Shiner Bock - Spoetzl Brewery

GMB

Japan

1.6/5  rDev -48.6%
look: 2 | smell: 1 | taste: 2 | feel: 1 | overall: 1.5

Shiner Bock pours a nice reddish brown body, but yields no head to speak of. Large, unappealing bubbles cling to the sides of the glass before floating up to the surface, where they rest a while before bursting.

The beer smells mostly of tin, though if one focuses intensely one can pick up notes of roasted malt.

The taste follows suit, offering little else to recommend itself. Aluminum foil conceals faint flavors of toasted malt. The more the palate grows accustomed to the tinny taste, the more perceptible becomes the toasted malt. Bock beer should be rich and full-bodied. Shiner Bock feels watery on the tongue and fails to froth.

Shiner Bock often appears on menus in small restaurants as the only alternative to standard American macro lagers (e.g., Budweiser, Miller, and Coors). If you find yourself seated in such a restaurant and must have a beer, do yourself a favor and order a Miller Lite.

Serving type: bottle

10-05-2012 17:47:43 | More by GMB

PorterLambic

Florida

1.65/5  rDev -46.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 1.5

Pours the color of cola with a very short-lived tan head, just like a Pepsi. Won't be any lace here either.
Smell is odd with notes of malt, some caramel, metal and a serious and overriding mustiness. Not quite skunky but skunk adjacent.
Taste is malt, artificial caramel and metal. Pathetic.
Medium bodied at best, somewhat drying, sharp effervescence up front fades fast. This one is for the drain. Not alcohol abuse, it's palate protection.

Serving type: bottle

10-23-2012 02:38:08 | More by PorterLambic

beersensei305

Florida

1.68/5  rDev -46%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 1

One of the worst regional beers I have ever had...I actually poured this one down the drain.

A: Copper/amber with a thin head then leaves quickly.
S: No Smell...malts maybe
T: Flat tasting, some toasted malts, tab carmel
M: Watery.. no bodied to it. little carbonation.
D: See above.

Serving type: on-tap

12-20-2010 02:57:29 | More by beersensei305

Offa

California

1.73/5  rDev -44.4%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

I find this weak, boring and not even satisfying in the way cheap pale lagers often can be. It's as if it is intended to fill the roles of both a stronger, darker beer like a bock, as labelled, and a light pale lager-type, yet it miserably fails to do either.

Light brown, it's possessed of a small, bubbly off-white head that soon disappears entirely.

The aroma is a bit odd, old bread, candy, mild caramel, honey.

The taste is musty and sweet, with only hints of stale bread, candy, and soap. It's basically sweet with only the faintest trace of bitterness in the finish. It's thin, fizzy, and watery.

I have revisited this in OCt.2012 and found it, if anything, even more unimpressive than before. I have tried some new Shiner beers and revisited ones from before in the recent weeks and, as before, find that Shiner/Spoetzl produces some good beer but that, ironically, this "flagship" beer of theirs is possibly their worst beer. I have downgraded the taste score from 2 to 1.5 - it is simply almost utterly tasteless with only a very fleeting hint of flavour that vanishes abruptly to dry nothingness. It does not taste bad; it simply has almost no character at all. I compare this to their Hefeweizen, which is great, and their Kosmos Reserve lager, which is really good.

Serving type: bottle

04-18-2008 23:29:14 | More by Offa

Jordan1985rec

Maryland

1.73/5  rDev -44.4%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

As far as the style goes, this beer misses the mark. Maybe it's good in context (hot, dry weather of Texas), but here in Maryland it is awful. Sorry to simply bitch, but around here loads of people rave about this beer and I just don't see the appeal; there are much better examples of the style.I know we are not supposed to simply rag on beers on this site, and I don't plan on it, but I hate this beer. I have had it a few times, both on-tap and in the bottle, and honestly I think it has less flavour than Bud, definitely less than Miller HIgh Life, neither of which I enjoy. To me this beer tastes like a watery mess, a little corn in the after-taste and that is all!
Slainte.

Serving type: bottle

12-07-2008 00:45:34 | More by Jordan1985rec

bowersdm

Ohio

1.75/5  rDev -43.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1

12 oz bottle poured into a nonic

A - amber-ruby color, no head.

S - fruit, caramel malt.

T - very tangy weird taste that predominated and basically covered up the caramel malt, what little hops there was, and the fruitiness. not a good flavor. It also had this weird flavor that I always associated with Budweiser's beers. I don't know what it is.

M - disgusting.

D - i will never ever drink this again.

Serving type: bottle

02-02-2009 22:19:02 | More by bowersdm

dananabanana

Massachusetts

1.75/5  rDev -43.7%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1

A: Looks like Diet Coke. No head at all. Lots of fizz, large bubbles. Caramel brown. No lacing.

S: Cloyingly sweet, vague malt.

T: Not very flavorful. Sort of wheaty.

M: Watery, over carbonated.

D: Awful, couldn't even finish it.

Not like any other bock I've had, it's like a poor macro version of a bock. I don't know what all of the hype is about.

Serving type: bottle

03-29-2009 04:24:05 | More by dananabanana

bucklemyshoe

Georgia

1.75/5  rDev -43.7%
look: 1.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

12 oz bottle at 42 degrees (not cold enough) into a pint glass.

A: It pours a clear brownish-copper color with some fizziness that dies almost immediately and leaves no head nor lace. I should have been warned by the metallic color.

S: Light grain and caramel maltiness. That is all.

T: Heavy metallic notes up front, caramel, light toast, and a weird, grainy sweetness late.

M: The body is light and watery but the flavors linger longer than I wanted.

D: This is very macro-esque. And to think that Texans SWEAR by this garbage.

Serving type: bottle

02-23-2011 03:03:46 | More by bucklemyshoe

kfoss99

Maine

1.8/5  rDev -42.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 1

12 oz brown bottle poured into a pint glass.

Appearance - Crystal clear brown body with a white head that disappeared quicker than a card in a magic trick.

Smell - Smell is of sweet caramel

Taste - Taste is sweet, very sweet, but somewhere behind it all are some nutty notes.

Mouthfeel - Nicely carbonated and light in mouthfeel

Drinkability - Did I mention this beer is sweet? It was very difficult to finish the glass. Disappointing for a beer I consider an American classic.

Thanks to Assurbanipaul for the sample.

Serving type: bottle

06-27-2004 22:25:43 | More by kfoss99

ummswimmin

New Jersey

1.88/5  rDev -39.5%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

I didn't expect much from the beer. So I poured it as the fourth drink of the night.

I poured the bottle into a pint glass. Surprisingly there was no head. I saw carbonation, but no foam.

The coloring is brown with a little red in it.

I told my friend that it tasted like college... cheap, skunky, with little redeeming quality. It tastes like Rolling Rock at room temperature (unfortunately I have had this).

The flavors are very lager heavy. I get lots of corn style flavors.

Honestly, this was a sink pour after drinking about a quarter of it.

Serving type: bottle

09-06-2011 02:52:50 | More by ummswimmin

lacqueredmouse

Australia

1.9/5  rDev -38.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

Purchased at the orders of @LaitueGonflable, who'd never tried a beer from Texas, and knew that this beer existed. So be it.

Pours a pleasant deep amber colour, quite clear, with a small, but fine-bubbled head of white. Very light body, especially for a bock (although, probably not for a bock weighing it below 5% ABV), although it hold carbonation quite firmly, making it seem bigger than it is. Some patchy lacing when it's tilted. Not bad, but not great.

Nose is grainy with adjuncts, giving a cornmeal and unprocessed wholegrain character, with a sweetness that speaks of faux vanilla essence. Slight sharpness on it as well, partially from the carbonation, partially from maybe something else—it lingers, suggesting some kind of volatile from hops or grain.

Taste is exceptionally weak and bland, almost excruciatingly so. Slight corn characters on the back, and another tingle of that vague volatile character, but nothing else whatsoever. It's tasteless—offensively so.

Extremely bland, and extremely pointless. It's barely above the watery nothingness of an American adjunct lager. Bock?? Yeah, just fuck the hell off.

Serving type: bottle

11-26-2011 03:33:52 | More by lacqueredmouse

joedon

Minnesota

1.93/5  rDev -37.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Served overly chilled in "frosty" mug. Dark brown with almost no head; possible due to the near freezing condition.

Smell mostly of sour apples and a bit of brown sugar.

The taste is pretty nasty. Very sour with a bit of dark sugar-caramel flavor. No discernable hop taste or bitterness. Aftertaste is sort of sour vinegar.

Really thin, watery body. Nothing to make you think of German beers. I could finish the mug but would not order another.

This "bock" is nothing like the real thing. Sort of like a PBR with caramel coloring. Actually gives bock a bad name.

Serving type: on-tap

03-25-2008 05:01:53 | More by joedon

Arbitrator

California

1.93/5  rDev -37.9%
look: 2 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1

Chilled 12oz bottle into a glass.

A: Pours a medium brown color in the glass, essentially translucent. The head is a limpid finger of short-lived foam. No lacing.

S: None to speak of, really. Not a very aromatic beer, although you can detect some small hop and malt content.

T: Much like the smell, a thin taste. Mostly watery with some roasted malt hints and light hoppy taste.

M: Very thin, light body.

D: This runs at a relatively premium price but offers little in the way of complexity. I'd probably downgrade to a cheaper beer if I just wanted something to drink or upgrade to a better one if I wanted something to enjoy. Not a very good balance.

Serving type: bottle

12-16-2008 04:30:39 | More by Arbitrator

timtwoface

British Columbia (Canada)

1.93/5  rDev -37.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

I am absolutely NOT a fan of this beer. The price point at $1.99 was fine, so I could swallow that, but I couldn't really swallow the rest.

Was it BAD? No. Was it GOOD? God, no. I can only regard this beer as...well...bland. To be fair, it pours a very nice clear darker colour so I was excited by that, but the taste had...well..nothing really, beyond carbonation and a very weak light lager sort of taste. I was honestly unsure as to whether there was actually any alcohol in it - and for a beer, that is somewhat important to me.

Sadly there was no wow factor that made me want this beer, it was just far too week for my tastes. If you want something rather cheap, go for it. Otherwise, I wouldn't really recommend this to suit your needs.

Serving type: bottle

12-15-2011 03:22:17 | More by timtwoface

Beerevity

1.93/5  rDev -37.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

A - Bronze caramel color with a frothy white head that doesn't last.

S - Smells of rice and very light malt.

T - Boring malt with a bit of, is that tin? There is no real way to convey this but it tastes like half beer, half pool water.

M - Watery and fizzy but drinkable.

O - I really don't like the taste of this beer. It's drinkable, especially straight from the bottle, but there are so many better choices for the same price.

Serving type: bottle

06-16-2012 05:40:51 | More by Beerevity

cokes

Wisconsin

1.98/5  rDev -36.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

Clear dull and dark amber. Foamy pale yellow head vanishes quickly.
Husky nose with little evident maltiness, sweet or otherwise. Suggestions of stewed veggies is not a plus either.
Taste is more of the husk, less of the malt, and pretty much part and parcel of what one would expect from a macro lager. I could tolerate it if it was marketed as such, but slapping "bock" on a thin, malt-less brew is unacceptable.
Back to the actual taste: More veggies appear towards the back of the mouth, although they're pretty faint. Some heavily diluted caramel (maybe?). No hops.
Thin and absolutely lifeless in the mouth.
Not a fan, at all.

Serving type: on-tap

06-25-2003 20:24:17 | More by cokes

DoubleJ

California

1.98/5  rDev -36.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Here's a macro-craft offering you can find around at many bars and stores. Says bock on the label, though in south Texas where this beer hails from, I'm guessing I'll get something lighter than I expect. On to the beer:

Twist-off the top, pour into a shaker pint, and get a clearish dark color with the head going away. It kind of looks like they added coloring to a macro pale lager. The smell is extrmely clean with a trace of...I can't make it out it's so faint. Tortillas? Now I'm worried.

I'm scared, but I'm going to put this in my mouth. Here goes...wow....I'm sharting to think they throw corn tortillas in the fermenter to get the dominant flavor. Dominant corn in a dark lager? Um, no. Just as you taste it, it fades away. Malts are thin, powdery, create a very light toffee flavor, and the hops are thinner to the palate. Light bodied it is, but which is boosted by a drive of carbonation.

If I closed my eyes, I'd swear I was drinking a macro with a dash of dark malt. Too light to be considered a real bock and just enough weird flavor to steer you away if tasteless refreshment is on your mind; it's a lose-lose proposition.

Serving type: bottle

03-01-2008 07:45:44 | More by DoubleJ

jayhawk73

Maryland

1.98/5  rDev -36.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

Pours a medium brown color, with very little head. Almost no carbonation and just about zero lacing. The smell is very one dimensional to me. Wheat, a tiny bit of malt, and an odd copper smell. Very thin nose on this beer. The taste is about the same. Very thin, uninteresting, and not worth finishing. This one's a drainpour for me. Mouthfeel is somewhat dry and definitely on the thin side, with a copper aftertaste. Overall, I would not recommend this beer.. You can do a lot better for the style.

Serving type: on-tap

08-06-2011 18:21:44 | More by jayhawk73

mrfrancis

Kentucky

1.98/5  rDev -36.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

A: Pours a dark brownish amber with a fizzy whitish head. Looks like a fairly standard dark lager, but the poor head retention does not wow me.

S: Very boring. A combination of molasses and an almost coppery, metallic smell. This does not smell appealing in the least.

T: Enters sweet with notes of caramel, molasses, heavy cream, a little bit of grassy hop bitterness, and an odd metallic tang that gets stronger and more distracting as the beer warms. The finish is mercifully short, as it is dominated by a molasses flavor and that same odd metal taste.

M: Thin, syrupy, and light-bodied. Gets stickier as the beer warms.

O: I'm sure if I were in a crappy Texas bar and this were my only choice outside of the usual bland yellow lagers, I would take it. That, however, is not a compliment to this beer. Has nothing remotely in common with a real bock. I think I'll avoid this one from this point forward.

Serving type: bottle

10-05-2011 21:10:54 | More by mrfrancis

donmonkey1

Tennessee

1.98/5  rDev -36.3%
look: 1.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Appearance: medium brown, similar to Coca-Cola. No head, no lacing, virtually no carbonation. Pathetic.

Smell: Watered down Coca-Cola.

Taste: A pint of water with 10 honeysuckles in it,a drop of caramel flavored syrup, and one shredded metal bottle cap.

Mouthfeel: Water

This beer is horribly unimpressive and boring but at least it's not offensive.

Serving type: bottle

06-06-2012 22:54:36 | More by donmonkey1

Cooldill

Illinois

1.98/5  rDev -36.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

Served from a glass mug, should have just sipped from the bottle.

A- Medium dark brown. Clear, with red highlights when viewed in front of a light source. Pitiful half-finger head even with an aggresive pour. Dies down to absolutely nothing in seconds. I've seen cokes with more robust heads than this, even worse than a BMC in the head department. Zero lacing. Well carbonated as well. Looks like 4 parts coke, one part water.

S- intitial light candyish sweetness. Faint hops and floral notes. Slightly stale and very weak nose. Not distinguishing at all, though not particularly offensive.

T- Like a Budweiser with a bit of Newcastle Brown Ale dribbled in. Weak malts, very light caramel, not much hops. No floral taste like on the nose. Somewhat stale and bitter, not the good kind of bitter either. Not very tasty. At least Budweiser doesn't try to pretend it's somethint it isn't if ya catch my drift.

M- Painfully watery. Moderate carbonation. Not as drinkable as many BMC beers even.

O- Completely forgetable. Nice packaging, but poor product. Something about this beer is off putting. I just don't like it and will never look for it again. Made the mistake of getting two six packs of this stuff.

Serving type: bottle

08-16-2012 19:41:04 | More by Cooldill

diablo14

Australia

2/5  rDev -35.7%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

i was looking forward to trying this bock from texas. considering these texans say everything is big there, i was thinking this might be the same. i thought wrong. nothing about this beer was big. it was insipid, boring and generally dismal.

didnt have the deep colors of a real bock, was bordering more on an amber ale in that area. lacked nose, all i could get was a sweet smell and the faintest hint of malt. to say the taste was nondescript would be an understatement. it was damn sweet with barely any malt, and none of the rich nutty, biscuity characteristics you expect to find in a bock. were there hops in this beer? i couldnt really tell. lacked any type of finish full stop, let alone, the full, dry and flavorsome finish on the back palate any beer of this style has to have as the basics.

i have had worse bocks sure. but calling this beer a bock is truly a misnomer. its not a great beer regardless, but its a shocker in this category. a waste of quality drinking space when there were plenty of better beers on offer i could have had.

Serving type: bottle

05-24-2005 12:07:45 | More by diablo14

Tilley4

Tennessee

2/5  rDev -35.7%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

Didn't enjoy this one at all. Way too much like the BMC stuff if you ask me.

Actually looked pretty good in the glass. Nice and dark with a pretty decent head.

Smelled kind of bready and biscuity, kinda like any macro available.

Nope, just don't do it for me. I tried this cause it was on special for $2.75 per pint. Drank half and threw the rest out.

I just didn't enjoy this one. There are some who will probably really like this beer. I'm just not one of them

Serving type: on-tap

01-08-2008 20:36:34 | More by Tilley4

scoobybrew

Iowa

2/5  rDev -35.7%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

This was poured from the bottle into a pilsner flute.

A - clear, ruby amber color with a small head that dissipates a bit too quickly

S - malty, but adjunct rice like, no hops perceptible

T - malt dominates with a slight hop finish

M - light to medium body, a bit too thin for a bock

D - incredibly disappointing bock - this is a very faint and pale comparison to it's European roots - it's 'drinkable' but barely - very bland in nature

Serving type: bottle

02-14-2008 02:00:38 | More by scoobybrew

semihobo

Michigan

2/5  rDev -35.7%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

On my 24 oz bottle there is a freshness date, stamped faintly below where the word "Shiner" protrudes from the glass. 11-15-07.

Even with an vigorous pour, the head fades quickly to nothing. Looks a lot like a coke, but the bubbles rising through the clear, soda-colored body are smaller.

Smells kind of like a coke, too. Sweet above all else with a vegetable note most similar to cabbage.

At the risk of being repetitive, tastes like a 50-50 mix between bud light and a diet coke. Sweet and cabbage-y throughout, with some faint clove phenols toward the finish.

Very thin, feels coke-like on the mouthfeel too.

Quite unimpressive across the board, not offensive but not very beer like. I would definitely drink this vs. BMC and think it would make a great kegger beer, but decidedly weak within the style.

Serving type: bottle

03-21-2008 21:24:29 | More by semihobo