Long Island Light Lager
John Harvard's Brewery & Ale House
- From:
- John Harvard's Brewery & Ale House
- Massachusetts, United States
- Style:
- Light Lager
- ABV:
- 4.1%
- Score:
- +5 ratings needed
- Avg:
- 3 | pDev: 20%
- Ratings:
- | reviews: 4
- Status:
- Retired
- Rated:
- Sep 05, 2012
- Added:
- Sep 24, 2006
- Wants:
- 0
- Gots:
- 0
NO SCORE
-
-
No description / notes.
Recent ratings and reviews.
Reviewed by WesWes from New York
3.58/5 rDev +19.3%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5
3.58/5 rDev +19.3%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5
The beer pours a pale gold color with a thick frothy white head that fades to lacing. The aroma is decent. It has a crisp and clean pilsner malt scent that's dry and light with the hop aroma. The taste is decent as well. It has a light pilsner malt taste that's a tad grainy. It's got a light hop bitterness, which makes it an easy drinker. The mouthfeel is fine. It is a low bodied beer with good carbonation. This is a typical light lager. It's nothing special, but it's good for what it is.
May 05, 2009
Reviewed by LilBeerDoctor from New York
2.68/5 rDev -10.7%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3
2.68/5 rDev -10.7%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3
Reviewed on 8/7/08. On tap at JH. Pours a light yellow with a small white head. Aroma of wheat, slight skunk, lager yeast. Flavor of stale wheat, maybe a few light fruits sneak in there. It's decent for a pale lager and relatively drinkable. It's not a terrible choice if you're looking for something new (or want a light style).
5/3/5/3/12 (2.8/5)
Dec 23, 20085/3/5/3/12 (2.8/5)
Reviewed by maddogruss from New Jersey
3.14/5 rDev +4.7%
look: 2 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 3.5
3.14/5 rDev +4.7%
look: 2 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 3.5
Had this on tap and was not too impressed with it overall. The body was kind fo a grassy yellow and it had no head and minimal lacing, if what was left even classified as such. The smell was fairly malty, so that was okay. The taste was okay; slight maltiness was kind of refreshing. Reminded of Bud, but smoother tasting and thinner. The mouthfell was exactly that, thin, almost watery. But, despite all of my "slams", the overall drinkability of the beer was okay. It was a little on the refreshing size, which was nice, but the aroma and taste were not in the forefront at all, which was unsatisfying. However, since it was light, it made it pretty easy to drink, but overall, I was not too impressed with this one.
May 03, 2007
Reviewed by plaid75 from New York
3.6/5 rDev +20%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4
3.6/5 rDev +20%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4
Poured a light copper hue with a half finger foamy white head. There was decent retention and lacing.
The smell featured a light and doughy grain aroma with a smattering of floral hop.
The taste consisted of a light biscuity malt with a hint of clean hop. There was a nice doughy aftertaste. Solid flavor for a light beer.
The mouthfeel was clean and crisp. Dry finish.
Overall a very drinkable lager. Nice alternative to macro light beers.
Sep 24, 2006The smell featured a light and doughy grain aroma with a smattering of floral hop.
The taste consisted of a light biscuity malt with a hint of clean hop. There was a nice doughy aftertaste. Solid flavor for a light beer.
The mouthfeel was clean and crisp. Dry finish.
Overall a very drinkable lager. Nice alternative to macro light beers.
We love reviews (150 characters or more)! Check out: How to Review a Beer. You don't need to get fancy. Drop some thoughts on the beer's attributes (look, smell, taste, feel) plus your overall impression. Something that backs up your rating and helps others. Thanks!