Sunday, April 7, 2013

Narragansett Lager

2.9
   AROMA 5/10   APPEARANCE 4/5   TASTE 5/10   PALATE 3/5   OVERALL 12/20
Chad9976 (847) - Albany, New York, USA - APR 7, 2013
I poured a 16oz can into a lager glass. There was no obvious freshness date on it, though a code of 2982 leads me to believe it’s a Julian date of October 24, 2012 which would make it over four months old. It cost $1.69 ($0.11 per ounce).

Appearance: Typical pale lager body that’s crystal clear, dark gold, and plenty bubbly. Forms an average size, white, foamy head which actually laces and retains well.

Smell: Strong corn odor, some metal. Reminds me of a bag of empty beer bottles.

Taste: Let’s not kid ourselves, Narragansett Lager doesn’t do a damn thing any of the countless other adjunct pale lagers don’t already do. Some are cleaner tasting than others, some are straight up foul. This approaches being one of the cleaner, sweeter brews, but is still noticeably flawed, so it’s on par with PBR or Budweiser.

This beer is likely brewed with a lot more corn than most of the style. It’s the same flavor as the water in canned corn. Though mild and bland throughout the first half of the palette, it quickly imparts a taste of tin and cardboard at the pinnacle of the swig. There’s next to no bitterness (which isn’t surprising considering it’s only 12 IBUs), and perhaps a touch of sweetness. I’ve tasted that flavor in superior pale lagers, and if that taste was as strong as those and less overtly dirty and oily, this could be at least decent. But as it stands, Narragansett Lager is just a generic fizzy yellow beer and not even a particularly good one at that.

Drinkability: The mouthfeel is thin, crisp, and wet but I don’t think it could honestly be considered refreshing. I’m actually surprised Narragansett Lager is 5% ABV since it feels like something lighter and more sessionable. Not that I think any true beer drinker will want to drink more than one serving at a time. 
Grade: 4/10