1. American Craft Beer Fest returns to Boston on May 29 & 30, featuring 640+ beers from 140+ brewers. Tickets are on sale now.

Rolling Rock Extra Pale - Latrobe Brewing Co.

Not Rated.
Rolling Rock Extra PaleRolling Rock Extra Pale

Educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
61
poor

2,346 Ratings
THE BROS
67
poor

(view ratings)
Ratings: 2,346
Reviews: 743
rAvg: 2.58
pDev: 27.13%
Wants: 21
Gots: 235 | FT: 1
Brewed by:
Latrobe Brewing Co. visit their website
Missouri, United States

Style | ABV
American Adjunct Lager |  4.60% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes & Commercial Description:
Beer added by: Todd on 03-02-2001

Using a time-honored recipe with only the finest malted barley and blend of hops, Rolling Rock is a classic American lager that is as well-known for its distinctive, full-bodied taste as it is for its craftsmanship, heritage and painted green bottle.

Full-flavored, with a subtle bite. Light-to-medium body and color. Brewed with only the choicest ingredients; a perfect blend of pale barley malt, rice and corn.
View: Beers (5) | Events
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | Likes | High | Low | Top Raters | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of Rolling Rock Extra Pale Alström Bros
Ratings: 2,346 | Reviews: 743 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of aasher
3.2/5  rDev +24%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

One of my old college roommates used to take this wherever we went so I'm kind of partial to it. I don't exactly put it in the macro category. It pours a very pale and thin straw yellow with a one finger bright white head with decent lacing. It smells of grass, yeast, hay, and soda water. For the style, I like the flavor. It features possible hops (?) and grass and goes down very light. It's a little watery but I find this to be the most drinkable AAL around.

Photo of Fulky
4.08/5  rDev +58.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

I've been a fan of Rolling Rock, well, ever since I started drinking beer really. I'm not sure what gave it its appeal, probably it's price compared to its counterparts. Either way, I've always greatly appreciated it...especially its smell, flavor, and drinkability.

It doesn't have the best appearance, although better than a lot of its kind, and pretty much superior amongst Anheuser-Busch products. Pretty typical of a pale lager, a crisp lemony-yellow. Personally its not so much about the appearance here, as it's good straight from the bottle. Nonetheless it has a good, frothy snow-white head that could stand respect from even the most skeptical stout drinkers.

The smell is skunky, but average. Nostalgic really, and once again stands above most of its counterparts. Has a bit of grainy smell and is more on the malt side. It really lacks smell when compared outside of its breed but is almost above average in its home category. Almost.

The taste is exceptional, which is why I most fancy Rolling Rock to other light beers. It has a full, crisp taste; malty and not overly sweet.. although there's a hint in there somewhere. A sweet grain taste perhaps. Some might describe it as bitter, but not offensively so. Stands absolutely bar-none to its peers (Coors, Bud etc)

As for feel and drinkability, the feel is crisp, but smooth.. light, but not watery. It is especially refreshing and goes down with the best of them. Recommend it with pizza or burgers, a good Bar&Grill or party beer.

Photo of beerdepartment
3/5  rDev +16.3%
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.

Photo of JMad
3.57/5  rDev +38.4%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

I poured a 12 oz bottle into a pint glass...

The liquid was a very pale, straw-yellow color with a very thin white head.

It smells of hay, grassy hops, and also some yeast rolls.

I could taste some skunkiness, lime, grass and bread.

It's light, bubbly and has some good carbonation.

This beer is very drinkable, I would drink this over most pale lagers.

Photo of Groomsy
2.48/5  rDev -3.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Bottle with twist-off cap poured into pint glass. This was free at a friend's house, so there was really no way to turn it down.

Appearance: Typical appearance of an adjunct lager - clear blonde/golden with a thin, soapy bone white head which faded to nearly nothing almost immediately. Only left lacing in sheets and spots if I took huge gulps, but otherwise it was next to nothing. Overly active carbonation rises to the top of the glass, but little in the way of head retention.

Aroma: Sort of like any other adjunct lager, but a bit more "steely," I guess. Faint aroma overall. Earthy corn husk with slight hints of sweet malt and just a touch of generic grassy hops. Some metallic notes linger in the background, and that frightens me a little bit.

Taste: This beer doesn't give off much taste, honestly. It's so watery that you have to really search for the flavors. Corn and hints of malt hit the tongue first, and this quickly gives way to an offputting finish of aluminum and some grassy hops. Underwhelming, but I wasn't expecting much. Sort of a typical American lager taste, but not as nearly as good as something like PBR. Smooth, but only because it's so generic and almost absent in taste.

Mouthfeel: Probably the highlight of this beer. It's clearly designed to be a smooth, easy-drinking party beer. Light and bubbly in the mouth with active carbonation provided a snappy and dry finish. Very watery, but palatable. It leaves a really sickly grainy sensation in the aftertaste, but that's about the only negative.

Drinkability: It's about average. I wouldn't turn it down if I was at a gathering and there was nothing left, but I definitely wouldn't go after this on a regular. Watery enough to drink a lot of, and just enough lack of flavor to not phase you in a negative way.

Photo of CuriousMonk
3/5  rDev +16.3%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Nearly clear, pale golden with minimal white head that fades fast and very apparent carbonation Nearly no aroma, hint of malt. Very watery flavor and palate. VEry light smooth and pretty refreshing (not VERY pale though, or even slightly -- no hops). Nice cheap lager.

Photo of battman89
3.67/5  rDev +42.2%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 4 | feel: 3 | overall: 4.5

This is my first beer review so bear with me! This is one of two of my go to beers and one of my favorites.

A- Thin extremely pale not much to look at really.

S- Actually has a bit of a skunky hoppy smell.

T- Hoppy slightly watery but very smooth goes down easy.

M- Not much here pretty watery.

D- One of the easiest beers to drink in my opinion.

Photo of BeerLover99
2.97/5  rDev +15.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A- yellowish orange body, 2 finger head. no lacing.

S- corn, grain.

T- very ordinary beer, hint of sweet grain, hint of corn, and mild bitter finish.

M- light body, big carbonation, crisp feel

D- One could easily down a 6 pack with no problem.
not great, but not bathwater!

Photo of 9InchNails
2.47/5  rDev -4.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

Looks like generic piss beer. Very light looking. Looks extremely carbonated. No head at all.
Smells like grain and some sort of citrus. Smells okay.

Taste is mostly grain, cereal, some lemon, burnt grass. Not that good. Very bland. This is a summer beer to drink with friends and a beer that is supposed to be mass consumed.

Body is light and decently carbonated. Not really good feeling. Very blah!

Drink ability is okay. I guess if I wanted to get messed up and this was all they had I'd take it.

Photo of Thumpybass
2.45/5  rDev -5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Straight from the bottle at around 45 degrees.

A- Yellow, a bit darker than straw, but nowhere near as pale as something like High Life.

S- Corn was the most prominent smell, with a very faint alcohol undertone.

T- Typical adjunct. Right away, there is a strong taste of corn, and water. The malts are hidden behind that corn taste, but they are very faint. There is a VERY strong taste of cereal grains on the finish.

M- Probably the "best" aspect of this beer. Very crisp, yet thin, and very carbonated, this is clearly a party beer.

D- I could certainly have more than one of these at a gathering, but this is not a beer that I would recommend to those looking for a fuller experience.

Photo of tbern007
2.47/5  rDev -4.3%
look: 1.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

One of the only green bottle beers that does not taste clearly skunky. Just a little skunky!
A - clear, yellow/straw. One finger head is gone within 30 seconds to absolutely nothing. No lacing whatsoever.
S - very little scent. Grain, cereal. Very slight hops.
T - dry, overly carbonated. Goes down easy if cold. There is a grainy, sweet corn taste but afterwards there is a definite sweet/floral taste that is hard to pinpoint what floral essence it might be. It's interesting but very slight.
M & D - dry, must be cold. The sweet floral thing is a bit interesting and it lingers for a while. There is actually a bit of hops there - moreso than other macros.

Photo of dali27
3.03/5  rDev +17.4%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 4

Poured from 12 oz. bottle into pint glass.

A: Typical light gold color expected from American macro brews. Consistent carbonation. Light head which sticks to glass.

S: Instant reaction to scent is that it is overwhelmingly grainy. Smells like beer.

T: This beer is brewed with the intention of being very light tasting and easy to drink. With this in mind, it is. Not much flavor, but it tastes good.

M: Feels very light, watery and thin in the mouth. Very bubbly, I feel a lot of carbonation.

D: Very easy to drink. This beer holds certain nostalgic memories for me, and will always be a goto for me when I am looking for a few easy to drink, light tasting beers.

Points off due to this beer being postioned as a "premium beer", when really it can be lumped into adjunct catagory.

Photo of kwjd
2.26/5  rDev -12.4%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

Had this in a pizza place in New York City. I had no idea what to expect, but I've seen this a couple places in the US and figured it was finally time to give it a try. Pours a pale yellow colour with small white head that dissipates quickly, though some mild lacing on the glass. Smells of grainy malt with almost a hint of hops, but not really. Slight bitterness in the aftertaste, very mild flavour though. Big carbonation level made it harder to drink. I'd take this over Bud any day, but that isn't saying much I guess.

Photo of Jadjunk
2.12/5  rDev -17.8%
look: 1.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

#33. Hey, the number Rolling Rock has a fascination with! This is probably far from the classiest beer I have reviewed thus far but I always have to do an unbiased review just to refresh my palate and to check whether I've been too harsh... or need to be harsher. Apparently this beer is supposed to be served below 40 degrees... hopefully this is not an attempt to mask unforgiving flavors with unbearably frigid gulps. Here goes nothing...

Poured from a 12 oz. Bottle to a pint glass at room temp.

(Appearance) An aggressive pour yields some super fizzy head that retains terribly, dying within 30 seconds to a clear surface. Lacing is barely enough to count with this beer. Color is a very bright gold, crystal clear and with some pretty medium-light levels of carbonation. It's not very exciting and almost doesn't look characteristic of a beer. It just doesn't have that good beer look. 1.5

(Smell) Some faint malts and perhaps a touch of light honey or faint grapefruit. An odor as bold in aroma as the beer is deep in color. The malts barely strike the nose here, and even hops are difficult to decipher in this super light-smelling beverage. 2

(Taste) Not much redeeming quality here as well. Water is certainly not well masked in this beer and it is the first taste I get an abundance of. Malts are slightly better balanced with the other tastes of this beer, such as honey, faint spices, light fruit, but the entire taste category is shallow in general. The taste is very weak. Fortunately, the taste isn't gross, so I'm inclined to continue drinking as I write this review. Finish is faintly grainy, unfortunately it is within these brief moments where the flavor peaks the most. Ultimately, there is little here that I find satisfying in any beer. Largely bland, fortunately not terrible. 2

(Mouthfeel) Thin, light bodied. Watery. Carbonation is easy to feel here, and is prickly with traces of alcohol. Therefore, this beer is very crisp and slightly dry. The beer has an overall clean edge throughout the entire drink. Mouthfeel, interestingly enough, is one of the only places that this beverage does not fail miserably, but rather, performs on an average level. There's still room for improvement. 2.5

(Drinkability) Due to the drink being light bodied, clean, and largely empty in flavor, this could make for high drinkability should you ignore the taste, appearance or aroma of this beer. This is clearly ideal as a party beer or a budget lager; which in both occasions I personally would have no more than zero. 2.5

Verdict: Premium Beer? This lager has several flaws, beginning with a weak aroma and appearance, dragging through the bland taste to create a beer experience that is not at all memorable, let alone enjoyable. My hopes go out to the fact that this beer can, and certainly should make vast improvements and alterations to this age-old formula for the sake of quality. Then again, there has to be somebody who enjoys this out there, considering the beer's 70+ year success. Cheers to adjunct lagers! D- (2)

Photo of Lillenk
2.62/5  rDev +1.6%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 4.5

Had on tap at Grill One Eleven.

Appearance is very light almost clear, very bubbly.

Smell had almost nothing happening.

Taste was pretty bad. Typical light beer with nothing going on as far as flavor.

Mouthfeel was very light which made it very easy to drink.

Photo of DannyDan
3/5  rDev +16.3%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A. A light golden color lager with a thin white head that has high carbonation, very little retention and no lacing.
S. Right Away could smell corn, and than some grains and some alcohol.
T. Like most mass produced brands it has a typical corn taste to it. Can also taste some grains, alcohol, and a slight hint of hops in here.
M. When drinking this it has a nice crisp clean feeling for this style.
D. It is drinkable for the style, but If I'm going to drink a macro I'd rather have a LaBatt Blue.

Photo of DrinkingDrake
2.83/5  rDev +9.7%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Hung out with my dad today and this is his beer. I have been able to get him to dabble in the craft brews but the guy is in his 50s and has been trained for a certain flavor.

It is a very clear yellow gold with a descent bubbly head that fades quickly.

Smells typical of mass produced BS but cleaner and more crisp than most. There are some slight hops but I'm stretching for this one.

The adjunct flavor is all over this one but still remains crisp and is actually refreshing.

They go down smooth, quick and are not that filling.

Photo of larrytm56
1.8/5  rDev -30.2%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 1

This was recommended to me by a friend, who said it was a pale ale, it was not. It smelled like citric to me. It looked thin and pale, and tasted very unimpressive. Can not tell you about the head i drank it from the bottle. I have only had one, and didn't finish that. I would not ever drink it again.

Photo of DCon
3.63/5  rDev +40.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 4 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

Poured beer into a Pint glass, bought 6-pack of this from local Schnucks. Haven't had a Rolling Rock since 2004 so thought I'd give it a try again.

Appearance- Light gold with lacy head. Carbonation fully in affect

Smell- I smell the grain and a small amount of hops. Nice

Taste- The corn is the most dominate taste and then a great amount of grain and hop are present.

Mouthfeel- Very light body, Crisp, and easy on the palette

Drinkability- Extremely refreshing. Wish there were more hops and it would probably be a perfect beer for me. This 6-pack will be gone within the night. Would recommend but not my go to beer.

Photo of FreshHawk
2.68/5  rDev +3.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A - Typical appearance for the style with incredibly clear, crisp, light gold. Somewhat large, foamy, fluffy, light, bubbly, pearly white head. Average retention with a thin layer of lace.

S - Not overly impressed with the aroma. Light, musty pale malt, and cooked cereal grains. Sulfur aroma with only a touch of leafy hops. Some mineral aroma as well.

T - Cooked cereal grains also dominant here. A strange tart/sour grain taste, not exactly like lemon but vaguely like it. Faint pale malt with faint leafy hop bite toward the finish. Tastes just a little off.

M - Light body with average carbonation. What you expect for the style: light, thin, slightly crisp.

D - I could finish the glass, but I don't really want another one. A beer to drink cooler and not to just sip and savor. Flavors were slightly off.

Notes: Pretty much what to be expected. Faint pale malt and hops with cooked vegetable (corn) being prominent. Slightly off tart/sour grain flavor. Probably won't drink this again, unless someone offers it to me.

Photo of jmdrpi
3.49/5  rDev +35.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 5

green glass bottle, says "Labtrobe Brewing Co. St. Louis MO". uh right...A-B has many names, eh?

appears crystal clear, a super pale yellow color, frothy white head. actually a bit of lacing. smell is that typical off-putting adjuct lager aroma.

not much taste, maybe a little sweet corn. no hops. not bad, just bland. fizzy, water thin body. super clean aftertaste.

wouldn't normally drink this beer, got it for free (long story). but for an adjuct lager, it's certainly less offensive than the "big three", as it is just basically tasteless. you could drink it like water on a hot day, so can't get more drinkable. so my scores here are "to style".

it's been so many years since I last had this, so I can't remember if it was much different went it was brewed in good 'ole PA.

Photo of monkeybutler
3.02/5  rDev +17.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 4

I bought a 6-pack of this beer to make some beer-can chicken later. I bought it at the RJ's supermarket - which is about 1/4 mile away from the Alchemist in Waterbury, VT.

It was surprisingly cheap. Cheaper than Bud, Coors, Miller. The only thing cheaper was the Natural ice and Natural light - and they were sold out.

Having grown up in Pennsylvania, I have memories of this beer - but I've never had it out of a can. And it's surprisingly inoffensive.

Very crackly and quickly dissipating head, with an "extra pale" coloring.

Aroma is that familiar adjunct smell with the faintest whiff of whatever hop it is that all American macro lagers use. Maybe saaz.

The taste, mouthfeel and drinkability are the same: watery, thin, and forgettable. I was going to whip up some extra spicy hot sauce into some chips and salsa to pair with this beer, but I don't think there's a hot sauce on earth that would justify how watery and thin this beer is.

Drink it on the hottest day of the hottest month of whatever the hottest season is on the sun is my recommendation.

Photo of bubseymour
3.7/5  rDev +43.4%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 4 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

Since this beer moved out of Latrobe, it left the slightly bad taste back the old Rolling Rock's used to have back in Western PA. The new beer is the most refreshing and lightest beer out there. As others mentioned, its great to quench thirst with food or to pound several in the summer heat. About 40-50% cheaper than Corona/Land Shark and more refreshing to boot.

Photo of DJED69
3.18/5  rDev +23.3%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 4.5

Easy drinking, crisp, smooth beer. Ok, it's not made in Latrobe anymore, so that kinda stinks. But for what it is, Rock is a decent brew. Pizza, wings, burgers or dogs---grab a Rock and enjoy. And I still find the green glass painted bottle tre cool.

Photo of beertunes
3/5  rDev +16.3%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Another in my series of brews due to losing a bet. If you bet a bartender, make sure you win. Served in straight pint glass. Poured a very pale yellow, with just over an inch of foamy white head that had surprisingly good retention and even some OK lacing.

The aroma was the expected, mostly benign, grain scent typical of the style. There was a trace of hops floating around the edges of this slightly sweet smelling brew. The flavors were also what I expected: slightly grainy, a bit sweet, a hint of hops and mostly neutral.

The body was typical for this style. Drinkability was very good if you like this style, typical if you're not a fan (like me). Overall, a fairly typical example of the style. I seem to remember this beer being much more flavorful back when I first tried it in the Mid-70s, but perhaps my memory is playing tricks on me.

Rolling Rock Extra Pale from Latrobe Brewing Co.
61 out of 100 based on 2,346 ratings.