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!

Lone Star Light - Pabst Brewing Company

Not Rated.
Lone Star LightLone Star Light

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.

65 Ratings
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 65
Reviews: 22
rAvg: 2.33
pDev: 30.47%
Wants: 2
Gots: 3 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Pabst Brewing Company visit their website
California, United States

Style | ABV
Light Lager |  3.88% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: brewdlyhooked13 on 11-02-2002)
View: Beers (58) |  Events
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Latest | High | Low | Top Raters
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 65 | Reviews: 22 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of BuckeyeNation


1.8/5  rDev -22.7%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

For Macro Smackdown XII I've decided to go with a couple of light macro lagers. This bottle of Lone Star Light will go mano a mano with a bottle of the Steel City's finest, I.C. Light. I liked Iron City Beer better than I liked Lone Star Beer. Let's see if things shake out any differently when it comes to their light counterparts.

Lone Star Light is a deeper, richer, more attractive shade of amber. In fact, its competitor isn't amber at all, but is faded straw yellow. I don't like the head on this one nearly as well however. It's small, dingy white and has very little character. A clean glass doesn't help.

Neither nose really jumps out of the glass. This nose is the weaker of the two and is the less pleasant. It doesn't smell much like grain and is metallic besides. There isn't a whole lot here to get excited about. Texas had better get its ass in gear.

Unfortunately, the flavor takes after the aroma. Lone Star Light tastes like stale grain that has sat too long in a stainless steel drum. In fact, it tastes like a low-alcohol beer more than a light beer. So much for carbs. This offering has 8.3 gm compared to I.C. Light's paltry 2.8 gm. Surprisingly, it's the inferior beer.

The mouthfeels are pretty similar all the way around. They're both light (natch) without quite making it to watery. And they both possess enough carbonation to keep things lively without the beer becoming too buzzy in the mouth. A dead heat.

MacSmack XII has turned into a rout, something that I wouldn't have predicted. It's now official (if anyone cares; I know I don't): Iron City Beer and I.C. Light are superior to Lone Star Beer and Lone Star Light. Well, that's one BA's opinion anyway.

Serving type: bottle

01-14-2007 14:11:08 | More by BuckeyeNation
Photo of kjkinsey


1.5/5  rDev -35.6%

12-19-2011 21:07:44 | More by kjkinsey
Photo of Texasfan549


1.5/5  rDev -35.6%

12-29-2011 18:56:49 | More by Texasfan549
Photo of spycow


1.25/5  rDev -46.4%

01-17-2013 06:34:30 | More by spycow
Photo of Mora2000


2.35/5  rDev +0.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Big thanks to swalden28 for sharing this gem.

Pours a very pale clear yellow with a white head. The aroma is strong corn and wheat. The flavor is more corn and more wheat. Very adjunct tasting, not appetizing at all. High carbonation and a thin mouthfeel.

Serving type: can

03-19-2010 22:37:08 | More by Mora2000
Photo of kojevergas


1.68/5  rDev -27.9%
look: 2 | smell: 1.75 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

6 pack purchased 4 minutes ago for $6.99. 165 calories per 16 fl oz can. "Brewed in Texas." "The National Beer of Texas" - my ass; Lone Star itself is also labelled this, so which is it, Pabst? 16 fl oz aluminum can served into a Spaten stangenglas in me gaff in low altitude Austin, Texas. Reviewed live. Expectations are extremely low. Reviewed as a light lager because the name and label imply it is such. I don't see an ABV listed on the can. Best before 10/21/13.

Served cold, almost straight from the store's fridge. Side-poured with standard vigor as no (under)carbonation issues are anticipated.

A: No bubble show forms as I pour.

Pours about a four finger wide head of white colour. Okay thickness. Pathetic lack of creaminess and frothiness. Zero lacing/legs as the head recedes. Head retention is average - about 2 minutes - which seems decent, but is made more unimpressive when you consider the beer's low ABV.

Body colour is a clear pale watery yellow, and is fairly dull. Transparent/translucent. No yeast particles are visible.

It looks pretty weak. Definitely a subpar appearance. I'm not really looking forward to this one.

Sm: Harsh crystal malts, straw, and barley. Grainy and weak. Any hops are minimal in presence and generic/floral in character. Hints of metallic character. Corn adjunct. Somewhat unpleasant. Lacks character overall; far from evocative. I'm not looking forward to trying this.

No alcohol or yeast character is detectable. A pathetic aroma of average strength.

T: Stale barley, flavourless malts, generic grains, corn adjunct, and straw. It'd be a real reach to say this has any hop character. As generic as can be, this beer lacks any complexity or subtlety whatsoever. Poor balance. There's a bit of cohesion. By no means a gestalt beer. Weak and pathetic. Built poorly, even for the style - which doesn't usually garner high expectations. The entire third act is just dead - empty of any flavour at all.

Low intensity, depth, and duration of flavour. Actually, beers don't get much more shallow than this. There's very little going on here. Watery and vaguely metallic.

No yeast character comes through. Plenty of off-flavours, but to its credit alcohol isn't one of them - but then why buy this? At least other crappy lagers in this price range get you inebriated.

Overall, it's pretty shit.

Mf: Thin, watery, and sort of crisp. I guess it's smooth, but I don't mean to indicate any positive connotation whatsoever. Wet, sure. Unrefreshing. Water hardness is weird. Horrid presence on the palate. Lacks body. Doesn't suit the flavour profile well. Weak and pathetic - that's a running motif here.

Not oily, harsh, gushed, hot, or boozy.

Dr: Its crowning achievement is its drinkability; it's practically water and drinks like it. But its low quality makes one reticent to consume it in mass quantities. This is not a beer for beer drinkers. As a "student brew," it has its place - and that may be the nicest thing I can say about it. To be fair, it didn't disappoint; in fact it was exactly what I anticipated - shite.

Don't get me wrong; I'll be killing the remaining five cans - maybe even tonight. A true beer lover resists drainpours. It'd be unfair to call the flavour "bad" or "off" per se; it really doesn't have much flavour. It's just bland and boring. But then, at least badly executed beers tend to try for something or exhibit some inspiration. This is just massly produced crap for the hoi polloi.

Not recommended. I won't be purchasing this again.

High F

Serving type: can

09-24-2013 02:26:38 | More by kojevergas
Photo of woodychandler


2.42/5  rDev +3.9%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

I'm just doing the CAN-CAN because I CAN, said the CANdy Man.

I am really excited to be closing in on CAN # 200! There was a time when 150 was in doubt, then once that milestone was breached, 200 became the next goal. It has slowed down considerably since the start of the CANQuest, but leads and requests for trades are continuing, plus if I were to lay hands on everything on my Wants, I would be close to 300!

A good pour resulted in two fingers' worth of bone-white head exploding with CO2 bubbles. I CANnot say much for the color, however - it was a pale yellow with NE-quality clarity but really pale compared to its Un-Light brother. Nose was mildly lager-sweet, actually not too bad. Mouthfeel was quite thin with a fizzy effervescence on the tongue, accompanying that same mild sweetness that I noted on the nose. Finish was semi-dry, lacking in any kind of appreciable flavor. Bland, really, and watery. I would not reach for it over regular Lone Star, but on a hot day? Perhaps.

Serving type: can

01-15-2010 21:12:42 | More by woodychandler
Photo of twiggamortis420


2/5  rDev -14.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

Pours a perfectly clear pale yellow color with a continuously bubble fed fluffy white head. The foam actually sticks around nicely, 20+ seconds or so, not too shabby.

Nose is of faint maltiness and carbonated mineral water. Not much else, certainly no hops or specialty malts. At least is smells clean and non-skunkified.

I reviewed Lone Star regular the other day and did not think anything could be more flavorless. I was wrong. This beer takes the prize for "Most Closely Related to Water" award. To be fair, there are no off-flavors present and the high carbonation level lends some refreshing qualities. At 3.9% is it possible to catch a buzz? I liked the regular Lone Star offering better, kinda like preferring mosquitoes to roaches.

Serving type: can

06-23-2009 01:10:41 | More by twiggamortis420
Photo of tone77


3.08/5  rDev +32.2%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Thanks to woodychandler for the trade.Poured from a 12 oz. can. Has a pale yellow color with a 1/2 inch head. Smell is mild, some notes of corn. Taste is also of corn, a good bit of sweetness to it. Feels light in the mouth and has good drinkability. Overall, as far as light beers go, this one is not so bad.

Serving type: can

07-17-2010 17:21:52 | More by tone77
Photo of jheezee


2/5  rDev -14.2%

12-14-2011 04:35:44 | More by jheezee
Photo of Pegasus


2.6/5  rDev +11.6%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Appearance: Clear light golden color with a half-inch off-white head that fades to nothingness in a couple of minutes. Lively streams of effervescent carbonation rise to the surface, but cannot maintain any semblance of a head; the lacing is poor.

Aroma: Rather sweet with notes of cooked corn and faint washed out hops.

Taste: Begins with an aggressive surge of carbonation, followed by lightly sweet malt. Finishes with tired slightly bitter hops and a faint note of alcohol.

Mouth feel: Rather thin and watery.

Drinkability: Refreshing and easy to drink, rather like slugging down Gatorade on a hot Texas summer afternoon. There is no substance or style here, to be sure, Lone Star Light is better than many other light macros.

Presentation: Packaged in a twelve-ounce aluminum can, served in a standard tap glass.

Serving type: can

04-10-2003 19:18:58 | More by Pegasus
Photo of JamLand


2/5  rDev -14.2%

06-26-2013 23:18:24 | More by JamLand
Photo of JDV


2/5  rDev -14.2%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Out of the can at a crawfish boil. Pours very pale yellow. Smell is very faint, but of light malt and not very clean. Not quite skunky, but a touch stale-ish perhaps. Watery, thin flavor. Pretty bland, but lightly bitter, and drinkable when ice cold. blah.

Serving type: can

06-30-2008 20:53:38 | More by JDV
Photo of RonaldTheriot


3.64/5  rDev +56.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.75 | feel: 3.75 | overall: 3.5

Lone Star Light has a medium, white head, a clear, bubbly, golden appearance, and thin lacing left behind. The interesting aroma is initially of a strong grain husk character, but this fades to a pungent, sweet, grainy, beer smell, which is more pronounced than what one typically encounters in light lagers. The flavor is also stronger and tastier than what is typical for this style- sweet grain, some corn, barley, and a touch of balancing hops all work together for a nice presentation. Mouthfeel is mostly light, and Lone Star Light finishes crisp, clean, refreshing, and enjoyable. This is a mellow, good beer. Light beer enthusiasts should love it!


Serving type: can

11-14-2013 17:06:08 | More by RonaldTheriot
Photo of Jame515


2.25/5  rDev -3.4%

09-12-2013 23:54:07 | More by Jame515
Photo of avisong


2/5  rDev -14.2%

04-14-2012 11:16:29 | More by avisong
Photo of kbutler1


2.13/5  rDev -8.6%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Had at the bar in a bottle, no glass was served nor did I see the point in really pouring this into a glass.
Appearance: Light in color
Smell: sweet, no real hop smell
Tate: sweet like the rice you get with sushi
Mouthfeel: extremely light in the mouth, as expected
Drinkability: Yeah, you can drink it, but really why would you?
I had this after drinking several SN Pale Ales at the bar. This beer makes me understand why I love craft beers. Lone Star Light certainly has its place in the ber world, but for me, it isn't something I wold really like to drink again.

Serving type: bottle

04-05-2009 14:20:00 | More by kbutler1
Photo of bbadger


2/5  rDev -14.2%

01-08-2012 04:40:21 | More by bbadger
Photo of kimcgolf


2.6/5  rDev +11.6%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Actually followed up a Lone Star with this (Hey, when in Rome..). While the aroma was actually a little skunkier than the Original, the mouthfeel/finish was a little better, so the two of these evened out.

That being said, been there, tried these..done.

Serving type: bottle

10-02-2009 01:01:48 | More by kimcgolf
Photo of TheBigBoy


3.25/5  rDev +39.5%

08-02-2012 03:02:43 | More by TheBigBoy
Photo of valkyre65


2/5  rDev -14.2%

09-29-2012 17:42:03 | More by valkyre65
Photo of scottwurst


3/5  rDev +28.8%

07-17-2014 01:21:37 | More by scottwurst
Photo of JamesStreet


2.25/5  rDev -3.4%

05-27-2013 23:52:23 | More by JamesStreet
Photo of BJasny


3/5  rDev +28.8%

07-28-2013 23:33:44 | More by BJasny
Photo of Dapperticus


3.5/5  rDev +50.2%

07-06-2012 03:58:13 | More by Dapperticus
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Lone Star Light from Pabst Brewing Company
60 out of 100 based on 65 ratings.