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!

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

131 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 131
Reviews: 50
rAvg: 3.09
pDev: 18.45%
Wants: 1
Gots: 2 | 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:
No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: justintcoons on 10-26-2012)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Usefulness | Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
Ratings: 131 | Reviews: 50 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of chilidog
chilidog

Ohio

3.18/5  rDev +2.9%

Could not find this pack in ohio yet? Was in wisconsin and brought it home.
Prob the best of the project 12.
Nice amber color, thin head though a nice ring lace to be had.
Taste is amber malts start to finish, slight hop back-note.
Mouth is smooth.
Over all a an ok amber.

11-19-2012 00:41:39 | More by chilidog
Photo of JohnSmith5506
JohnSmith5506


3.5/5  rDev +13.3%

11-18-2012 23:15:43 | More by JohnSmith5506
Photo of barczar
barczar

Kentucky

3.05/5  rDev -1.3%

I feel all kinds of icky just for buying this. But I consider this reconnaissance.

Pours a brilliant light golden copper color with a solid 2 inch cream head that dissipates rather slowly, leaving moderate lacing.

Aroma is predominately caramel malt with notes of floral hops. There's a bit of corn adjunct. , grain, and alcohol.

Flavor is heavily malty, caramel, lightly toasty, and I guess it's that beechwood age thing going on. Unfortunately it's not terrible.

Body is moderate, with carbonation on the high side. There is a note of sourness and I don't know if that the Budweiser thing or what.

The sourness definitely a detracts from the beer I don't hate it as much as I want to.

11-18-2012 09:55:00 | More by barczar
Photo of Justin23060
Justin23060

Virginia

3.03/5  rDev -1.9%

A - Crystal clear, dark golden with a short head that was gone pretty fast.
S - Can't distinguish between this and Bud original. Maybe less rice and more malt.
T - A slightly maltier Bud. Not as harsh as a regular Bud, but definitely leaning in that direction. Sweetness is approaching fake
M - Pretty thin, but nice sharp carb.
O - Not as good as the Bourbon offering from the same mixed 12. Not offensive Fraternity beer, but not craft either. Meh... Probably a good beer to wash down some pizza.

11-18-2012 04:59:30 | More by Justin23060
Photo of johnnnniee
johnnnniee

New Hampshire

2.73/5  rDev -11.7%

Pours a deep golden amber color with a quickly dissipating off white head. The aroma is sweet and malty with a grainy honey like caramel nose. I found little to no hop aroma. The flavor is sweet and does have a bit of caramel and light sugar in there. There's just enough spicy hops to keep this from cloying and to keep inbev from spending any more money on hops than is absolutely necessary. Medium body with a moderate to high level of carbonation and a sweet almost sugary mouthfeel. Too sweet and a bit boring.

11-18-2012 03:52:58 | More by johnnnniee
Photo of JMad
JMad

Texas

2.68/5  rDev -13.3%

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.

11-17-2012 18:28:41 | More by JMad
Photo of EagleTalon
EagleTalon

Oklahoma

2.48/5  rDev -19.7%

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..."

11-17-2012 04:50:56 | More by EagleTalon
Photo of pkalix
pkalix

California

3/5  rDev -2.9%

NOT a bud drinker. AT ALL . . . .
tiny head, clear, dark yellow.
smell? i wanna say corona-like, but idunno. i cant pin it.
taste is EASY. i CANT STAND BUD, but this is easy to drink. or, at least, this first one is going down very easily (although i have been very thirsty at work through the last 4 hours).
feel is medium, it feels like a corona. still smells and tastes like CORN, though. i dont care what they say on the bottle about TANNENBAUM HOPS, CARAMEL MALTS, etc....
overall, i was intrigued when i went in to the store and saw it. i have a frig full of belgiums and germans but i chose this direction tonight. hoping there is no headache in the morning like there was with that nasty 6% bud lite i tried a while back, come to think of it, i gave all those away- why am i even trying this stuff?? but it's an easy drinker; nothing i will probably ever buy again, though.... and this is part of a 12'er with 2 other 'styles' with it.
i like what the last guy said: "flawless execution of a rather lame recipe"

11-16-2012 01:38:49 | More by pkalix
Photo of nitter
nitter

Ohio

3.25/5  rDev +5.2%

11-16-2012 01:36:06 | More by nitter
Photo of Trevormcraig
Trevormcraig

Florida

3.25/5  rDev +5.2%

11-16-2012 00:29:27 | More by Trevormcraig
Photo of chinchill
chinchill

South Carolina

3.03/5  rDev -1.9%

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]

11-13-2012 00:10:54 | More by chinchill
Photo of OregonGrown7
OregonGrown7

Nebraska

2.75/5  rDev -11%

11-12-2012 16:48:00 | More by OregonGrown7
Photo of khargro2
khargro2

Kentucky

3.25/5  rDev +5.2%

11-12-2012 03:55:59 | More by khargro2
Photo of Frank_TX
Frank_TX

Virginia

3.25/5  rDev +5.2%

11-11-2012 23:50:35 | More by Frank_TX
Photo of Stinkypuss
Stinkypuss

Pennsylvania

2.78/5  rDev -10%

Budweiser Project 12 : Batch 91406

LOOK: Pours a light orange color with a fizzy froth that recedes to a fine film.

SMELL: Rice, Budweiser house yeast and a little bit of bready malt sweetness. There is also a hint of wood and grass.

TASTE: Sweet malts upfront that come off a bit grainy. Almost no hop character and just a small presence of wood, almost flies under the radar. Tastes like a macro lager with some dignity, but still finishes like regular Bud. Rice, corn and watery caramel. Finishes a bit sweet with a caramel/vanilla like flavor. Fleeting bland bitterness and husky grain round out the finish.

FEEL: Light to medium bodied with a good amount of crisp carbonation. Has a pretty good fullness to it and is not overly watery.

OVERALL: This is a step in the right direction for Budweiser. A beer with some integrity that actually has some flavor. Not too bad.

11-11-2012 21:16:13 | More by Stinkypuss
Photo of allengarvin
allengarvin

Texas

2.6/5  rDev -15.9%

Grabbed one at the grocery store in a make-your-own-six-pack. Poured into a 12-oz mug, this is an amber-gold beer with a slight airy head atop it. The nose is rather grainy, and offers no hint of hops or anything else. Flavor is just... bad. Sweet malt with almost nonexistent bitterness, no hop flavor, nothing but grainy, sweet malt. The "beechwood chips" are totally undetectable.

I'm assuming the "91406" was just a randomly generated number. It's hard to imagine any but the most basic experimentation went into this really bad beer

11-11-2012 05:12:11 | More by allengarvin
Photo of ch473
ch473

Missouri

4.25/5  rDev +37.5%

11-11-2012 04:56:23 | More by ch473
Photo of DarrellK
DarrellK

Florida

3.5/5  rDev +13.3%

11-08-2012 22:19:46 | More by DarrellK
Photo of zeff80
zeff80

Missouri

3.38/5  rDev +9.4%

A - Clear amber color with a one-finger, bubbly white head. It was short-lived and left little to no lacing on the glass.

S - It smelled malty with some caramel and floral notes.

T - A fairly sweet beer with caramel, toffee and bread. Light bitterness with some bite.

M - It was crisp, sharp and smooth. A light bodied lager with a dry, clean finish.

O - This is an okay amber lager. Better than most of their brews, but still not something I'd buy on a regular basis.

11-07-2012 02:12:37 | More by zeff80
Photo of Packman4IL
Packman4IL

Illinois

3.5/5  rDev +13.3%

11-06-2012 02:50:08 | More by Packman4IL
Photo of boilermakerbrew
boilermakerbrew

Missouri

3.43/5  rDev +11%

A- Pours a clear, light amber hue. Small 1 finger head that retains a little. Little to no lacing. Traces of the head are left on the top throughout the drink.

S- Faint with hints of caramel malt. Light malts are prominent, but hints of heavier caramel malts make appearances. Nothing complex, nothing heavy; pretty straightforward.

T- Like the nose, except a little more pronounced. Starts just like a regular Budweiser in the flavor department, but progresses into a caramel flavor rather quickly. Lighter caramel notes persist throughout and end the drink in a crisp finish.

M- Light, fairly high levels of carbonation. Heavier on the palate and in the stomach than the other Project 12 beers. Not to the creamy level in weight, but not watery.

Overall, this is a fair beer. I'd put this among the more drinkable amber/red beers out there. It obviously doesn't stand up to the better reds, but a good one to drink for a change of pace.

11-05-2012 02:59:00 | More by boilermakerbrew
Photo of Waymore
Waymore

Kentucky

2.75/5  rDev -11%

11-05-2012 00:31:03 | More by Waymore
Photo of TaylorK
TaylorK

Virginia

4/5  rDev +29.4%

11-05-2012 00:21:25 | More by TaylorK
Photo of dhannes
dhannes

Wisconsin

2.5/5  rDev -19.1%

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.

11-04-2012 17:40:01 | More by dhannes
Photo of MrHurmateeowish
MrHurmateeowish

Maine

3.7/5  rDev +19.7%

12oz bottle purchased as part of the mixed 12 pack. Drinking out of a Samuel Adams perfect pint glass. Pours an amber-yellow body with about an inch of khaki-colored head. Malty aroma. Sweet caramel takes a good portion of the flavor. Medium bodied with fairly low carbonation. Overall not bad. A simple lager with some pleasant maltiness to it.

11-04-2012 01:14:07 | More by MrHurmateeowish
Batch No. 91406 (Los Angeles, CA) from Anheuser-Busch
72 out of 100 based on 131 ratings.