Tap Room No. 21 Lager - World Brews

Not Rated.
Tap Room No. 21 Lager
No picture.
Have one? Upload it now.

62 Ratings
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 62
Reviews: 41
rAvg: 2.82
pDev: 16.67%
Wants: 1
Gots: 2 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
World Brews visit their website
California, United States

Style | ABV
American Pale Lager |  4.50% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes & Commercial Description:
Beer added by: StarSAELS on 05-17-2007

No notes at this time.
View: Beers (80) | Events
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50  | next › last »
Ratings: 62 | Reviews: 41
Reviews by MrBoh:
More User Reviews:
Photo of RoyalT
2.48/5  rDev -12.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

Appearance - This is a light yellow in color with a modest head that went down quickly.

Smell - The light, sweetish grain is a bit gross. It has that putrid moldy corn aroma that a lot of bad American lagers seem to relish.

Taste - The grain comes out just a tad better at the taste but this is still liquid corn.

Mouthfeel - This is light-bodied with some sprightly carbonation that showed a bit more depth then the usual American macros. The finish was crisp and clean with no bitterness IAW the style. Nicely done in this department.

Sinkability - City Brewing makes a few mass-market malt liquors and this one has that flavor but without the booze. If I'm going to drink sub-par beer I at least when to get drunk while doing it.

Photo of Mora2000
3/5  rDev +6.4%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Very excited to try a new beer from City Brewing, home of classic beers such as Earthquake and Evil Eye.

The beer pours a clear light yellow color with a white head. Looks exactly like a pale lager should. The aroma is as expected, with a lot of grain and corn notes. The flavor is also just like I expected. The beer is fairly sweet and has a lot of grain and corn, along with some grassy notes. Medium mouthfeel and medium carbonation. Not too good, but as far as pale lagers go, you can do worse.

Photo of WVbeergeek
2.43/5  rDev -13.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

This beer package says brewed in Rochester, NY, this website says it's brewed at City Brewing, and the website says Novato, CA. Either way this is standard pale straw colored lager bright quckly fleeting white head. Speckled lacing down the sides of my mug. Aroma has some biscuit malts, grainy husk notes, a touch of honey and some metallic character to it. Flavor has a sweet slight citrus and fruity tone for a lager, no real hop bitterness this beer is a put your training wheels on craft brew. Some husky grains throwing a bit of offness along with a metallic edge to some apple fruit juice tartness a bit weird. Mouthfeel is light bodied semi fizzy carbonation nothing substantial for me. Drinkability this will be a one time spot I have one of each of the three varieties, I wishI liked them.

Photo of Brenden
2.63/5  rDev -6.7%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.75

From notes. I can't really say what I was expecting...just that I wasn't surprised.

The look is surprisingly...average. A pale yellowish color with a deeper gold hue, this brew develops a small but reasonably sticky white head. It doesn't drop as quickly as I might expect, though it doesn't exactly stick around for the party. It does manage to leave enough spotty lacing for me to decide I really am drinking a beer.
Well...I can't smell or drink this without wondering if it's a macro in disguise, though even some of those are simply brewed lamely for the mass "swigger's" palate but with more skill. This one is too vegetal, with too much of that grainy/fruity thing going on. Cereal grains are strongest, and the only relief comes when at least something by way of some crackery/fruity pale malts and light dusty/floral bitterness manage to find their way out. That said, I suppose it becomes somewhat tolerable once that happens, but it's all that does happen. A bit of sulfur comes through underneath as well.
I expect a light body, and for the style it fits. There's nothing really going on, though. While fairly bland, it's not completely inactive, as there's a nip of crispness on the front and it manages some smoothness.

Photo of wspscott
3.03/5  rDev +7.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

12oz bottle in pint glass

A: Dark golden color, crystal clear, the head is almost non-existent, but there is quite a bit of lace.
S: Bread and light caramel sweetness.
T: Sweet, lots of light malt/bread character, a hint of toast and crackers on the back of the tongue. No hop character at all, it could use a little more bitterness to balance the malty sweetness. Not quite cloying, but getting there.
M: Round, with a high level of carbonation.
D: Very easy to drink, would be better if it was a little dryer. You could easily give this to a BMC drinker. I would not be disappointed to find this in a cooler at the beach, but I would not actually buy it. It is fine for the style, just not my thing. A perfectly average example of the style. Thanks Chris for leaving a couple in the fridge, the rest will probably be waiting for you to come back.

Photo of theopholis
2.77/5  rDev -1.8%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Appearance- Very clear, bright golden bpdy. Very little head, and no lacing. Continually but slowly effervesces for a long time.

Smell- Light floral hops with a very thin malt background. Aroma is rather subdued, but does smell inviting.

Taste- Nice, light refreshing. Not much taste overall, but what there is is quite pleasant. Nice malt sweetness well-balanced by the bittering hops. Taste gets kind of funky as it warms.

Mouthfeel- Good CO2 level. Medium body. Basically what you would expect out of a lager.

Drinkability Not great, but not bad.

Photo of wcdoyle
2.85/5  rDev +1.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

Pours a pale, clear gold. Head was white to off white and started off quite dense but dropped quickly. Some lacing. Smell had a touch of sweet, light grain but not much else. Sweet—but not syrupy—taste on first sip. There was light touch of hops toward the finish. Little, if any aftertaste. The sweetness isn’t as pronounced after a few more sips Light seems to be the key adjective for this beer in nearly all ways, including mouthfeel. Low carbonation after letting the initial pour settle. (i.e the first few sips add a bit more sparkle than the rest of the glass. I’d actually rate drinkability high because this beer is so light and because it doesn’t taste off or bad. Clearly, though this beer is nothing special. Okay, if not great, price ($5.99) and *maybe* a touch above the average BMC if not the overall average beer. Yeah there's better beer out there, but I also give this ber a "good" drinkability becauce it doesn't offend.

Photo of Kromes
3/5  rDev +6.4%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A: yellow straw color with thin white head. Lots of carbonation in the beer.

S: honey sweetness, yeast and a little bit of floral, earthy hop.

T: The honey and yeast taste is very strong and sweet up front. This gives way to a touch of bitterness and herbal flavor from the hop.

M: Light body. The carbonation is high. The finish is semi dry.

D: This is an average lager. Not bad. Tastes better than your run of the mill american lager, but about the same in all other aspects.

Photo of Zorro
2.7/5  rDev -4.3%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Picked up at the local market vaguely remember trying something like this in Ohio.

Clear yellow beer that is a shade or two darker than average with a decent white head that doesn't last.

Smell is a little sweet and a little fruit as if this has been fermented on the hot side. Decent whiff of Nobel hops a little herbal and grassy.

The taste begins a little sweet and fruity and I am again wondering if this was fermented a little hot to speed things up at the factory. Slight flavor of oxidation in the malt, must be the manufacturing because this hasn't been in the store for more than three days. Could use more of a hop presence.

The mouthfeel is OK.

Nothing remarkable about this and it probably the minimal thing that could be considered a craft brew. No real reason to buy.

Photo of Schneic8
2.93/5  rDev +3.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Poured from a bottle into a mug.

Appearance: Poured a copper color with a white head that somewhat lasted. There appears to be a lot of fizz and carbonation.

Smell: Mild smell with nothing overpowering. Light and hard to pick up.

Taste: Sweet taste that is somewhat watered down. Maybe some slight citrus but no real discernible flavors.

Mouthfeel: Slight crispness but not as much carbonation that is present in the appearance. Goes down smooth with no after taste.

Overall: Nice beer but with few outstanding qualities. It goes down smooth and is easy to drink. Not sure if I would try again.

Photo of Reidrover
2.26/5  rDev -19.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

OK I just had to break down and rate this line ,I have always rested , seeing them sitting in the shelf at Fred Meyer, were I think better beer could be. Appearance, just average lager, maybe slightly more golden than BMC. Nice sized white head. aroma, buiscuity, light graininess, corn. Flavour :sour corn,sweet thin malts, boreing. Thin and dead on the palate. Overall not great, why buy this when you can get BMC for cheaper?

Photo of feelmefoam
2.53/5  rDev -10.3%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Pours a light apple juice color with lots of carbonation and a finger of white head pushing up off the top of the liquid. The head doesn't last long at all though, and there's only a minimal amount of lacing.

The aroma is prevalent, but not too complex. Some slight floral aroma, but mostly a cheap, kind of boozy graininess.

The taste is also unimpressive. A light sweetness up front chased away by a slightly musty grain flavor. Not much hoppiness at the end, either, but you can tell there's something there.

The mouthfeel is pretty decent for a lager, just not much to back it up. Medium bodied with a moderate amount of carbonation for a crisp feel.

This is a pretty standard beer that needs a lot of improvement. I could maybe drink two at the most, but I would certainly search for something with more character to it.

Photo of G2Brew
3.96/5  rDev +40.4%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 4.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

This is my second Tap Room No. 21 (from World Beers of Navato, CA.) This time it's a lager, and that's all they call it -- Tap Room No. 21 Lager. I was hesitant, because something that only identifies itself as an American lager could be anything from Bud Light to SA Black Lager. But I was feeling adventurous, so here I am, sipping this brew. It’s not bad, closer to a Sammy than a Bud, at least.

Poured cold (40F) from a bottle into a pilsner glass.

A – A little (1/2 inch) off-white head, with low persistence and almost no lacing. The color is great though – a golden amber with excellent clarity. The color makes this a pale lager, although the flavor tells me it’s more of an amber lager. It’s a toss-up, to me, but I’ll go with pale.

S – There wasn’t much nose here, and I was a little disappointed. There was a nice malty aroma, leaningtoward the caramel/amber malts, but not nearly as much as I would have liked.

T – Generally balanced, but a little malty sweetness. The flavor runs heavily toward amber and caramel malt, with a very noble hop bite, slightly floral, and a little spicy – just a hint of clove, and possibly cinnamon. There is a lot of complexity in the flavor of this beer, but I poured it too cold. You won’t appreciate it all until it gets up to 50F +. There is a lot of aftertaste, both of the hops and the amber malt. It’s not unpleasant though. A strange metallic taste comes through on the palate after a while. Not sure if I like that so much.

M – The mouthfeel is light to medium, but with a LOT of carbonation. I’ll make sure my next one is warmer, with plenty of time to form a good head and maybe get rid of some of that excess carbonation. That may affect my impression.

D – The overall drinkability of this beer is very high. It’s a good lawnmower beer, or a decent session beer, especially for your less zymaturologically attuned friends. The sweetness, spiciness, and carbonation combined to give me a first impression not unlike ginger ale. It improved as it went along, and I suspect that it will be better if I open the next one warmer, then allow it to rest in the glass a bit before tasting. I reserve final judgment until after I’ve experimented with the rest of this six-pack.

Photo of mralphabet
2.88/5  rDev +2.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

12 Oz bottle poured into pint glass

A: Nice looking lager, clear golden color. Very little head with no lacing.... Lots of bubble from lots of carbonation.

S: I'm getting a steeliness and maybe apple with a little breadiness... nothing to crazy.

T: Very lager like... there is a little steeliness, with a bready yeast flavor with a little pepper in the aftertaste... but it fades quickly. Nothing to crazy... pretty ordinary.

M: Pretty smooth, light to mid bodied. The carbonation not as high as I would have thought.

D: Got this brew on the cheap.... so not bad for cheap beer.... It reminds me a little of Bud, just a little more flavor.... I would not run out looking for this one, but if offered I would not turn it down..

Photo of kimcgolf
2/5  rDev -29.1%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

If I drink a BMC or other macro product and it stinks, I figure I deserved it. But there should be a beer law against small breweries bottling products with catchy names and labels that turn out to be just as bad.

This crap was really disappointing. I previously had the Moes Backroom Pale Ale, and found it to be decent. This offering, however, was nothing more than a dressed up bum. If you have to drink this, save some money, and buy a Miller High Life or other grainy BMC.

Photo of cvstrickland
2.8/5  rDev -0.7%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

12-ounce bottle poured into a shaker pint glass yields a clear pale golden body with a thin cap of grainy white foam that is gone before I finished typing that it was there. A few freckles of lacing attest to the presence of an anorexic ring at the perimeter of the glass.

The smell is faint, with a notion of sweetish cereal grains and a touch of musty malt.

The taste of the drink is mild and pale-malty with an herbal note in a bitter finish. A bit of dry, sourish grain arises deep in the aftertaste.

Thin-to-medium-bodied, not bad (or good), and actually pretty refreshing as long as you don't scrutinize it too closely.

Photo of JayQue
3.33/5  rDev +18.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Not bad as a session beer. Nothing exceptional that would make me seek it out. Basically a better version of what BMC is putting out. No adjunct crap but still a pretty light beer.

Pours a clear amber orange wiht a slightly off white head. Head retention not bad, leaves some lacing on the glass.

Smell and taste start off with a solid malty presence. The taste finishes up with a slightly harsh bitterness.

Mouthfeel is light but crisp, not at all watery like some macro lagers. Drinkability is good. The abv is low, there is some definite flavor here to make mass quantities worthwhile and there are no nasty or skunky surprises.

Not bad...not great...I wouldn't turn one down on a warm day!!!

Photo of brewdlyhooked13
2.23/5  rDev -20.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 4 | overall: 2

Appearance - straw with a touch of haze, a touch of gold. A fizzy white finger of bubbles grudgingly gives way. Zero lacing.

Aroma - standard grainy nose, not much else to say.

Taste - a little huskiness to the grains on a good first pull. Some mild sweetness and a hint of metal. Faint cardboard sneaking, not as much distasteful as just distracting. A lost echo of hops after the swallow. Mostly a miss of a beer with the occasional highlight. Enjoyed cold, I'll polish these off no problem, but IMO they don't do justice in celebrating the 1933 repeal as they intended. I imagine this might do well alongside the beers of that day, but not so much this day.

Mouthfeel - crisp, refreshing and clean.

Drinkability - no worse than a macro but not distinctive or tasty enough to bring me back.

Photo of BEERchitect
3/5  rDev +6.4%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Picked up a six-pack at Kroger Supermarket (of all places). Not expecting too much from this brew, but the bold language that resposes of the prohibition period shows me an attitude of which I can relate. The beer pours a typical straw color with a slight head retention and adequate carbonation. Aromas display a balance of pils malt and raw cereal grains, mixed with a touch of sulfer, vegetables (corn), and a bit of apples and pears. Do I detect a mild estery note? Flavors pick up on the same grain / malt blend found in the nose, but with a residual sweetness that stops shy of a detrement. Apple flavors persist into the flavors along with that mild pesky corn flavor. The body is a common, medium; of which is hindered by the weight of the residual sugars. Finish quite clean and crisp, despite the dms and sweet grain flavors. Not a bad beer, just banal.

Photo of zeff80
2.93/5  rDev +3.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

A - Poured out a golden amber color with a one-finger, white head of crackly head. It was very short-lived and left no lacing.

S - It smelled floral with some grains.

T - It tasted malty sweet with earthy, grassy hop bitterness.

M - It was crisp, sharp and smooth. A light to medium bodied lager.

O - This is an okay lager. Not worth stocking up on.

Photo of PintOHops
1.61/5  rDev -42.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Poured from a 12oz bottle into a pint glass.

Appearance/Smell - Appeared an ultra clear golden/yellow with lots of carbonation rising to the top, produced a 2 finger head, and left soapy lacing. Looked a little fresh but overall average. Smelled of a big grainy aroma upfront, there's a bit of fruity grape & strawberry as well, and I got a bit of metallic aroma which was a little off putting. There was no real malt or hop aroma that I could detect, just a dominant grainy aroma that reminded me of Coors.

Taste/Mouthfeel - Tasted of grains & corn through & through with no real malts or hops that I could detect. A bit of citrus along with some bitterness on the finish, but the bitterness wasn't like hop bitterness, again, this reminds me of a Coors but a little better in my opinion. Mouthfeel was smooth & crisp like any lager should be, average feel but good.

Drinkability/Final Thoughts - Very drinkable of course, but why buy this when you could get any BMC lagers that taste pretty much the same! I personally prefer a Bud over this supposed Craft Lager, this just isn't worth the 8$ bucks a 6pack that I paid for, and there certainly wasn't any craft in this beer, just another money making, cheap beer to pump out. Save your money folks. Not recommended.

Photo of jushoppy2beer
2.77/5  rDev -1.8%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

If you are in the mood for a very light-bodied lager to quench your thirst on a hot day, this is not a bad brew. It has a classic light lager color. The head is slight, with little retention, and no lacing to speak of. The nose has a reasonably nice maltiness, but the taste is a bit weak. It's slightly malty on the palate and on the finish, but without a gratifying complexity. The carbonation is pretty darn good, and the mouthfeel is a bit light, but refreshing. Okay as a session beer if you're not bothered by the low level of flavor.

Photo of ncm45
2.76/5  rDev -2.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

Picked up a six-pack today to give it a try. I've seen it around and figured with a hot enough day it might satisfy.

Appearance: Nothing remarkable in the appearance. It reminded me a lot of your average over the counter macro brew.

Smell: The first smell wasn't quite right and the taste confirmed the initial diagnosis. There's not much there and the smell certainly doesn't pull you in. You know there's beer in there but there's not much else to say.

Taste:The taste is a bit lacking, nothing strong or overwhelming but nothing bad about it either. There is a hint of some flavor trying to get out, but it just can't make it.

Mouthfeel: It does have some presence, but nothing like you'd want from a good lager.

Drinkability: Goes down pretty easy and on a hot day having a few of these wouldn't be disagreeable, but I think I'd seek out other alternatives if there were any.

I wouldn't recommend this beer - at least for the price I paid for it. If you find a friend who has it around you might give it a try.

Photo of bilyboy65
2.71/5  rDev -3.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

There's a funny story about how I came to drink this beer...It all starts in a grocery store with coolers and coolers filled with craft beers. Then I turn around to see this sitting on a shelf marked clearance $0.99. It was such a low price I had to see if it was that bad. Well as it turns out it's not horrible, but not all that good.

A: Very good for a lager, crisp clear golden color. White thin head that is fed by a lot of carbonation. Gotta love those bubbles. Nothing stays on the glass. It's almost like there was nothing in it to begin with.

S: Pretty much like a lager. A little bready, but nothing out of the ordinary.

T: A little metallicy, but nothing overwhelming. Yeasty taste overall.

M: Smooth, medium body feel. The carbonation visual doesn't let you down here.

D: I could have a few if they were handed to me. Wouldn't be a first choice though.

Photo of tbeck
3.15/5  rDev +11.7%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Poured a pale golden yellow with a thin white head that stayed around. Aroma was of malty cereal grains. Taste waste cereal grains and barley with a hint of barley and a slight metallic taste. The mouthfeel was good, very crisp and refresing. The beer was good, but the taste was a little off for a lager. Not a bad session beer, but on the boring side.

« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50  | next › last »
Tap Room No. 21 Lager from World Brews
68 out of 100 based on 62 ratings.