Batch No. 91406 (Los Angeles, CA) - Anheuser-Busch

Not Rated.
Batch No. 91406 (Los Angeles, CA)Batch No. 91406 (Los Angeles, CA)

Educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
72
okay

134 Ratings
THE BROS
69
poor

(view ratings)
Ratings: 134
Reviews: 52
rAvg: 3.08
pDev: 18.18%
Wants: 1
Gots: 6 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Anheuser-Busch visit their website
Missouri, United States

Style | ABV
American Amber / Red Lager |  6.00% ABV

Availability: Limited (brewed once)

Notes & Commercial Description:
Beer added by: justintcoons on 10-26-2012

This beer is retired; no longer brewed.

No notes at this time.
View: Beers (87) | Events
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 134 | Reviews: 52
Reviews by Tnkemist:
More User Reviews:
Photo of BeerAdvocate
2.99/5  rDev -2.9%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

From BeerAdvocate magazine Issue #72 (Jan 2013):

The highlight here is that the beer was finished on beechwood chips, which are usually used to provide more surface space for yeast during the fermentation of Budweiser. While it’s noticeable, its overpowered by a near cloying sweetness and a misplaced caramel note.

STYLE: American Amber Lager
ABV: 6.0%
AVAILABILITY: Limited

LOOK: Rich, clear, amber with a tight, creamy white lace

SMELL: Caramel, floral, hint of wood, clean

TASTE: Light, smooth, creamy, malty sweet, caramel, bready, nutty, cereal grains, corn, herbal, dried wood, dry straw-like finish

Photo of Cavanaghty
3/5  rDev -2.6%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Poured from a bottle into a pint glass.

Appearance: Clear amber color with about one finger of white head.

Smell. Malts and carmel.

Mouthfeel/Taste: Smooth Medium to light bodied. Taste of bitter malts, wheat, alcohol, and some other grains.

Overall: Decent brew, thats about it.

Photo of chinchill
3.01/5  rDev -2.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

12 oz bottle served in a lager glass. Has a nice clear, medium amber body with a large and creamy looking beige head. The head has decent retention.

A much appreciated but small increase in hop presence over the typical lagers from this macro-brewery is found upon tasting, although not evident in the nose. I believe I could detect a faint spice-like contribution frm the "beechwood chips".

O: flawless execution of a rather lame recipe, with a nice semi-dry finish. Too much like one of their regular mass-produced lagers and not enough like a special small batch craft brew. [3.25]

Photo of NeroFiddled
3.61/5  rDev +17.2%
look: 3.75 | smell: 3.25 | taste: 3.75 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.75

If Budweiser can make kick-ass beers like their Tomahawk IPA, why do they bother with these basic beers? This is just a slightly sweet, reddish lager. It's got a very nice, gently caramelish malt component to it, and some fresh, balanced hops but it's far from anything to write home about. In fact, it initially reminded me of the first Killian's Red that I had back in 1984 - almost 30 years ago! Ahhh... putting my disappointment aside, I guess I can see this as a stepping stone for some drinkers, and there is certainly a lot more malt and flavor here than in the flagship brand, which is, I believe, still one of the best selling beers on earth. So, to a certain extent, that all makes sense. When you're that big you need to be careful about how you change your image in the eyes of the consumers that are paying the bills. And I assume they know that it'll pay off just based on people trying the beer. But here's my final conclusion. If I walked into a roadside bar one night and found only Bud, Bud Light, and this on tap which would I drink? I'd probably stick with the Bud.

Photo of Damian74Shensky
2.5/5  rDev -18.8%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Poured from a bottle into a cold frosted mug. Looks like a nice reddish amber with a little white head. But taste like a bud with more caramel malts/notes. If you like bud you'll love this beer. Me I hate bud so I think this stinks. Don't waste your money if you like bud, just buy bud.

Photo of JohnFatAss
3.3/5  rDev +7.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

I think I like this one the best of Bud's Project 12 Series. Like the others, this one is still a Budweiser.

This beer pours a dark golden or amber color. It has a very faint smell. Sweet carmel malts come through as the dominant flavor. Finishes with only a mild bitterness.

It is fairly easy to drink. I think this beer would go great with a steak or burger.

It is a nice beer, nothing that will blow you away, but it is enjoyable. And better than Budweiser or Bud Light.

Photo of Fatehunter
3.53/5  rDev +14.6%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

A good finger of head on a clear, amber colored body.
The aroma is a little grain with some fruit, the beechwood is evident too. Smells nice.
The taste is balanced and smooth. It has only the mildest bitterness to go with it's malty body (for a lager).
The texture is crisp with moderate carbonation.
It's a smooth and tasty lager.

Photo of russpowell
3.46/5  rDev +12.3%
look: 3.25 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.25 | overall: 3.5

Part of a mixed sixer

Pours an effervescent honey color with 3+ fingers of cream colored head. Some head retention & good lacing

S: Faint biscuitty malt, metallic notes & just a bit of pear & caramel

T: Pears, a touch of grainyness & faint butterscotch notes up front. Pears & golden delicious apples, plus just a kiss of leafy hops. Finsishes fruitty & fairly crisp, with slight herbal hop bitterness

MF: Light/medium bodied, fairly lively carbonation, decent balance

This drinks easy enough. I would certainly take this over any BMC standard, not a mind blower, better than expected

Photo of dhannes
2.5/5  rDev -18.8%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Poured chilled from refrigerator into a Perfect Pint and waited 5 minutes to get closer to 45º.

A=Darker amber with a touch of red, but not nearly red enough for a red lager and not even rich enough of an amber compared to other ambers. Head was bright white, but dissipated in under a minute.

S=Very faint aroma...mostly hops, with, perhaps a faint caramel or vanilla aroma. Not as dominant an aroma as the other two offerings in this series.

T=Hops dominate this, as well as the Budweiser yeast. Some sweetness, but also an acidic tanginess is present.

M=Carbonation is above average, and abundance of sweetness would make this a difficult session beer.

O=It may be that I expected more out of this offering than the other two, but this left me rather disappointed. What flavor there is is rather average and simple. Just slightly better than Budweiser.

Photo of EagleTalon
2.53/5  rDev -17.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Pours out to a 3/4 inch sudsy head that retreats rapidly and color is gold-copper. Aroma has a slight bit of hops character to it and everything else about the smell is blah. Flavor is where the beer starts to crater. It tastes like it was manufactured and not hand crafted. It is so devoid of flavor that alcohol emerges as a dominant flavor -- bad! Mouthfeel is thin and becomes astringent over time. This is a crappy beer and a shameful marketing ploy by Budweiser. Hell, regular Bud's got more going for it than this Frankenstein monster. It's like most cheap american malt liquors in terms of character and to quote an Alabama legislator: "what's wrong with the beer we got? It drinks pretty good..."

Photo of puboflyons
3.08/5  rDev 0%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

From the 12 fl. oz. bottle marked 12273-WA95. Sampled on November 12, 2012.

The color is not as dark as I might have hoped. It comes in at a medium amber-copper color with no head.

The aroma is pretty straight forward grains, pale malts, and crisp hops. But nothing jumps out as extraordinary.

The body is about medium and creamy.

The taste is also fairly grainy with a crisp, clean finale. Really it tastes like a slightly more boisterous Budweiser American pale.

Photo of bluejacket74
3.24/5  rDev +5.2%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.25 | feel: 3.25 | overall: 3.25

12 ounce bottle, born on date of September 30, 2012 (Julian Date 12273 stamped on label). A buddy bought me some of the Project 12 beers since he found them on sale recently (bought the 12 pack for just $5.75), so I might as well try them. If what I've read online is correct, this is the brew they picked to be their new Black Crown beer. Served in a pint glass, the beer pours a clear amber color with about a half inch off-white head. Head retention is good, and there's a decent amount of lacing. The brew smells like sweet and grainy malt, and some caramel. Taste is similar to the aroma, but there's also the addition of some nuts. Mouthfeel/body is light/medium, with a good amount of carbonation. Truthfully, this is better than I expected it to be. Worth a try if you can pick up a single somewhere.

Photo of CraftBeerTastic
1.98/5  rDev -35.7%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

Ba Review #244
Served On: 12/12/2012
Glassware: Weizen Glass
Labeled ABV: 6.0%
Date/ Code: 12274WA23 (???)

This was from the 'Project 12' mixed pack I found at Evergreen Liquors in Frederick, MD ($11.99).

Look: Poured a crystal clear light copper. High carbonation. Some thin patches of lacing here and there. Head was a thin white coating.

Smell: Super sweet nose with a wet basement character. Some wet hay notes present. Also some grainy corn. Nothing too spectacular.

Taste: First up were sweet corn notes. Then not too much else. Maybe some toasted grain. This one did have slightly more character than ‘Batch 23185’.

I'm sorry but there has to be some artificial coloring used here. The amber tone seemed to suggest some sort of malt bill, but it just wasn't there. Typical AB-Inbev: appealing look with no real substance. Just my opinion.

Photo of EgadBananas
3.06/5  rDev -0.6%
look: 3 | smell: 3.75 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 3.25 | overall: 2.75

Pours a muddled amber color, with a white head, dissipates to a foamy collar. Light lacing. Aroma is grainy, lightly sweet, with a nutty quality to it. Taste is sweet, caramel, light wood, nuts and no real hop notes. Sweetness lacks balance, really. The feel is light in body, mild crispness, somewhat oily and slick.

There's nothing about this that really stands out. The unfortunate and unnecessary aspect of these "contest" brews is that they're all just marginally differing from th base beers that they brew day in and day out. What's the point?! Two amber lagers and an effing pilsner does not scream diversity!

Photo of buschbeer
2.73/5  rDev -11.4%
look: 3.25 | smell: 2.75 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 2.25 | overall: 2.75

12 ounce bottle
Served in a pilsner glass

A - It is amber in color. I got an inch of off-white head that settled to a quarter inch and hung around.

S - It has a sweet aroma that I noticed rights away. I also get some grain and grass. There is a metallic note as well.

T - It has a grain taste. It reminds me of rye. I also get a metallic taste. It has a very dry finish.

M - Thin and dry.

O - It has more taste than Bud, but not a lot more. I don't care for the dry finish. It keeps reminding me of Bud Dry.

Photo of RonaldTheriot
4.25/5  rDev +38%
look: 4.25 | smell: 4.25 | taste: 4.25 | feel: 4.25 | overall: 4.25

Budweiser Batch No. 94106 (re-released in 2013 as Budweiser Black Crown) has a thick, off-white head and a clear, somewhat bubbly, reddish-golden appearance, with nice lacing left on the glass. The aroma is of mild hops and fruit (think pears). Taste is of fruit, white bread crust, grain, and a little hop bitterness at the end. The mouthfeel is light and watery, and Budweiser Batch No. 94106 finishes crisp, clean, refreshing, and highly drinkable. Overall, this is excellent.

RJT

Photo of BlackHaddock
3.42/5  rDev +11%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.25 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.25 | overall: 3.5

12 Fl Oz bottle: Drank on 7 Feb 2013 in my hotel room (San Francisco).

I quiet enjoyed this actually: lager based but with a bit of character.

Golden body, but with a slightly darker hue than most lagers: same white head that refuses to hang around though.

Not quite odourless but almost: some grainy and hop notes can just about be detected if you sniff hard enough.

Crisp and refreshing with a corn bread and mild hop feel.

Forget who brews it and the beers isn't bad at all. It's a lager with a bit of umph to it and should be marked accordingly.

Photo of mooseo
3.15/5  rDev +2.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.75 | taste: 3.25 | feel: 3.25 | overall: 3.25

12oz bottle into pint glass.

A - Bright clear amber with a large foamy white head.

S - Fresh grains, light caramel, a bit grassy. A metallic scent is also present.

T - A blend of sweet caramel malt, bready grain, rice, and subtle grassy hops. Hint of wood. Fruity yeast is evident, and the metallic aftertaste is surprisingly muted in this version.

M - Smooth, light bodied, crisp and clean. High carbonation.

O - Well it's better than regular Bud, and my favorite in this 'experimental' series. It has a decent malt body and is not overly sweet. Very drinkable.

Photo of Pegasus
3.36/5  rDev +9.1%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.25 | feel: 3.25 | overall: 3.25

Appearance: Clear medium amber, with a robust, dense white head, which retains quite well. Scattered, thin lacing adorns the glass walls, the carbonation is profuse and fast-rising.

Aroma: Rich aroma of caramel and toasted light bread. there is a mild herbal hop presence, also.

Taste: Opens with caramel and toasted malt, these basic flavors carry the taste throughout. The aroma led me to believe that these taste would be rather bold. Its not, unfortunately, the taste of Batch No. 91406 seems weak and washed out in comparison to the aroma. Finishes with a mild, slightly peppery hop note.

Mouth feel: Soft, pleasant, with a hint of carbonation, a touch thin, though.

Drinkability/notes: Not bad, ore than a little reminiscent of ZeigenBock Amber or Shiner Bock.

Presentation: Packaged in a standard twelve-ounce brown glass long-neck bottle with a twist-off crown, served in a New Belgium Brewing chalice. This example has been refrigerated since purchase.

Photo of jwc215
3.03/5  rDev -1.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Pours dark amber with a thin head that soon becomes a bubbly wisp. Some spotted lacing sticks.

The smell is of caramel with some grain/cereal.

The taste is of sweet caramel with a hint of honey, and grain/cereal. A slight hop touch balances the sweetness in an abrupt finish.

Light-bodied. It's not too watery or fizzy, just thin.

A "run-of-the-mill" amber lager. Not as smooth as it could be.

I don't know if this is the brewery's way of having Bud drinkers think that craft beer is nothing special, but it seems that way by drinking this and the other two "batches" in this variety pack.

Photo of SometimesIfart
2.03/5  rDev -34.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

A - Clear amber with a one finger head. No lacing and bubbly as hell.

S - Caramel malt. That's about it.

T - Caramel malt once again, and once again that is it.

M - Medium bodied with medium carbonation.

O - Overall, one dimensional and bland as expected.

Photo of alk3kenny
3.72/5  rDev +20.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

Pours into the glass a a light amber color definitely not the "deep" amber that was promised. Nice clarity. Some head but gone very quickly. Slightly sweet, slight roastyness caramel nose. Taste is sweet, slightly fruity caramel. Easy to drink not sure I'd want a ton of these in a row due to the sweetness but overall pleasant. First of the 3 that I have tried and ready to try the rest.

Photo of JMad
2.64/5  rDev -14.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Pours a deep golden amber color with a foamy off white head. The aroma is grainy and slightly metallic with just a hint of caramel and butter. Tastes a little better than the smell with more caramel and slight lemony bitterness. Low carbonation and smooth, it could have a better, longer finish though. I would much rather drink these over a regular budweiser, but any craft amber will beat this.

Photo of cyclonece09
3.31/5  rDev +7.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.25 | overall: 3.25

Poured from a 12oz bottle into a 14oz "pint" glass. Pours a darker straw with a small head that leaves some lacing. Smells of nice darker malt, but very bland. Tastes of darker grain with a hint of syrupy taste. Beer goes down smooth with good carbonation and light body, but slight sticky feel. Overall a slightly above average beer.

Photo of TMoney2591
3.42/5  rDev +11%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Served in a Lagunitas mason jar.

The middle child in my trip through the Project 12 pack ends up being the normal amber lager. It pours a clear bronze-brass topped by a finger of short-lived lightly off-white foam. The nose comprises vanilla, light nutmeg, toffee, and a touch of grass. I don't really know what to think of this, but I do know it's pretty pleasant. The taste brings in more of the same, with a slightly breadier backbone and an added twinge of orange peel. The body is a very light medium, with a moderate carbonation and a slick feel. Overall, a slightly overcarbonated and oily beer, but one that still comes across as a pleasant-enough-tasting little amber lager. Not bad, really.

« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Batch No. 91406 (Los Angeles, CA) from Anheuser-Busch
72 out of 100 based on 134 ratings.