Saturday, February 1, 2014

Budweiser (2014 re-review)

   AROMA 5/10   APPEARANCE 3/5   TASTE 4/10   PALATE 4/5   OVERALL 11/20
Chad9976 (1053) - Albany, New York, USA - FEB 1, 2014
I poured a 25oz can into a shaker glass. It was canned on 28 December 2013 and cost $1.64 ($0.07 per ounce).

Appearance: Pretty shade of white gold, crystal clear with fine carbonation visible. Initially pours to a large, bright white, soapy head which mostly fizzles away and leaves little lacing on the glass.

Smell: Practically odorless. Only faint hint of malt and some acetaldehyde.

Taste: There’s no beer that epitomizes the American adjunct macro lager more than Budweiser. The self-proclaimed "King of Beers" is merely the king of sales. Of course, popularity does not necessarily equal quality and this beer is proof of that. Frankly, it seems more bland than repulsive to me, but then again it’s extreme lack of genuine quality is what’s repulsive.

Drank cold the palette is virtually neutral tasting. A hint of pale malt character plus some starch character from the rice adjunct. If it warms to anything beyond fridge temp it begins to emit a distinct tanginess. Slightly metallic in nature as well as mealy green apple (a surefire indicator of acetaldehyde). For the most part, it’s ignorable, but that doesn’t change the fact there just isn’t anything in the genuine palette to enjoy. I’m offended by its inoffensiveness.

Drinkability: If there’s anything a beer like Budweiser ought to be good for, it’s drinkability. And indeed this beer excels in that area. The mouthfeel is thin with a consistent crispness that crackles across the tongue as it goes down. Sometime the carbonation gets stuck in the throat, but it’s always quaffable. It finishes mostly clean with just a slightly starchy aftertaste. For 5% ABV it definitely should have a lot more flavor than it does. It’s hard to believe the "light" version of this is even more popular. 
Grade: 3/10

NOTE: Read and watch my 2009 original review here: 

No comments:

Post a Comment