Total Score: 5.15/10
What is the deal with cheap beers having the word “premium” in their name? It’s like making a mediocre beer that you’re actually proud of. Why do brewers do this? Obviously it would be difficult selling a beer called “Jim’s Cheap-ass Lager”, but at least they might think about dropping the “premium” from the name and saving it for their best beer… unless of course it is their best beer (in that case, my apologies).
Poured from a 330ml bottle into a tulip pint.
A: Fluffy white head… dissipates to a spider web lacing. The body is a light amber hue… very Lager-ish characteristics here. 6/10.
S: Cut grass, light honey and a hint of mint (interesting). The aroma suggests a clean, sharp Lager. 7/10.
T: First thing I noticed was how dull this Lager is… there is nothing exciting here, “yes” it’s crisp, “yes” it’s clean, “yes” it has a slight dry aftertaste (all typical of Lagers), but that’s it: there’s no draw card with this beer. Why drink this when you could quite easily settle for one of the other billion boring Lagers out there? Of course this is semantics. In relation to the actual flavour: its malt grains and light bitterness with that unmistakable hint of honey found in the aroma. 5/10.
M: The beer I was tasting seemed a bit flat, not sure if this is intentional or just the bottle I was drinking. Also watery, like any other Lager. 4/10.
D: Easy to drink, but not necessarily a good thing in this case. This beer is so boring I nearly fell asleep while drinking it. A big slice of average pie here. These are not the droids you’re looking for… it’s not even the beer you’re looking for. 4/10.
Food match: Boring food… steamed vegetables and plain white rice. The hint of honey I found might make it go well with dessert, but who drinks beer with desserts? [turns out I do when I’ve got an over-sweet Belgian brew or a heady Barleywine]