Bud Ice - Anheuser-Busch

Not Rated.
Bud IceBud Ice

Educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
47
awful

1,017 Ratings
THE BROS
42
awful

(view ratings)
Ratings: 1,017
Reviews: 273
rAvg: 1.83
pDev: 38.8%
Wants: 3
Gots: 140 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Anheuser-Busch visit their website
Missouri, United States

Style | ABV
American Adjunct Lager |  5.50% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes & Commercial Description:
Beer added by: BeerAdvocate on 10-02-2001

Anheuser-Busch’s exclusive ice-brewing process takes the beer to a temperature below freezing, which leads to the formation of ice crystals in the finishing process that gives Bud Ice its rich, smooth taste.
View: Beers (87) | Events
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of Bud Ice Alström Bros
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 1,017 | Reviews: 273
Photo of Sammy
1.18/5  rDev -35.5%
look: 2 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

Not the worst beer ever, but very close. Sample #16 at Radekfest 05 to change the pace. No colour, high liquor smell, taste of grass and lemon in water left a long time with cheap soda water, not quaffable. Keep it very cold like vodka. On second thought, have a vodka.

Photo of metter98
1.89/5  rDev +3.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.75 | overall: 2

A: The beer is crystal clear light yellow in color and has a moderate amount of visible carbonation. It poured with a finger high bright white head that died down very quickly, leaving a thin layer of bubbles covering the surface and a collar around the edge of the glass.
S: Light aromas of adjunct malts are present in the nose—corn seems to stand out in particular.
T: The taste is similar to the smell and also has some notes of corn and hints of grainy malts along with a light amount of bitterness.
M: It feels light-bodied, slightly watery and a little clean on the palate with a moderate amount of carbonation.
O: This beer is rather easy to drink and the overall taste is neither interesting nor offensive.

Photo of BEERchitect
1.75/5  rDev -4.4%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

This beer has a similar taste (or lack thereof) of Bud Light, but with more graininess and bite in the sides and back of the toung. Less malt sweetness and hop character than most Macro brews.Highly carbonated and slightly increased alcohol masks the flavors and numbs the palate. Graininess is left in the aftertaste and not much else.

Photo of largadeer
2.6/5  rDev +42.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Fairly clean beer, albeit lacking in flavor, body, aroma and all that good stuff.

Photo of BuckeyeNation
1.72/5  rDev -6%
look: 1.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

A few weeks ago I had an idea (what seemed like a good idea at the time) while standing in front of my local grocery's beer cooler. Nothing sparked my interest so I decided to attempt a comparison review with a few macros. I settled on Bud Ice and Natural Ice since I have a sneaking suspicion that they might be the same beer. When you brew thirteen variations on a theme, as A-B does, can you really make them distinctly different?

Here I'm referring to the various combinations of Bud, Michelob, Busch and Natural with 'regular', light, dry, ice, dry light and ice light. Through the miracle of beer reviewing that is the 'edit your review' button, I'll sample these brews side by side and attempt to discern their differences, similarities, charms(?) and faults.

Clear, light, bright gold topped by an off-white head of lightly creamy, yet airy froth that actually has some legs. It looks a bit tacky where head meets glass, but what little lace manages to stick doesn't last. I would challenge anyone to tell me that the two pint glasses before me contain different beer. Absolutely identical so far.

The aromas are also nearly identical. The only difference is that the Natural Ice nose is a tiny bit stronger and may be a little more sweet. Not to give my nose too much credit, but the difference is on the order of 10% or less. For all practical purposes they're the same.

They're definitely different beers, but I have a feeling that I could only discern that by drinking them side by side or by being familiar enough with one--consumed over a period of time--before drinking the other. Needless to say, that'll never happen. This beer is more dry, has a more pronounced grain flavor and has a little less flavor overall.

A suggestion of skunkiness is now apparent, but is equal in both beers. The bodies are pretty close (light, bordering on watery by the finish), but the Natural Ice body seems a tad more full due to the higher sugar content.

In the end, it all comes down to preference. Neither one of these is particularly good beer, but I do like the Natural Ice better because I feel that the mild sweetness improves the flavor slightly and improves the body to some extent. The extra sugar might also limit drinkability if one chose to pound more than a few, but I'll never be drunk enough to do something so stupid. This side by side comparison was more than enough, thank you.

Photo of mikesgroove
2.96/5  rDev +61.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3.5

The pour was about what I would have expected to be honest. Light hay colored and a big fizzy white head that quickly faded and left behind next to nothing in its wake. Aroma of corn, light bready malts and that was about it, not terrible, and within the style so you cannot really knock it terribly much. Clean, crisp flavor when served iced cold and really not that terrible. I was expecting it to be a lot worse then it really turned out. Muted flavors of corn and grain are really the only thing you pick up here at all and even that is going to almost immediately.
 
Overall a quick, clean, refreshing beverage best served at a baseball game but that's about it.
 

Photo of biboergosum
2.04/5  rDev +11.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 1.5

Approaching the Canadian border, on the home stretch of a week-long tour of Western Montana, and we pull into Browning, the last gas before high-tax-land. The Exxon station there must double as the local liquor store, because at least half of it was taken up by coolers full of beer, including an entirely separate walk-in room, that was strictly AB products. I had exactly 3 Yankee dollars remaining after buying a soft drink for the road, and I figured, what the hell, at $1.49 a pop (no pun intended), the 24oz AB cans were worth it, if only to remember this place in time/space...

This can, into my best (and only) German dimpled stein, pours a clear pale golden colour with one finger of dense soapy white head, which disappears like a cheapskate when the bill arrives, and leaves a few specks of lace around the glass. Not bad-looking, actually. It smells of corn grain, a bit of glycerine, and weedy, ditchy hops. Or a strip club, for a more encompassing, associative descriptor. The taste is mildly sweet stewed corn grain, some mild medicinal herbal hops, and lab ether. The carbonation is average, the body medium weight, and not even that cloying in this achievement, and it finishes sweet, slick, and kind of medicinal.

Pretty much in line with the 'ice' beers from the ice beer wars I remember in Canada back in the 90s. Generally smooth, generally inoffensive, generally more boozy, for that extra half point of ABV. More going on that I would have given Budweiser credit for, but that said, it ain't nothin' to brag about. I've had worse.

Photo of emerge077
1.9/5  rDev +3.8%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 1 | overall: 2

Another $1 beer novelty buy, this one from L&P Liquors.

Into a large mug it pours a pale dull gold, slow rising carb trails in the middle. Feeble head of white foam that begins to ebb away almost immediately, leaving a glassy urine tinged surface.

Smells musty like an old dishrag, wet grain husks.

Taste... not much. Insipid and nearly flavorless, unless you count wet paper as a flavor. Wet manila folders, corn, co2. Watery, astringent and overly charged with co2, gaseous and burpy almost instantly. This is a very poor AAL, but pretty much what you'd expect.

Photo of womencantsail
1.95/5  rDev +6.6%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

My roommates have been on a shitty beer kick lately, and somehow, I just keep forcing myself to join them...

A: This is the definition of fizzy yellow beer. Pale yellow in color with a white head that quickly disappears and tons of tiny carbonation bubbles.

S: Sweet corn and a bit of malt. No hops whatsoever. A surprising lack of "skunk", however.

T: Very, very sweet grain flavor defines this beer. There isn't really much in the way of hops, either. But no shocker there. It really does not taste good, though.

M: Fizzy and light as air.

D: Normally adjunct lagers are close to water and easy to take down. This one just isn't good and makes it tough to drink.

Photo of zeff80
1.08/5  rDev -41%
look: 1.5 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1

Sampled this in my quest to sample every beer ever made.

A - Poured out an odd orange-yellow color almost rust-like. It did have a small, foamy white head, but no lace.

S - Grain adjuncts - fairly umpleasant.

T - I was expecting it to taste a little like Bud, but it was worse. Adjuncts and odd flavors that are difficult to describe. The flavors weren't good.

M - It was fairly thin but not watery. Some descent carbonation and light-bodied.

D - Quite possibly one of the worst beers I've ever had. No hops, no maltiness, not even a little sweet. It reminds me of a movie beer, you know a completely generic labeled beer that just says "Beer" on the label.

Photo of ChainGangGuy
2.88/5  rDev +57.4%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Appearance: Pours a clear, yellow body with a small, fine, white head.

Smell: Basic light malt nose with some very distinct rice notes.

Taste: Faint maltiness, a bit sweetish, a light taste of good, wholesome rice. Exceedingly meager floral hints with just a touch of bitterness. Drying, clean finish.

Mouthfeel: Light-bodied. Medium-low carbonation.

Drinkability: Dooby-dooby-doo! Not altogether horrendous. When it comes to these adjunct-laden macros, I'll take mild and smooth over harsh and sickly any day of the week.

Photo of TMoney2591
2.92/5  rDev +59.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.75 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.75

Served from a can in a tumbler.

While I was picking up a can of Bud Light Lime Appale-Ahhhh-Rita (was that the right number of H's there?), I spied a can of Bud Ice and remembered I'd never tried it. Time to change that. This stuff pours a clear straw topped by a finger of relatively short-lived white foam. The nose barely exists, though I think some processed cereal grains and hard water come through. Maybe. I don't know, though. The taste resembles your usual Bud Light, with some processed corn, hard water, and mild biscuit-like sweetness, though a hint of extra booze is in there (it's not terribly perceptible, but it's there on occasion). The body is a light medium, with a moderate carbonation and a somewhat watery feel. Overall, this is your basic booze-boosted adjunct lager, not really bad, per se, but decidedly boring and tedious.

Photo of NeroFiddled
3.33/5  rDev +82%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

For having only a half a percent more alcohol than the standard Budweiser, this has notably more malt on the palate and a bit more girth in the mouth. Hmmmm. It's also slightly darker in color, and I think perhaps the head retention might be better as well.

Otherwise, it seems pretty much the same. It's sweet like Bud without becoming cloying, and still offers the signature yeastiness of a kiss of light apple. It's fairly well-balanced and surprisingly drinkable while cold.

Photo of TheManiacalOne
2.8/5  rDev +53%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Poured from a 12oz can into a US tumbler pint glass.

A: The beer is a bright gold color, with a thin white head that fades quickly and leaves a thin lace on the glass.

S: The aroma is of adjuncts, light malts and a faint touch of hops.

T: The taste is bready and a little sweet with flavors of grain, adjuncts and light malts. There's as much hops as there is in any other A-B product, which isn't much and it's as balanced as any other beer in the style. The after-taste is slightly sweet.

M: Crisp and a little smooth, light body, medium-to-high carbonation, finish is clean.

D: Not too flavorful, goes down easily, not too filling since there isn't much to it, mild kick (despite the "Ice" in the name), decent representation of a lackluster style, just another fizzy yellow beer, but it's better than some of the others I've had from A-B.

Photo of Slatetank
1.83/5  rDev 0%
look: 2 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

Thanks to my Dad for giving me this 24oz can to try. I probably would not have given this a chance otherwise.
Poured cold into my lager mug.

A - A sunny straw colored golden w/ a head that goes from 2.5 fingers of sudsy white to a thick ring that clings to the glass.

S - Very faint malt w/ a nice honey cereal odor like corn pops w/ a light white pepper spice tinge.

M - Very weak, watery not carbonated enough to distract from the lack of flavor although it does have moderate carbonation. Slight sweetness, but not what I expected for 'beer' - Just unimpressive.

T - Soda Water weakened malt w/ an adjunct sweet flavor that is kind of corny/kind of malty w/ a round/stale blend of flavors. There is a faint vegetal flavor, but overall only minimal flavor, not enough to be offensive.

D - Not a beer I would drink more than 24oz of -just doesn't hold my interest. I appreciate a decent ice beer, but this is not Eisbock. I am not impressed to say the least. This is best used as a palate cleanser. I generally I am not a fan of fizzy and yellow, but I would rather drink this than Bud if pressed. I say avoid this it isn't worth the time or bladder space.

Photo of Jason
1.6/5  rDev -12.6%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 1 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Presentation: 12 oz red, white and blue coloured can with a “Born on date” on the bottom. “Ice Brewed” on the label.

Appearance: Straw color with a white head that dissipates like cheap root beer, big bubbled carbonation loses a fighting battle to keep the head.

Smell: Clean, clean and clean. Too clean, a vague cooked cereal grain aroma and that is about it.

Taste: Oddly placed light to medium body, very crisp though when it doubles with the grain flavours it becomes a bit harsh. Hop bitterness is two dimensional with absolutely no flavour at all. Slight sweetness is noticeable perhaps from the alcohol or some residual sweetness that lost its way. The harsh grain seems to linger for a while but fades quickly as soon as the beer dries up leaving an almost immaculate finish.

Notes: Somewhat hard to coax down, there are better and easier drinking American Ice beers out there. Some breweries should stick with what they do best and some beer drinkers should stick to what they can drink without making a face.

Photo of Rifugium
1/5  rDev -45.4%
look: 1 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

Rating: 0.1
First had: ?

Wow. 5.5% was such a big number back in the day. Pours light golden yellow. Smells stale and urea-like. Tastes the same with more sweetness to it than a regular Bud. Overly light mouthfeel, and an unpleasant rotten aftertaste. To be avoided.

Photo of WVbeergeek
2/5  rDev +9.3%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Pours a color kin to concentrated urine or apple juice to be polite forms a white overly carbonated head leaves thin lacing. Smells of cereal grains clean overall touch of chemically engineered hop aroma and evident alcohol with that whopping .5% increase in abv. Flavors more cereal grains pretty much malt liquor flavor to it clean sweetness mild tame bitterness no real hop flavor bland overall. Mouthfeel has a light body heavy carbonation not too smooth folks. Drinkability well when drinking in my hometown there are limited options I figured I should sneak a review in, not reaching for another anytime soon.

Photo of kojevergas
1.7/5  rDev -7.1%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

32 fl oz clear glass bottle with twist off cap served into a conical Guinness pint glass in low altitude Los Angeles, California. Reviewed live. Expectations are very low. Acquired at a local Mexican corner mart.

Served refrigerator cold and allowed to warm over the course of consumption. Paired with nachos and pretzel sticks.

A: Pours no head whatsoever. Colour is a clearly overcarbonated transparent straw yellow. In no way appealing. Even if you pour it extremely vigorously, the thin pathetic "head" is gone within four seconds.

Sm: Straw, barley and water. Water is dominant. Stale. A light strength aroma.

T: Straw, clean barley, and water. No alcohol or yeast comes through. Extremely simple. Badly balanced, but it could be far worse. Luckily, water isn't the dominant taste. Built very poorly, but it could be argued it's to style. Fortunately, it isn't littered with cheap malt like most cheap Spanish lagers. A bad boring taste all around, but far from awful.

Mf: Smooth, wet, and sharp from overcarbonation. Too thick for the lack of flavours. Doesn't really suit the flavours. Below average to be sure. Gets in the way of the drinkabiity.

Dr: Hard to enjoy on account of the low quality, but easy to quaff when you have to. Hides its ABV only generally decently. Really a garbage beer. I'd never get it again unless it was dirt cheap on draught (and Im sure I'll find it somewhere where it is). It's better than some beers in the style (I'm fishing for good things to say about it here). I would never recommend this crap to anybody. It's more barleywater than it is beer.

Avoid.

F

Photo of jwc215
1.95/5  rDev +6.6%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

24 oz. can - Born on 04 April 08:

Pours straw yellow with a white head that disappears after the first sip. The glass is clean as a whistle. Looks "flat" even though "fresh".

The smell is of some sweet grain...not much - almost nothing. Clean, to say the least.

The taste is of sweet grain, a touch of wet cardboard, tonic water, more sweetness (from alcohol?). Astringent harshness - odd from a macro. It leaves a rather unpleasant, bland aftertaste.

Light...fizzy despite lack of bubbles.

Very bland. A sweeter than typical macro. The .5% alcohol is part of the gimmick. Not much higher abv, but the alcohol, I assume is what's lending its higher sweetness than normal for the style. I had to force it down, as it's rather unpleasant. There are much better "ice beers" and macros out there.

Photo of WesWes
3.05/5  rDev +66.7%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

The beer pours a pale gold color with a thick frothy white head that quickly fades to lacing. The aroma is average. It has a clean and crisp pale malt and adjunct scent that is a bit husky and dry. The taste is average as well. It is dry and musty with a light pale malt flavor as well as a clean finish. It goes down easy with a slightly skunky aftertaste. The mouthfeel is decent. It is a low bodied beer with good carbonation. This is an average macro lager. There is little flavor and almost no aroma, but it drinks well. The bonus with ice beers is the quicker buzz. It's the only bright side.

Photo of dbrauneis
1.96/5  rDev +7.1%
look: 2.75 | smell: 1.75 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.75 | overall: 2

A: Pours a crystal clear pale yellow in color with heavy amounts of active visible carbonation streaming from the bottom of the glass and some faint golden yellow highlights. The beer has a finger tall fizzy foamy bright white head that reduces to a thin film covering the majority of the surface of the beer and a thin ring at the edges of the glass. Light amounts of lacing are observed.

S: Light aromas of grainy malts with some light aromas of corn and rice adjuncts.

T: Upfront there is a light to moderate flavor of grainy malts with some light corn and rice adjuncts. Moderate amounts of bitterness in the finish which fades rather quickly.

M: Light bodied with moderate amounts of carbonation. Slightly watery.

O: This beer is easy to drink and not offensive, I might even go so far as to say that I enjoy it more than standard Bud.

Photo of woodychandler
1.53/5  rDev -16.4%
look: 4 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 1.5

I almost CANnot go on like this! If you know of some quality beer in a CAN in your area that I have not reviewed, CAN you please contact me so that we CAN trade? The swill in CANs is killing me.

Wow! I remember when they first came out with this beer, back in the mid-1990's. The slogan was "Drink Bud Ice, but, uh, beware the penguins." That was because a menacing little flightless bird showed up in the commercials, terrorizing the crap out of Bud Ice drinkers. For us Pittsburgh Penguins fans, it was a rallying cry for many years until the campaign died, but not before I "procured" a whole buncha Pens stuff through a local distributor, including a necktie, a talking penguin, and best of all, a foam rubber penguin that fits over my head. He lay dormant for many years until this past spring, when in moving out of my parents' house into my new home, I found him in a box of hats! Talk about timing! He accompanied me to Iron Hill (Lancaster) for just about every game of the Pens' Stanley Cup run and routinely got his picture taken as a result.

Now, how about the beer?

Once again, the bone-white head would begin to form, only to fall away into bare wisps. Was it possible that humidity played a part, or was it just a result of poor brewing? Pheh. Nose had a strange sweetness, like banana candy (think Now & Later or bubble gum), but not in a hefeweizen way. Instead, this just smelled like Dow Chemicals - "Better living through chemistry!" This was not a yeast-driven smell, but instead the construct of some sort of chemical engineering that would render it palatable to the uninitiated. Oof. It sure was pretty to look at, though. It was a deep golden yellow with a clarity that rivaled glass. WAY beyond NE-quality clarity! The mouthfeel was effervescent and tingly - the way the Bath Bomb mentioned on "Weeds" was recommended between the legs in the tub, this had the same effect on the tongue, out of a glass. The taste had some unnatural flavor on the tongue and it never improved as I plowed my way through a 24-oz. CAN. The finish left a dry, cottony taste on my tongue and in my throat. Not unpleasant, but not a desirous quality, either.

I'm going to go hug my penguins now (I have a rookery) and try to forget that this debacle ever took place.

Photo of tdm168
1.49/5  rDev -18.6%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 1.5

Pours a bright yellow gold with a mountain of loose, bubbly, frothy head that hangs around for a little while. The smell is corn and metal. The taste is sweet corn, faint metal, and very faint hops. The mouthfeel is light bodied, crisp, and heavily carbonated.

This is definitely a miss. There's nothing here worth a second glance. This is just another foul, macro adjunct lager.

Photo of Halcyondays
1.94/5  rDev +6%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

24 oz. can, bought at Ralphs,

A: Pours yellow, with a surprsingly firm white head, really fizzy though, poor head retention, no lacing.

S: Very faint, hints of malt and corn.

T: Corn and some fusel alcohol, but it is light. Mild overall flavour.

M: Very light, some viscosity from the alcohol, but mostly just carbonation when it enters the mouth.

D: Not a horrible macro, but a bit of a chore to drink, won't buy again, when PBR is 50 cents less.

« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Bud Ice from Anheuser-Busch
47 out of 100 based on 1,017 ratings.