3.6

Appearance - 3 | Aroma - 4 | Flavor - 4 | Texture - 3 | Overall - 3.5

From a 2$ can. Pour is very light pale with a foamy whit head that fades rapidly. Nose is an off lager, perhaps you can say its lime but its really not pleasing to the olfactory. First bid big swig is odd lime peel, a little more bitter than I was expecting. As I drink more its getting less and less likable. Yea, the lime peel is almost coming across like I'm drinking lime peel perfume, and that's not in a good way. Uncanny and unnatural flavors emerge in the middle. Quite disappointing for an MG brew and even more so as a fruit lager. In the end I'm thinking somebody experimentally brewed this and they tried it and said, it's bullshit, big deal, serve it up anyway. We can't take a hit on this much brew poured down the drain. Come on MG, you guys can do better than this Whew. Perfume effect takes hold on the finish.

6.6

Appearance - 6 | Aroma - 6 | Flavor - 7 | Texture - 7 | Overall - 7

Can pour, amber color. Coppery aroma. Malty with notes of whole grain bread, hint of molasses. Notes of rum cake at the end.

4.3

Appearance - 5 | Aroma - 6 | Flavor - 3.5 | Texture - 3 | Overall - 3.5

2$ can from chalet. Pour is haze on light orange pale. Nose is perhaps some orange on top of an otherwise mild hop perfume. Yes, first taste starts with a tartness then morphs into a weird orange hinted IPA. The bitterness is unexpectedly sharp and distracting. Not really an IPA bitterness but maybe the bitterness you'd get from unripe orange peels. Other than caring for the attitude or flavor of this brew. I'm a little disappointed because I was hoping for something more like the description. Odd milky feel approaches in the middle. Not sure if I would call this balanced, its more of an unbalanced concoction unrelated clashing components. In the end, its not causing a gag reflex but its getting close. For an IPA, and I detest IPA, its not bad; more like a flavored APA if you ask me.

5.3

Appearance - 3 | Aroma - 6 | Flavor - 6 | Texture - 3 | Overall - 6

Pounder can for $3. Pour is clear very light pale. Nose is oddly attractive pale lager. First taste is slightly spiced pale macro lager. Not sure about the jasmine, if its there, its laid back where you can barely detect it. Can't really find anything negative about this brew except that its quite flat on the palate. Second glass has some fine carbonation, but could use more. Tho advertised as something quite special, I just find this brew to be another simple pale lager.

5.1

Appearance - 7 | Aroma - 6 | Flavor - 4.5 | Texture - 4 | Overall - 4.5

2$ can. Haven't ticked a weizenbock since 2017! Pour is brown with a slight haze. Clean nose, not much aroma. First taste is spiced sweet, maybe some clove, but its hard to find. A little boozy but the fine carbonation makes it acceptable. Well behaved for a weizbock. Pleasantly surprised. Was thinking it was a spiced holiday cheer beer because of the name but I'm glad its a straight up weizenbock. A tad cloying on the finish.

4.8

Appearance - 9 | Aroma - 6 | Flavor - 3.5 | Texture - 3 | Overall - 3.5

Can. Pour is black with a choco moose head. Boozy chocolate nose. Quite strong on the uptake and the first thing I notice is that its not in yer face with the pastry cloying sweetness. Yes, it is a pastry in flavor but its a little more laid back compared to many other pastry stouts. I really don't care for pastry stouts and this actually comes across more like a sweeter milk stout. Perhaps some warming sensations n the middle. Sweetness does build a bit towards the finish.

1.9

Appearance - 6 | Aroma - 1.5 | Flavor - 1 | Texture - 1 | Overall - 1.5

3$ can. Eye is like iced tea with a big foamy head. Nose is alarmingly heavy dull aged volatile IPA beer hops. No wonder, date is Oct 2023, wooo! Taste is shockingly bitter old mature, not fresh, IPA hops. Texture is mouth coating oily thick frighteningly flat and long in the tooth. Over all one considers the value of such old cans of atrocious heavily bombed and aged IPA sitting in the cellar for a while, hidden among other beers waiting to be ticked. There you have it; an aged perfectly on style IPA.

4.9

Appearance - 4 | Aroma - 6.5 | Flavor - 4 | Texture - 4 | Overall - 5

Can. Pour is nearly clear pale. Little bit of a white foamy head, fading. Nose is crystal clean pilsner. Initial uptake is a noticeably sharp bitter pils bite. Yes, a typical bite known for the domestically made pils but perhaps not as rude. Some carbonation, but could use more. Near the end, seems to go down OK. Just wish it had a few more manners. Even so, seems I liked this much better than the MG progress pilsner.

4

I was getting tired, but the drunk couple sitting next to me at the bar is telling at each other, and now I’m much happier.