Subsidiaries
5.4/10
—
Appearance 4
Aroma 8
Flavor 5
Texture 4
Overall 4.5
I absolutely love the smell of a bottle right after it has been opened. My experience with this beer was like doing heroin, id imagine, havent ever done heroin. The first one i ever had (bottle) was GREAT. crisp, clean, well hopped. finished clean. loved it. then i bought more, and. . .it went down hill. had some on tap. . .it sucked. i want that first moosehead experience back!!!!
Tried
from Bottle
on 10 Jul 2002
at 07:21
4.4/10
—
Appearance 4
Aroma 3
Flavor 5
Texture 6
Overall 4.5
Short-lived flavour with hints of apples. But a beer with a moose on the label is always cool!
Tried
on 20 Jun 2002
at 08:01
2.4/10
—
Appearance 2
Aroma 2
Flavor 3
Texture 2
Overall 2.5
Golden coloured. Always badly skunky, thin and very industrisl..............
Tried
on 09 Apr 2002
at 03:47
2/10
—
Appearance 2
Aroma 2
Flavor 2
Texture 2
Overall 2
Moosehead Dry Ice This isn't rocket science, folks....................
Tried
on 06 Apr 2002
at 23:30
5/10
—
Appearance 6
Aroma 4
Flavor 5
Texture 6
Overall 5
Slightly sweet apple notes (or maybe it was the green bottle-ugh), but bottom line nothing struck me about this beer that would make me want to try it again. Luckily I didn't get a skunky bottle.
Tried
from Bottle
on 17 Feb 2002
at 23:20
3.8/10
—
Appearance 4
Aroma 4
Flavor 3
Texture 4
Overall 4
Grandpa's choice, this is. I remember in university this was prime stuff. Not because it was any better than Clancy's, but because I had to go to Nova Scotia to get it, and getting the hell out of Sackville was always a special occasion my first two years.
Tried
on 22 Jun 2001
at 21:59
3.6/10
—
Appearance 4
Aroma 3
Flavor 3
Texture 4
Overall 4.5
I bought a 4 pack of the pint cans, with the intent to re-rate. And of course to just drink, cuz it was cheap, and its beer, and its hot, and why not. Actually I was afraid my original rating, which I knew was old, might have been some from memory rating that I put in in the early days of ratebeer, but no, its a real rating preserved below. i was also afraid I might have under-rated it, but i think I possibly over-rated it funny enough. Anyway, so what do we think of it now? I think I'm done trashing pale lagers and giving them sub 1.0 ratings for starters. This is a beer that is good enough drinking straight from the can on a hot day. If you want to pour this in a glass and try and analyze and experience, its not going to reward you. This is one that reminds me of 70s beer: an unclean graininess (corn?) mixed in with a very light palate otherwise. That graininess is one that could be unpleasant, esp if not ice cold. Its an element that is somewhat acrid, lightly bitter. Otherwise this dranks purty good. Original rating was 4/3/5/2/10 for a 2.4, text: Fairly sweet, with more flavor than you might expect. Still, light bodied and lacking in many respects. Could use more hop character.
Tried
from Can
on 02 Apr 2001
at 20:31
2.2/10
—
Appearance 4
Aroma 2
Flavor 2
Texture 2
Overall 2
............................................................................
Tried
on 13 Feb 2001
at 11:34
1.9/10
—
Appearance 2
Aroma 2
Flavor 2
Texture 2
Overall 1.5
John Bud, you're welcome to your opinion, that's what the site is for. But you might want to get the facts straight first. IPA was first made in 1822 by the Allsopp Brewery in Burton-on-Trent, England. And Moose Red still isn't a pale ale - if I'm wrong then at least I've got plenty of good company - like all of England, the US and 90% of Canada. I can live with that.
Tried
from Can
on 12 Feb 2001
at 20:23
3.8/10
—
Appearance 4
Aroma 3
Flavor 4
Texture 4
Overall 4
Typical macrobrew amber ale.................................................
Tried
on 18 Dec 2000
at 15:15