1. Extreme Beer Fest. March 20 & 21, 2015 in Boston, Mass. Join us!
  2. The wait is over! Download the BeerAdvocate app on iTunes or Google Play now.
  3. Get 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine for only $9.99!

1855 Celebration Lager - Miller Brewing Co.

Not Rated.
1855 Celebration Lager1855 Celebration Lager

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
69
poor

85 Ratings
THE BROS
75
okay

(view ratings)
Ratings: 85
Reviews: 76
rAvg: 2.85
pDev: 20%
Wants: 0
Gots: 0 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Miller Brewing Co. visit their website
Wisconsin, United States

Style | ABV
American Adjunct Lager |  4.85% ABV

Availability: Limited (brewed once)

Notes/Commercial Description:
This beer is retired; no longer brewed.

No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: hero27 on 11-01-2005)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 85 | Reviews: 76 | Display Reviews Only:
Reviews by Shultzerdugen:
Photo of Shultzerdugen
2.78/5  rDev -2.5%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

12 oz. brown bottle.

Clear light straw in color, topped with a small cap of white froth that goes down quickly. Very effervescent, with constant bubbling.

The nose is subdued, the deepest pulls of air resulted in a light metallic smell and some sweetness.

Somewhere between light and medium bodied with ample carbonation. Sweet malts, almost cloying, come out first. Hops are discernable in nature in the finish- just a touch of grass and bitterness- but underpowered. The sweetness gets old.

I don't think Miller has much to be celebrating about with this beer. I prefer the taste and cost of High Life to this one.

Shultzerdugen, Dec 16, 2005
More User Reviews:
Photo of Dmann
2.53/5  rDev -11.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Well, I thought I'd take a chance on this one and it proved to me once again why I don't buy this stuff. The pour was a little darker than a high life with a bit of a white head that surfaced then went away quickly. The smell was not appealing and smelt like wet grass and mustyness. The taste was smoothe but with no real flavor to speak of..the hops bit in the beginning but then all flavor faded away quickly to a finnish that was way too clean. I do not recommend this one and will not be buying it again.

Dmann, Jan 21, 2006
Photo of twi1609372
3.1/5  rDev +8.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Just a regular average run of the mill beer. Nothing special here, nothing bad. Medium body, moderate flavor, actually suprising for miller.color and smell are both about average as far as beers go but better than most macro brews. This however appears to be an attempt of micro brew, it fails in that reguard, but as a beer it's all right.

twi1609372, Dec 01, 2005
Photo of Jason
3.23/5  rDev +13.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

12 oz short brown twist off bottle with no freshness date.

A- Thin bubbly white lace, perfect clarity from a pale golden hued brew.

S- Grainy hay-like aroma ... dusty husk smell.

T&M- Ample crispness, smooth back-end in a light to moderate body. Lots of pale grain flavor ... a tad plain. Minimal hop character, bitterness hits a sharp note middle to end. Finishes dry with more grain.

D- I could only drinking one and having to switch to something else. Half decent, not better than High Life or similar. I highly doubt their beer tasted like this back in 1855. Regardless it is worth a try.

Jason, Dec 04, 2005
Photo of Billolick
2.38/5  rDev -16.5%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

12 ounce bottle, twist off cap, no freshness indication. 150 years of brewing and the best they could do is come up with this "celebration lager" what a sad and limp joke. This is super light, clear, tasteless etc etc, you get the idea. Stay away, save your money, life is way to short to drink any more then one bottle of this p*&%.

Billolick, Nov 22, 2005
Photo of magictrokini
2.95/5  rDev +3.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

During my years at U of A, my fraternity had a deal with a Miller distributor where we could buy 100 cases of Miller for $500. While it was far superior to Keystone and Natty Light, even we knew then that this beer was goat piss.

That being said, this beer is not horrible. Yellow, fizzy pour with a big bubbly white head. Corny aroma, but with floral hops and a pleasantly sweet waft. Same odd sweetness in the taste, almost like Frosted Flakes. Clean, light, with no metal or awful sweaty tang. I can honestly say that I do not hate this beer, but that does not mean I recommend it.

magictrokini, Jan 05, 2009
Photo of rhoadsrage
2.1/5  rDev -26.3%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

(Served in an American pint glass)

A- This beer pours a light pale straw yellow body with a pure white fizzy head and a strong carbonation of big bubbles. The head quickly fades into a thin ring of foam around the rim.

S- This beer has a light slightly sweet corn and pale malt note with a faint hint of hops.

T- This beer has a very smooth soft taste of corn and pale malt with a carbonic acid finish and a faint note of hop bitterness.

M- This beer has a watery taste with a big carbonic acid kick.

D- I'm not American Macro Lager fan had I got sucked into the marketing. I was hoping for a pre-prohibition beer but this is a very light flavorless washed out beer in a new package.

rhoadsrage, Dec 19, 2005
Photo of SetarconeX
3.18/5  rDev +11.6%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

A couple shades below your average macro-lager, which is always a plus in my book, but that plus is negated by the odd, syrupy way the bubbles cling to the surface. Smells a bit wretched, sweet with a hint of skunk.

Tastes pretty light. Too light, if you ask me. Not really anything to this. Malts, barely there, and the hops seem to be MIA. What's 1855 about this? It seems pretty modern to me....

SetarconeX, Dec 06, 2005
Photo of brewQ
2.95/5  rDev +3.5%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3.5

155 Years Celebrated by this?
As a 13 year employee of Miller I find this underwhelming.

Fresh through 021306

The brown bottle shocked me, given the Purity You Can See taglines they often used. The package looks good though, may have set up my expectations.

Basic pale yellow with bleach white head.
I tried to find some aroma. Maybe a slight mustiness- though that could have been my memory trying to bring back the smells of the Milwaukee Brewery.

Taste - they apparently decided that they want to offend no one, excite no one and reward no one. I will swear they can make tastier beer- even an old Miller Reserve recipe or some Lowenbrau Dark would have been interesting. This is so close to High Life today I can find no excitement. Are they afraid of not sellling hundreds of thousands of barrels on this limited brew? No malt, no hops, its a fizz.

Finish fits the flavor- no lip smacking point of difference here.

YES, it is drinakble. If that is the key to Frederick J. Miller's legacy, they have attained greatness.

I thought the SAB people had more cajones.

brewQ, Nov 20, 2005
Photo of cokes
1.63/5  rDev -42.8%
look: 4 | smell: 1 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

Lustreless gold stacked with a quick rise of stark white; one that only gradually falls and laces in thick sheets. In the glass at least, it appears as something more special that an typical macro offering.
The nose obliterates any notion of that sort. It's all vulcanized rubber and stale tortillas. After it sits for a few moments, there is no smell at all.
Tastewise, it's similarly vapid. A vague graininess is immediatedly bogged by wet tortilla and corn paste. Even by macro standards, this is obnoxiously corny. Traces of vegetal DMS towards the close. Though after the corn clears, there's hardly anything left. There was never anything to begin with.
Hewn somewhere between Lite and MGD. This is straight-up lower rung macro stuff here (think Natty or Blatz). And pathetically enough, It's a far cry from their flagships. What a shitty anniversary present. I bet Fred would be pissed.

cokes, Nov 07, 2005
Photo of NeroFiddled
3.5/5  rDev +22.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

Although I enjoyed the 1855, I can't say it really excited me. Although maybe that's because I found the name to be slightly misleading, it's just not too much more than a slightly more malty version of Miller's other beers.

It looked good, smelled good, and had a much better maltiness to it than most American macro lagers. I like it better than Budweiser. It's more rounded. Overall, however, it's still lacking in character - particularly regarding hops. It is balanced though, and makes an interesting change.

NeroFiddled, Apr 15, 2006
Photo of Rootdog316
2.73/5  rDev -4.2%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Miller 1855 Celebration Lager pours to a pale golden color with a light fizzy head formation and a soft biscuit malt nose. The palate is smooth, mainly light biscuit malt flavors and not much more. There isn’t much adjunct flavor, though, which is a good thing, until I pick up a tad, just a tad mind you, in the finish. The finished is balanced, not much hops but it isn’t sweet either.

Rootdog316, Jan 17, 2006
Photo of matdot
3.13/5  rDev +9.8%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 4

Poured from a bottle into a pint glass. Got about a half inch, white head.

Smell is typical of macro adjuncts malt. First initial taste was corn, than a sugary aftertaste.

I could see myself drinking this on hot summer days sitting by the pool grilling. I was able to put down a 6 pack without feeling like a bowling ball was stuck in my stomach.

Overall a decent change from Highlife or MGD. Not a noticeable difference as to spend more on it than the cheaper stuff. I bought a case (24) for $15 on special. Otherwise, I would have passed this up. Worth a try.

matdot, Jan 10, 2006
Photo of bditty187
3.28/5  rDev +15.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Clear, pale yellow in hue with the slightest kiss of amber as well; the liquid is typical of the style. Sadly typical is sickly. White head, the bubbles united long enough to form one finger’s worth of head. Head retention was poor; it quickly faded away to a thin, soapy cap. This surprised me greatly as High Life has great head retention, maybe Miller didn’t add anything to help the head stick around. There wasn’t any subsequent lacing aside from a few random patches. I’ve seen better (and much worse) looking beers of this sort.

The nose is, once more, typical of the style. Again, the aromas are a bit thin when compared to High Life. Clearly 1855 and HL are not the same beer (never though it was but some people…). Sharp, husky, and grainy with some green apple notes and kisses of bread; clearly this is not all-malt. I do get a morsel of hops in the background. Clean, as a lager should be. Overall, the bouquet is respectable, for what it is.

The palate is much cleaner then I expected. For the style, I like clean… with flavor though! While nothing is groundbreaking on the tongue there is taste. Crackers upfront, dried bread in the middle with some sharp green apple notes, kisses of hop bitterness, and some sweet caramel breadiness at the finish. The palate isn’t chatty but what it said wasn’t offensive. I don’t mind the short finish and minimal aftertaste. Often the sweet residue of many adjunct lagers curbs my consumption; this one is clean and refreshing… simple… okay it is boring but inoffensive. Not bad, I guess.

Medium-light in body, moderate carbonation, the mouthfeel is soothing and relaxing; it fits this beer well enough.

Easy to drink but I’m not sure I’ll get the chance to quaff another. Sure, I can find them all over Omaha (and damn cheaply) but I don’t really see any reason to do so. While this is not a bad beer it does lack a lot of positive flavors. On the other hand, nothing about it is offensive. I say that is a fair trade. Not too bad for what it is. I purchased one 12-ounce bottle in Omaha for $1.50. Maybe the most refreshing beer I have had from Miller.

bditty187, Jan 20, 2006
Photo of bonbini26
2.5/5  rDev -12.3%

bonbini26, Jan 11, 2012
Photo of scaliasux
1.2/5  rDev -57.9%
look: 2 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1

Appearance - Very light gold. Crystal clear. Soapy white head that quickly fades. Leaves no lacing. Bubbly. Kinda cool faux -classic label on the beer. Even with the kinda cool label, worse than average for category.

Smell - Faint. Soapy more than anything else. Hard to find any beer scents.

Taste - Sharp corn grist or malt flavor. Little to no hops, unbalanced. Rather offensive tasting . Not only one of the worst flavored beers I've ever had, but doesn't meet category standards either.

Mouthfeel - Quite watery, almost flat. Not crisp.

Drinkability - With Michelob Ultra and Milwaukee's Beast on the list of extremely bad tasting macros. Avoid like the plague.

scaliasux, Mar 11, 2006
Photo of matjack85
3/5  rDev +5.3%

matjack85, Jan 26, 2013
Photo of wcudwight
1.93/5  rDev -32.3%
look: 1.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 1 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

Pours a clear golden color. Looks like a gold seltzer water. Thin head....what? I thought there was a head there. This beer has the biggest carbonation bubbles I've seen. The large carbonation bubbles are the only thing that saves it from being rated a 1 in appearance because they are at least interesting. The smell is not bad, nor good. There really is not much there. Maybe a hint of fruit. I think I do actually get some hops in the nose. The taste is harsh. One time I was trout fishing with some canned corn and got so hungary that I ate some of it. This beer taste like that. Canned corn that's been baked in the sun for a day. It's also a bit buttery at the back end. The good thing is it does not leave an aftertaste so the corn taste doesn't last long. Too carbonated in the mouth. Other than that it just makes the mouth feel wet. I figure you could drink a ton of these and not feel it.
If this was the recipe Miller used in 1855, then they kept the same bad recipe for 150 yrs. Not only that...Bud and Coors copied it. It taste like any other BMC beer to me. The most positive thing is this beer reminds me of Minor League Baseball and that's a good thing.

wcudwight, Jan 22, 2006
Photo of VoodooBrew
2.7/5  rDev -5.3%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Pours a pale gold with a rapidly vanishing head. On the nose I get adjunct and not much else. Light malt and faint hops flit across the palate, finishing briefly bitter and bone dry. Not surprisingly, this beer is thin, watery, and spritzy. This is better than Miller Lite but that ain't saying much.

Celebration Lager is more marketing than anything else. See Anheuser World Lager and Budweiser Select for similarly bland beers that fall well short of their over-inflated self-promotion.

VoodooBrew, Mar 02, 2006
Photo of plaid75
3/5  rDev +5.3%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Poured a nice straw colored hue with a thin foamy head. There was little retention and lacing.

The smell was non-descript, except for hints of grain and wood.

The taste was balanced. A nice malty sweetness and rather dry finish.

The mouthfeel was on the thin side, with a bitter tingling at the back of the throat.

An average, drinkable American premium lager. Not a bad experience. Certainly the best Miller product on the market.

plaid75, Apr 26, 2006
Photo of Pegasus
3.03/5  rDev +6.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Appearance: Medium golden in color, quite clear, with a large white head, which fades to a thin layer fairly quickly. The carbonation is moderate, the lacing is poor.

Aroma: Consists mainly of cooked corn with a mild noble hop presence. In all, the aroma seems insubstantial.

Taste: Opens with a lightly tart malt note; noble hops soon appear, these dominate the taste to the close, where a mild, lingering metallic bitterness appears. The finish is slightly dry.

Mouth feel: Smooth, reasonably full, with a slightly aggressive carbonation sting.

Drinkability/notes: In all, much like Miller High Life, with slightly more hop presence. Quite drinkable, not unpleasant, but in the end, fairly unremarkable. Congratulations to Miller Brewing on the occasion of their one hundred-fiftieth anniversary.

Presentation: Packaged in a short twelve ounce brown glass bottle with a twist off crown with a label is in the style of the nineteenth century. Served in a standard pint tap glass.

Pegasus, Nov 10, 2005
Photo of stumac
3.25/5  rDev +14%

stumac, Apr 17, 2014
Photo of TheManiacalOne
2.63/5  rDev -7.7%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Poured from a 12oz. bottle into a US tumbler pint glass.

A: The beer is a very pale yellow color with a thin white head that fades quickly and leaves a thick lace on the glass.

S: The aroma is of barley, grain, corn, malt and a very faint touch of hops.

T: This one has the typical Miller macro flavor of sweet malt, corn and barley that dominates. There’s a very minor hops flavor and this one seems to taste a bit breadier than most other Miller products.

M: Smooth with barley and crispness, light body, high carbonation, clean finish.

D: Considering the style it’s kind of tasty, goes down easily, not very filling, although it’s better than most other macros, it’s still a macro. Since this one isn’t available on-tap anywhere that I know of, any liquor store that would carry this beer would have several other beers that I would choose first. Even if I were to go with a macro, I would go with a cheaper one since the taste isn’t all that different.

TheManiacalOne, Jan 21, 2007
Photo of LarryV
3.38/5  rDev +18.6%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Poured a clear, golden yellow color with little head. A thin, wispy layer of foam however remains on the surface and provides a minimal lacing during consumption. Aroma is clean and crisp with a slight twinge of corn/grain, no skunkiness present. Lots of fine bubbles from the active carbonation. Taste is crisp and clean as you would expect from this style. It doesn't taste significantly different than MGD or any of it's relatives. I enjoyed it with a pizza and the two went well together. Not something I would buy routinely, but for the style, seems to be well done.

LarryV, Dec 30, 2005
Photo of Reidrover
2.8/5  rDev -1.8%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

I actually like the presentationofthis, like theold style label. Slightly darker golden than Miller High Life but with the same pure white small bubbly head. Again the aroma is slightly stronger and seems to ontain some maltiness..but its mostly very grassy. The taste is rather plain, but seems to have a bit of body, and a slight taste of real malts, some small hop bittering in the aftertaste. \Nice mouthfeel actually quite "thick" for a macro. This is drinkable enough, mainlly because the carbonation is subdued compared to other Miller products..but really for a 150th anniversary beer I expected more.

Reidrover, Jan 24, 2006
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
1855 Celebration Lager from Miller Brewing Co.
69 out of 100 based on 85 ratings.