1. Extreme Beer Fest. March 20 & 21, 2015 in Boston, Mass. Join us!
  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!

River Horse Lager - River Horse Brewing Co.

Not Rated.
River Horse LagerRiver Horse Lager

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.

196 Ratings
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 196
Reviews: 104
rAvg: 3.27
pDev: 18.04%
Wants: 1
Gots: 9 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
River Horse Brewing Co. visit their website
New Jersey, United States

Style | ABV
Euro Pale Lager |  5.00% ABV

Availability: Rotating

Notes/Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: BeerAdvocate on 02-20-2002)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Usefulness | Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 196 | Reviews: 104 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of mrj19
1/5  rDev -69.4%

mrj19, Aug 07, 2014
Photo of BoilerSteve
1.25/5  rDev -61.8%

BoilerSteve, Aug 18, 2012
Photo of bvlaminck
2/5  rDev -38.8%

bvlaminck, May 07, 2012
Photo of Holmsiepoo
2/5  rDev -38.8%

Holmsiepoo, Jul 14, 2014
Photo of rab53
2/5  rDev -38.8%

rab53, Dec 02, 2011
Photo of VoodooBrew
2.08/5  rDev -36.4%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

I picked this up as a part of a mixed 12 pack upon the recommendation of the local beer merchant. I will hesitate to take this man's advice in the future, well-intentioned though it was.

This beer advertises itself as an Irish Lager but fails to elaborate on how this hitherto-unheard-of style is achieved.

The pour is hazy and orange-copper with minimal head.

The aroma is faint at first. It starts off not too offensive but there is a slight tartness that increases with progressive sips. At first the aroma simply does not contribute to the experience, but eventually I would say it becomes a negative.

As far as taste goes, I failed to detect any distinct qualities that would have shed light on its Irish heritage. The tartness from the nose is carried over into the palate, but it's more of an aftertaste issue, as there is a slight maltiness in the fore. There seems to be enough hops to counteract any cloyingness, but I would not say hops are a feature of this beer in any sense.

I would say that the mouthfeel is negatively impacted by the tartness, which begins to take up residency at the rear sides of the toungue.

I see no reason to drink more than one of these beers in a sitting. This is not a horrible beer, and it does not seem to be overly beset with major flaws, but with so many quality beers available today I would not recommend this brew.

VoodooBrew, Nov 25, 2005
Photo of marcpal
2.08/5  rDev -36.4%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 3.5

Nothing enjoyable at all here, run of the mill generic tasting lager that leaves no desire for more. Quickly went back to the IPA.

On tap at the brewery when sampling all the varieties.

Cant really say all that much about this beer but this is just completely run of the mill. No more, no less. I guess you can call it drinkable, but very watered down and flavorless- right in the eyes of a macro light.

marcpal, Oct 21, 2007
Photo of craigowens
2.13/5  rDev -34.9%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

As the previous reviewer accurately (and much more tactfully) points out, the label is about the only thing of any interest with this beer. Tried as part of their three-beer sampler case, this lager unfortunately represented the most drinkable of the three with the other two being (mistakenly??) way, way too overcarbonated.

Clean golden color with a loose, minimal head, it does have a moderately interesting, very slightly hoppy aroma that I enjoyed. However, when it comes to taste..ummmm....what's the opposite of bold? Mild I guess would be generous description - or maybe like an English-style bitter of sorts. Water-like and uninteresting is probably more accurate.

craigowens, Apr 06, 2008
Photo of jmc44
2.2/5  rDev -32.7%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

I picked up a 12-pack sampler today from my favorite beer store. Figured the brewery's only some 10 minutes away from the store, so why not give it a shot.

Very dissapointing beer. Pours yellow with a decent head that dissapeared as I blinked. Really very much like an American Macro. Extremely light aroma, you can smell adjuncts. Tastes very bland, very watery. Very light, thin mouthfeel. Really less satisfying than a glass of cold water.

I'm sure that some people (ok, the Majority of Americans) would find this lager very drinkable. And I suppose it is; it is really not like drinking a craft beer at all.

I pity people that are trying to expand their beer horizons, pick up this, then think, Damn, I couldve bough 2 cases of Bud for the price of that 12-pack.

jmc44, Jul 27, 2005
Photo of Jtyler379
2.25/5  rDev -31.2%

Jtyler379, Sep 02, 2012
Photo of hungryghost
2.3/5  rDev -29.7%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Pours a hazy gold with little foam. A small ring lingers around part of the glass.
Cannot quite put my finger on what I smell, maybe a bit of yeast, not much aroma.
Very plain, watery taste and feel. A brief second of carbonation or maybe a stray handful of hops got in.
This beer is just bland. Not in a Budweiser way for sure but the lable led me to expect something more.

hungryghost, Oct 19, 2003
Photo of goindownsouth
2.33/5  rDev -28.7%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

After having tasted the dry-hopped pale ale, this brew was something other than impressive. The aroma was faint, although it did offer some hints of malt, albeit not much. The head was gone before I finished pouring the brew out of the bottle, and the flavor was about as non-descript as the aroma. An average cross-over brew, if there ever was one.

Zum wohl!

goindownsouth, May 01, 2004
Photo of woodychandler
2.45/5  rDev -25.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

This poured with a thin, white head that seemed to evaporate as quickly as I could pour. It turned out to be a pale yellow color with some floating yeasties in evidence. The nose was sweet, but not neccesarily of all malt. I thought that I may have detected some corn in there. The mouthfeel was thin and grainy with a light sweetness on the palate. The finish was also mildly sweet, but lacking a really good lager flavor. This would be good as a summer beer; with an outdoor barbecue and friends; as a session beer; but I'm not going to reach for it as a matter of habit.

woodychandler, Aug 07, 2005
Photo of Damian74Shensky
2.5/5  rDev -23.5%

Damian74Shensky, Dec 08, 2012
Photo of bonbini26
2.5/5  rDev -23.5%

bonbini26, Jan 10, 2012
Photo of JohneHoodlum
2.5/5  rDev -23.5%

JohneHoodlum, Dec 07, 2011
Photo of brheuer
2.5/5  rDev -23.5%

brheuer, Mar 24, 2013
Photo of mikesgroove
2.53/5  rDev -22.6%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

pale golden yellow with a huge amount of carbonation inside. Lots of bubbles stretching up toward the surface throughout the session. A small white, fizzy, soda like head formed on the top and hung around for a brief second before finally settling down and leaving nothing across the top, nor any side glass lace.

The aroma was dull, boring, and bland. This was your classic macro lager. Light aroma of grain and rice and that was about it. The taste went nowhere as well. While it was crisp and refreshing, so is water and this was not what I wanted at the time. Very light grain flavor and no depth at all. The finish was non-existent

mikesgroove, Jul 18, 2011
Photo of benmiliron
2.58/5  rDev -21.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

Paid $1.49 for a bottle. A very lazy slightly almond/amber brown with a hint of orange. The most noticeable smell is like under converted malt. The taste is similar - like i'm drinking right out of the mash tun. Low carbonation and mouthfeel is quite wimpy and weak.

benmiliron, Jun 07, 2006
Photo of callmemickey
2.6/5  rDev -20.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

A: Dark golden body.. thick fluffy white head.. not much in the way of lacing...

S: Mostly malts... bready and biscuity...

T: Taste is bland malts with a slight citrus tone... not very complex...

M: Light bodied.. not as crisp as one would like..

D: Could be sessionable, but there are other choices out there... not the best from River Horse.

callmemickey, Mar 23, 2008
Photo of jwc215
2.63/5  rDev -19.6%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Pours straw yellow with a thin white head that soon becomes barely a covering.

The smell is faint, but what's there is mainly sweet grass. It has something of a typical macro-like aroma.

Not much of a taste here. There is a bland, mildly hay-like sweetness. The watered-down hops are undetectable. The only real advantage of this flavor over most typical macros is the lack of adjuct-taste. But, it's lacking because, even though it's pretty inoffensive other than a bit too sweet, it almost lacks a flavor completely.

The feel is mostly watery thinness with just a hint of malt. One of the most watery micros I've tasted. There is a smoothness to it, but it seems to come from the water more than anything else. A pretty clean aftertaste is left.

It's somewhat drinkable if you are looking for a no-frills beer. It might be average-at-best if it were a macro, but as a craft beer, it's a miss.

jwc215, Oct 28, 2006
Photo of necoadam
2.63/5  rDev -19.6%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Part of a 12 pack sampler that I bought.

Poured out a light golden color with a small head, no lacing left on the glass which told me that it wasn't the freshest out there. Smell consisted of some sweetened malts, light whiff of corn, and that was pretty much it. Quite light in the smell and taste department. Taste was slightly on the sweet side with a hint of some pale wheat. Mouthfeel was slightly watered down I thought, it also seemed to be a little flat. Overall it's not the best lagers out there, but to wash down dinner, I guess it gets the job done.

necoadam, May 04, 2005
Photo of Zekezilla
2.63/5  rDev -19.6%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Tried the River Horse Unfiltered Lager on a whim. I had high hopes at first. The initial taste is full of flavor--maybe a little subtle malt/biscuit flavor but as it goes down, it becomes very average. Also, too carbonated for my taste. Appearance and smell also unremarkable. The end result is not unlike a very average domestic (mainstream) beer.

Zekezilla, Mar 06, 2010
Photo of ElGuapo
2.65/5  rDev -19%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Pours golden with a decent head that dies quicly and didn't leave me much lace. The aroma is very faint, but there are sweet malts with a grainy trace.

Where is the flavor? You will pick up a very bland malt base with basically nothing else going on. It is hard to tell if the flavors would be good if there was more because it is very difficult to pick up on much of anything. This beer was a major let down.

ElGuapo, Jan 25, 2003
Photo of Gusler
2.7/5  rDev -17.4%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

The beer pours from the 12-ounce brown bottle a slightly murky gold color with a moderate frothy white head and the residual lace a thin but concealing sheet. Archetypal lager nose, all malt, sweet, crisp and clean with a sweet start that carries to the cadaverously thin top. Finish is stern in its acidity and the hops apropos to the style, drinkable, but a little light for me.

Gusler, Oct 04, 2004
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
River Horse Lager from River Horse Brewing Co.
76 out of 100 based on 196 ratings.