1. Rating beers by attributes (look, smell, taste, feel, overall) is back! Read the latest update ...
  2. The wait is over! Download the BeerAdvocate app on iTunes or Google Play now.
  3. Get 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine for only $9.99!

Moosehead Lager - Moosehead Breweries Ltd.

Not Rated.
Moosehead LagerMoosehead Lager

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
71
okay

1,064 Ratings
THE BROS
79
okay

(view ratings)
Ratings: 1,064
Reviews: 455
rAvg: 3.04
pDev: 21.71%
Wants: 19
Gots: 46 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Moosehead Breweries Ltd. visit their website
New Brunswick, Canada

Style | ABV
American Pale Lager |  5.00% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: BeerAdvocate on 07-26-2001)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Usefulness | Recent | High | Low | Top Raters | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of Moosehead Lager Alström Bros
Ratings: 1,064 | Reviews: 455 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of Shultzerdugen
2.03/5  rDev -33.2%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Poured a clear light straw with a small white head with no staying power to speak of.

As soon as this beer was opened the skunkiness was all over the room. Underneath said light struck character was a faint tinge of sweet malts.

Flavor is also strongly skunked, sweet almost corny malts and a strong bitterness in the finish.

This is one of the worst samples I've tried of Moosehead. I'll re-review this beer from a case or twelve pack that hasn't been light struck, as it's not usually this skunky.

Shultzerdugen, Mar 20, 2005
Photo of BuckeyeNation
2.25/5  rDev -26%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

Crystal clear pale maize with accents the color of butter (not gaudy margarine yellow, but pale butter yellow). The head is airy and semi-stiff, but still looks like it has more substance than the average mass-produced lager. The cap lingers at a fat one finger for a bit with one undulating ring of lace just above the surface of the beer.

There was a big blast of skunk on top popping that, although it's much less noticeable now, hasn't completely faded. I doubt that this bottle is truly skunked though, even with the green glass. It's anything but an enticing aroma and is weak enough that it can be easily ignored.

I drank my share of Moosehead back in the day and this Moosehead doesn't taste like I remember. Little wonder since it's been 15+ years and 700+ beers ago. I preferred Labatt Blue back then because I always found The Moose to be too bitter. Well, this beer is anything but. It doesn't have enough flavor to be bitter.

Light, weak flavor is carried on a light, weak body. There's some slight hoppiness I guess, but the IBUs have to be in the single digits. Again, it isn't assertive enough to have a bad flavor, and is, in that sense at least, drinkable. This is one of the weakest non-light beers that I've ever consumed.

Why is this Canadian-brewed beer an *American* all-malt lager and not an adjunct lager? (note: the 'adjunct lager' style has since been changed to 'macro lager'). Moosehead Breweries Ltd. may not have used adjuncts, but perhaps they should have. At least then, there'd be some flavor. Better yet, add more ingredients and give us some beer with our beer.

Moosehead Lager is an unoffensive rehydrater. Hey, at least I didn't make any moose <liquid waste product> references.

BuckeyeNation, Mar 04, 2005
Photo of BigRedN
3.45/5  rDev +13.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

First off I must start by stating I hate green bottles and therefore usually do not like beer in green bottles. However...I like Moosehead, unfortunately I can only purchase it in 12-packs, which also tends to lead me to drink too many. Review is from note for this reason.

Appearance: Yeah, its like a macro, carbonated, clear, thin head that dies quickly.

Smell: Slightly more than a typical American macro. Slightly grainy, yet a hint of malt and something else. Also no skunky aroma.

Taste: Malt tease on the tongue, followed by a little hop-like bite on the finish.

Mouthfeel: A little light in bodied, well carbonated.

Drinkability: No problem putting these away, and I'll likely purchase again sometime in the future.

BigRedN, Feb 16, 2005
Photo of ggroller
3.73/5  rDev +22.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

I'm not a fan of this one but I do drink it from time to time when visiting my parents. The two I had last night were probably about the best Moosehead I ever tasted. No skunkiness, a nice white bubbly head, pale straw color, and crisp carbonation. The taste and mouthfeel are lacking, though, making this a real quick drink. I plowed through two in a matter of minutes.

Thanks for the beer, Pop.

ggroller, Jan 17, 2005
Photo of GClarkage
2.23/5  rDev -26.6%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

12/09/04- Purchased at my local Safeway in San Mateo, CA

Appearance- Pours with a medium size large bubbly head which is gone almost immediately. Medium yellow color lager, leaves nil lacing.

Smell- A bit sweet grain scent. Smells a tad skunky.

Taste- Yeah, has that definite skunky taste. Very reminecent of Heineken. Lots of sweetness common in lagers, but the skunky taste ruins it for me.

Mouthfeel- Nice carbonation level, but can't get over that taste wafting through my mouth.

Drinkability- Nope, sorry, it was all I could do to finish the bottle. I'll pass on these in the future.

GClarkage, Dec 09, 2004
Photo of sabrills70
3.33/5  rDev +9.5%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Reviewing this as an American Macro Lager. Pours a crystal clear gold with a 1 1/2 finger head. The head did hang around for 3 or 4 minutes and left a very thin head with ok lace. Smells of a typical macro, some malt with some bitternes mixed with a bit of rice and corn. As far as taste it has a bit more flavor than the average. A sweet malt finished by some mild hop bitternes. Some rice and corn notes come through as well. Finishes a bit dry. As far as typical macros, this one is better than the average, but there are still better choices out there (Upper Canada Lager comes to mind). A good beer to always have available due to its drinkability.

sabrills70, Oct 31, 2004
Photo of TerryW
1.7/5  rDev -44.1%
look: 2 | smell: 1 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

Feh. Skunky and foul smelling. Not a real turn on.

Pours up like apple juice, just a few bubbles, no real head to speak of. Actually no real film to speak of either. Just a couple of wisps and part of a ring around the glass. Pretty pathetic.

Watery, slightly sweet. Can't identify any of those things you might expect to find in a beer.

Give it a pass. The rest of this one goes down the sink.

TerryW, Oct 06, 2004
Photo of acrawf6
2.42/5  rDev -20.4%
look: 2 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

I tried this beer for the second time last night (being from new orleans moosehead isn't really a beer worth getting other than trying it out). from a bottle i poured out a light golden beer with little head. The aroma smelled extremely grainy and very potent. My friend could smell it from across the room as another thought it smelled like cereal. The taste was very typical lager flavor, a little more grainy than others i thought. Average body for a lager, nothing to get worked up on. Wasn't a bad beer just not all that good and i probably won't have one for a long while since i thought there wasn't anything special in this one.

acrawf6, Sep 22, 2004
Photo of sardonic
3.48/5  rDev +14.5%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

I don't know why, but I've never had a good experience with Moosehead in cans, in bottles it's your typical North American macro lager but better. I've almost come to order them by default in places with limited selection...I've never noticed the skunk thing that others have mentioned. If you find any Moosehead cans with Spanish on them outside of Mexico, the police in New Brunswick are looking for several thousand.

sardonic, Sep 11, 2004
Photo of soper2000
2.65/5  rDev -12.8%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 3.5

This was one of my first beers outside the BMC ring, albeit it's not much different. Although I assume that i'll always have a little soft spot for the moose. Definately won't be purchasing in bulk anytime soon but a bottle every 6 months or so brings back some memories. Pours a super light straw color with a head consisting of rather large bubbles and the air is filled with that skunked funk (which I actually don't mind that much). Taste is very similiar to american macros, but there is a little little little (can't emphasize this enough) taste of some hoppiness. Mouthfeel is very light. Despite the blandness of this beer, I don't really mind it. But I don't see why I always seemed to purchase this in times past.

soper2000, Sep 08, 2004
Photo of Rio
1.93/5  rDev -36.5%
look: 2 | smell: 1 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

I usually type these out in order, appearance first and whatnot, but I've gotta start with smell on this one. As soon as I popped the cap, I just got this rush of having just run over a skunk that was crossing the road (and, yes, I know what this smells like). A skunk with those sulfur farts. I plan to pick up another bottle, to see if maybe this one just went bad in it's green bottle, but this is where the review stands now.

Color is an off-golden color, a bit too dark for golden, though. Very short-lived head. Skunky, sulfuric aroma, as described above.

This one definitelly won't wreck the pallate. I can taste some hops in there, but very little, and that's the whole flavor. Crisp and clean on the pallate, as well, but a bit too watery.

Very drinkable, if you can get past the smell.

Rio, Sep 07, 2004
Photo of elmocoso
2.83/5  rDev -6.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 3

whispy, white head. Soon thina nd blue. Light gold body with quite active carbination. A refreshing nose, but quite vacatn: adjuncty and malty - what is there. In ta glass, this beer seems a lot sweeter than in the bottle, which is too sweet. Long and sweet finish with a slight carb sting on the back of the tongue. lingering cloyness. mouthfeel is pretty creamy and good, but is should have kept this in the bottle.

elmocoso, Aug 04, 2004
Photo of shirfan
3.1/5  rDev +2%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Pours medium golden; head burns off after a minute or two.

Aroma is of light lager malt, with a slightly damp grassy note.

Taste is nothing special; typical american lager without getting very adjuncty. Mild mannered malt, slightly chewy mouthfeel, a hint of perfumy hops.

A good beer to drink if you don't want to be challenged in any form.. neither flavorful nor off-putting, but more drinkable than the typical macro.

shirfan, Jul 29, 2004
Photo of Gusler
2.38/5  rDev -21.7%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

While I was picking up a few beers the other day like Molson and a few other I’ve not tried in years, I also picked up a “Moosehead”

The beer pours from the 12 ounce green bottle a translucent gold with a bountiful bright white head that is spumescent in texture and the residual lace a velum like sheet to coat the glass. Nose is malt, somewhat fresh, Moosehead always at the first sniff smell like its skunked, but does seem to smooth out after a few minutes. Start is sweet and fair to middling in the malt arena, top is skimpy in its feel upon the palate, finish is benignly acidic, and the hops apropos to the style, most likely will be another 4 years before I try this or the others again.

Gusler, Jul 23, 2004
Photo of Dmann
2.53/5  rDev -16.8%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

This beer was ok but something about it did not really agree with me. It poured your standard macro lager color with a bit of a white frothy head that faded quick but left decent lace on my glass. The smell was overly sweet with malt and grain. The flavor was way too sweet and had little to no bitterness to balance it out. The grain flavors snuck in as well but the overly sweet flavor dominated too much. Not recommended at all.

Dmann, Jul 08, 2004
Photo of brewQ
2.85/5  rDev -6.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3.5

It appears the color is a shade beyond the US macros to dark gold. A disappearing head and a cloud of skunky smell are this brew's signature. ( I've had Moosehead without the skunk so I tend to believe that they do not have control- with the green bottles and all).

The taste is grainy and light. Disappointing. Back in the late '70's Canadian brew was seen as a step up from domestics... my nostalgia is quickly destroyed.

A watery mouthfeel finsih but it is oddly quaffable on this hot summer night.

brewQ, Jul 08, 2004
Photo of watermelonman
2.65/5  rDev -12.8%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

This sits as a light gold with a minimal head and it's leaving no lacing.

The smell is peppery and kind of off at that. Malts and grains are apparent in the front of the taste. The hops are pretty subdued here. The mouthfeel is light but not too shabby.

It's very plain, but at least it remains tolerable.

watermelonman, Jun 27, 2004
Photo of connecticutpoet
2.28/5  rDev -25%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

This was a pale yellow beer with a short head that dissipated rather quickly.

The aroma was of bitter aromatic hops, but it was rather skunky. That was disappointing, and it colored the tasting experience as well.

It tasted lightly bitter and slightly sweet, but what I got most was a high degree of carbonation. There really wasn't much depth to it.

I remembered this beer being better than this, but that was quite some time ago. I suppose that my tastes have changed as I have sampled more varieties.

connecticutpoet, Jun 25, 2004
Photo of pootz
2.88/5  rDev -5.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Average...that’s all I can come up with that stands out about Moosehead. There was a day when it seemed head and body better than most of the commercial yellow fizzy drinks produced by Canuck mega brewers but there is so much micro brew out there now "the moose" just seems average. Pours a light straw color, high carbonation, small white head that goes to nothing but a ring....slight grassy hop smells mingled with sweet boiled grains....sharp start, medium-light body with a clean balanced finish. Better balanced in malt sweetness and hop astringency than most commercial lagers....but still average.

pootz, Jun 10, 2004
Photo of SixpointJMH
3.08/5  rDev +1.3%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

ah, moosehead. it was actually a beer of choice of mine back in the day. not so much now, but i still enjoy it on occasion. it pours an unimpressive light golden colour. it's highly bubbly and looks alot closer to champagne than beer at times. the smell is typical of lagers packaged in green bottles: a bit grainy and a bit skunked. nothing more to say. luckily, this doesn't carry over into the flavour, which is nice and crisp and quite refreshing. it's nothing that breaks the bank, but it's better than any US macro, and probably better than all of the canadian ones as well. this is a relatively smooth brew overall that's quite quaffable, especially in the summer months. not great overall, but it'll quench your thirst.

SixpointJMH, Jun 10, 2004
Photo of erica
3/5  rDev -1.3%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

MOOSE! Great packaging, obviously... Moosehead tends to be skunky in a 6 pack, but recently i had it from a case, so it was kept in the dark. Not so skunky. I think I prefer the skunk. Not as good as Molson Canadian in my opinion. It's a clear, light gold with some white fizzy head, smells a bit hoppy, grainy. tastes, well skunky and grainy, a little sweet maybe but not too much, maybe a bit like cornflakes but less sweet. Not bad. Mouthfeel is thin, but that adds to drinkability? I could drink a few in a night but given better choices I probably wouldn't.

erica, May 20, 2004
Photo of merlin48
3.18/5  rDev +4.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

12 oz bottle pours a pale, canary yellow body, with an attractive, white head that has minimal retention. Active carbonation is apparent.

Aroma: Euroskunk(Saaz?) hops are first to the nose. Very akin to a Heineken, but not as harsh thanks to a mild, malt presence.

Mouthfeel is dry, light bodied, and well carbonated.

Taste is dry lemongrass with an herbal bitterness. Biscuity malt adds to the dryness, and contributes some doughiness.

Not a bad pale lager. Too Euroskunky and doughy to have more than a couple.

merlin48, May 18, 2004
Photo of ngandhi
3.38/5  rDev +11.2%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3.5

Re-review:
A comparison tasting has left Moosehead seeming rather empty. Though the hop notes are surprisingly strong out of the bottle and there's even some elegance to the balance of malt and hop on the palette, this beer dies in the glass leaving nothing more than sharp, metallic water.

Original Rating: 3.6
---
Moosehead Lager is a true interpretation of the Czech pilsener and I don't care if it's a macrobrew. Saaz is all over the nose with hints of lime. The palette opens mild with more saaz and finishes clean with grain; I stress "clean" because many grainy beers dry out too much and taste far too raw.

Lighter bodied than Heineken and that quality really redeems this beer against its competition. The medium-light body amplifies the hop quality over the malt while keeping everything relatively subdued. It goes a bit thin on the end and lacks any real aftertaste, but this is one hell of a session beer and everything you could ever ask for out of a big brewery.

Relax, relax.
ng

ngandhi, May 13, 2004
Photo of cypressbob
3.4/5  rDev +11.8%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

330ml bottle

Pours with a light amber body, litle head but stays around for a fair while with some lacing towards the end

Smell is hoppy, lavender aromas. Maltiness also

Taste is dry and malty, with a fair kick of hops. Fruity

All in all, not a bad lager by any means, but doesnt taste quite as good as I remember it

This is the first beer i ever remember tasting, having a sip from my dads when i was a nipper

cypressbob, Apr 25, 2004
Photo of putnam
3.35/5  rDev +10.2%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

Temptingly sticky crust explosions display inside the glassware.
And the aromas are very satisfying, reminiscent of laundered gooseberries and flint...and cereal.
On the palate it is pale and dilute, offering predictible, bland clarity while it reinforces a sweet, Bounce-brand laundry sheet sweetness with iron dust bitterness. Mild, raw grains supply the mere meat.
Most industrial lagers are offensively sweet. This beer demonstrates balance.

putnam, Apr 20, 2004
Moosehead Lager from Moosehead Breweries Ltd.
71 out of 100 based on 1,064 ratings.