Tsingtao Beer – Icy Smooth
Taiwan Tsing Beer Co., Ltd.
- From:
- Taiwan Tsing Beer Co., Ltd.
- Taiwan
- Style:
- American Adjunct Lager
Ranked #365 - ABV:
- 4.5%
- Score:
- 64
Ranked #39,748 - Avg:
- 2.14 | pDev: 31.78%
- Ratings:
- | reviews: 1
- Status:
- Active
- Rated:
- Oct 14, 2023
- Added:
- Jan 31, 2012
- Wants:
- 0
- Gots:
- 5
SCORE
64
Poor
64
Poor
No description / notes.
Recent ratings and reviews. | Log in to view more ratings + sorting options.
Ratings by DustinSWB:
More User Ratings:
Reviewed by wl0307 from England
2.03/5 rDev -5.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2
2.03/5 rDev -5.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2
The original name is written in Chinese, and after translation I think “Icy Smooth” makes more sense for the original “Bing Chun”. Coming in a 485ml can, produced on 07/07/2011, BB 07/07/2012, served chilled in a slim pilsner lager glass. Note: As suggested by the information on the can, this beer is supposed to be a contract-brew produced by the Taiwan “Tsing” Beer Co., Ltd., in Taiwan (* This brewery is NOT affiliated to or owned by the Tsingtao Brewery, although in Chinese the word “Tsing” is written and means in the same way as the “Tsing” in “Tsingtao”.).
A: light yellow-ish straw, coming with lively carbonation full of large and medium-sized bubbles, topped with a fast-dissipating semi-thick white froth.
S: sour notes typical of a mass produced lager beer dominates the nose, edged by lighter aroma of malts and adjuncts (rice, in this case). A swirl brings out more mixed grainy notes and even traces of hop extracts. All in all, not like a super-crap example of adjunct-rich lager, IMO.
T: the entry is bland, bland, bland… with adjuncts manifesting here and there at the rear of the palate, while going slightly “oily” in the end, which to me suggests a low intensity of wort used and absolutely lack of body (for 4.5%abv. at least) on top of pasteurisation. The “aftertaste” continues with the fashion, that there’s hardly anything to taste; so, in fact, there’s NO aftertaste... All in all, each sip wraps up so… quick that I can’t seriously detect anything to write about (and NOthing to write HOME about).
M&D: the body is thin and light, refreshing but not overly fizzy, and all in all the taste gives away its inferior nature which the nose kinda serves to camouflage, although it is true that there’s nothing atrocious despite cheap adjuncts used. Overall: A bad product that should be either overhauled or discontinued.
Jan 31, 2012A: light yellow-ish straw, coming with lively carbonation full of large and medium-sized bubbles, topped with a fast-dissipating semi-thick white froth.
S: sour notes typical of a mass produced lager beer dominates the nose, edged by lighter aroma of malts and adjuncts (rice, in this case). A swirl brings out more mixed grainy notes and even traces of hop extracts. All in all, not like a super-crap example of adjunct-rich lager, IMO.
T: the entry is bland, bland, bland… with adjuncts manifesting here and there at the rear of the palate, while going slightly “oily” in the end, which to me suggests a low intensity of wort used and absolutely lack of body (for 4.5%abv. at least) on top of pasteurisation. The “aftertaste” continues with the fashion, that there’s hardly anything to taste; so, in fact, there’s NO aftertaste... All in all, each sip wraps up so… quick that I can’t seriously detect anything to write about (and NOthing to write HOME about).
M&D: the body is thin and light, refreshing but not overly fizzy, and all in all the taste gives away its inferior nature which the nose kinda serves to camouflage, although it is true that there’s nothing atrocious despite cheap adjuncts used. Overall: A bad product that should be either overhauled or discontinued.
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!