Dismiss Notice
Subscribe to BeerAdvocate magazine and get 12 issues / year of fresh beer content delivered to your door each month.

Already subscribe? to manage your subscription.

Tap Room No. 21 Lager - World Brews

Not Rated.
Tap Room No. 21 Lager
No picture.
Have one? Upload it now.
BA SCORE
68
poor

41 Reviews
THE BROS
-
no score

(Send Samples)
Reviews: 41
Hads: 62
rAvg: 2.75
pDev: 13.09%
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 (81) | Events
Beer: Reviews & Ratings
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50  | nextlast
Reviews: 41 | Hads: 62
Photo of G2Brew
3.96/5  rDev +44%
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. (2,279 characters)

Photo of Nerudamann
3.57/5  rDev +29.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

Look - Light straw color, clear. Color of the froth is off-white. Good carbonation, and about 2.5 fingers of foam that dissipates slowly.

Smell - Hoppy in character. Mostly a wheaty smell, but I seem to catch a hint of something fruity..very light and subtle though.

Taste - Very well-balanced...hoppy flavor is only slightly noticeable. Other than that though, not much is flying out at me in the taste. Texture is creamier than I would have thought, but also fairly well-balanced.

Drinkability - This is a good-tasting, but not very complex beer. Still very drinkable in that it just tastes good, but isn't very mind absorbing. (633 characters)

Photo of SargeC
3.4/5  rDev +23.6%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

Appearance: Golden color. Quickly dissipating head. Heavy carbonation.

Smell: No standout aromas

Taste: Solid lager flavor. Light malt and hop flavors balance well.

Mouthfeel: Satisfying, medium body. Charged with carbonation.

Drinkability: Decent brew, solid consistency and flavor (286 characters)

Photo of mmmbeer
3.38/5  rDev +22.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

12 oz. bottle with no freshness date. It pours a nice medium gold, well-carbonated, with two inches of head that deposit some decent lace. Lemony and toasted in the nose, and the flavor adds to this a touch of caramel malts, salty minerals, and some green hops that impart a mild bitterness on top of a light, tingly and dry body. Not too bad to drink, especially for the price, but it wouldn't be a mainstay in my fridge. (422 characters)

Photo of JayQue
3.33/5  rDev +21.1%
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!!! (699 characters)

Photo of tbeck
3.15/5  rDev +14.5%
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. (353 characters)

Photo of wspscott
3.03/5  rDev +10.2%
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. (852 characters)

Photo of lkno301
3.03/5  rDev +10.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Clever & appealing labeling and packaging. Lots of info right on the front of the label. "Celebrating the repeal of Prohibition 1933" is an eye-catcher. Great label. Masterful marketing. Looks like some new micro-brew Co. I found this sitting at eye-level at my local QFC (AKA "Kroger" here in Seattle) with a blurb stating "New Item: $6.99."

Appearance: I'm rating this average, as it looks like your "average" Macro-brew. Pale yellow held against a light. Traces of a head. Traces of lacing in my tulip glass.

Smell: I'm rating this as less-than-average, as it doesn't even smell like beer. How did they do that?

Taste: well at least it tastes like "beer."

Mouthfeel: has more substance than you might expect, considering all it's defects.

Drinkability: to give it it's due, not so bad, considering all the dreck out there to compare it to.

NOT recommended. Much better cheap beer available. I'm still learning not to judge a book by it's cover. (967 characters)

Photo of Beernoisseur
3.02/5  rDev +9.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

This was a random purchase. It had kind of a cool label, so I thought I'd give her a try.

A - Light, straw yellow with a dusting of amber hues. White head disappeared in like one minute.

S - Very light. All the regulars, and nothing that I wouldn't expect. a little bit of metallic tang.

T - This one was lighter in flavor than i expected. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't great. No real interesting flavors. There might have been a bit of citrus in there.

M - Very watery. The carbonation was on the rougher side of what I like. not the greatest.

D - If you wanted a beer you could slam all night long, this unusual brew would be great. My question would be why not something like a session lager? Lots more flavor, lots less money. (736 characters)

Photo of Mora2000
3/5  rDev +9.1%
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. (501 characters)

Photo of Kromes
3/5  rDev +9.1%
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. (481 characters)

Photo of BEERchitect
3/5  rDev +9.1%
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. (863 characters)

Photo of Schneic8
2.93/5  rDev +6.5%
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. (600 characters)

Photo of zeff80
2.93/5  rDev +6.5%
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. (353 characters)

Photo of mralphabet
2.88/5  rDev +4.7%
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.. (732 characters)

Photo of wcdoyle
2.85/5  rDev +3.6%
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. (945 characters)

Photo of Bookseeb
2.85/5  rDev +3.6%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

Appearance has a nice amber color supporting a thin dissipating head leaving spotty lace. Smell of lightly sweet malt and maybe slight adjuncts. Taste of the sweet malt rounded with a mellowing of hops. Mouthfeel has a light body with good carbonation. A little on the sweet side for me, but not bad. (300 characters)

Photo of Jadjunk
2.82/5  rDev +2.5%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

#85. This runs under $6 for a 6-pack with the other varieties in tow when the price is right. Found at a well stocked grocer in town, but haven't seen it anywhere else.

Poured from a 12 oz. bottle to a glass mug at room temp.

(Appearance) Pours a very fizzy 2 finger depth head that recedes at an alarmingly quick rate, slowing as it approaches a thin sheet of foam, but subsides within about 2 minutes of the pour. Color is a pale peach-amber and is very clear with little clarity imperfections. Carbonation is spritely and can be seen everywhere throughout the glass. The combination of the uninteresting color and consistency plus the disappointing head quality give this beer a very lackluster appearance. 2

(Smell) Quite the lager aroma, but with no notable characteristics aside from some crisper cheap grain malts, bready tones and perhaps a hint of corn which gives the beer some very noticeable sweet highs. Hops are nowhere to be found, and any other complementary flavor in spices or caramel are also nearly indiscernible, although caramel presence is not out of the question. Hardly potent enough to excite me but it's stronger than some of the weakest aromas I have experienced. 2.5

(Taste) At first comes a subtle arrangement of malt flavors, none too strong and the first taste is light and balanced. Barley malt, some bread and slight yeast notes and yes, a touch of corn on the back burner round out the flavor. It's not very exciting but it's flavorful enough to be defining. Very sweet, perhaps too much so, and it would be nice to have some appropriate bitter to complement the flavor otherwise, but it's not terrible. 3

(Mouthfeel) Slight tongue tingle from the notable carbonation presence but the rest of the drink remains an airy smooth. It's got quite a light body and there's little distracting taste to slow the drink down. It's noticeably thin. Alcohol presence is locked down well and the finish is sweet and slightly dry. Not bad. 3

(Drinkability) It's quite drinkable as none of the malts in here are overbearing on the tongue and it's flavorful enough to separate ever so slightly from the average macro. My biggest concern with the drinkability is the draining sweetness which is just too over-the-top for my palate. No doubt the existence of corn and cheap grains helps bring this character to the front, but aside from that deterrent, this remains a decent lager with an above-average drinkability. 3

Verdict: I don't feel quite so taken advantage of due to saving several dollars on a sixer that is normally close to the $10 range, but otherwise it's a pretty average lager with nothing special. Balance of the malt is nice and subtle but the sweetness is just too much to keep me going back for more. I'll expect better things from the other two varieties I found at the store. C- (2.7) (2,830 characters)

Photo of cvstrickland
2.8/5  rDev +1.8%
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. (628 characters)

Photo of Andrew644
2.78/5  rDev +1.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

A- light gold with a nice white foaming head.

S- a slight malt smell but little else.

T- a slight malt and hop flavor but not near enough. For a regular lager this doesn't have enough taste and is more like a light beer.

M- needs more carbonation.

D- its average, nothing better. (283 characters)

Photo of theopholis
2.77/5  rDev +0.7%
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. (554 characters)

Photo of jushoppy2beer
2.77/5  rDev +0.7%
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. (540 characters)

Photo of ncm45
2.76/5  rDev +0.4%
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. (1,033 characters)

Photo of bilyboy65
2.71/5  rDev -1.5%
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. (869 characters)

Photo of Zorro
2.7/5  rDev -1.8%
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. (786 characters)

first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50  | nextlast
Tap Room No. 21 Lager from World Brews
68 out of 100 based on 41 ratings.