Subsidiaries
2.9/10
—
Appearance 2
Aroma 2
Flavor 3
Texture 4
Overall 3.5
According to MJ this is an ale? I assume along the lines of Cream Ale...? Anyway: pale straw color, large fizzy head. Very weak aroma, hint of zesty clean malt. Light bland flavor. Clean. Creamy mouthfeel with a little spritz. Lingering honey-like sweetness, but still very light. Clearly bland and empty, but to tell the truth, the best bland beer I"ve had.
Tried
on 07 Jan 2003
at 13:32
3.9/10
—
Appearance 4
Aroma 5
Flavor 3
Texture 4
Overall 3.5
So I found these are in brown bottles now and decided to re-rate. Boy was I surprised to find an actual hop nose in this, a little grassy and spicy maybe even a hint of citrus. Not much to the flavor though, but like other Molson, a very clean overall profile, except for just a hint of sulfur in this one. Old rating: Skunk! Silly Molson people. Otherwise a boring if not overly bland pale lager. True gold color, fading head. Actual malt presence. Mercaptans ruin it though. Ugh.
Tried
from Bottle
on 04 Jan 2003
at 23:56
1.4/10
—
Appearance 4
Aroma 1
Flavor 1
Texture 2
Overall 0.5
If they used any barley in this rotting mildew corn raunch ass-juice, I’d be surprised. The worst of the budget beers for its intense flavour of bile and vomit stew. A beer that tastes like water tastes pretty good after this putrifaction.
Re-rate...some folks who like beer actually like this shit. Dear god, why. The rich golden colour isn’t all that bad, hence the upgrade on the appearance score, but the aroma of stank feet, vomit, grains and fusels is just as horrible as it was last time around. The flavour is ultra nasty, the kind of nasty usually reserved for malt liquors, Downtown Eastside alleys and used-up whores in Strathcona. I’m talking high alcohols, rotting vegetables and adjuncts...are dead mice fermentable? Seriously, I wasn’t joking when I said this was the worst of the budget beers. Even by Molson’s shockingly low standards, this is vile.
Re-rate...some folks who like beer actually like this shit. Dear god, why. The rich golden colour isn’t all that bad, hence the upgrade on the appearance score, but the aroma of stank feet, vomit, grains and fusels is just as horrible as it was last time around. The flavour is ultra nasty, the kind of nasty usually reserved for malt liquors, Downtown Eastside alleys and used-up whores in Strathcona. I’m talking high alcohols, rotting vegetables and adjuncts...are dead mice fermentable? Seriously, I wasn’t joking when I said this was the worst of the budget beers. Even by Molson’s shockingly low standards, this is vile.
Tried
on 03 Jan 2003
at 00:38
4.2/10
—
Appearance 4
Aroma 3
Flavor 5
Texture 4
Overall 5
Rerate 12/30/02: Upon further tasting, I realize I had this one rated a little too high. 12/30/01 (2.6): I used to like this beer in college, but it seems to be skunky more often than not. Not worth the risk, even though it is a smooth clean beer on it's good days.
Tried
on 30 Dec 2002
at 08:26
6.4/10
—
Appearance 6
Aroma 6
Flavor 7
Texture 6
Overall 6.5
Bottled(330ml). -tipical canadian macrobrewery beer but very good...........
Tried
from Bottle
on 21 Dec 2002
at 06:38
3.8/10
—
Appearance 4
Aroma 3
Flavor 4
Texture 4
Overall 4
Bottled. Deep golden. Light apple aroma. Sweet and clean. medium bodied with low bitterness. Unremarkable...
Tried
from Bottle
on 16 Dec 2002
at 00:41
2.2/10
—
Appearance 4
Aroma 2
Flavor 2
Texture 2
Overall 2
Just another wasted effort..................................................
Tried
on 12 Dec 2002
at 10:10
3.2/10
—
Appearance 6
Aroma 3
Flavor 3
Texture 2
Overall 3
Just another losing entry in the race. Watery...............................
Tried
on 12 Dec 2002
at 08:21
3.9/10
—
Appearance 6
Aroma 3
Flavor 4
Texture 4
Overall 3.5
A decent looking beer that is the best from this brewery....................
Tried
on 11 Dec 2002
at 10:38
3/10
—
Appearance 6
Aroma 3
Flavor 2
Texture 4
Overall 2
aroma - none. golden. flat watery taste. thinbodied. boring.............
Tried
on 10 Dec 2002
at 11:23