Rolling Rock Extra Pale - Latrobe Brewing Co.

davisdandrew

Quebec (Canada)

4/5  rDev +52.7%
look: 3 | smell: 4 | taste: 4 | feel: 4 | overall: 4.25

Looks quite bright but a few micro floaties upon close inspection. very pale. Head dissipates.

Very little in the aroma depatment, slightly grainy

Tastes remarkable like club soda. This beer has less overall flavor than almost any other beer I have ever had. Very clean and fresh tasting. remarkably refreshing. almost no lingering flavors.

very light mouthfeel with prickly carbonation.

Overall this beer was excellent. I wanted to buy some cheap beer in cans and was surprised at the quality of this beer in the end. People will bash this type of product but it is what is supposed to be.

Serving type: can

04-04-2013 14:10:19 | More by davisdandrew

HankAaron

Massachusetts

2.33/5  rDev -11.1%
look: 2.25 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 2.75 | overall: 2

Didn't really like this beer that much. Drank it up in Vermont during a winter storm and it did its purpose it was something to drink, but didn't enjoy it. The main reason I had it was because it is cheap for a 30 pack and it's what my roommate enjoyed, so I obliged.

Serving type: can

02-06-2013 21:38:01 | More by HankAaron

slitherySOB

Ontario (Canada)

2.68/5  rDev +2.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.75 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.75 | overall: 2.75

Definitely an average beer, this lager pours a pale straw golden colour with a thick, three finger head that quickly disipates to one finger. Smells sweet, with grain and corn up front. Not as offensive as Natty Light, but very similar. Tastes sweet with malt grains and corn. Definitely an adjunct lager. Mouthfeel is light and easy, with a low to medium carbonation. Overall, a decent beer to have on a hot day. A beer to pound back after mowing the lawn on a hot summers day.

Serving type: can

01-31-2013 16:57:09 | More by slitherySOB

sam_bliss

Washington

2.16/5  rDev -17.6%
look: 3 | smell: 1.25 | taste: 2.25 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Tall-boy can into globe glass.

Well, it is certainly Extra Pale, as the can said it would be. It has kind of a watered-down gold color, with a big fizzy head at first. This bubbles away to just a thin sheet of white that sits atop the brew. Carbonation bubbles rise from the bottom of the globe at a steady pace. A very adjunct smell of white rice and sweet creamed corn dominates the aroma. Some hay-like dry grassiness may represent hops, or maybe actual hay in the mash. As liquid first touches the tongue, it seems a bit sweeter than most macro-brewed lagers. A refreshing, almost Sprite-like citrus flavor puckers the cheeks while the high carbonation and subtle, dry fruitiness make this a much more deserving candidate than Coors (or is it Miller?) for the title "The Champagne of Beers." There's really more adjunct grains than malt in here. Maybe just a little breadiness is all I can detect. Light body and lots of fizz make for a difficult mouth experience when cold, yet I don't think this would be palatable if it weren't cold.

Serving type: can

01-26-2013 03:43:29 | More by sam_bliss

harrymel

Washington

2.21/5  rDev -15.6%
look: 3 | smell: 1.75 | taste: 2.25 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Canned: unk

It's a really pale yellow straw with a central cylinder of bubbles rising to a central dome of white etch. Smells real distant, some flowers, some grains and white rice - this kinda reminds me of urine from a catheter bag. A very light flavor, with grain, a bit of corn some sweet bread flavors in there as well. Not a good flavor, but plenty of water like flavors. Thin, empty body with some hi carb and a slick finish. This is less than impressive.

Serving type: can

01-13-2013 02:59:46 | More by harrymel

barczar

Kentucky

2.7/5  rDev +3.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Pours a brilliant light gold with a foamy one inch ivory head that dissipates slowly, leaving thick lacing.

Aroma is grainy, earthy, and buttery. There's a bit of sulfur. Reminds me of canned peas.

Flavor is similarly earthy and minerally, with a biscuity malt backbone, and finishes with cracker-like dryness. Acetaldehyde is evident.

Body is fairly watery, with moderate carbonation and slight astringency.

Some odd flavors and aromas, in comparison with other products of this caliber.

Serving type: can

12-28-2012 00:14:27 | More by barczar

SometimesIfart

Michigan

1.36/5  rDev -48.1%
look: 2 | smell: 1 | taste: 1.25 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

A - Drank it straight from the can so I don't know.

S - Uhhh...Well, Nothing much actually. Maybe some very very VERY slight rice.

T - Once again, Almost nothing but extremely slight rice.

M - Medium bodied with medium carbonation.

O - Overall, I paid $4.99 for a six-pack of cans of this stuff, And it pretty much lives up to it's price. It would be a great beer to party with since it goes down so easily and it will eventually do it's job, But from an advocate's perspective, This stuff is garbage.

Serving type: can

11-27-2012 20:46:53 | More by SometimesIfart

HalfFull

California

3.1/5  rDev +18.3%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

12 oz. can poured into a pint glass. I'm a bit surprised that I haven't reviewed this beer prior to this day as it was a bit of a mainstay of my 'youth'. Yet I wonder if it truly bears any resemblance to the '33' of yore.

I let the can warm up a bit, to 40 degrees or so from the fridge. Pours a clear light straw with minimal carbonation yet sporting a nice cap of foam. More carbonation evident on the tongue vs. a visual by the way. Offers a neutral aroma and lacking of much as for adjuncts. Pleasant yet neutral flavor with a slight sweetness which lingers for a moment.

Like PBR this stands a bit above the 'crowd' as for the yeast influence in the aroma but otherwise blends in with the masses.

Serving type: can

11-19-2012 05:05:43 | More by HalfFull

JamesMN

Minnesota

3.03/5  rDev +15.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Appearance: Crystal clear straw color with a thin and bubbly white head.

Aroma: Not much there and the only good thing is there are no off smells.

Taste: That average adjunct lager taste but with a noticeable difference on the end. A sort of sweetness that tastes like watered down apple juice. Basically no other flavors on this one, just like soda water. Crisp finish.

Mouthfeel: Thin/medium in body. Easy drinkability and lots of effervescence.

FInal Thoughts: Being one of the cheapest beers on the market, Rolling Rock is a good bet if you are going for quantity over substance but is otherwise just one in a long line of adjunct beers that are not worth your time if you are serious about craft beer. Would I drink it again? Nope.

Serving type: can

10-31-2012 04:56:34 | More by JamesMN

TehParabox

2.5/5  rDev -4.6%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

appearance: very pale yellowish color, visible through light. Has a decent head..leaves a bit of lacing around.

smell: a bit of corn, or rice. Maybe a tinge of apple..definitely some sweet scents to this.

taste: it's a bit sweet, there's plenty of carbonation. There's a slight taste of rice, and corn.

mouthfeel: not very dense but it's good, very clean finish. pretty refreshing.

overall: I think it's pretty good, I drink this pretty often actually when I'm in the mood for something quick and drinkable. I like it.

Serving type: can

09-08-2012 09:05:59 | More by TehParabox

walser

3.1/5  rDev +18.3%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

16oz can poured into a wine glass.

Smell of slight grain, no hop.

Pale yellow w little head.

A little grainy on the palste but wout
the warn, processed, metal
taste of many cheaper
brands.

88 degrees outside and this lager
works well enough. Nothing
memorable but nothing offensive,
on hot days wout ac a light
Am lager is perfect.

Serving type: can

07-14-2012 23:45:28 | More by walser

Zalbaag

2/5  rDev -23.7%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

It took me about 4 sips to finish a can of this, after drinking 2 pints of spaten optimator. It's an extremely watery beer, but the price is right. I could definitely continuously put these down, even after a day of drinking. Rolling rock is a good alternative to an American beer like budweiser. Yet not as feminine as drinkin a ligh beer. It is light on the palette.

Serving type: can

05-28-2012 22:30:18 | More by Zalbaag

Jsteez

New Mexico

1.4/5  rDev -46.6%
look: 2 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2.5

Poured into a pilsner glass.

A-No head. No lace. Flat and yellow. High carbonation at first. However, it disappeared after a few minutes and turned flat.

S-Wheat and metallic.

T-Water, soda water, metallic, and a little hint of wheat.

M-Wet going in. Leaves a dry and sour aftertaste. No hops or malts present.

O-I do not recommend this beer. If you want adjunct lager, drink MGD. Maybe it was a bad batch, I don't know. There was not a date on it. I did not even finish the whole thing. I dumped it in the sink.

Serving type: can

05-26-2012 22:10:21 | More by Jsteez

svenandbrews

2.23/5  rDev -14.9%
look: 2 | smell: 3 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

Appearance--Has a bland appearance, large bubbles taint the auspicious head of the beer, seemingly too light for an ale.

Smell--Aroma doesn't fixate on anything, fails to draw the attention of the consumer. Overpowering aroma of hops, not in a good way, simply because this beer has nothing else to offer, not that hoppy smell is especially inviting. Standard but unaccepting.

Taste--Easy drinkability for a cheap beer, sour taste, but able to be swallowed. As with smell, this beer fails to inspire the taster to a specific instance of taste or smell, just feels comfortable sitting the middle of the road, afraid to take any risks.

Mouthfeel--Carbonation levels are acceptable, but somewhat overpowering in some regards. Easy to swallow, but carbonation makes rapid consumption nearly impossible.

Overall--for a cheap beer, Rolling Rock Pale Ale sets a bar that most other discount brews fail to achieve. That being said however, it lacks the inspiration and taste necessary to separate it from the pack. Drinkability is relatively high, but the carbonation inhibits the enjoyment of this relatively simple, yet consistent flavor. For a discount beer, Rolling rock certainly surpasses the competition, but falls drastically short of higher quality beer. Simply put, if you need something to drink, don't have that much money, but still value your tastebuds, rolling rock extra pale is the way to go. It leaves something to be desired, but not nearly as much as other contemporary discount brews.

Serving type: can

04-28-2012 08:00:51 | More by svenandbrews

MNJR

Illinois

2.78/5  rDev +6.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Rolling Rock 1989: good beer. Rolling Rock 2012: average beer. The name is there, but history is damned by corporate pirate assholes A-B who would pimp their moms for 0.02 cents on the dollar. Corporate fascists have ruined a once great brewing tradition from the glass lined tanks of Old Latrobe. Corn husk lemon buttered popcorn diacetyl witch hazel brew. But, not radically bad if really, really cold. Choke it down, my alcho-enhanced brethren, but know as you get drunk you sponsor the banker controlled corpo-overthrow of everything once good. Bow to your sensei and taste his rancid ball sweat.

Serving type: can

04-28-2012 02:54:05 | More by MNJR

BucannonXC5

California

2.5/5  rDev -4.6%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Poured from a 24-oz. can into a pint glass. Lots of head, probably because of the can, about four fingers. Color was yellow, gold, urine, straw. Wet, spongy and frothy lacing on the top. Light and sporadic film on the sides.

Pungent smell. Got light caramel, corn, skunk, biscuit, bread.

Tasted pretty close to the smell. Corn, malty, sweet, biscuit and some grass.

Light body. Thin texture. Average carbonation. Abrupt, watery finish.

Not a bad beer as long as your expectations aren’t too high. It is what it is. Clean, crisp and refreshing.

Serving type: can

04-16-2012 06:23:14 | More by BucannonXC5

adjunctjonez

2.1/5  rDev -19.8%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

First let me say RR tastes different post AB acquisition, the old RR had a better, distinct flavor. AB RR has a light straw color and little head, but the beer is very carbonated. Smell is sour with adjunct dominance, smells like a house the day after a large keg party. The taste is similar, sour and corn dominant that gets worse as you drink it down. Mouthfeel is watery but you can pour it down if desired. Overall RR now seems to compete with the low end of the spectrum ala beast, natty, etc. Wouldnt want to test the hangover factor on this one. 20 years ago RR had a more hoppy, malty flavor.

Serving type: can

04-04-2012 17:23:48 | More by adjunctjonez

BeerNutz324

Minnesota

2.35/5  rDev -10.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

16oz can into a pint glass

Ap- pours a crystal clear yellow color with lots of bubbles and has a pure white head that dissipates quickly. Only a bit of head is left hugging the glass.

Ar- sweetness, the faintest bit of sweet malt, corn, and a bit of an earthy/grass scent.

T- pretty much like it smells. Sweet and the smallest imaginable flavor of hops and malt. I don't taste anything near it being "extra pale". Nothing else special to report.

M- thin and watery with a lot of carbonation.

O- not a great beer, but I still think this one has better flavor than the other BMC's out there. Maybe a decent beer to session with if you feel like pounding more than 2 or 3 down.

Serving type: can

03-27-2012 22:32:23 | More by BeerNutz324

wordemupg

Alberta (Canada)

2.98/5  rDev +13.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

473ml can poured into pint glass 17/2/12

A clear straw yellow with lots of big bubbles feeding a fast falling thumbs width of lace that leaves no lace

S corny malt and some faint grassy hops, not much going on here

T a little sweet malt and rice cakes, again not a whole lot going on here

M fairly watery bubbles feel a little foamy and I think I get more flavor on the finish then anywhere else, and that's still not much

O I'm not rating this as the Pale Ale like the can says it is, If I was it would score much lower. not much going on here but at least its not offensive

I remember rating this before and thinking it was gross, perhaps I'm wrong but I wouldn't go looking for this one either way

Serving type: can

02-17-2012 19:24:30 | More by wordemupg

Darkmagus82

Montana

2.45/5  rDev -6.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Poured from 24 oz can into pint glass

Appearance – Pours a light golden color with tons of carbonation bubbles and a huge billowing white head. The head contains huge carbonation bubbles and fades very fast. While not leaving much lacing there is an ever so light bit.

Smell – Sweet with corn malt. Not too much else is prevalent, although there may be an ever so slight bit of grassy aroma as well.

Taste – Corm malt sweetness meets the tongue and lasts throughout the experience. There is a bit of barley flavor toward the middle and an ever so light bit of spice (hard to place, but very light floral and pine I think).

Mouthfeel – Very light body. A bit too thin though as it seems to almost leaves the mouth as soon as it gets there. The carbonation is on par for the style however; a little bit heavier and rather invigorating.

Overall – Very mild on most fronts. Not a beer to go to if looking for something more “flavorful and heavy”, but not a bad beer to have on a hot day after working outside and needing something lighter and more refreshing.

Serving type: can

02-15-2012 01:29:16 | More by Darkmagus82

Brianhophead

Alberta (Canada)

2.23/5  rDev -14.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

A- Rolling rock is a very pale lager, the color of straw. It's well carbonated with pinpoint bubbles rising through the glass. Head is fluffy and white. Retention is somewhat lacking, practically melting the head away.

S- rolling rock's nose starts out bready, bordering on grainy. Grains are supported by a noticeable vegetal aroma. Not a lot else going on in the nose. No noticeable hop presence, just a faint sweetness that's almost corn-like in its aspect.

T- On the palate, Rolling rock is thin, bordering on watery. Unlike the nose, rolling Rock has a noticeable grainy, grassiness on the tongue. Middle has the same vegetal aspect as the nose, but at least has a slightly rounded quality to it. Finish is dry and grainy, again with no hop presence to speak of.

Overall, this just is not a very good lager. It's dry and grainy and not very satisfying. The only flavor Rolling Rock offers is that mild vegetal quality. I would hesitate to recommend Rolling Rock even to fans of mainstream lagers.

Serving type: can

02-14-2012 23:53:05 | More by Brianhophead

Dools9

Massachusetts

2.68/5  rDev +2.3%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Poured with vigour into a nonic

A: Pale yellow, crystal clear, lots of carbonation. Finger of bone white head that faded to a thin cap. Left decent lacing.

S: Lost of corn, sweet grains, light wisp of hops. Aroma is really very subtle but not too offensive for an adjunct.

T: Mostly corn, sweet grains, mild hop bitterness. A bit metalic tasting as well. Finishes with a cormy aftertaste.

M: Not overly carbonated like most aal's. Light bodied, clean and smooth.

O: Honestly, for what it is, its not too bad. Pretty cheap and a touch more flavor than similar macros.

Serving type: can

02-10-2012 22:53:28 | More by Dools9

aval89

Arizona

2.2/5  rDev -16%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

a: very pale golden color. perfectly clear. soapy finger of head. lots of active carbonation.

s: sweet. cooked veggies, mainly corn.

t: more cooked veggie/corny taste. maybe some sweet malts deep in there. other than that, nothing else much going on.

mf: fizzy carbonation with a light feel.

O: meh, a cheap buzz kinda beer.

Serving type: can

01-21-2012 01:13:01 | More by aval89

joemcgrath27

Alberta (Canada)

2.28/5  rDev -13%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

A - clear straw golden, thumb of white head dissipated to a thin covering
S - clear adjunct aroma, some graininess and very mild hops with a metallic hint
T - mild corn adjunct flavour and and a little metallic hop hint, not much else, typical
M - light thin body with a little prickly carbonation, given that the style is meant to pour down your gullet this meets the average criteria
O - I feel like I enjoyed this a little more on tap previously but that may be just because it was part of a long drinking session, its your typical adjunct lager that anyone taking the time to do beer reviews online is not going to enjoy, BUT I wouldn't turn it down

Serving type: can

01-04-2012 02:13:13 | More by joemcgrath27

wafers

New York

2.55/5  rDev -2.7%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A: Clear, straw colored upon the pour. Decent amount of creamy foam.
S: Not much there, nearly odorless, very slight maltiness in the background
T: Very much towards the "light and drinkable" end of the beer spectrum. Taste is watery, with some cereals, slight maltiness, no detection of hops.
M: Again very drinkable, smooth, with plenty of carbonation bubbles and fizz
O: It's a decent option when choosing amongst the more inexpensive beers. The taste is very neutral, but it is drinkable and a good beer for a hot, summer day.

Serving type: can

12-24-2011 01:58:43 | More by wafers