1. The wait is over! Download the BeerAdvocate app on iTunes or Google Play now.
  2. Get 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine for only $9.99!

Rolling Rock Extra Pale - Latrobe Brewing Co.

Not Rated.
Rolling Rock Extra PaleRolling Rock Extra Pale

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.

2,043 Ratings

(view ratings)
Ratings: 2,043
Reviews: 712
rAvg: 2.59
pDev: 26.64%
Wants: 12
Gots: 109 | FT: 0
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:
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.

(Beer added by: Todd on 03-02-2001)
View: Beers (5) |  Events
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Latest | High | Low | Top Raters | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of Rolling Rock Extra Pale Alström Bros
Ratings: 2,043 | Reviews: 712 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of jakester


2.8/5  rDev +8.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

Bottom of the can says PKG11MAR05. Poured into a pilsener glass.

Pours a clear bright yellow with a 1" rocky white head that stays. Strong carbonation evident. Lacing on the glass, lasted all the down.

Aroma is of faint adjunct/malt, pleasant, with maybe faint citrusy hops in the back. As it warms, you can pick up cooked veggies, but not real bad. I guess the adjunct is corn, but it's not strong.

At first sip, it takes a few seconds to taste anything, but then you get a slight adjunct/malt flavor, some honest to gosh bittering, and maybe very faint lemony hops way in the back. As it warms, the cooked veggies gets stronger, but not bad. I am pleasantly surprised by all of this. For what it is, it's not too bad.

The mouthfeel is of sharp carbonation, medium sweetness, and a very short aftertaste.

This beer needs to be drunk cold. As it warmed, it did get corny. However, if you're at a party, and all they have is this in an ice chest, do not be afraid!

Serving type: can

06-27-2005 20:02:31 | More by jakester
Photo of clemtig76

South Carolina

2.9/5  rDev +12%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Pours a pale stray yellow with a thin fizzy head. The aroma keeps saying corn. If I had a blindfold on, I would swear they I was smelling a can of creamed corn. The taste is not nearly as bad as the smell, clean and refreshing. A good "lawnmower beer".

Serving type: bottle

06-26-2005 00:25:15 | More by clemtig76
Photo of tgbljb


3.43/5  rDev +32.4%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

poured a light amber color with large white puffy headthat rapidly fell. Smell is slightly sweet with a mild malt scent. Taste is very light with nothing offensive to note. Mouthfeel is nothing to speak of. Easy to drink on a hot day to really quench your thirst

Serving type: bottle

06-22-2005 00:11:44 | More by tgbljb
Photo of Frozensoul327


2.45/5  rDev -5.4%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

This isn't a bad beer when taken into consideration that it's 1- a macro, and 2- It's not trying to be something it's not. A simple lager, nothing more, nothing less. Poured out to a decent yellow color with a thin head. No lace around the glass noted. Slight odors of corn and hops were present. Flavor was consistant with smell, mainly overtones of hops and corn, with a touch of barley. Could be a decent session beer for the warmer months of the year. Worth a try.

Serving type: bottle

06-18-2005 00:51:15 | More by Frozensoul327
Photo of swid


2.53/5  rDev -2.3%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Rolling Rock pours a medium yellow color into my pilsner glass; despite its name, it is not as pale as many other macro lagers. A 1", nearly perfectly white head form, and fades slowly; highly carbonated, and leaves a moderate amount of delicate lacing. The smell, however, isn't on par with the appearance. It's somewhat harsh, with the corn aroma dominating the malts; there's the barest hint of a floral hop smell...barely.

This beer's taste derives largely from the adjuncts; in fact, Rolling Rock is probably what I would use as a reference if I had to describe the flavor a corn adjunct gives to beer. The malt flavor is also evident, albeit weakly; bitterness from the hops is nearly nonexistant. However, this beer is somewhat more flavorful than the typical B/M/C lager. The mouthfeel is quite thin (as would be expected); the finish is fairly crisp, and leaves an aftertaste that is best describe as "corny, but with alcohol".

Overall, Rolling Rock isn't a bad beer; it's a cut above the typical macro lager, and a just-below average beer overall. In the end, though, one can easily sum up the Rolling Rock experience with, "At least it's better than Bud."

Serving type: bottle

06-12-2005 20:15:56 | More by swid
Photo of Romulus141


1.9/5  rDev -26.6%
look: 1 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

I used to like this, and considered it to be my choice for a mid-priced session beer. Time has not been so kind however. The more I have, the less about it I like.

Has a slight, wheat-like aftertaste that isn't unpleasant. The aftertaste is not bitter, and does not linger for long. Unfortunately, the experience beforehand is neutral, it tastes like alcohol-injected water.

The color is a light yellow, and looks weak and unhealthy. Its smell is dull and has a slight wheat smell to it.

This beer can be consumed in large quantities while cold, as it is not very filling.

This beer tastes horrible once it starts to get warm. It also is not a good beer to consume after having a quality beer, as the difference in taste quality will mix poorly. The poor quality of this beer really stands out with taste comparisons.

This is a decent college beer, but I still can't recommend it much. If you want mid-priced beer for a pounding session, spring for something like Michelob Amber Boch instead.

EDIT: Changed the scores since having more at a later date, and altered the review.

Serving type: bottle

06-07-2005 03:42:39 | More by Romulus141
Photo of kbnooshay

New York

2.9/5  rDev +12%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 4.5

This beer is nothing. In this case that is good. I dunno does it taste anything? Barely. Looks sorta bad. Smells sorta bland but it is kinda sweet. This is a simple beer, not much to say about it. No real flavor to comment about. If you want to get smashed with no pain at all this is your beer. Drink it down. Similar to water. And holy crap i admire someone (todd) that can review this beer and say "dry with a dextrin sweetness and husk tannins.". That is amazing. Someone inform me of these husk tannins. All i taste is watery ass. And what is a husk tannin.

Serving type: bottle

05-26-2005 04:29:19 | More by kbnooshay
Photo of scaliasux


2.42/5  rDev -6.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2

Appearance - Rather light golden, clear. Soapy foam that lingers more than most macros. High carbonation. Some lacing.

Smell - Very faint. All I can get is a little adjuncty malt. No off scents.

Taste - Not as overtly sweet as most macros. No hops apparant. Flavor is actually pretty indistinct, i.e. there's not really much taste at all. I don't hate it.

Mouthfeel - Pretty good for an adjuct. Has some body, not just water with carbonated zing.

Drinkability - This beer is less watery than most macros, but still quite refreshing and crisp. The taste is blah, though. There's just not much to see here. Doesn't make me mad, but it doesn't make the list of beers to consider buying.

One thing I don't like about Rolling Rock is how its bottle condescends to me. "We tender this premium beer for your enjoyment, as a tribute to your good taste." Don't patronize me. By the way, what does "33" mean?

Serving type: bottle

05-13-2005 04:35:29 | More by scaliasux
Photo of RedLion


1.6/5  rDev -38.2%
look: 1.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

There's no real taste, no real body, no real smell, no real color. It's basically flavored water, and you won't catch me buying this again any time soon. To think I actually enjoyed this junk back in HS and college. Ok, maybe I didn't enjoy so much as imbide. Unless you no access to any other beer (in which case you don't know what beer tastes like), there's no reason to buy Rolling Rock.

Serving type: bottle

05-01-2005 13:49:00 | More by RedLion
Photo of matdot


2.35/5  rDev -9.3%
look: 2 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 1.5

I bought a 15 pack of this from a friends recommendation. I was not impressed. This was like drinking a watered down low carb beer. The taste was ok, but drinking 3 or 4 as I usually do a night, leaved me with a headache. This happened not once, but throughout the case.

This is not what I want out of a session beer.

Serving type: can

04-19-2005 21:18:19 | More by matdot
Photo of PSUguru


3/5  rDev +15.8%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

They aren't kidding when they say "Extra Pale". Not to say it doesn't have taste but I would love to know what kind of hops and how much they are using because this beer has to have a very low IBU rating. It is unique to say the least. I'm going to scare a lot of people when I say this, but I'd venture to say this beer has less taste than all the macros like Bud, Miller, and Coors.

Latrobe Brewing prodcts, however, have lost some of their appeal since it sold was to Labatts and became more of a beer factory than a brewery as when it was owned locally.

Appearance: Average macro appearance. Nothing special, maybe even a little watery.

Smell: What smell?

Taste: As pale as you can get. Not a hint of hops anywhere. It tastes like they used way too much rice or some other adjuct that didn't leave any body. Definitely a unique taste you won't find many other places.

Mouthfeel: EXTRA PALE--> Enough said...

Drinkability: The beer is drinkable due to lack of taste. It comes in an attractive package and is an alternative to the mainsteam. I'll drink it because I like the pale taste but its definitely not worth the money.

Conclusion: If I'm looking for a PA alternative to the macros I'm going to grab a Straub or Yuengling. Better than Pittsburgh Brewing products though.

Caution: If you are a fan of heavier English and European beer you may mistake this for an Aquafina. You will only be able to distinguish the Rolling Rock from the Aquafina by the package. After pouring them into glasses there is no way to tell!

Serving type: bottle

04-09-2005 21:17:53 | More by PSUguru
Photo of Luigi

North Carolina

2/5  rDev -22.8%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Pale straw yellow with a small fizzy head. Smells like sweet corn and grains. Very light bodied with a lot of carbonation. Corn Corn and more Corn!! Way to much corn adjunct flavor for me. Some grains and soft hops are present though. This beer is nothing but your average american adjunct lager. Next!

Serving type: bottle

04-08-2005 05:10:20 | More by Luigi
Photo of ommegangpbr

New York

1.6/5  rDev -38.2%
look: 1.5 | smell: 1 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

I don't like this beer. I don't quite hate it but I'm not too far from there.
It almost always smells and tastes skunked to me. It's the cheap, mass produced (perhaps American has something to do with this?) version of everything I dislike about british pale ales.
To me it's basically bubbly water that tastes like there's something wrong with it.

Serving type: bottle

03-08-2005 01:12:06 | More by ommegangpbr
Photo of dren


2.58/5  rDev -0.4%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

I was buying the crap out of these one night because they were a dollar a bottle at a local pub. That is the only reason I would ever drink one again. Reminds me of the aweful beer Heineken but with a better smoother taste...this one is drinkable!

Not quite sure how she pours because I drank straight from the bottle. As far as smell goes, light skunk smell with some corn in there somewhere. The beer goes down fairly well leaving you refreshed oddly enough but the taste isn't something to be desired. Tastes sort of like it smells. I don't see how this beer goes for the price that it does. I would drink a Schlitz or Weidemann over this any day.

If you can drink this for a dollar a bottle, it is worth it as long as you can't get a Bud for that price.

Serving type: bottle

03-02-2005 19:57:00 | More by dren
Photo of boatyard

New Jersey

3.53/5  rDev +36.3%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

There was a term we used to use in the Navy, it called K.I.S.S. I am sure you know that it means Keep It Simple Stupid. That is what i feel Rolling Rock to be. A simple to drink cheap beer. Not very complex, it has a decent color to it and smells ok. It will pour with a 1 , close to a 2 finger head depending on how you pour it. It leave some lace which is more than i can say for comparable beers of this type. It does taste better to put it in a glass, frosty ones are nice. So if you want a nice session beer that won't get you to hamered and you are low on cash go with Rolling Rock. Als the 33 is on the bottle because when the brewers decieded as to what would be on the bottle they put a 33 at the end because they were to be charged per word. The 33 was not originally supposed to be there. However the bottle maker put the 33 on the bottle. After paying for the bottles, they could not return them So thery kept it.

Serving type: bottle

02-12-2005 03:06:09 | More by boatyard
Photo of PopeJonPaul


2.48/5  rDev -4.2%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

So, I was at a slot car race challenge (yes!) last weekend in the East Village, and they were serving $3 Becks and $2 Rolling Rocks. For the $2 value I thought I'd try the RR, I couldn't remember the last time I had it.

No glassware or plasticware at this function, poured out a dollop to all my dead homies in the bathroom sink to check the color (hey, gotta be as honest as possible, right?) Pretty pale yellow, exceedingly carbonated. Smelled like hoppy water.

Taste was actually fair, not my style but not as offensive as I feared it might be. Didn't really taste like much, honestly I would have guessed it was a pilsner. The type of beer I used to scrape change together to buy in 12-packs, but better than a 12-pack of Keystone-ilk for sure. Had an extremely fizzy mouthfeel with no aftertaste, I ended up putting down about 4 of these though while having a grand ol' time kicking a** on the 100' slot car track. I felt exactly the same when I left as when I walked in, so I'd rate this as somewhat drinkable, I guess. Either way, it fit the trailer-parkNASCAR atmosphere for the event.

Serving type: bottle

02-05-2005 04:12:25 | More by PopeJonPaul
Photo of ahking


2.78/5  rDev +7.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2

Pours especially pale with no head and minimal lacing. Nice swirling bubbles portend a highly carbonated beer. Smell is sort of a sickly cut grass odor. For some reason I have always had a hard time drinking this beer -- too acidic at the back of the throat. For some reason the cool green bottle always made this an attractive beer to get when I was younger, but now that I have experienced more, the appeal is negligable. For the same price, I would recommend picking up Molson Canadian if this style of beer is what you like

Serving type: bottle

01-23-2005 23:56:57 | More by ahking
Photo of santoslhalper


1.73/5  rDev -33.2%
look: 2 | smell: 3 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1

Appearence: Extra Pale is right. Loads of cabonation streaming through a clear copper color reaching a foamy, bleach white head.

Smell: Smells like the typical adjunct smell. Hops and malts, but none of them authentic smelling.

Taste and Mouthfeel: This is damn near disgusting. The only thing that saves it is the hop presence, albiet a pretty nasty one. The mouthfeel is fizzy. Blah.

Drinkability and Overall: I live about 45 minutes from Latrobe, so it's pretty common around here. As for me is another adjunct lager. Skip this one.

Serving type: bottle

01-11-2005 03:35:44 | More by santoslhalper
Photo of tweeder263


2.28/5  rDev -12%
look: 2 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Ahh rolling rock one of my old staple beers. Pours out light straw colored with a minimal one finger head. Head doesnt hang around very long. Smell is a sweet stank that most macro lagers have {until i found good beers i thought that smell was just normal}.Taste was typical adjunct lager with a hint of alcohol in there , no hops. I cant believe I used to drink these all of the time.At least its better than bud.

Serving type: bottle

12-01-2004 02:22:46 | More by tweeder263
Photo of PossumJenkins


2.75/5  rDev +6.2%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 4.5

Appearance - Very pale yellow, looks like Bud, MGD or any similar macro. Actually forms a pretty decent head on pouring though, unlike the macros.

Smell - "Chemical" is the first word that comes to mind. Yuck.

Taste - Meh. It is what it is - a cheap American beer. Probably slightly better than a typical macro, but nothing to write home about. Definite "watered-down" quality.

Drinkability - I actually gave it a 4.5 in this category because it's definitely a good session beer (i.e. beer you drink to get drunk, not to enjoy the bouquet and delicious flavor) Can drink 12 of these easily with little to no hangover.

Serving type: bottle

11-18-2004 03:02:23 | More by PossumJenkins
Photo of BigRedN


3.03/5  rDev +17%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 4

Appearance: Pale straw color (watered down Bud, if that's possible), a decent pour produces a small head (1/4 to 1/2 inch), a very hard pour yields foam. No lacing, but plenty of those tiny bubbles dancing in the glass like any other macro.

Smell: Almost none, if I inhale deep, I get a faint hint of hop, and a sweet aroma (malt or an adjunct like corn?).

Taste: Just like any other macro.

Mouthfeel: Thin, light, watery.

Drinkability: Way up there. I can pound these away with little after affects (with A-B or Miller products I usually get a hang over if I have 12 or more).

A cool bottle, and the fact this is a smaller brewery in PA (in comparison to BMC) do little to save this one. A good beer to have if one is out to just pound away mass quantities and get sloppy drunk, but little other redeeming qualities.

Serving type: bottle

11-17-2004 05:00:04 | More by BigRedN
Photo of UDbeernut

New York

2.8/5  rDev +8.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

A very pale beer, it almost looks like water is in your glass. The taste is smooth with a hint of corn. The head quickly forms and disappears almost twice as fast. This beer is a great substitue for those who want to get away from the typical macro.

Deffiantly a great session beer. I could drink these all day ;o) especially on a warm summer day.

Serving type: bottle

10-24-2004 23:40:55 | More by UDbeernut
Photo of TheDeuce

New York

1.95/5  rDev -24.7%
look: 2 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2.5

The Rock...straight out of my home state

Appearance-lots of foam (could've had something to do with it being on-tap, bits of it stuck to the glass, nice color, very appealing.

Smell- Hops anyone? You can actually smell the beer, what a surprise. While not as appealing as some others, an attractive scent.

Taste-very full, lots of character, the grain hops linger in your mouth and it goes down easy and leaves you satisfied.

Mouthfeel- no problem, very satisfying, the aftertaste is solid, leaves you wanting more,

Drinkability- go for it, have a keg or a case if you can afford it often (can get expensive at times)

Overall-I was delighted to have this, all in all an above-average American lager no matter how you put it. Definitely go have it.

UPDATE: 4/27/08

I want to update this beer review, I owe Rolling Rock a lot for helping me get started on the better beer path but now two things have hurt it.

One, I found much better beers to be had and this now suffers in comparison.

Two, Rolling Rock was sold and is now brewed in Newark, NJ far from the glass-lined tanks at Old Latrobe and the beer suffers even more. They gutted the factory and almost killed the town, may those who made that decision rot.

Serving type: on-tap

10-17-2004 06:16:53 | More by TheDeuce
Photo of Gagnonsux


3.08/5  rDev +18.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Poor college student that I am, I bought this on sale for $8.99 a 12 pack. Not a bad deal when you consider the other beers you can find in the same price range. Appearance is a pale yellow color with an average-sized, dishwatery head. Smell is pretty good for an adjunct lager. Aroma is grainy and strong, and doesn't suffer from adjunct off-smells. Taste is decent, primarily light-bodied grain flavors. Finishes sweet, which is a plus. This is fairly drinkable as lawnmower beers go, something I'll buy when it's on sale.

Serving type: bottle

09-26-2004 02:26:55 | More by Gagnonsux
Photo of sulldaddy


2.68/5  rDev +3.5%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 3.5

I am drinking a cold can of this brew in a pint glass. The beer pours a bright gold color with a bleached white head that foams up easily and leaves large bubbled latticework as it dissipates.
Aroma is mild , but soapy and corny grain scents dominate, although I do get some faint floral hops in there. First sip reveals a very light body with small prickly carbonation. Flavor is mild but some grainy malt mixes with a bit of a sweet finish. Beer is very smooth and goes down like water, maybe too much like water, but would be nice on a hot day at the beach, even with the empty finish.
Definitely worse brews out there.

Serving type: can

09-14-2004 02:31:50 | More by sulldaddy
Rolling Rock Extra Pale from Latrobe Brewing Co.
62 out of 100 based on 2,043 ratings.