Tap Room No. 21 Lager | World Brews

Your Rating: None
Want it   Got it 
63 Ratings

Brewed by:
World Brews
California, United States

Style: American Pale Lager

Alcohol by volume (ABV): 4.50%

Availability: Year-round

Notes / Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

Added by StarSAELS on 05-17-2007

Bros Score:
View: Beers
User Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Ratings: 63 |  Reviews: 41
Photo of Taphouse_Traveler
2.3/5  rDev -18.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2.25 | taste: 2.25 | feel: 2.25 | overall: 2.25

Photo of BEERchitect
3/5  rDev +6.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Picked up a six-pack at Kroger Supermarket (of all places). Not expecting too much from this brew, but the bold language that resposes of the prohibition period shows me an attitude of which I can relate. The beer pours a typical straw color with a slight head retention and adequate carbonation. Aromas display a balance of pils malt and raw cereal grains, mixed with a touch of sulfer, vegetables (corn), and a bit of apples and pears. Do I detect a mild estery note? Flavors pick up on the same grain / malt blend found in the nose, but with a residual sweetness that stops shy of a detrement. Apple flavors persist into the flavors along with that mild pesky corn flavor. The body is a common, medium; of which is hindered by the weight of the residual sugars. Finish quite clean and crisp, despite the dms and sweet grain flavors. Not a bad beer, just banal.

 863 characters

Photo of zeff80
2.93/5  rDev +4.3%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

A - Poured out a golden amber color with a one-finger, white head of crackly head. It was very short-lived and left no lacing.

S - It smelled floral with some grains.

T - It tasted malty sweet with earthy, grassy hop bitterness.

M - It was crisp, sharp and smooth. A light to medium bodied lager.

O - This is an okay lager. Not worth stocking up on.

 353 characters

Photo of ChainGangGuy
2.28/5  rDev -18.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Appearance: Pours out a clear, light golden body with a small-sized, wispy, white head.

Smell: Just a humble, unremarkable nose of low-grade cereal grains and some vague, transient floral hints. Smells like little care, craftsmanship, or even thought went into this beer beyond the simple thought of "hey, let's just whip out a quick, cheap lager."

Taste: Light pale malts with a slight sweetish quality to it. Mild, unpleasant vegetal tones slip shamelessly into the flavor. I'm constantly being told I need to take in more vegetables, but this isn't the way to do it. Merest hint of floral hops and bitterness. Sweetish, somewhat unclean finish.

Mouthfeel: Light-bodied. Medium carbonation.

Drinkability: As was the case with the pale ale, this is unenjoyable and wholly unrewarding. It's pretty understandable this horrid thing rolled out of the doors of a major malt liquor producer. It's a case where I'd rather have a macro lager over this. So, please, pass the Michelob! And let us not forget there's still the amber ale to try.

 1,039 characters

Photo of WVbeergeek
2.43/5  rDev -13.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

This beer package says brewed in Rochester, NY, this website says it's brewed at City Brewing, and the website says Novato, CA. Either way this is standard pale straw colored lager bright quckly fleeting white head. Speckled lacing down the sides of my mug. Aroma has some biscuit malts, grainy husk notes, a touch of honey and some metallic character to it. Flavor has a sweet slight citrus and fruity tone for a lager, no real hop bitterness this beer is a put your training wheels on craft brew. Some husky grains throwing a bit of offness along with a metallic edge to some apple fruit juice tartness a bit weird. Mouthfeel is light bodied semi fizzy carbonation nothing substantial for me. Drinkability this will be a one time spot I have one of each of the three varieties, I wishI liked them.

 799 characters

Photo of Mora2000
3/5  rDev +6.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Very excited to try a new beer from City Brewing, home of classic beers such as Earthquake and Evil Eye.

The beer pours a clear light yellow color with a white head. Looks exactly like a pale lager should. The aroma is as expected, with a lot of grain and corn notes. The flavor is also just like I expected. The beer is fairly sweet and has a lot of grain and corn, along with some grassy notes. Medium mouthfeel and medium carbonation. Not too good, but as far as pale lagers go, you can do worse.

 501 characters

Photo of Zorro
2.7/5  rDev -3.9%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Picked up at the local market vaguely remember trying something like this in Ohio.

Clear yellow beer that is a shade or two darker than average with a decent white head that doesn't last.

Smell is a little sweet and a little fruit as if this has been fermented on the hot side. Decent whiff of Nobel hops a little herbal and grassy.

The taste begins a little sweet and fruity and I am again wondering if this was fermented a little hot to speed things up at the factory. Slight flavor of oxidation in the malt, must be the manufacturing because this hasn't been in the store for more than three days. Could use more of a hop presence.

The mouthfeel is OK.

Nothing remarkable about this and it probably the minimal thing that could be considered a craft brew. No real reason to buy.

 786 characters

Photo of crobinso
2/5  rDev -28.8%

Photo of Brenden
2.63/5  rDev -6.4%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.75

From notes. I can't really say what I was expecting...just that I wasn't surprised.

The look is surprisingly...average. A pale yellowish color with a deeper gold hue, this brew develops a small but reasonably sticky white head. It doesn't drop as quickly as I might expect, though it doesn't exactly stick around for the party. It does manage to leave enough spotty lacing for me to decide I really am drinking a beer.
Well...I can't smell or drink this without wondering if it's a macro in disguise, though even some of those are simply brewed lamely for the mass "swigger's" palate but with more skill. This one is too vegetal, with too much of that grainy/fruity thing going on. Cereal grains are strongest, and the only relief comes when at least something by way of some crackery/fruity pale malts and light dusty/floral bitterness manage to find their way out. That said, I suppose it becomes somewhat tolerable once that happens, but it's all that does happen. A bit of sulfur comes through underneath as well.
I expect a light body, and for the style it fits. There's nothing really going on, though. While fairly bland, it's not completely inactive, as there's a nip of crispness on the front and it manages some smoothness.

 1,234 characters

Photo of Cyberkedi
2.33/5  rDev -17.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Pours a rather uninspiring clear straw-yellow, very typical of a lager, but at least it has a nice, thick, somewhat persistent white head. Aroma is crisp, malty and a bit weak. Flavor is better than the aroma, but not much, being typically malty and having just a soupcon of sour fruit. Texture is smooth and only a little tingly. Not great, but it was worth trying.

 366 characters

Photo of RoyalT
2.48/5  rDev -11.7%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

Appearance - This is a light yellow in color with a modest head that went down quickly.

Smell - The light, sweetish grain is a bit gross. It has that putrid moldy corn aroma that a lot of bad American lagers seem to relish.

Taste - The grain comes out just a tad better at the taste but this is still liquid corn.

Mouthfeel - This is light-bodied with some sprightly carbonation that showed a bit more depth then the usual American macros. The finish was crisp and clean with no bitterness IAW the style. Nicely done in this department.

Sinkability - City Brewing makes a few mass-market malt liquors and this one has that flavor but without the booze. If I'm going to drink sub-par beer I at least when to get drunk while doing it.

 736 characters

Photo of Reidrover
2.26/5  rDev -19.6%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

OK I just had to break down and rate this line ,I have always rested , seeing them sitting in the shelf at Fred Meyer, were I think better beer could be. Appearance, just average lager, maybe slightly more golden than BMC. Nice sized white head. aroma, buiscuity, light graininess, corn. Flavour :sour corn,sweet thin malts, boreing. Thin and dead on the palate. Overall not great, why buy this when you can get BMC for cheaper?

 428 characters

Photo of buckyp
2.5/5  rDev -11%

Photo of JayQue
3.33/5  rDev +18.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Not bad as a session beer. Nothing exceptional that would make me seek it out. Basically a better version of what BMC is putting out. No adjunct crap but still a pretty light beer.

Pours a clear amber orange wiht a slightly off white head. Head retention not bad, leaves some lacing on the glass.

Smell and taste start off with a solid malty presence. The taste finishes up with a slightly harsh bitterness.

Mouthfeel is light but crisp, not at all watery like some macro lagers. Drinkability is good. The abv is low, there is some definite flavor here to make mass quantities worthwhile and there are no nasty or skunky surprises.

Not bad...not great...I wouldn't turn one down on a warm day!!!

 699 characters

Photo of brewdlyhooked13
2.23/5  rDev -20.6%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 4 | overall: 2

Appearance - straw with a touch of haze, a touch of gold. A fizzy white finger of bubbles grudgingly gives way. Zero lacing.

Aroma - standard grainy nose, not much else to say.

Taste - a little huskiness to the grains on a good first pull. Some mild sweetness and a hint of metal. Faint cardboard sneaking, not as much distasteful as just distracting. A lost echo of hops after the swallow. Mostly a miss of a beer with the occasional highlight. Enjoyed cold, I'll polish these off no problem, but IMO they don't do justice in celebrating the 1933 repeal as they intended. I imagine this might do well alongside the beers of that day, but not so much this day.

Mouthfeel - crisp, refreshing and clean.

Drinkability - no worse than a macro but not distinctive or tasty enough to bring me back.

 804 characters

Photo of Jadjunk
2.82/5  rDev +0.4%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

#85. This runs under $6 for a 6-pack with the other varieties in tow when the price is right. Found at a well stocked grocer in town, but haven't seen it anywhere else.

Poured from a 12 oz. bottle to a glass mug at room temp.

(Appearance) Pours a very fizzy 2 finger depth head that recedes at an alarmingly quick rate, slowing as it approaches a thin sheet of foam, but subsides within about 2 minutes of the pour. Color is a pale peach-amber and is very clear with little clarity imperfections. Carbonation is spritely and can be seen everywhere throughout the glass. The combination of the uninteresting color and consistency plus the disappointing head quality give this beer a very lackluster appearance. 2

(Smell) Quite the lager aroma, but with no notable characteristics aside from some crisper cheap grain malts, bready tones and perhaps a hint of corn which gives the beer some very noticeable sweet highs. Hops are nowhere to be found, and any other complementary flavor in spices or caramel are also nearly indiscernible, although caramel presence is not out of the question. Hardly potent enough to excite me but it's stronger than some of the weakest aromas I have experienced. 2.5

(Taste) At first comes a subtle arrangement of malt flavors, none too strong and the first taste is light and balanced. Barley malt, some bread and slight yeast notes and yes, a touch of corn on the back burner round out the flavor. It's not very exciting but it's flavorful enough to be defining. Very sweet, perhaps too much so, and it would be nice to have some appropriate bitter to complement the flavor otherwise, but it's not terrible. 3

(Mouthfeel) Slight tongue tingle from the notable carbonation presence but the rest of the drink remains an airy smooth. It's got quite a light body and there's little distracting taste to slow the drink down. It's noticeably thin. Alcohol presence is locked down well and the finish is sweet and slightly dry. Not bad. 3

(Drinkability) It's quite drinkable as none of the malts in here are overbearing on the tongue and it's flavorful enough to separate ever so slightly from the average macro. My biggest concern with the drinkability is the draining sweetness which is just too over-the-top for my palate. No doubt the existence of corn and cheap grains helps bring this character to the front, but aside from that deterrent, this remains a decent lager with an above-average drinkability. 3

Verdict: I don't feel quite so taken advantage of due to saving several dollars on a sixer that is normally close to the $10 range, but otherwise it's a pretty average lager with nothing special. Balance of the malt is nice and subtle but the sweetness is just too much to keep me going back for more. I'll expect better things from the other two varieties I found at the store. C- (2.7)

 2,830 characters

Photo of Booner818
3/5  rDev +6.8%

Photo of tubeyes
3/5  rDev +6.8%

Photo of cvstrickland
2.8/5  rDev -0.4%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

12-ounce bottle poured into a shaker pint glass yields a clear pale golden body with a thin cap of grainy white foam that is gone before I finished typing that it was there. A few freckles of lacing attest to the presence of an anorexic ring at the perimeter of the glass.

The smell is faint, with a notion of sweetish cereal grains and a touch of musty malt.

The taste of the drink is mild and pale-malty with an herbal note in a bitter finish. A bit of dry, sourish grain arises deep in the aftertaste.

Thin-to-medium-bodied, not bad (or good), and actually pretty refreshing as long as you don't scrutinize it too closely.

 628 characters

Photo of mmmbeer
3.38/5  rDev +20.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

12 oz. bottle with no freshness date. It pours a nice medium gold, well-carbonated, with two inches of head that deposit some decent lace. Lemony and toasted in the nose, and the flavor adds to this a touch of caramel malts, salty minerals, and some green hops that impart a mild bitterness on top of a light, tingly and dry body. Not too bad to drink, especially for the price, but it wouldn't be a mainstay in my fridge.

 422 characters

Photo of kimcgolf
2/5  rDev -28.8%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

If I drink a BMC or other macro product and it stinks, I figure I deserved it. But there should be a beer law against small breweries bottling products with catchy names and labels that turn out to be just as bad.

This crap was really disappointing. I previously had the Moes Backroom Pale Ale, and found it to be decent. This offering, however, was nothing more than a dressed up bum. If you have to drink this, save some money, and buy a Miller High Life or other grainy BMC.

 479 characters

Photo of JohnQVegas
2.61/5  rDev -7.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Bottle into Sam Adams sensory glass.

Pours clear straw color, with a thin, creamy white head and waves of bubbles sweeping up from the bottom of the glass. Decent amount of foamy lacing, and the creamy cap left after the head settles lasts for quite awhile.

Nose is light, just a bit of grainy malt and just a tiny bit of corn.

Taste follows the nose - not a whole lot going on in this one; very light notes of corn and grainy malt, with the taste just dropping off the map after a few seconds of light corny sweetness on the finish. Nothing lingering on this one, it just goes from not much to nothing in a heartbeat. Clean is an understatement; this one is hermetically sealed. No hop presence whatsoever.

Mouthfeel isn't bad - light bodied and with a crisp, light carbonation. Again, crisp but not at all dry.

Drinkability is mainly hurt by the stark lack of any real flavor. It doesn't really taste bad, it just doesn't taste like much of anything. Not a whole lot of different from Bud or any other BMC product.

 1,022 characters

Photo of kornkid8600
3/5  rDev +6.8%

Photo of Kromes
3/5  rDev +6.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A: yellow straw color with thin white head. Lots of carbonation in the beer.

S: honey sweetness, yeast and a little bit of floral, earthy hop.

T: The honey and yeast taste is very strong and sweet up front. This gives way to a touch of bitterness and herbal flavor from the hop.

M: Light body. The carbonation is high. The finish is semi dry.

D: This is an average lager. Not bad. Tastes better than your run of the mill american lager, but about the same in all other aspects.

 481 characters

Photo of Bookseeb
2.85/5  rDev +1.4%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

Appearance has a nice amber color supporting a thin dissipating head leaving spotty lace. Smell of lightly sweet malt and maybe slight adjuncts. Taste of the sweet malt rounded with a mellowing of hops. Mouthfeel has a light body with good carbonation. A little on the sweet side for me, but not bad.

 300 characters

first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Tap Room No. 21 Lager from World Brews
Beer rating: 2.81 out of 5 with 63 ratings