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

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

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
72
okay

133 Ratings
THE BROS
69
poor

(view ratings)
Ratings: 133
Reviews: 51
rAvg: 3.09
pDev: 18.45%
Wants: 1
Gots: 5 | 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:
This beer is retired; no longer brewed.

No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: justintcoons on 10-26-2012)
View: Beers (77) | Events
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | Likes | High | Low | Top Raters | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of Batch No. 91406 (Los Angeles, CA) Alström Bros
Ratings: 133 | Reviews: 51 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of EF4
1.75/5  rDev -43.4%

Photo of ToddHolder
2/5  rDev -35.3%

Photo of ejimhof
2.75/5  rDev -11%

Photo of OtisCampbell007
3.5/5  rDev +13.3%

Photo of boszormeny
1.25/5  rDev -59.5%

Photo of Kroller86
2.75/5  rDev -11%

Photo of brandonld23
3/5  rDev -2.9%

Photo of jharris0624
4/5  rDev +29.4%

Photo of InspectorBob
3/5  rDev -2.9%

Photo of zaraspook
3/5  rDev -2.9%

Photo of emwild12
4.5/5  rDev +45.6%

Photo of Eric908
3/5  rDev -2.9%

Photo of FreshButterbeer
2.79/5  rDev -9.7%
look: 3 | smell: 2.75 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.75

Photo of Andrew526
3/5  rDev -2.9%

Photo of mpayne5
2.75/5  rDev -11%

Photo of cgarcer
2.75/5  rDev -11%

Photo of imperialking
3/5  rDev -2.9%

Photo of mooseo
3.16/5  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 Arsenal0328
2.75/5  rDev -11%

Photo of Fatehunter
3.53/5  rDev +14.2%
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 BlackHaddock
3.43/5  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 ggourde
3.75/5  rDev +21.4%

Photo of NeroFiddled
3.63/5  rDev +17.5%
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 russpowell
3.46/5  rDev +12%
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 Darkmagus82
2.9/5  rDev -6.1%
look: 3.25 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Poured from bottle into a pint glass

Appearance – The beer pours a golden amber color with a off-white yellowish two finger head. The head has a decent level of retention fading over about 4 min to leave a moderate level of lace on the sides of the glass.

Smell – The aroma is largely of sweet corn with some caramel complementing this. Along with these aromas are some lightly roasted malt smells.

Taste – The taste begins with flavor of a bready and corny sweet taste. As the flavor advances some lighter caramel flavors come to the tongue with the corn sweetness becoming more intense in nature. A bit of a lighter herbal and woody flavors later come to the tongue. A bit of booziness and a somewhat off cardboard taste then come to the tongue at the end. While present these more off flavors don’t take too much away from the brew and leave a bready and sweet flavor to linger on the tongue.

Mouthfeel – The body of the beer is on the average to above average side with a carbonation level that is the same. A moderate carbonation is quite appropriate for eh style and drinkability of the beer, although a lightly less thick body may have been better for making a more easy drinking brew, as this should be.

Overall – It was alright with malt and sweetness but as it lacked a good hop and complexity profile. OK, but nothing really worth the added price (as it is more expensive than the average malt/standard American adjunct) over something of a more standard, cheaper drinking brew.

Batch No. 91406 (Los Angeles, CA) from Anheuser-Busch
72 out of 100 based on 133 ratings.