Big Ben's (#27 - Rated 4.0 out of 12)

This beverage is bottled by the Catawissa Bottling Company, situated in the picturesque hills of Central Pennsylvania. The company proudly claims to have been crafting Big Bens since 1926. Their website, reminiscent of the early 1990s and the Netscape Navigator era, suggests a commitment to simplicity. Unfortunately, the limited information available about the company leaves much to be desired, as I value comprehensive historical context.

Click here for the rating criteria and a summary table of all the root beers tested.

Ingredients: 

Carbonated Water, Sugar, Caramel Color, Natural and Artificial Flavors, Sodium Benzoate (preservative), Citric Acid, Yucca Extractives, and Acacia.

I had never seen Acacia before and am still trying to understand why it was added. Then I tried to see what Yucca Extractive was. Web MD explained it best at this link.

Nutrition 12 oz (from the bottle)

180 Calories 

30 mg Sodium.

44g (15%) of Daily Carbohydrates

0 mg Caffeine

Aroma and Flavor – 1.5 out of 3 mugs

Upon opening the bottle, I experienced either a severe cold or the water within it. The experience was unremarkable. Initially, I was pleasantly surprised by the taste. However, as I continued to consume it, the enjoyment diminished. The beverage has a notably soft, sugary flavor profile, with a high sodium content.   

Head – 0.5 out of 3 mugs

Upon closer inspection, I discovered a head. However, its prominence was minimal, resembling a faint, almost imperceptible ring of foam surrounding the outside of the class.

Zip - 1 out of 3 mugs

The beverage was average in zip. It had low carbonation and a slightly creamy taste, but it could have left a lasting impression.

Post Consumption Impression – 1 out of 3 mugs

Although it was not deemed unpleasant, the more I consumed, the less I found enjoyable about the beverage. It possesses a subtle root beer flavor with excessive sugar content. It evokes a sense of a moderately flat Barq’s.

Would I recommend this at 4 out of 12 mugs?

If you have several friends who wish to try this, proceed, but limit the brew to 2 ounces. The initial taste was tolerable, but the difficulty in finishing the bottle was the primary concern.

Other Reviews

Darek Janiak - 1.7 out of 10

Eric’s Gourmet Root Beer  3 of 5

Cosmo’s 2 of 10 

Route 66 Root Beer (#26 - Rated 7.0 out of 12)

The beverage is new on the market compared to others. It originated in 1996 and is bottled in Mokena, Illinois. It is hard to find much history at all!  Underlined text is updated text!

Click here for the rating criteria and a summary table of all the root beers tested.

Ingredients: Carbonated water, cane sugar, caramel color, natural and artificial flavorings, citric acid, and sodium benzoate.

Nutrition (12 oz from the bottle)

Calories  160

41 mg Sodium.

28g Sugar (12%) of Daily Carbohydrates

0 mg Caffeine

Aroma and Flavor – 1.00 out of 3 mugs

Is it possible to obtain a subpar bottle of root beer? Based on my second attempt, the answer is affirmative. The second bottle exhibits distinct characteristics from the first. While it may not be exceptional, it surpasses the average. This improvement elevates the score from 1 to 2 in this category. The second bottle lacked the characteristic aroma and possessed a pleasant blend of spices. Although the Sarsaparilla still lacked a subtle sweetness, the caramel flavor was discernible. The aroma is faint. Initially, I anticipated a medicinal taste, which proved to be accurate. My first sip revealed that root beer lacks memorable qualities and offers limited enjoyment. It is initially tolerable, but an unknown aftertaste emerges. I cannot pinpoint its nature, but I find it unpleasant. I perceive a faint vanilla flavor with a caramel undertone. However, the persistent aftertaste overshadows my enjoyment, resembling rancidity. Can root beer deteriorate or develop a sour taste?

Head – 1.0 out of 3 mugs

The head is a decent height but fizzes away too quickly.

Zip – 1.25 out of 3 mugs

The zip tingles the tongue, and the carbonation and spices are very odd. The aftertaste is a sweet, creamy vanilla.  The second bottle was much better in the Zip category.  It was even carbonation with no odd twang to it at all.  The score increased from 1.25 to 2.

Post Consumption Impression – 1.00 out of 3 mugs

This beverage does not align with my personal preferences. I am still attempting to discern the distinct, almost rancid aftertaste. In contrast, the second brew was actually enjoyable. While it employed a commercial-style carbonation, it fell short in delivering the desired vanilla flavor. I was particularly impressed by the second bottle, which improved my rating from a 1 to a 2.

Would I recommend this at Second try a 7 - initial 4.25 out of 12 mugs?

If you enjoy Dad’s Root Beer, you may also find this beverage appealing. Notably, the initial bottle underwent fermentation, as evidenced by a significant increase in its score when compared to the second bottle. While it would be beneficial to have freshness dates on some of these bottles, I would not recommend this beverage unless it is complimentary and you are interested in trying it. Although the sugar content was relatively low, the sodium levels were notably high. Additionally, the aftertaste was not satisfactory, as confirmed by two other household members.   

Other Reviews

Eric’s Gourmet Root Beer  3.5 out of 5

Cosmos Root Beer Review  1 out of 10

Root Beer Respect  8 out of 10

Columbia Soda Works (#25 - Rated 10.6 out of 12

Columbia Soda Works presents an enigma. Despite my efforts to ascertain its historical background, the website yielded no discernible results. The bottle’s label asserts its establishment in 1996 within the historical gold-mining town of Columbia, California. The label further proclaims, “The flavor transports you to the bygone era when miners and settlers savored the opulent tastes of these early refreshments. A taste as opulent as the Mother Load.” It even boasts an additional claim, stating that Columbia Soda Works Sarsaparilla is “A VERY PRECIOUS LIQUID.” This constitutes the entirety of the information I have been able to gather.

Click here for the rating criteria and a summary table of all the root beers tested. 

Ingredients: 

Carbonated Water, Sugar, Caramel Color, Natural and Artificial Flavors, Citric Acid, and Gum Acacia.

Nutrition (from the bottle)

170 Calories 

20 mg Sodium.

45g (14%) of Daily Carbohydrates

0 mg Caffeine

Aroma and Flavor – 2.8 out of 3 mugs

This soda exhibits a distinct sarsaparilla flavor profile. The effervescence provided a pleasant tingling sensation in my mouth. The subtle notes of caramel and light wintergreen were quite noteworthy. However, the absence of a hint of vanilla prevented this soda from achieving a flawless score. 

Head – 2.2 out of 3 mugs

The head of a poured beverage is not robust and dissipates rapidly. Its characteristics can vary depending on the glass's temperature and the method of pouring.

Zip – 2.7 out of 3 mugs

This dark root beer possesses a distinctive flavor profile. The blend is not overly bitter, featuring a subtle wintergreen undertone.

Post Consumption Impression – 2.9 out of 3 mugs 

This beverage was thoroughly enjoyed from the outset, leaving me eager for another. Notably, it does not contain HFCS (as indicated by the term “sugar”), which is a positive attribute. The flavor profile is well-balanced, achieved through a carefully calibrated carbonation balance. This beverage is an excellent choice for any occasion.

Would I recommend this at 10.6 out of 12 mugs?

Indeed, I would readily choose this root beer. During my upcoming visit to the store next year, this will be my initial choice. As evidenced by the subsequent reviews, I am not alone in my positive assessment of this beverage.

Other Reviews

Thirsty Dudes - 4 of 5
Eat Like No-one else - 4 of 5

Root Beer Respect 9 out of 10 

Saw-Whet Root Beers 9 out of 10 
Steve’s Root Beer Journal - 7.5 of 10 
Anthony's Root Beer Reviews  88 out of 100