Bareville Pilsner - Intercourse Brewing Company, LLC

Not Rated.
Bareville PilsnerBareville Pilsner

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
71
okay

33 Ratings
THE BROS
84
good

(view ratings)
Ratings: 33
Reviews: 27
rAvg: 2.88
pDev: 19.1%
Wants: 1
Gots: 0 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Intercourse Brewing Company, LLC visit their website
Pennsylvania, United States

Style | ABV
American Pale Lager |  4.80% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: garcia2a on 06-11-2008)
View: Beers (4) | Events
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | Likes | High | Low | Top Raters | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of Bareville Pilsner Alström Bros
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50  | next › last »
Ratings: 33 | Reviews: 27 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of WVbeergeek
1.68/5  rDev -41.7%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

I can forsee just by looking at the label that this isn't much different than Lionshead Pilsner, brewed at the Lion Brewery in Wilkes Barre, PA. Intercourse is the new PA brewed contracted label with names like Bareville and Blueball, why not? The craft brewing revolution has room for everyone right? Pours a fizzy deep yellow golden color with bright white fleeting head, leaves behind a thin layer of lacing around the sides of my mug. Aroma is pretty unassuming, a touch of cooked veggies with a slight metallic/medicinal twang. Flavor has cooked vegetables, light cereal malts, a slightly tart apple note going on, not exactly a clean drinking experience. These are the people that literally screwed the Penn Brewing recipes or at least brewed horrible versions of some of my favorite beers. Mouthfeel is pretty pathetic thin fizzy carbonation going on with a cloying messy lager experience. Overall quality is poor a beer I wouldn't ever choose to drink, just like the Lionshead Pilsner.

Photo of cynical1027
2/5  rDev -30.6%

Photo of Ryan011235
2/5  rDev -30.6%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Poured into a Samuel Smith pint glass on 5/24/11

Clear and golden in color. Lots of bubbles clinging to the inside of the glass. Poofy cap of white foam; just over a finger's worth. Much thinner retention. Essentially no lace.

Simple, grainy aroma with some hints of grassiness. Smells crisp enough, though it seems to lean in favor of corn and such. Less pleasant as it warms, think steamed veggies. The grains are diminished in terms of taste and notions of vegetables carries over. Marginally hopped. Artificial, almost aluminum-like finish. Gets worse as it warms. Light in body though it doesn't live up to the initial crispness of the nose. Carbonation seems appropriate.

Starts off pretty bad and gets right cozy with terrible in a hurry. Well over half the glass went down the drain.

Photo of Knapp85
2/5  rDev -30.6%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

This pilsner was at least better than some out there. I found myself able to put this one down rather quickly. This is a yellow colored brew with a little white head. This beer was light bodies and pretty refreshing. It's still got a little bit of that grassy flavor to it but it suddle enough that I could look passed it.

Photo of AltBock
2.17/5  rDev -24.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Undated 12 oz. bottle with a pink label. In the center of this pink label is a pink with yellow trim oval that has a drawing of a red barn and silo at the top and a piece of Amish artwork at the bottom. The same piece of artwork can be found on the neck label in greater detail. Nothing else on the label except for all the mandatory US information.

When poured into a Victory pint glass, this "Pilsner" was a clear and pale straw yellow color. On top of this pale beer was 1/4 of an inch head of white foam. I'm surprised that head of foam wasn't fizzy. The head of foam had decent retention that left behind a small white film, foamy white rings, and 2 spots of lace. The head of foam was the best part of the appearance.

You have to know what's coming up in the aroma when the beer is clear and pale yellow in color. The aroma was malty, but not malty with barley. No, more like malty with white rice and corn. The two malted grains you don't want to find in the aroma. Behind the grains was a pinch of floral hops and if the beer is swirled around, a whiff of apple juice.

The taste was pretty much the same as the aroma. The taste loved the malted grains, but the grains were malted white rice and corn again. Thanks! For some stupid reason, it tasted like they removed the hops and replaced them with a touch of sweet yeast. Why?? In the end, the taste was weak, thin, but not watery. I guess that's a plus.

Mouthfeel: This was alight bodied beer with crispy carbonation and a faint aftertaste of malted corn and rice. In a blink of an eye, this aftertaste was gone.

Bareville Pilsner was a weak and thin beer. I guess I can be happy that it wasn't watery. I basically bought this beer for novelty reasons. Look at the name. How many beers will you find with the word "Intercourse" in the title? Not many! I know I can't be the only person who bought a bottle because of the name. No more intercourse (brewing) for me!

Photo of BeerSquid
2.25/5  rDev -21.9%
look: 1.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Overall, I'm pretty disappointed with this one. I find it just lacks anything special.
Poured from 12oz bottle into pint glass.

A- Golden-yellow, pours with no head and no lacing as its drunk.

S- Nothing special, minerals.

T- Its okay.. just nothing really notable. Barley.

M- Carbonation is good, holds what little flavour the is well.

D- I wouldnt get it again. Thats about it.

Photo of nitter
2.5/5  rDev -13.2%

Photo of sixerofelixir
2.53/5  rDev -12.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

12 oz bottle. Julian code on the back of the neck. I'm one for a dirty joke from time to time, but the name of this brewery and their beers is just idiotic, IMO.

Pours a super clear, lite golden-yellow. Lots of carb trailers but no head after a short while. Smells toasty, sorta sweet, and a little burnt, almost "fumish." Taste is mild sour fruitiness with a touch of cracker. Finishes sour. And this does not taste like a pilsner AT ALL - I'd guess it to be an adjunct lager.. and a mediocre one at that.

Photo of wvsabbath
2.53/5  rDev -12.2%
look: 3.25 | smell: 3.25 | taste: 2.25 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.25

Servign Type - Bottle

Appearance - Golden tan/yellow, not much of a head or lacing.

Smell - Pislner malts, yeasts, minor hops, spices, a little grainy, yeasty.

Taste - Malts and yeasts at first drink. Much along the lines of a budweiser with its grainy flavor and low hop profile. Minor spices and a yeasty sweetness.

Mouthfeel - Malts and grains coat tounge, palate gets more of the same. The aftertaste is grainy, sour and yeasty.

Overall - A setup up from a bud or coors, but a step below any craft beer. Not very good, would be something a bud drinker would enjoy. Not worth drinking again, or even finishing.

Photo of BeerIsland
2.55/5  rDev -11.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Looks fine in the glass, clear, golden but no head

smells alright, nothing great, maybe a little winey

sweetish, little finish, not much hop activity

perhaps a little gassy

Well, the anticipation is over. I got this item from the "Six and Subs" shop out near Centerville a few weks ago and was waiting for the opportune time to risk drinking it. While it's not the grimmest of the grim, it's nothing you'd want to try again. I would say it's worse than Lionshead Pils, even if similar, and nowhere's good as the Lemp. With all due respect to the proprietors, let's hope this enterprise dies a quick and well deserved death...

Photo of Seanibus
2.68/5  rDev -6.9%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Not shameful, but not anything particularly inspiring either, particularly considering the all-star tradition of Pilsners in Pennsylvania.

Pours clear with a lively carbonation and a medium white head that fizzes away quickly. The aroma is malty with a little whiff of sulfur. The flavor is light, fairly sprightly, with a little sulfur and a slight metallic tang. There is very little hop character, though it does finish relatively clean. The mouthfeel is thin.

Photo of jackorain
2.75/5  rDev -4.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Pours a pale yellow color that is reminiscent of macro lager. Looses points for this color. the head is stark white and very loose. It does leave a modicum of lace after it recedes, which was a longer period than I expected.

Smells a little of grain and dms. But there is not much here in the aroma dept.

Taste is weak, grainy and a touch sweet.

Mouthfell is light body with a mild carboantion. These is a slight stickiness on the ;ips after the swallow.

This one does not measure up to the other fine pennsylvania pilsners out there.

Photo of Sipchue
2.75/5  rDev -4.5%

Photo of stakem
2.78/5  rDev -3.5%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

12oz brown screw cap bottle with no identifiable indication of freshness. Poured into a shaped pint glass, this brew appears a perfectly clear light yellow color. A finger and a half of white froth sits atop the brew supported by constantly streaming bubbles of carbonation. Some small patches of lace stick to the glass.

The smell of this brew is quite sweet smelling almost like candy moreso than grain. It has a bit of a pink bubblegum quality about it that has a very faint indication of straw-like grain and another faintest touch of grassy herbal hops. There is not much difference between this intercourse offering and their mount joy light pilsner. Once warm, a light touch of sulfur comes forward.

The taste has as much grainy sweetness as you would expect based off of the aroma. It has a faint cereal grain aspect but primarily hits with a sweetness that is seemingly artificial with a pink bubble gum quality. The sweetness lasts throughout the profile with hardly any other flavoring to analyze. No hop inclusion to be found, no alcohol, no contrasting bitterness. This is a one-trick pony and it doesn't feel like a good ride.

This is a medium to light bodied brew with a modest level of carbonation that at times is a bit prickly and lively on the tongue. The residual sweetness sticks to the tongue and coats it a bit which interferes with the expected crispness to the finish. Instead it is long and drawn out with this sweetness that is borderline unbearable. This brew looks the part and mostly feels the part of what it was going for. However, the flavor and aroma are not worth going back for more.

Photo of IIKaRuII
2.85/5  rDev -1%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Arnolds carry out allowed me to mix and match a 6 pack from these guys. Allowing me to try at least one of each.

A- Label is kinda blan with lots of colors. Hey sex sells i guess right? plane jane cap which saddens me deeply. Pours a typical clear straw yellow. head dissipates as fast as i could pour it. light to no lacing. slight bubbles escaping to the top. The only pretty thing really about the appearance.

S- bready, grainy is the first thing that catches the nose. slight rice smell.

T- malted grains, I taste rice just like the smell. slight yeast taste building up on the back of the tongue..

M- light bodied, smooth with wonderful carbonation. goes down very easy, and is actually pleasant to drink.

O- really this is nothing that special about this. But however it does drink and taste better then many lagers out there. I suppose i could drink something like this again. this is a drinkable pilsner and against its competitors will make for a good competitor

Photo of deereless
2.85/5  rDev -1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

A: Light straw colored, thin layer of foam on a vigorous pour - 3.50, S: Crisp, very typical lager, faints signs of gum and some earthy aromas - 4.00, T: Quite bland, very under ripe cantaloupe, only the slightest bit of hop - 2.50, M: Thin and watery - 2.50, D: Now I must admit that the style is not my favorite but they Intercourse Brewing could have done better with this beer, very lackluster - 2.50

Photo of NJpadreFan
2.9/5  rDev +0.7%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Intercourse- Bareville Pilsner

A- Light, almost clear copper with a moderate head and decent lacing.
S- barely noticeable hints of toasted grain and sweet honey.
T- Light sweet honey dropped onto light toasted grainy bread. Thick malty finish.
M- Light, a tad watery even, but redeeming with a good grainy malty finish.

Overall- A low review but not a bad beer here. Just a bit too watered down. Worth a try though!

Photo of garcia2a
2.9/5  rDev +0.7%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

The beer poured with slight carbonation and a thin head. The yellow tones of the beer hinted at a macrobrew feel. The nose is very light, kinda like that "beer of your grandfather" feel.

The mouthfeel was suprisingly good with just enough taste for the back of the mouth. There is a slight after taste that lingers for a very short time.

I has this beer both slightly chilled and properly chilled. This is a good one to have cold. The body and taste are light enough that the averge macrobeer guy would use this as the gatekeeper to better bres, but for the beer lover, an easy sipper for a hot day.

Photo of Travcofarms
3/5  rDev +4.2%

Photo of sbeppel
3/5  rDev +4.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

I picked up a case of this stuff for 18 bux,so I wasn't expecting much. I also got a free Intercourse pint glass as well. What about the beer you ask. Don't! While not horrible it is alot like Yuengling Premium. Big corn flavor not much Hop finnish. I've drank 4 of them so far. As a guy who usually drinks Victory,Troegs or Green Flash this stuff doesn't do it for me,but I kinda new that going in. Maybe a decent lawnmower or cook out beer for my macro drinking friends. Will I buy it again-No!

Photo of thecarster1
3/5  rDev +4.2%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

a- bottle poured into a tasting glass, small head leaving behind a bit of lacing, light golden coloring.

s- sweet grain, with a slight bit of fruity hops.

t- not a really complex taste here, grainy, with a bit of sweetness and smoothness in there. very little hops.

m- light and smooth.

d- okay, glad to have tried this but probably wouldn't drink this again.

Photo of Foxman
3.03/5  rDev +5.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

It pours a clear golden yellow with moderate carbonation. A full finger of white head sustains a short while, slipping away to a thin frothy veneer. Fine lacing rules the inside of the glass.

In the aroma, pale toasted grain with a distant berry sweetness plays off a peppery hop presence. Mild citrus acts to help keep things clean.

Upon tasting, the toasted grain is sweet, with berry and sugary cereal. These go crisp as the hops assert with a thin but present spiciness that carries a grassy note. A touch of dough and a general, broad bitterness carry through to a similar finish that is quite clean. It comes across as a standard-issue, middle of the road lager.

Light bodied, the carbonation peps a bit, but the flow is quick and pretty much devoid of legacy.

The name caught my eye. What does that say about me? Well, I'll forego the self-psychoanalysis here and instead just say that perhaps I should worry more about the beer in the bottle than the name on it. Not that it's a gimmick beer, because it's better than that, but despite the clean character, it's not any better than moderately drinkable. I think I'm done with Intercourse for now, thank you.

Photo of Brenden
3.13/5  rDev +8.7%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Poured into my pokal, this beer is a completely clear golden yellow color, actually quite a pretty color more like a polished gold bar. It appears spritzy on the pour and the head forms like it would on a soda, with barely even a foam remaining when all's said and done. Vigorous bubbly activity never ceases.
The aroma is light and clean, but with a lightly sulfuric, barely noticeable corn element. Other than that, simple with a light grassiness and grains. It is a little too light to get as much as I'd like out of it, even for the style.
The flavor is, as the aroma suggests, likewise light and clean. Malts seem to toe the line between crackery and biscuity, with a light hops addition for balance that a macro drinker wouldn't find offensive. Grassy and earthy are key notes. At first I don't find this sour or vegetal at all, though I've gotten mixed reviews including the like from others. As it warms, though, a sour flavor develops and lingers in the finish.
Just a note: This, to me, is the reason the APL category had to be created; it's sort of a variation of a Czech pils with enough of a difference to warrant it.
The mouthfeel isn't as spritzy as the appearance would lead me to believe; carbonation is on the higher side of moderate without going too far. As such, each sip begins with a nice, crisp bite that carries all the way through, and a smoothness that keeps coming in and out with it to the finish. Given its cleanliness and its depth considering the lightness of the body, the mouthfeel is really well done for the style until a bit of graininess kicks in.
Not quite a pils, this is a decent little light beer that fits the profile. It may be more for the macro crowd than the hardcore beer crowd, but I think it fits in the gap.

Photo of KOPBeerDrinker
3.18/5  rDev +10.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

Poured from bottle into a pint glass. Short white head about .5" formed and was then quickly gone. The beer was a light golden color and very clear. Not much to the nose, a little malt. Reminds me of the smell of Yuengling. Taste is of light malt, crisp and pretty clean. Taste lingers for just a moment. Mouthfeel is medium light with tingly carbonation. This beer is good on a hot summer day. Not great, but I would drink this before any macro.

Photo of RblWthACoz
3.23/5  rDev +12.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

This beer is okay. It's just too sweet for me personally. No real complexity, as the overall sweet character dominates. This is a good beer for the masses. Catchy name. Etc., etc. (Though, seriously...not very mature and rather crass.) But for my tastes, I'll be moving on to the next.

« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50  | next › last »
Bareville Pilsner from Intercourse Brewing Company, LLC
71 out of 100 based on 33 ratings.