Budweiser Budvar - Budějovický Budvar, n.p.

Not Rated.
Budweiser BudvarBudweiser Budvar

Educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
82
good

1,340 Ratings
THE BROS
79
okay

(view ratings)
Ratings: 1,340
Reviews: 769
rAvg: 3.6
pDev: 15.28%
Wants: 41
Gots: 105 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Budějovický Budvar, n.p. visit their website
Czech Republic

Style | ABV
Czech Pilsener |  5.00% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes & Commercial Description:
Beer added by: grdahl on 06-22-2001

Exported to the US as Czechvar.
View: Beers (11) | Events
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of Budweiser Budvar Alström Bros
Ratings: 1,340 | Reviews: 769
Photo of scottyshades
2.9/5  rDev -19.4%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2

Picked up one from ABC after eying this beer down for over a month , born on date says 1.24.08...I think I got a bad beer here, it does not smell right at all...I know this beer is not meant to smell like this particular one

A: Transparent straw colored with a small head that leaves no lacing along the glass. Not too special so far.

S: Smells like a cheap macro lager, very wheaty and skunky

T: Very wheaty and unchecked, picking up a lot of metal...very adjuct-like

MF: The one thing that was not wrong with this beer is its mouthfeel...crisp, clean, with a decent wheat aftertaste Due to the taste/smell, one is plenty...Looking at other reviews, I mostly likely picked up a bad bottle somehow...It was a waste of $1.61

Photo of ColoradoBobs
2.9/5  rDev -19.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

11.2 ounce bottle in a mixed sixer.

Vigorous pour yields a two finger white head over a clear light amber body with lots of streams of bubbles. Head fades fairly quickly.

Smell is a nice balance of cracker malt and floral-metallic hops. Not a very heavy smell, but nice.

Taste -- this reminds me why I'm not crazy about pilsners. Bitey bitterness immediately, then a bit of malt then a lot of belchy carbonation.

Mouthfeel is crisp up front, round at the back. Decent enough.

Easy to drink at 5.0%, but the question is "WHY?" It just doesn't taste that good.

Too heavy to be a thirst-quencher, not heavy enough to be interesting.

Photo of homebrew311
2.9/5  rDev -19.4%
look: 4 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

Poured out of a green bottle.

A: Crystal clear pale gold, lots of bubbles, thin white foamy head, some lacing

S: starts off with the lovely green bottle skunk character ala Heineken or Peroni. Some faint bready notes are hiding beneath the skunkiness.

T: fortunatley, the skunky character is more on the nose than palate.. the palate is rather clean and includes cereal grains, a faint sweetness, and a dash of spicy hop

MF: body is incredibly light, high carbonation

D: well besides the smell, this brew is crisp and refreshing. I oughta try this one out of a can. The green bottle really ruins things.

Photo of biggmike
2.9/5  rDev -19.4%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Poured a clear golden color with white head that dissipated rather quickly. Malty aroma that is not very dominant. Taste is malty also, with a bit of sweetness to it. This is not my preferred style and I did not find it that enticing. If I never had another I wouldnt feel like I was missing anything. Smooth, good mouthfeel.

Photo of jed
2.91/5  rDev -19.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2 | overall: 3.5

Presentation: Comes in a green, 33 cl bottle with a classy red, white, and gold label. Brewery information in Czech on the back — the sample is straight from a recent trip to the Czech Republic. Best by date of 9/1/2004. Poured into a pint glass.

Appearance: Pours a pale, golden yellow color with a big fluffly white head of about two fingers. The head disappears quickly, leaving behind no lacing. Mild carbonation, only a few trails of bublles rising from the bottom.

Smell: Very dry, grassy aroma. Large presence of unpleasant mineral notes, possibly from the water used by the brewery. A very vague hint of hops, but overall the aroma is pretty weak.

Taste: Nose of sour, grain flavors and malt that gives way to some hop bitterness. Aftertaste has similar grain notes that remind me a little bit of Pilsner Urquell. The finish is fairly dry but doesn't leave much behind on the palette.

Mouthfeel: A definite weak point of this beer. The mouthfeel of Budvar is thin and watery.

Drinkability: Slightly above average. The solid flavor balances out the weak mouthfeel.

If you walk from the Muzeum metro stop down Václavské street in Prague, you'll notice two huge brewery logos on one of the buildings on the right: Pilsner Urquell and Budweiser, the two titans of Czech brewing. Busweiser is probably more famous among the beer community for its fight with AB in the U.S., which is fairly ridiculous. While the brewery deserves support, it's a shame that this beer is so average. Even straight from the source, a mediocre to average pilsner, not really worth tracking down. If you're in the Czech Republic, try Pilsner Urquell on tap instead.

Photo of DogFood11
2.92/5  rDev -18.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

This beer was one of my first attempts at something other than the big three. While stationed in western Germany near the Luxembourg border this brew could be found rather easily on tap or in bottles. Cheap as well which is nice for an E-4. Alot of my friends thought it odd that I drank this regularly at bbq's and whatnot...absolutely loved it. Times have changed and the journey this fine brew takes to get to the west coast of the good 'ol USA takes its toll. I remember it being a brew that really knocked my socks off so to speak. Amazingly crisp and refreshing. Light but packed full of hoppy goodness. Now, (insert endless possibilities here) for whatever reason it seems to have lost that crispness that I loved about it. Hops are spicey but alot less lively than I recall. buttery at times. Its pretty good by all means just not one that I'll go out of my way for. When I'm in europe I'd love to try this again but for now the journey is too long to get to my doorstep for such a delicate brew.

Photo of Avagadro
2.93/5  rDev -18.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

A: Straw/gold in color with excellent clarity. Lacing is lazy, and head is mediocre.

S: Malt, sulfur, and spicy hops are present in the nose.

T: Off-dry with notes of bread, fruit, and hops. There is also a slightly metallic note that is a bit off-putting.

M: Czechvar has the well rounded body that I have come to expect in a Czech pils. This example, however, is lacking the prickly carbonation that is an important piece of the puzzle.

D: A well made pils for sure, but no where near as good as Urquel. Nonetheless, give this one a shot.

Photo of rowey77
2.94/5  rDev -18.3%
look: 2 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Pours a nice yellow color. It didn't have much head but what was there was lacey with little retention.

This pilsner has a grainy and slightly sweet aroma.

It has a crisp and light grainy taste. This beer has a slight hoppiness for a lager.

Has decent carbonation and a little dry finish.

Chechvar has a decent drinkability. I prefer Pilsner Urquell to this but it's still a tasty lager.

Photo of stephendr
2.95/5  rDev -18.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

12 oz. bottle- color of pale yellow , with a thick but thin white head – crisp nose of straw , hay , hint of metal , and mild hops – taste of straw , hay , corn , hint of metal , and mild hops - body is dry , light , and with low carbonation – aftertaste of bitter skunkyness , mild citrus zest , and mild hops

Photo of nrbw23
2.95/5  rDev -18.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Had on tap at the Winking Lizard (Beer of the Month)

A- A pale golden straw color with a thin white head, that went away quickly and left little to no lacing.

S- Nothing here really jumped out at me. Kind of plain, some hops and a tiny bit of sweet malts.

T- Grassy tasted a lot like Bud I guess I figured out why now after reading on here.

M- Watery, thin and a lot of carbonation.

D- Easy to drink if this your thing. I think I'll pass on this one the next time its around.

Photo of mnesporov
2.95/5  rDev -18.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

A: This one is very yellow in color with a good head. It also has some nice, carbonation going on inside the glass.

S: a strong grain smell with a spicy hop smell to it.

T: It tastes better than it smells. It’s on the verge of being harsh but comes out with a soft landing. The grain is very distinctive at the taste.

M: This is a bit bigger than light-bodied beer and a smooth mouthfeel

D: This isn’t bad. It remises me of my dad (and every time he would se a Budweiser commercial he would yell at the TV. and say that’s not the original) o the good times needless to say the beer is slightly overrated in but fun anyways

Photo of drmeto
2.96/5  rDev -17.8%
look: 4.25 | smell: 3.25 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 2.75 | overall: 2.75

L:
-pours a clear golden with a medium-big,quickly dissipating,white head
-medium carbonation visible
S:
-floral,honey,grassy,lemon,spices
T:
-sweet honey malt,faint tartness,lemon,sulfur,spice,decent hop bitterniss
F:
-medium carbonation,light body
O:
Decent Pils,but too watery in the middle of the palate

Photo of mgdeth
2.96/5  rDev -17.8%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 2

Appearance - This beer pours a bright golden color, with a huge creamy white head. It is crystal clear. This came in a green bottle which I purchased in San Antonio, so I suspect that it is skunked.

Smell - Crisp smelling, with that characteristic lager aroma. Whoops, too bad I was correct about the skunky or "catty" smell lurking in there.

Taste - Crisp tasting as well, and pretty clean for the most part. Sweetness lingers in the background. This one seems to be skunked because it has some not-so-clean flavors that crop up mid-palate.

Mouthfeel - This beer has decent body. It is easy to remember that this is not your daddy's lite beer.

Drinkability - Okay, but not particularly inspring due to a less than pleasant aftertaste. I don't really want another, unless I could get a fresh one.

Comments - I stronly suspect I got a beer that was not fresh. I am also not a big pilsner fan, but the particular beer I got was disappointing.

Photo of Sigmund
2.97/5  rDev -17.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Rerate: 500 ml bottle, airborne from Praha/Prague, 5.0% ABV. Golden colour, large head disappears instantly, no lacing, bubbly. Some Saaz aroma, but not nearly as good as Starobrno or Staropramen. Flavour is rather malty for a pilsener, reasonable bitterness. Drinkable, but not my favourite pils.
Original rating: I had this beer from a can in Norway, 4,5% ABV. The expiry date was 6 days ago, i.e. the production date was 1 year earlier, and the beer had not been stored cool at my retailer's. This must have impaired the quality, exactly how much I can't tell. A couple of other raters had the same impression of the beer as I had, and they probably had a fresher can/bottle. Disappointment is the word, folks! Still, I'd like to sample this brew fresh on tap in the Czech Rep. before letting the axe fall. As it is, I have to say that Staropramen has a lot more going. (If anyone would be in doubt: Even outdated and more or less skunked, this 'Budweiser' has a lot more flavour than its American namesake.)

Photo of BeerFMAndy
2.98/5  rDev -17.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

1 pint 9 oz bottle poured into a Pilsner glass. Best by 5.11.2010

A - Czechvar pours a bright straw yellow with minimal bubbles, a small white head with low retention and no lacing. All that's left is a little ring.

S - Pure skunk butt-hole is evident from this beer even on the opening and pour. In the background, far, far background, I smell mild malts and hops, both too light to distinguish anything besides the ingredient itself.

T - Light pils malts are overshadowed by a dry and slightly bitter hop flavor. No distinguishing characteristics and a touch skunky. I doubt it to be light-struck based on age and location.

M - Crisp and light with a dry mouthfeel, a refreshing quality and a harsh carbonation bite to the finish.

D - While this beer isn't terrible, it certainly doesn't warrant mass consumption and I certainly won't be getting it again but it's refreshing for the time-being and drinkable at lease.

Photo of JohnfromDublin
2.99/5  rDev -16.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Tasted on 21st August 2005, 500ml bottle best by 11.07.2006.
Poured a typical pils appearence; crystal clear, fair carbonation and one of those "noisy" white heads with bursting bubbles. Head fades fairly quickly.

Not much smell and the taste was fairly bland with maltiness coming through. Mouthfeel was syrupy. Taste improved a little as it warmed up.

I would drink a couple of these in a push, but not if there was a choice.

Photo of btcook007
2.99/5  rDev -16.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A: Poured from a "Czechvar" bottle with a "best before" date of 12/2/09. Tasting side-by-side with a Pilsner Urquell. Golden color with a quickly-dissipating white head that left no lacing on the glass. Virtually identical to the Urquell, maybe just a shade lighter in color.

S: Skunky. What else can I say? It's that typical, European skunky beer smell. The Pilsner Urquell also has that smell, but to a lesser degree.

T: Mildly bitter on the palate, with little-to-no bready midtaste, and virtually no aftertaste. By comparison, the Pilsner Urquell I am comparing it with has an ever-so-much sweeter maltiness to it.

M: Thin, with a little bit of fizziness. Pilsner Urquell seemed to coat the mouth a bit more, but both are a bit thin.

D: I could see having a few of these, I suppose, but if I had to choose, I'd take the Pilsner Urquell. I got tired of smelling the Skunkiness in the Czechvar every time I had a sip. The Pilsner Urquell, by comparison, was less skunky to begin with, and lost the smell after a while. It also had that slightly sweet component of taste which balanced the hoppiness nicely.

Photo of samyoung
2.99/5  rDev -16.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

Picked up a few bottles (2 for $3, labeled Czechvar, thanks for the alias InBev) on my first visit to Food Town in Kensington, Brooklyn. I have exactly exactly 10 months to drink this bottle as the best before date is marked 01.17.2012.

A - Looks like a lager; perhaps slightly deeper gold complexion.
S - Spicy with hints of green grass and lemon.
T - Sustained spiciness with a nice bitter undertone throughout; though marked as a lager it has pilsner qualities.
M - Lacking; almost instantaneously drops from the palette.
O - Drinkable, smooth and flavorful this is a great summer starter.

Photo of AdamBear
2.99/5  rDev -16.9%
look: 2 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

A-transparent yellow golden with lots of bubbles. complete lack of head

S-strong stale grassy hops. good strength

T-comes in with a smooth taste of dark roasted grains that even seem smoked...not at all what i expected. there's only a slight grassiness and bitterness detected. the after-taste is long lasting with a good smoked flavor along with the stale grass and some honey. the flavors are good and have a decent strength.

M-creamy light carbonation with a dry finish

O-good beer that seems to be well balanced. its definitely less harsh than many european lagers. this is much better than the macros of europe. its nice, crisp, and clean. less hoppy than many other pilsners that i've had, but still fun to drink

Photo of WVbeergeek
3/5  rDev -16.7%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Damn didn't check the date before buying it, best before12/2002 that is probably well past this beers prime, appears deep golden filtered with a nice frothy white head leaves speckled lace as it dwindles doesn't look bad nothing in the appearance says it's old. Let's check aromatics, seems stale but the hop presence of mild Saaz are still there along with a grainy sweetness not too complex and best of all it doesn't smell completely off or rotten. Tastes like a crisp Czech lager to me a hint of fruitiness and some bready yeast notes that I never recalled being there before nice crisp Saaz hops in the finish just a bit mild in flavor. Mouthfeel is light to medium in body decent carbonation better than yellow and fizzy right. Drinkability is very good for this summer session Czech lager from Budejovice, seems a bit still but not bad very drinkable even after almost a year past it's prime.

Photo of airman85b
3/5  rDev -16.7%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

This is an ok beer. While it beats its American counterpart under the same name. It's just not a great European beer. If I was at a Pub, I cant imagine myself ordering it. I wouldn't turn it down if it was offered to me but it wouldn't be a choice of mine. The taste is really lacking and the smell if average. Reminds me of PBR, which I happen to like, but this beer costs European price so It's just an ok beer to me.

Photo of McSaddle
3/5  rDev -16.7%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Not bad for what it is. It doesn't foam up much, it has a lovely gold color. It's neither sour nor sweet. Acceptable but not remarkable. Better than an American pale lager, but that's a low bar. If you serve this to idiots they will think it's really fancy.

Photo of GreenWBush
3/5  rDev -16.7%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

1/2L bottle delivered from London.

Pleasingly mediocre. That's all I have to say about this beer.

Instead of corn and rice water, here's a proper example of a pilsener. Hops, Malt, Yeast. Water. Lots of Water. Clear filtered, amber golden, with little to no lace.

Spicey saaz hops are kept cleanly in profile with grainy malt textures. Biscuitier than I thought it would be - but the perfect beer for beer tasting - its cleaniness washes the palate free of huge beers.

Not a holy grail; while it towers over generic Euro lagers its rather unappealing with its admission price. But money I spend with pleasure knowing i'm giving money to the David to American Budweiser's Goliath.

Photo of PaulietheBrit
3/5  rDev -16.7%

Pours a golden amber, building a decent finger of head which drops quickly leaving no lacing at all.
The aroma I first encounter is one of earthy hops, almost a sour smell.
Tasting the lager I get the hops, however they are quite delicate, almost pushed aside by the malt. There is a fruitiness to the after that I cannot put my finger on.
The finish is a little dry and mildly bitter.

Its a good lager, but it is one with a mass produced, retail quality. I would not turn it down, nor would I purposely go looking for it.

Photo of Vashtar
3/5  rDev -16.7%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

I wasn't very impressed by Budvar. I'd heard it was amazing, but it tasted very average to me. While mine was average, my friend's was skunky. They both came from the 'same' pack. What kind of high quality beer has this sort of inconsistency?
Go buy some of Argentina's Favorite Beer and leave this on the shelf.

Budweiser Budvar from Budějovický Budvar, n.p.
82 out of 100 based on 1,340 ratings.