Dismiss Notice
Save $5 when you subscribe to 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine by selecting auto-renew.

Subscribe now →
Dismiss Notice
Join Our Email List →

And we'll send you the latest updates and offers from BeerAdvocate, because knowing is half the battle.
Dismiss Notice

Pre-order your Respect Beer "Hipster" Hoodie today!

Plus: Free shipping (US only) on orders of $25 or more until 12/18/15. Just select "Free Shipping" at checkout.

Shop now →

Tap Room No. 21 Lager - World Brews

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

41 Reviews
no score

(Send Samples)
Reviews: 41
Hads: 63
Avg: 2.78
pDev: 21.22%
Wants: 1
Gots: 3 | 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 (84) | Events
Beer: Reviews & Ratings
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
firstprev| 1-25 | 26-50  | next → last
Reviews: 41 | Hads: 63
Photo of jushoppy2beer
2.77/5  rDev -0.4%
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 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.

 628 characters

Photo of tbeck
3.15/5  rDev +13.3%
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 mmmbeer
3.38/5  rDev +21.6%
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 boogles
2.65/5  rDev -4.7%
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.

 553 characters

Photo of kimcgolf
2/5  rDev -28.1%
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.

 479 characters

Photo of Onslow
2.56/5  rDev -7.9%
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! ...

 374 characters

Photo of SargeC
3.4/5  rDev +22.3%
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 Reidrover
2.26/5  rDev -18.7%
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?

 428 characters

Photo of Zorro
2.7/5  rDev -2.9%
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

Photo of BEERchitect
3/5  rDev +7.9%
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 wcdoyle
2.85/5  rDev +2.5%
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 ncm45
2.76/5  rDev -0.7%
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 brewdlyhooked13
2.23/5  rDev -19.8%
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.

 804 characters

Photo of lkno301
3.03/5  rDev +9%
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 StarSAELS
2.04/5  rDev -26.6%
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...

 1,071 characters

firstprev| 1-25 | 26-50  | next → last
Tap Room No. 21 Lager from World Brews
69 out of 100 based on 41 ratings.