1. Don't miss our 7th annual American Craft Beer Fest featuring 640+ beers from 140+ brewers this May 30 & 31 in Boston, MA! Buy your tickets now!
  2. BeerAdvocate on your phone?! True story. Try the beta now.

Schlitz Gusto (Classic 1960's Formula) - JOS. Schlitz Brewing Co. (Pabst)

Schlitz Gusto (Classic 1960's Formula)Schlitz Gusto (Classic 1960's Formula)

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
81
good

378 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 378
Reviews: 235
rAvg: 3.58
pDev: 16.2%


Brewed by:
JOS. Schlitz Brewing Co. (Pabst) visit their website
Illinois, United States

Style | ABV
American Adjunct Lager |  4.70% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
Brewed under contract for Pabst by Miller Brewing Co.

"Classic 1960's Formula" Schlitz Gusto reintroduced in 2008. 12 oz. bottles, 16 oz. "tallboy" cans, and draft.

Original Schlitz in 12 oz. cans and draft:
 http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/106/263 

(Beer added by: Pauly2X on 08-13-2008)
View: Beers (6) |  Events
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Latest | High | Low | Top Reviewers
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 378 | Reviews: 235 | Show All Ratings:
Photo of robertdrinks
robertdrinks


1.5/5  rDev -58.1%
look: 1.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

This was not good. I think i received a real can from the 60's.
It had a slight cloudy yellow appearance to which should be clear golden. no head to speak of.

smelled of basement

taste was bad and sour. no skunk, just flat and awful.

i would like to try this again because i think i received a bad can. i will update my review if i find it better in the future.

Serving type: can

09-14-2012 15:55:02 | More by robertdrinks
Photo of 44ouncer
44ouncer

California

1.78/5  rDev -50.3%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

Was pleasantly surprised by the previous Schlitz formula -- and was so looking forward to trying the new recipe.

Complete disappointment.

The old stuff would go for around $4.99 a 12 box. The new stuff was priced at $9.99 a 12 box -- and I was dumb enough to pay for it because I had been waiting for it for years.

The appearance is your run of the mill cheap belly wash lager. Maybe tinted a shade darker.

Smelled like soap with grain undertones.

Taste was bitter. And not in a good way. The previous formula was crisp and clean with a bite from the hops -- this is just foul from the word go.

Just a terrible product. Pabst's new owners are doing a great job of ruining the company which began to catch as a fluke.

Serving type: can

01-03-2012 07:17:57 | More by 44ouncer
Photo of jeremyd365
jeremyd365

Michigan

2/5  rDev -44.1%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Pours a light golden with a slight white head. Smells like a macro--overpowering sour with a little maltiness. The mouthfeel is thin but average for a macro. The flavor is... ah yes, like college. Reminds me of PBR. It's sour, but at least it's cold. I wasn't going to say it was horrible, but.. it's horrible. I got it for the novelty, and that's about all it's good for. Maybe I'll buy a sixer for my dad or grandpa--they'd probably get a kick out of it.

Serving type: bottle

08-23-2009 18:10:09 | More by jeremyd365
Photo of Fatehunter
Fatehunter

Oregon

2.08/5  rDev -41.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

Poured into a pint glass. Very light straw color with a short white head that quickly gave way.

Smells lightly of honey and malt. Very faint smell though.

Slight malt, a bit of bitterness. There is an unpleasant flavor in there too but I cannot place it.

Lots of bubbles, kind of annoying. Light body.

I initially bought it for the novelty and to see what the 1960s tasted like. They can keep it. While it does not taste bad, it just does not taste like anything, plus the high carbonation makes it difficult to be a session beer.

Serving type: can

04-23-2011 21:18:20 | More by Fatehunter
Photo of TheManiacalOne
TheManiacalOne

Rhode Island

2.08/5  rDev -41.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

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

A: The beer is a light gold color, with a thin white head that fades very quickly and leaves a thin lace on the glass.

S: The aroma is faint but contains light malts, adjuncts and a faint touch of hops.

T: The taste starts out with some breadiness from the adjuncts and light malts followed by a little bit of malt sweetness. The hops presence is very mild, but about where it should be for the style. The after-taste is slightly bready.

M: Crisp and a little smooth, light body, medium carbonation, finish is clean.

O: Not very flavorful, goes down ok, likewise not too filling, mild kick, decent representation of style, there are other beers in the style that I would pick first.

Serving type: bottle

10-30-2011 19:01:20 | More by TheManiacalOne
Photo of ROOFDOG
ROOFDOG

Illinois

2.1/5  rDev -41.3%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

This has been my daily beer for some time now and on occasion the batches have varied a bit in flavor. No problem. Now with the the latest repackaging I noticed a distinct flavor and feel.
Crap!!! They changed the beer!? Or did a poor job of quality control!? I will wait for the next
batch and try again, hopefully I do not need to switch and Pabst brewing gets it right. This may
not be greatest beer in the world but I dig it and I think the Schlitz brand can't take another hit
like it did years ago!

Serving type: bottle

08-08-2013 17:19:37 | More by ROOFDOG
Photo of Cyberkedi
Cyberkedi

Georgia

2.28/5  rDev -36.3%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Had this at the PAMdemonium Mensa gathering. Aroma is weak but one does get a hint of malt. It pours a typical clear yellow with an unremarkable white head. Flavor, though, is better than I expected - strong, malty and just a little fruity. Body leaves something to be desired, but not the fizz. Overall, not bad for an industrial lager.

Serving type: bottle

05-25-2012 01:12:16 | More by Cyberkedi
Photo of HopsSchnapps
HopsSchnapps

Texas

2.3/5  rDev -35.8%
look: 1.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Received a 12 oz. brown bottle in a trade with nerdrocker101 so I'll give it a fair shake. pours a crystal clear light golden with a very small head that fizzled away instantly like a Sprite.

The aroma really doesn't offer much but there isn't anything offensive in it. Some grains and corn.

The taste has light grains but a whole lot of corn. This has a big corn taste and really is like corn water. But again there is nothing offensive in the taste just a boring beer. Instead of cussing the "S" word I now have a saying- "Ah Schlitz"

Serving type: bottle

05-18-2011 19:20:11 | More by HopsSchnapps
Photo of JuicesFlowing
JuicesFlowing

Kansas

2.3/5  rDev -35.8%
look: 2.75 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.25 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.25

Poured into a shaker pint glass.

The beer is a clear light golden color. A fizzy white head sits on top until it recedes to a light wisp. Little or no lacing.

The aroma is dominated by a metallic smell. It covers up any grains or malts that may be present.

The taste is even more metallic, with some sourness coming through. Otherwise I can't detect a lot of taste.

Mouthfeel is very light but a little harsh due to carbonation.

Overall, not very good to me. Too sour and metallic.

Serving type: can

09-29-2013 16:03:07 | More by JuicesFlowing
Photo of tgbljb
tgbljb

Pennsylvania

2.63/5  rDev -26.5%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Saw some hype about a return to to the classic formula. I was not impressed. Seems to be the same old macro lager taste that is acceptable when very cold, but nothing great. Good for a hot summer day.Acceptable as a spacer, but not much else. Very dissapointing.

Serving type: can

11-15-2011 22:14:48 | More by tgbljb
Photo of Knapp85
Knapp85

Pennsylvania

2.73/5  rDev -23.7%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

This beer poured out as a clear looking yellow color. Not much to really say here. It had a small white head on top for a little while but faded quickly. The smell of the beer was of corn and other grains. The taste of the beer was light, clean and simple. No levels of complexity at all. The mouthfeel of the beer was drinkable, I drank it rather quickly just to finish it. Overall I bought a bottle with the only intention of saying I had it. I wasn't expecting anything from it or even expecting to like it. It's a beer, That wraps it up pretty well I think.

Serving type: bottle

03-12-2012 04:23:50 | More by Knapp85
Photo of kojevergas
kojevergas

Texas

2.75/5  rDev -23.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

16 fl oz aluminum can served into an Odell 90 Shilling pilsner glass in me friend's gaff in Fort Collins, Colorado. Reviewed live. Expectations are below average. I have nothing against the style, but I've yet to have a truly remarkable beer within it.

Served straight from the fridge. Side-poured gently as overcarbonation is expected.

A: Pours a two finger white colour head of slight cream, okay thickness, and decent retention - though its ABV is rather modest. No lacing. Body colour is a pale bland yellow. Transparent and translucent. No yeast particles are visible. No bubble show. Looking at the bubbles, it doesn't appear as direly over-carbonated as something like Budweiser or Coors.

Sm: Plain barley. Some clean malts. Adjunct presence is obvious - corn I'd guess. Not as stale as many other beers in the style. Not metallic. Surprisingly fresh for a canned beer of purportedly low quality. An average strength aroma.

T: Fresh clean barley, limited clean pale malts, hints of buried corn or rice adjunct, and thin depleted grains. Well balanced for what it is. Not as abrasive or stale as many other adjunct lagers I've had. I'd stop short of refreshing, but it does scratch the auld beer itch. No alcohol comes through. Certainly simple, but I'd hazard to say it's well-executed for an adjunct lager. Lacks the straw body of many poor beers in the style. When I strain to find them, I do pick up some very hidden light floral hops - a notable feature when compared to other adjunct lagers.

Mf: Smooth and wet. A bit creamy. Well carbonated - certainly a bit overdone, but not to the extent of many other adjunct lagers. It's a bit sharp, but that's to be expected I suppose. Palate presence could be better. It's even slightly buttery in the body.

Dr: Drinkable and affordable. A pretty decently executed example of the style. I'd sooner reach for Simpler Times on a budget, but this is drinkable enough and would be a good neutral beer to pair with food or barbecue. I'd stop short of sessionable given the carbonation, but I think some reviewers may be coming down a bit too hard on it merely because of the style it's in.

High C-

Serving type: can

12-31-2012 21:46:31 | More by kojevergas
Photo of richkrull
richkrull

Wisconsin

2.78/5  rDev -22.3%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A - Pale straw color. Good amount of head but it was gone pretty quickly.

S - Smelled like grain. Not a bad smell.

T - Malty, bitter finish.

M - OK except for the aftertaste.

D - Not terrible but I'm just not a big fan of this beer. For the rating it gets, I thought it would be better.

Serving type: bottle

01-19-2011 02:21:20 | More by richkrull
Photo of iSip
iSip

Colorado

2.78/5  rDev -22.3%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Schlitz: I usually drink wheat beers during the summer, but thought I would work through the classic mass produced US beers as a change of pace. The Schlitz has a darker golden color, light carbonation, and a decent head. The aroma is very mild. The malt flavor is up front, and finishes with some bitter. The only drawback to this beer is an abrasive aftertaste, which takes it off of my list. PBR still holds the lead. Stay tuned.

Serving type: can

07-05-2012 13:58:38 | More by iSip
Photo of JonB1958
JonB1958

Illinois

2.8/5  rDev -21.8%
look: 4 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Bought a six pack of this for nostalgia purposes.

The first thing I noticed was the horrible smell; the only word I could use to describe is "sour." Smelled like the taverns my dad frequented back in the 60's. The taste didn't suggest that it was a bad bottle, though, so although I can't believe it's supposed to smell like that, maybe...

The color is a deep yellow, very nice and dark. Lots of carbonation and a healthy white, thick head that hung around a while. Good lacing for this style.

The carbonation adds some nice mouthfeel, and the taste is about what you'd expect for a good American macro. If this was the only thing around, I'd not object.

Serving type: bottle

12-06-2008 23:01:59 | More by JonB1958
Photo of OlRasputin989
OlRasputin989

Arkansas

2.83/5  rDev -20.9%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

12 oz enjoyed from the Samuel Adams Boston Lager glass

A: a yellow-gold brew with a fluffly white head. A thin layer hangs around (could just be the glass, though).

S: dusty corn feed, hay, and earthy hops. reminds me of an old barn.

T: again, dusty corn, rice, and a "KISS!" of earthy hops. finishes with dusty, cornmeal and rice.

M: has a light-medium body with a lively entry. Almost feels grainy. has a dry finish.

Overall, This was an enjoyable beer for the mostpart, though the review could lead you to think otherwise. It does have more of a "bite" to it compared to other beers of this style (miller high life, coors) but doesn't stray too far. Don't know if that is for better or worse.

Serving type: bottle

09-13-2009 00:02:49 | More by OlRasputin989
Photo of dnoahg
dnoahg

Massachusetts

2.83/5  rDev -20.9%
look: 2.75 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.75

I was there in the 60's, and I drank Schlitz. It was also my go to beer in the early 70's, especially when in college, and the local stores were having "beer wars". You could get a keg (15 gallons) of Schlitz or Bud for $10! (Yeah, believe me, I know, money went further then. But come on, $10? Even students could keep the whole dorm in beer for a week). But the Bud would would always give me a headache. Not so the Schlitz.

Is what they're offering today the same Schlitz as back then? Hell, I can't tell for sure. My taste buds have changed so much over the years that it would be impossible to determine. All I can say is this beer tastes a little too sweet for every day drinking if you ask me. They used to advertise that it had just a kiss of the hops. Well that's for sure. There's hardly any noticeable in this beer. To me it's fizzy and not as satisfying as it once was. (It's hard to go back after you've tasted Heady Topper)

Serving type: can

08-10-2013 02:42:38 | More by dnoahg
Photo of steveh
steveh

Illinois

2.85/5  rDev -20.4%
look: 3 | smell: 4 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Ever since the 60s Formula (why '60s? Why not '50s or ''40s?) was "re-released" I've been intrigued to try this beer for fun. The other day I stumbled on a discussion at another beer forum where a newbie (if I've been drinking beer longer than you've been alive, you're a newbie) chimes in to say that Schlitz and many of the German imports are so similar, it's not worth the money to buy the import. Let's see.

First of all, the sixer of Schlitz was a dollar cheaper than I can usually get Spaten. Myth one kaboshed.

A -- Brown bottle -- definitely a plus there. Clear golden color with a sudsy white head that settles quickly. Very large bubbles, definitely force-carbed.

S -- Surprising. Mild malt nose with some vague DMS back.

T -- Hmm, yeah -- okay. Graininess up front, corn sweetness following through. No true barley malt character. Finish of nothing. Any flavor disappears. Hops? Maybe the vaguest bitterness in the little aftertaste of sweet corn.

M -- Light body with a mildly syrupy mothfeel.

D -- Yeah, well -- it's certainly not offensive in any way and goes down all right. The grain and corn bite that starts to linger on the palate gets a little heavy.

Am I about to swap this with Spaten or Paulaner -- let alone HB? Hardly. There's just no character in this beer, and it's not that there's a subtlety to find, the corn sweetness overpowers anything that might taste like a good beer.

It's not dreck, but it's far from a good light lager.

Serving type: bottle

08-01-2010 19:03:25 | More by steveh
Photo of Beerandraiderfan
Beerandraiderfan

Nevada

2.85/5  rDev -20.4%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Pretty standard fare, straw yellow, but nice clarity. Don't even ask about lace or retention.
Smell, watery corn and alcohol, factory smell, not like a new car either.

Standard american adjunct fare, without the big advertising campaign, so its relatively cheap. Hint of hops. Hint of barley, but mostly corn or rice or something else super light that doesn't impart much flavor. Always highly carbonated. A good palate cleanser.

Serving type: can

10-10-2011 22:55:39 | More by Beerandraiderfan
Photo of Immortale25
Immortale25

North Carolina

2.86/5  rDev -20.1%
look: 3.25 | smell: 2.75 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.75

Had at Company Burger New Orleans. Bottom of can says FEB1714

A- Pours a very clean light golden color with a 1/4 in h white head that almost immediately dissipates to a thin ring around the edge of the glass and various specs of surface foam. Non-resilient lacing leaves small clots behind.

S- Light smell of corn and alcohol.

T- Flavor carries much of the same as the nose. Watery corn flavor with just a kiss of alcohol. Trace amount of hop bitterness. Too drinkable.

M- Thin and watery with a slightly oily feel. Medium-low carbonation and a super light body.

O- The least offensive of all macro lagers but it's still no fun to drink.

Serving type: can

12-19-2013 00:38:51 | More by Immortale25
Photo of cyrock1
cyrock1

Colorado

2.9/5  rDev -19%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Appearance: Pale Gold to straw color with a bright white /2 inch head that dwindles down to about a sliver over time.

Smell: Light grain on the nose with a hint of citrus/lemon.

Taste: Classic American Macro Lager taste, not thin or watery though.

Mouthfeel: Lively carbonation with mild bittering hops.

Drinkability: A true beer, unlike the other yellow fizzy things people call beer these days. I was pleasantly surprised.

Serving type: bottle

03-04-2011 06:30:13 | More by cyrock1
Photo of Theheroguy
Theheroguy

Maryland

2.94/5  rDev -17.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2.25 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 3.25

Much better head formation and retention that one would expect for an adjunct lager. Corn cereal notes very present in the aroma. Overpowering the barley. When tasting the corn is there but it isn't so prominent. Hop flavor is mild but present. Even a mild hop presence is much more than your average American macro lager. This beer would benefit from more bitterness. I think too much corn is used in the mash bill also but it isn't terrible.

Serving type: can

11-16-2013 15:09:19 | More by Theheroguy
Photo of Retroman40
Retroman40

Kentucky

2.95/5  rDev -17.6%
look: 3 | smell: 2.75 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A - Poured out a clear yellow with a rich but fleeting head that retreated to a thin lace.

S - Grains with a slight hint of hops.

T - Cereal grains with some bitterness.

M - Thin body with decent carbonation and a neutral finish.

O - I was looking forward to this and frankly was disappointed. A typical AAL that is priced way too high for what you get. Since I wasn't quite of beer drinking age in the 60s (other than the occasional sip) I have to take their word this was the 60s formula. If so, I have to wonder how Schlitz ever challenged for number one (other than the fact their competition was another non-descript AAL).

Serving type: bottle

02-05-2014 11:32:35 | More by Retroman40
Photo of WastingFreetime
WastingFreetime

Wisconsin

2.98/5  rDev -16.8%
look: 2 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

12oz bottle with the "Classic 1960s Formula" tagline on it's neck label.

A. Light straw yellow with fizzy soda head that dies back to nothing in 30 seconds flat, no lacing at all.

S. Once the initial bottle-opening rush of husky grains and cooked corn settles down, there is really not much to smell here beyond a faint sort of crystal malt.

T. Sweet crystal malt, very light herbal / earthen hopping. Surprisingly light on cooked corn flavor for an American Adjunct Lager.

M. Lighter side of medium flavor...yet strangely undercarbonated, it just lies limp on my tongue without any effervescence at all.

Serving type: bottle

01-11-2012 00:31:31 | More by WastingFreetime
Photo of beerdepartment
beerdepartment

Massachusetts

3/5  rDev -16.2%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

NOTE: THIS WAS A "HEAD TO HEAD" CAGE FIGHT BETWEEN ROLLING ROCK, SCHLITZ, HIGH LIFE, AND BUDWEISER. THIS IS INTENDED TO BE THE FIRST ROUND OF CLASSIC "ECONOMY" CLASS AMERICAN BEERS. THESE NOTES WILL BE IDENTICAL FOR ALL 4 BEERS, SO RATING ACCORDING TO PERCENTAGE OF POINTS IS IMPOSSIBLE; I GAVE THEM ALL "Average" BECAUSE THE WEBSITE MANDATES A NUMERICAL RATING.

appearance:

Rolling Rock is the palest (by a fraction) of all of the beers, which is not necessarily appetizing; the darkest is actually High Life, which is a shock, but the range is so small that I would call these nearly identical in color. Bubbles look most appetizing in Shlitz, which is actually the most champagne looking in bubble structure. Take that High Life! Budweiser is perhaps the most elegant with the velvety head that is retained better than those of all of the others. After a few minutes, RR and Schlitz heads have faded to amorphous, perhaps pangea-like shapes -- HL and Bud have wall-to-wall carpets of (thin) foam. Overall, with bubbles and head accounted for, High Life is winner in appearance.

aroma: RR has a cidery note on the first big whiff; pleasant; Schlitz is marked by a yeastier, older smell; not bad, but RR was fresher and nicer smelling; High Life is subtle enough to almost be imperceptibe yeast if anything; Budweiser impresses with a melon-like freshness; whats the deal? It smells good. On second whiff RR is more pickle-like than cider like -- not as good; Schlitz still yeasty on second snort, with some malt; HL has some less pleasant yeast smells coming through; Budweiser yet again shocks with a very nice fresh smell, with a bit of funk from something in there. Overall, Bud wins the aroma challenge.

taste: (all tastings were separated by Bravo pizza, which is the most appropriate palate cleanse for this that I can imagine.

RR tastes like water with a splash of melon juice, carbonation, some malt, and yeast; Schlitz has a bit more going on; slightly bigger flavor, slightly more pronounced malt; no melon; less watery; better than RR; HL exemplifies the amazing power of american bulk lager makers to make beer that tastes like more than carbonated water but still not like much of anything -- better than RR, but that could be a mouthfeel issue; like all so far, finishes clean, maybe with some corn note and a thin gossamer of bitterness; Budweiser has a bit of malt and corn noticeable, but nothing wild by comparison; this competition seems less a competition of flavor than a competition of body and mouthfeel; second gulps (big ones) verify the melon lightness of RR; Schlitz is a bit more corny on the second time around, and maybe a tiny hop flower present; High Life still evades capture by my power of description; Budweiser ringing a bit buttery/watery oak this time. Overall, although this defies my theory, Rolling Rock seems to be the winner on taste. There is actually something intriguing about the freshness an fruitiness of it; it is enough to make me wonder what was in the glass last, or if my soap tastes like fruit, but I really think this glass was good to go. Budweiser second. Schlitz third. High Life 4th. Bear in mind that none of these beers is putting others to shame in any category so far; this is a near tie. Maybe only Jackson or Parker's tongue could rank these, because mine is struggling. For the record, they all do have some hops in them as the bitterness is ringing now. And I'm basically 10 minutes into a power hour, so I'll get to mouthfeel ASAP.

Mouthfeel: Schlitz struck me through all of these tastes as having the most pleasant mouthfeel, but I'll test one more time: At this point, after sitting out for just a few minutes, Schlitz is struggling to retain carbonation at all, which is why it felt pleasantly dense at the beginning. This is a noticeable problem for Schlitz -- there is no lacing on the glass whatsoever; it is the most dead looking of all the beers BY FAR. Rolling Rock and High Life look tastiest in terms of foam now, and that matters for mouthfeel. Rolling Rock and Bud are doing the best at retaining carbonation. Schlitz is truly almost flat. High Life is struggling to taste and feel as though it should be drunk and not left as a wounded soldier.

JUDGEMENT: I am suprised to say that with everything taken into account, if I were to go to the store to buy an 18 pack, I would buy Rolling Rock. Let that speak for itself. But let it be known that not everything comes in 18 packs, and that might change things. So let me say that if I were to buy a loose beer again out of these 4, it would be a Rolling Rock.

Congratulations Rolling Rock; you have survived this round of economy class beer competition.

Serving type: bottle

Serving type: bottle

02-11-2011 05:59:15 | More by beerdepartment
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Schlitz Gusto (Classic 1960's Formula) from JOS. Schlitz Brewing Co. (Pabst)
81 out of 100 based on 378 ratings.