1. The wait is over! Download the BeerAdvocate app on iTunes or Google Play now.
  2. Get 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine for only $9.99!

Budweiser Select - Anheuser-Busch

Not Rated.
Budweiser SelectBudweiser Select

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
51
awful

1,021 Ratings
THE BROS
44
awful

(view ratings)
Ratings: 1,021
Reviews: 389
rAvg: 2.04
pDev: 29.9%
Wants: 3
Gots: 38 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Anheuser-Busch visit their website
Missouri, United States

Style | ABV
Light Lager |  4.30% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
Brewed with two-row and roasted caramel malt for a rich color, and a blend of hand-selected premium American and Bavarian hops for balance and flavor. Budweiser Select spends approximately twice as long as regular beers in the brewhouse, which results in lower carbohydrate and calorie content after fermentation.

(Beer added by: kbub6f on 11-13-2004)
View: Beers (79) |  Events
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Latest | High | Low | Top Raters | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of Budweiser Select Alström Bros
Ratings: 1,021 | Reviews: 389 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of PopeJonPaul
PopeJonPaul

Oregon

1.85/5  rDev -9.3%
look: 2 | smell: 1 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

This isn't World Select, it's Select. So what's the difference? Heck if I know.

This beer was seriously unimpressive. Thick bone white head on top of what looked like regular Budweiser with extra Yellow No.5. Smelled like...sweat socks. Stronger malt flavor than the regular Bud, heavy corn sugar sweetness and very mild, practically nonexistent hop flavor. Good lacing down the glass, and no aftertaste at all. The "Vitamin Water" of American beer, except without the vitamins. If you want taste..get it somewhere else.

Serving type: bottle

04-15-2005 01:15:31 | More by PopeJonPaul
Photo of travolta
travolta

California

3.05/5  rDev +49.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Apperance: I was supprised by the head form. It had more foam to it then i thought it would. The color is clear clear pale yellow. Almost a tint of golden. Head retention is very minimal, but lacing is pretty good. Very nice color.

Nose: very slight nose. A tiny bit sweet malt.

Taste: Very clean. The taste almost instantly goes away and your left with that taste in your mouth like you just finished a glass of tap water. Im not quite sure what I taste. Banana, and maybe some lemon and lime. Very clean crisp finish.

Notes: More drinkable than a Bud Light or regular Budweiser. I was not let down.

Serving type: bottle

04-14-2005 02:04:34 | More by travolta
Photo of zao77
zao77

Ohio

1.43/5  rDev -29.9%
look: 1 | smell: 1 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1 | overall: 2

This beer is Budweiser's attempt to create a beer that is virtually tasteless. I think they succeeded in doing this fairly well.

When you pour this beer into the glass it looks like every other piss beer out there. The right amount of head that you would expect from every other light beer in America. Quick to rise and then quick to fade away.

The mouth feel is about as sharp as razor blades. Granted it isn't quite as bad as other beers like Natural LIght or Milwaukee's Best, but it is a close follower.

There really is no taste whatsoever. The only taste you get is from the smell of the beer which really is about as bland as an unsalted saltine. Then you ask, "Why eat a saltine with no salt?" Exactly my point. The only thing that this beer has up on bud light is the lack of repulsive after taste that lingers around for hours after being consumed.

In summation it is just Bud Light without the lingering after taste.

Serving type: bottle

04-12-2005 19:49:44 | More by zao77
Photo of BuckeyeNation
BuckeyeNation

Iowa

1.7/5  rDev -16.7%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Time for another macro head-to-head matchup, this time with light beer. I was originally going to pit Bud Select against Bud, but figured that it wasn't a fair fight given the different styles. The contender is a can of Milwaukee's Best Light that I picked up on a whim the other day. Since it's now A-B vs. Miller, the competition now has a 'true rivals' kind of feel. There's the opening bell...

Clear, pale amber with the occasional bubble ascending within. At first I thought that the two beers were exactly the same color. It's extremely close, but the Bud is just a bit paler, a bit more yellow than the MBL. The Bud has slightly less visible carbonation, but again, they're nearly the same. The head is bright white, soft and indistinguished. It falls moderately quickly and leaves only small scraps of lace behind.

Neither aroma is anything to get excited about and neither is horrible. The Bud nose is the loser here. It smells of grain, but has a musty, 'off' smell that seems chemical-like or artificial somehow. Thankfully, it isn't aromatic enough to get into too much trouble.

Again, it's a near thing, but the flavor edge goes to Milwaukee's Best Light. The intensity of the flavor, needless to say, isn't on the high end. Having said that, these are two of the more flavorful light beers that I've had. The Bud is drier and slightly more bitter. There's also a woody taste (for want of a better word); I hope that the Beechwood-aged thing isn't playing havoc with my mind.

The finish is exceedingly short, if not absent. Mission accomplished, no doubt. The mouthfeel is thin and is more carbonated than the MBL; which is probably why there's still a thin disk of foam on top in comparison to the near absence of the MBL head.

There you have it, a close contest between two lightweights that didn't settle much of anything. Bud Select looks better (the slightly paler color is more than offset by the superior head) and feels a little better in the mouth since it maintains its carbonation longer. Milwaukee's Best Light smells and tastes a little better. Pretty much a draw if you ask me.

Serving type: can

04-10-2005 14:36:54 | More by BuckeyeNation
Photo of ZAP
ZAP

Minnesota

1.05/5  rDev -48.5%
look: 2 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

As bad a brew as I've had from one of the major breweries....I thought this would be "added" flavor being it was "select"...it is not....it has little flavor and what flavor it does have is nasty...it literally tastes like I took a glass of water...dropped an ounce of Bud Light into and mixed it up...this has no redeeming qualities. I'd take a host of light beer over this that have more flavor....the worst purchase I have made in many years...stick to regular Bud if you like AB Macros..

Serving type: bottle

04-09-2005 19:44:32 | More by ZAP
Photo of scaliasux
scaliasux

Wisconsin

2/5  rDev -2%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Appearance - Quickly disapating soapy head. Scant lacing. Beer is appropriately light golden. Not bad for style.

Smell - Very light corny malt scent. Nothing off-putting.

Taste - Very light sweet and corny flavor. Definite light fruity (green apple?) taste, which is apparently wrong for light lager style. Crisp and quite dry. Very watery, but not as light as Michelob Ultra. Doesn't seem real well balanced (if I understand the concept), the sweet corny flavor isn't matched up with any bitterness which makes the flavor a bit strong at first without any finish.

Mouthfeel - Watery. Carbonated tang is there, but doesn't feel real foamy in my mouth. Dry.

Drinkability - As expected very light and watery. Definitely not a question of being over-filling. The beer, however, doesn't really have the high quality flavor that makes me want to keep drinking.

Hey, its not far off for its style and its definitely a step up from Michelob Ultra. I really like the bottle too, its got a distinguished, understated elegence. If neither of those "good" points appel to you, probably best to avoid this.

Serving type: bottle

04-09-2005 01:23:50 | More by scaliasux
Photo of animal
animal

Illinois

2.25/5  rDev +10.3%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

About the best thing that can be said about this beer is that it's relatively Atkins- friendly, being a low-carb beer. It definitely was nothing to write home about, having an extremely bland flavor and lack of character. While making a low-carb beer may be an admirable goal, it seems to me that real beer lovers would prefer one with more carbs, albeit flavor and character.

Serving type: bottle

04-06-2005 03:24:33 | More by animal
Photo of TastyTaste
TastyTaste

Minnesota

1.25/5  rDev -38.7%
look: 1.5 | smell: 1 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

Standard clear gold color, small fizzy head. Smell is not very strong. Just when I think i smell some maltiness, it disappears. Taste is pretty much like any other light macro, not interesting, no hops present, and relatively malt free. A little grain is all that is present. Fizzy mouthfeel. What's the point? You can get a 6 packs of hundreds of different craft brews and regionals for what this crap costs. Stay Away.

Serving type: can

04-04-2005 13:15:40 | More by TastyTaste
Photo of kmpitz2
kmpitz2

Tennessee

2.53/5  rDev +24%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Thanks to clvand0 for sharing this with me, as I would not have had it on my own. Poured into my PBR chalice. The beer pours a slightly golden yellow color with a 2 finger head that falls to more than I would expect over top of the liquid. The nose is typical, with a slightly corn sweet grainey character and no hop at all. The flavor is slightly grainey and just touched with some corn sweetness. Not as harsh as others I have had from this brewery. Very clean finish, as promised. The feel is light with a very active carbonation. Overall, its ok. Not a bad beer to sit down with after some hard yard work when you want something to slam.

Serving type: can

04-03-2005 20:36:35 | More by kmpitz2
Photo of JISurfer
JISurfer

South Carolina

3.15/5  rDev +54.4%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 4

Hey, it's not some off da hook beer, but it's good and I like to drink it. Very light, heard it's the low carb Bud beer. Out of the Low Carb beers, it's one of the better ones. Has a maltier and more "tasteful" taste than Bud Light, which is just water. Not much on aftertaste, but still has a little malt/hop tinge in the end. Vey easy on the palate, so it's goes down easy and doesn't fill you up. I prefer it over most light beers actually. I know Bud's a big nasty corpo, but they did a good job with this one.

Serving type: bottle

04-01-2005 19:45:26 | More by JISurfer
Photo of EagleTalon
EagleTalon

Oklahoma

1.7/5  rDev -16.7%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 1.5

24 oz. can. A weak attempt at cloning Miller Lite. Bud Light took a beating in the low-carb advertising wars from Miller, due to it's relatively high carbohydrate content. Now A-B has made a brew that is almost identical to Miller Lite: 99 calories and 3.1g carbs. (Miller comes in at 96 Calories and 3.0g carbs) This beer pours to a nice white head with tiny bubbles. Color is very pale, like all the others of its ilk. Aroma is very weak, much like Lite. Flavor is almost nonexistent, very Lite-like. No aftertaste at all. How they got the enhanced mouthfeel is beyond me. Bland as hell and hell-bent on taking back market share that Bud Light lost to Miller in this category.

Serving type: can

04-01-2005 04:35:15 | More by EagleTalon
Photo of jasonpeckins32
jasonpeckins32

Michigan

2.65/5  rDev +29.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 4

Nice idea from Budweiser. I always love it when new things to try come out. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be their version of a low-carb beer or what, but if it is I think they did an excellent job. This beer tastes far better than Michelob Ultra or Aspen Edge. Mouthfeel gets too flat sometimes. Aside from that there's not much of anything special to speak of. It actually reminds more of Miller Lite than it does a Budweiser product. I think I'd call it Miller in a taste test. Not bad though. A nice change of pace. You can only expect so much from your run of the mill domestic brew, with that in mind this is a pretty good beer.

Serving type: bottle

04-01-2005 01:50:48 | More by jasonpeckins32
Photo of Shultzerdugen
Shultzerdugen

Missouri

1.58/5  rDev -22.5%
look: 2 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

12 oz. can with "born on" date.

Poured a very light straw, clear, with a small white foam.

Smell was faint, but comprised mostly of a strange sweetness from the malts, comparable with bubble gum.

Taste is hard to grab a hold of, since this beer goes dry and disappears as soon as it hits the back of your mouth. Hops are probably used, but it's hard to tell. Malt is used, and it has a funky veggie wang. Pretty heavy on the CO2.

What the hell? Are they trying to make the most bland beer? One step away from mineral water, but not as tasty.

Serving type: can

03-29-2005 15:54:45 | More by Shultzerdugen
Photo of Stubbie1
Stubbie1

Connecticut

1.33/5  rDev -34.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

Clear gold color, fluffy white head. Head rapidly fades to nothing. I noticed a small periling going on in the glass. Aroma of fresh cut hay, musty wet at that. Flavor can be summed up with lack of. Nothing was there in the flavor department. Mouthfeel is watery and bland. Drinkability? Why?

Serving type: bottle

03-27-2005 18:43:17 | More by Stubbie1
Photo of Rootdog316
Rootdog316

Virginia

2.08/5  rDev +2%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

I have to admit, the very first time I had Budweiser Select I actually loved it. But then after a few weeks of drinking it on a regular basis, I grew tired of it very quickly. One good thing is that there is very little aftertaste, but after a while it tastes so ridiculously watered down. I'd obviously recommend this to anybody who is watching their carbs, or maybe if you are participating in some drinking game. But if you want to sit around the house and have a nice cold one, this definitely is not what you are looking for.

Serving type: bottle

03-26-2005 11:11:22 | More by Rootdog316
Photo of Hunter
Hunter

Arizona

1.08/5  rDev -47.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

Apparently AB thought Budweiser wasn't good enough, they had to have Bud Select? I'm sure there's a marketing spin here, but to me it looks akin to when Coke changed its formula. In any case...

I expected a darker beer, but nope - brew is the same pale gold as regular Bud. Heavy carbonation, fluffy white head that's short-lived. No big.

Aroma is off. There's the expected AB reliance of adjuncts coming through in the nose, but underlying it is something akin to old laundry. Not good.

Taste - Gods, is this beer or beer-flavored seltzer? Wafer-thin mouthfeel even for a lager. It tastes like water - no two ways around it.

Blew $6 on the six-pack, and I'll be plowing through it tonight. What a waste of the brew process. Makes regular Bud seem as complex and chewy as an oatmeal stout. NOT recommended except to those trying to find a beer for their fruity-cocktail drinking friends.

EDIT: Upon reading the reviews of others after posting, I now realize this is a low-carb beer. Damn AB for not expressly saying that - I would not have wasted my money. I feel soiled. Atkins dieters should be drowned in this swill.

Serving type: bottle

03-23-2005 23:59:49 | More by Hunter
Photo of chilidog
chilidog

Ohio

2.13/5  rDev +4.4%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

I was treated to one through a dinner gift cert. Treated, meaning I didn't have to spend real beer dollars on it.
In short, I thought this was Michelob light with a massive marketing ploy behind it. Some reviews state its like Miller lite, could be, for it dose have a slightly more corn sweetness to it. Anyway, it poured a clear but with a watery yellow that did produce a good two finger head. Carbonation seemed to have a good ballance for the head maintained fairly well with some spotted lace. Fiz was on the low side, I was expecting more.
The aroma, what was there, grain like. The taste had a mild sweet grain to it. So little hop, why mention it. The mouth is left slightly dry but with a coat of mild citric oil, of something like it.
Drinkable yes, for there is nothing here to offend. Again with the roll out this beer had, I was expecting more.

Serving type: bottle

03-19-2005 12:44:09 | More by chilidog
Photo of bditty187
bditty187

Nebraska

1.7/5  rDev -16.7%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

After recently chatting with a few BAs in Lawrence I decided to try this new Light beer from AB. I read the press clippings but they said it wasn’t god-awful. Okay, I’m opened minded to new things.

Clear, pale gold in hue, there isn’t much shine to it nor was there much animation to liven up the liquid. The head didn’t form all that well, the white bubbles were quit compacted and at the apex the foam reached about a half finger in height. It quickly faded to a soapy cap and there was no subsequent lacing of note. The appearance, on the whole was respectable.

The nose is plum full of adjuncts, a beer brewed with a preponderance of barley smells like malt (this one doesn’t). At best I can get a whiff of grain, not bready grain but grain straight from a silo. There isn’t much sweetness, it seems stripped away and I get the feeling some “dirty” brewing tricks were used to accomplish this feet. Maybe not. Anyway, there isn’t any presence of hops. The potency of the nose is mild but oddly it isn’t saying anything anyhow. I can’t call it clean… empty is a more fitting description. Not inviting.

The palate is almost completely void of flavor, all I can find is a trace amount of sweetness that doesn’t seem derivative of malt. I get a vacant feeling drinking this beer (is it beer?). I would have to summon the literary talents of Steinbeck, Hemmingway, or Twain to articulate something more to talk about regarding taste. There is just nothing here. I’m sorry folks but beer should have flavor and it should be an agreeable flavor. Select fails to clear the first criteria. I’ll say this is true, it doesn’t taste like a typical AB beer because what is there to taste? I didn’t drink enough to see if it gave me an AB headache or not.

Light in body with firm carbonation, I’m sure the goal of this is to further hide any remaining flavors. The mouthfeel is a bit rough.

This is as bad as beer can get. It truly is a low point in the history of beer. In part because Select is not labeled a light beer or low carbohydrate, it is like AB is trying to fool the consumer yet again. Don’t believe the hype. It is a flavorless beer, it is for the masses that don’t like beer but want to get drunk or fit in. Select is as bad as Michelob Ultra. I purchased a 22-ounce bottle for $1.50 in Omaha and split it with BlueMooner. She gave up after a couple sips, I finished my glass for the sake of this review but the rest of the bottle went down the drain. I will never purchase or drink this beer again. I recommend you avoid this unfunny joke.

Serving type: bottle

03-18-2005 15:16:00 | More by bditty187
Photo of Vancer
Vancer

Illinois

2.5/5  rDev +22.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Sampled this one along with a Bud Dry – thought they may be the same. But no, they’re close cousins, but a little different. The select is clear, amber yellow, slightly darker than the dry. Little more hoppy in the finish over Dry. (NO aftertaste say the marketing geniuses. – why would that be a good thing?) Awfully plain and generally tasteless, but still, not an unpleasant beer, was drinkable outside for an afternoon session. Yeah, better ones are out there awaiting

Serving type: bottle

03-14-2005 13:30:53 | More by Vancer
Photo of moocey
moocey

Alabama

2.2/5  rDev +7.8%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

If only there were a different rating system for this beer.

Appearance - Just like a Bud, Miller, or any other adjunct lager. Pale yellow and clear. Nothing remarkable about it.

Smell - What smell? I can smell a scarce hint of rice, and maybe, just maybe (or am I imagining it) hops.

Taste - The tasteless flavor taste of ricey adjunct, with an ever-so-slight, mystery hop presence. And the ads aren't joking. There is NO "aftertaste" to speak of. You only taste this beer when it's actually in your mouth. Once you swallow, it's like you never drank anything at all. They sure did hit their mark.

Mouthfeel - What mouthfeel? It's gone, quickly.

Drinkability - One might easliy drink a few of these and not remember drinking anything at all. I'm not quite sure how to rank this category. I suppose drinkability should mean that you want to drink more, and it's easy to drink quite a few of them.

I don't particularly want to drink more, because it's hard to recall what little taste this beer has.

Concerning how easy this beer is to drink... it goes down like water. I suppose it gets high rankings for that. I'll give it a 3.

If you want to drink beer without tasting anything, make no mistake, this is the beer for you.

Serving type: bottle

03-14-2005 06:07:25 | More by moocey
Photo of TheDeuce
TheDeuce

New York

2.15/5  rDev +5.4%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

Appearance-beautiful label on the bottle, poured into my pint glass leaving about an inch of fizzy white head that bubbles about before settling down a bit. Not too bad.

Smell-clean, whiffs of corn, no hop tendencies or malt profile to be found, clean as a whistle.

Taste-crisp upfront taste, some malt does permeate through onto my toungue but my lord this is light, finishes like vapor, it just dissapears.

Mouthfeel-nothing! it just dissapears, I know that's what they were going for but...my god.

Drinkability-this is going to become the new frat boy special and college girls who can't take real beer will love it. As for the beer itself you could drink as much as you want I guess.

Overall-I've never seen anything like this, even Michelob Ultra left me with something to taste and didn't just dissapear. I know that's what they were going for but damn. As for the beer, it's nuthing special don't go looking for it unless you like light beer for whatever reason. Sadly, A-B is gonna make billions off this stuff from previously noted frat boys and college girls who can't appreciate the taste of real beer anyway.

Serving type: bottle

03-13-2005 02:19:46 | More by TheDeuce
Photo of clvand0
clvand0

Kentucky

2.4/5  rDev +17.6%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 1 | overall: 4

Somebody brought one of these over to my house, so I had to try it because I was curious, but not curious to buy one for myself. Pours a light copper color with very little head and very light carbonation. I smelled it and thought "maybe my glass is empty, because I don't smell anything". Look down, and there is beer in my glass. So, very little or no aroma here. About the flavor. Imagine you had a standard Bud Light, then cut it with an equal amount of water. Literally, this beer has almost no flavor at all - slight hint of the standard Bud Light, but barely noticeable. Not even a beer. Hell, I'll just have some water instead. Tastes the same.

Serving type: bottle

03-11-2005 19:38:47 | More by clvand0
Photo of beergeek279
beergeek279

Pennsylvania

1.65/5  rDev -19.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

Served from a 22 oz bottle into a pint glass. The color is straw yellow, with a thin bubbly head with some bit of retention. The smell is very corn-ish sweet. The taste is the standard corny sweet macro lager, with just a slight bit more bitterness than I'd expect from a light lager, and of course no aftertaste as they promised...well, except for the DMS aftertaste! Mouthfeel is thin and watery. As for drinkability, no thanks on another.

Well, I saw the Super Bowl commericial promising a new beer. In practice, I haven't had Budweiser or Bud Light in quite some time, but from what I remember, this tastes EXACTLY the same as any other macro, so I have to ask what's the point of packaging this in a bomber when it's nothing but the same old, same old?? The only thing nice about this is that the 22 oz was only 1.19, so no big loss to give it a try, but I'll never bother with this again.

Serving type: bottle

03-09-2005 04:12:04 | More by beergeek279
Photo of Reidrover
Reidrover

Oregon

1.4/5  rDev -31.4%
look: 1.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1

Ok new beer from the "Evil Empire"..lets see ..
Appearance ..well the usual urine colour of someone slightly dehydrated from a night on the town...no head..just spittle like lace.
Smell..of rice pudding not beer.
Taste? tastes like seltzer water ,with rice and cardboard.
mouthfeel is miserable..limp and rotten finishes with a wimper.
No waywould I buy more of this..usual low carb crap. Doesnt A-B know the low carb frenzy is almost over. I dont see the point in this beer they alreadyhave the abysmal Mich.Ultra..drank everywere by obese idiots with their plate of grease.

Serving type: bottle

03-05-2005 08:54:07 | More by Reidrover
Photo of BeerBob
BeerBob

Nebraska

2.45/5  rDev +20.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Budweiser “Select” pours a clear, bright, and light golden amber from a very dark brown 12oz glass bottle with a twist off cap.
Head went to about two fingers before evaporating to absolutely nothing, zip, nada, as in poof! and gone! No ring, no lace, no foam anywhere in my 22oz beer glass, the surface of the beer is like a mirror and the sides of my glass are spotless.

Nose is a strong grain alcohol, which is surprising because of the relatively low alcohol content of this beer. Palate is a damp toasted rice with the astringent properties of alum, this beer has pucker power. The carbonation levels are right on the money and the sting of the gas bubbles on the tongue are welcome, but... where’s the beer?

Bottom line... where’s the beer?

Serving type: bottle

03-05-2005 06:12:46 | More by BeerBob
Budweiser Select from Anheuser-Busch
51 out of 100 based on 1,021 ratings.