We haven't added this yet, sorry. Signup or log in to tell us what BrewDog have to say for themselves.

We haven't commented on this beer yet, sorry. Signup or log in to tell us what you think.

Rated on 2018-10-06 by BeerDorkNik at Tesco

Quality: 49.4, Enjoyability: 48.3, Overall: 48.85

Not really worth finding… A troll on the concept of lagers - if this is 'how lager should be', lager should be near undrinkable.

Rated on 2021-11-17 by BeerDorkNik at BrewDog, Liverpool

Quality: 46, Enjoyability: 32, Overall: 39

Pale gold. OK creamy head as poured, good retention, OK lacing. Basic lager - bad, not quite as bad as bottle version? Or just colder. Weaker, too.

Rated on 2022-12-14 by BeerDorkNik at BrewDog

Quality: 45, Enjoyability: 30, Overall: 37.5

Pale gold. Good head as poured, OK surface retention and good lacing. Wheaty piss Lager. 'Lager like it shoud be' is totally a calculated insult to Lager drinkers, right?

Rated on 2025-12-06 by BeerDorkNik at BrewDog Advent Calendar 2025

Quality: 45, Enjoyability: 40, Overall: 42.5

Gold. Good foam head on pour, thin halo and little surface retention, with extremely little lacing. Sweet, wheat-malt aroma. Similar, slightly corn, taste and after. Creamy effervescence. I guess this IS a new recipe, not as awful as I remembered. Still fairly awful, though…