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

62 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 62
Reviews: 41
rAvg: 2.82
pDev: 16.67%
Wants: 2
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
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 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 StarSAELS
2.04/5  rDev -27.7%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

So I picked this up in the new Kroger... along with their Amber Ale and Pale Ale. The beermonger says it's a Kroger brand that's contract brewed by Midwest Beverage Packers, which is part of City Brewery, which is actually Melanie Brewing Company. So it's a friend of their mother-in-law's second cousin, who happens to be twice removed.

Whatever it is, booo. I'm working on my second one (unfortunately), so this is a fresh review.

A: Pours a pale golden with little or no head. If there was one it receded so fast I didn't have time to see it. All that's left is a thin ring of bubbles around the glass and a small island of bubbles, single-layer.

S: Malts, malts, where are the malts? This has a funny odor I can't place. It's a little like beer... but more like freshly-cut cabbage.

T: Flavor, flavor, where is the flavor? I almost want to call this a "malt beverage". A bad one.

M: Thin and almost lifeless. Leaves you wondering if you just drank something...

D: Never again will I buy this. Anyone want the four remaining? I'll GIVE them to you...

Photo of SickBrew
2.06/5  rDev -27%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

This beer pours a pale straw color with a bit of head retention. Aroma is bland, rice/corn like with a slight fortified aroma. Taste is very grainy and corn like - not good. I don't detect any hops and the malts associated with an all American Lager are absent - I'll take a Bud any day over this. Mouthfeel is watery with low carbonation and plain - blah. Overall this beer is not really worth trying. If looking for a good or new lager look else where.

Prost!

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 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 ChainGangGuy
2.28/5  rDev -19.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Appearance: Pours out a clear, light golden body with a small-sized, wispy, white head.

Smell: Just a humble, unremarkable nose of low-grade cereal grains and some vague, transient floral hints. Smells like little care, craftsmanship, or even thought went into this beer beyond the simple thought of "hey, let's just whip out a quick, cheap lager."

Taste: Light pale malts with a slight sweetish quality to it. Mild, unpleasant vegetal tones slip shamelessly into the flavor. I'm constantly being told I need to take in more vegetables, but this isn't the way to do it. Merest hint of floral hops and bitterness. Sweetish, somewhat unclean finish.

Mouthfeel: Light-bodied. Medium carbonation.

Drinkability: As was the case with the pale ale, this is unenjoyable and wholly unrewarding. It's pretty understandable this horrid thing rolled out of the doors of a major malt liquor producer. It's a case where I'd rather have a macro lager over this. So, please, pass the Michelob! And let us not forget there's still the amber ale to try.

Photo of Cyberkedi
2.33/5  rDev -17.4%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Pours a rather uninspiring clear straw-yellow, very typical of a lager, but at least it has a nice, thick, somewhat persistent white head. Aroma is crisp, malty and a bit weak. Flavor is better than the aroma, but not much, being typically malty and having just a soupcon of sour fruit. Texture is smooth and only a little tingly. Not great, but it was worth trying.

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 berserker256
2.44/5  rDev -13.5%
look: 1.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Appearance is pretty terrible. The beer is completely see-through and dark yellow with a soapy head that totally disappeared before my first sip. I haven't had a drink yet and now it looks like applejuice. About seven carbonation bubbles per minute rise to the top of the glass. Smells like sweet metallic corn. There's a touch of sweet malt aroma but not much. No hop character at all. There's a semi-sweet malty flavor and perhaps an old banana is detected in there as well. There's a decent sort of creamy texture but carbonation is terrible. Pretty lousy overall.

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 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 Onslow
2.56/5  rDev -9.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Had at Coops!...Medium head on the pour... indifferent smell, kinda vague... a tad watery, but for $6, no real need to complain (to much at least)... better than most american lagers, but needs more effort...kyle is a psycho..

took 5mins to find on this site, wow..i love these beers that are made by one brewery then contracted to who knows who ...

..not recommended! ...

Photo of JohnQVegas
2.61/5  rDev -7.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Bottle into Sam Adams sensory glass.

Pours clear straw color, with a thin, creamy white head and waves of bubbles sweeping up from the bottom of the glass. Decent amount of foamy lacing, and the creamy cap left after the head settles lasts for quite awhile.

Nose is light, just a bit of grainy malt and just a tiny bit of corn.

Taste follows the nose - not a whole lot going on in this one; very light notes of corn and grainy malt, with the taste just dropping off the map after a few seconds of light corny sweetness on the finish. Nothing lingering on this one, it just goes from not much to nothing in a heartbeat. Clean is an understatement; this one is hermetically sealed. No hop presence whatsoever.

Mouthfeel isn't bad - light bodied and with a crisp, light carbonation. Again, crisp but not at all dry.

Drinkability is mainly hurt by the stark lack of any real flavor. It doesn't really taste bad, it just doesn't taste like much of anything. Not a whole lot of different from Bud or any other BMC product.

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 boogles
2.65/5  rDev -6%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Not very good. Rumor has it that Kroger has contracted with La Crosse City and branded this as "Tap Room Brewing Company." It's cheap at $1/beer, but the Pale Ale is way better (though still not very good) than the lager--and I'm not opposed to lager. I've not had the Amber yet, but other reviewers seem to think it's the best of the bunch. The main problem with the lager is that it's completely boring. And whereas I'll occasionally save $1-2 and get the Tap Room APA instead of Stella, I would not make that mistake again with this. Not recommended.

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 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 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 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 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 Andrew644
2.78/5  rDev -1.4%
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.

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 Jadjunk
2.82/5  rDev 0%
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)

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.

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