Subsidiaries
3.6/10
—
Appearance 4
Aroma 3
Flavor 4
Texture 4
Overall 3.5
Standard macro brew with a huge water aftertaste. Not my favorite to start with but it seems that this one if the regular Blue diluted with water. Try this from a can in a christmas party and let's just say that next year I'll make sure to bring my own brew.
Tried
from Can
on 26 Dec 2003
at 20:10
4/10
—
Appearance 4
Aroma 3
Flavor 5
Texture 4
Overall 4
Standard macro brew with no real head retention or any aftertaste. Aroma is almost non-existent. Body is really light to ensure you can drink a lot of this crap brew.
Tried
from Can
on 22 Dec 2003
at 11:19
1.4/10
—
Appearance 2
Aroma 1
Flavor 2
Texture 2
Overall 0.5
Rating #666:
Clear pale light golden colour with a very thin white head. Almost no aroma but a slight metal and stale malt scent is present. Light-bodied; Almost no taste as well, but a faint sweetness and metallic twang are noticed before it turns to water. Aftertate, WHAT Aftertaste? Overall, good to drink if you are stupid, have no class, are poor, like water, don't have a brain or if you don't like beer! I was following Daniwerks' lead rating a piece of trash for #666, and while being up at college in Rochester, New York and seeing people drink this...I have to rate it at least once before I leave. I found this by the side of the road and sampled it on 2-October-2003.
Clear pale light golden colour with a very thin white head. Almost no aroma but a slight metal and stale malt scent is present. Light-bodied; Almost no taste as well, but a faint sweetness and metallic twang are noticed before it turns to water. Aftertate, WHAT Aftertaste? Overall, good to drink if you are stupid, have no class, are poor, like water, don't have a brain or if you don't like beer! I was following Daniwerks' lead rating a piece of trash for #666, and while being up at college in Rochester, New York and seeing people drink this...I have to rate it at least once before I leave. I found this by the side of the road and sampled it on 2-October-2003.
Tried
on 03 Oct 2003
at 23:42
2/10
—
Appearance 2
Aroma 2
Flavor 2
Texture 2
Overall 2
Typical blond lager. Slight acidic note, hints of corn & grain. Thin body. Little, if any, malt & hop. I know they do this in the US, too, and it really pains me to see all of North America’s traditional regional beers turning into the same bland swill.
Tried
on 03 Sep 2003
at 11:41
2.4/10
—
Appearance 4
Aroma 3
Flavor 2
Texture 2
Overall 1.5
Draft. If I were a Canadian eager to prove my country is not "the 51st State," I'd be ashamed to see the maple leaf on this product. It's just all the worst aspects of the standard American "beer." Pale, pale colour--but that is what the style calls for, so a few points there. Plenty of adjunct to assure as little actual flavour as possible. Unless the malt and hops are so well balanced they cancel each other out, like matter and antimatter... nah. The description says "fruity character;" since when are corn and rice fruit? Re-rated I am forced to revise my rating upward a few notches upward, because while this beer smells bland and has no taste, I found another that smelled and tasted awful, due to a bad bottle.
Tried
from Draft
on 04 Aug 2003
at 06:24
5.6/10
—
Appearance 8
Aroma 4
Flavor 5
Texture 6
Overall 6.5
This version is less watery then the can version but not as good as the one on tap. It is mentionned to drink from bottle but I still suggest using a regular stout glass.Usual bitter aftertaste but not much coffee taste as with other great stout. This is legend but I think that other brewery are now doing better stout.
Tried
from Can
on 14 Jun 2003
at 18:51
7/10
—
Appearance 8
Aroma 7
Flavor 7
Texture 6
Overall 7
Old rating for the Irish version is gone...? But luckily I just sampled the Canadian stuff for the first time - or well, maybe thats not so lucky, because this is clearly not the same beer, nor is it even in the same league as that beer. Looks much the same though: deep dark mahogany with full fluffy tan haed. Aroma lightly roasty, with a light roast flavor and dry finish. No particular character. Some astringency and plastic apparent unless fully up to drinking temperature. So avoid the current recommendations from Guinness that it should be chilled for at least 3 hours - of course, even without the off-flavors, a beer of this style should not be drunk that cold.
Earlier Rating: 4/26/2000 Total Score: 4.5
Actually, I like the bottled extra stout better than the canned draught. It doesn't look as good in the glass, but its strength and roasted malt flavors are more present. I know I'm in the minority in my Guinness preference.
Earlier Rating: 4/26/2000 Total Score: 4.5
Actually, I like the bottled extra stout better than the canned draught. It doesn't look as good in the glass, but its strength and roasted malt flavors are more present. I know I'm in the minority in my Guinness preference.
Tried
from Can
on 21 Apr 2003
at 09:11
3/10
—
Appearance 2
Aroma 3
Flavor 3
Texture 4
Overall 3
Yellow and more alcohol than many others of the style. Has the dependable beer taste. Light on the palate. Drink it very cold.
Tried
on 25 Mar 2003
at 16:58
4.9/10
—
Appearance 6
Aroma 5
Flavor 4
Texture 6
Overall 4.5
This is a good cheap-beer standard. If you're itching for a festive beverage, yet don't want to spend the money for a craftbrew, you can do much worse than a case of Labatt Blue. It serves its purpose (intoxication) while remaining pleasantly swillable. A good college beer, in other words.
Tried
from Can
on 06 Feb 2003
at 18:36
1.6/10
—
Appearance 2
Aroma 2
Flavor 1
Texture 2
Overall 1.5
Had a can of this and a can of Michelob Light at a Bluejackets game. Back and forth I went between the two, back and forth, Labatt and Michelob, Michelob and Labatt. There literally was no difference. Both had next to no aroma or flavor. Both sucked sour frog ass. Taste tests between two crappy beers are not fun. At least they were free.
Tried
from Can
on 16 Jan 2003
at 06:37