some hops and florals. Tastes of malt, hops, some fruity florals. Medium palate. Not bad, but not great either. dm9831 (1167), Monee, Illinois, USA
| 3.1 | Aroma | Appearance | Flavor | Palate | Overall | | 5/10 | 3/5 | 7/10 | 3/5 | 13/20 | May 1, 2005 pale, pale amber color with no head. the aroma may have been too subtle for me, but i got nothing from it. nothing special in the kinda bready flavor. not bad. but not great.
|