caesar (5830) - Bunnik/Utrecht, NETHERLANDS - AUG 16, 2005
2.2 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
Clear lighgt yellow color, short head. Some hop and grain in aroma. Bit bitter and dry taste.
highlandlad (1436) - Blue Mountains, AUSTRALIA - JUL 19, 2005
1.5 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 6/20
Ozswill Queensland Division: XXXX Gold vs XXXX Bitter. Two of Lion Nathan’s finest sampled side by side in one almighty winner-takes-bugger-all contest. Can the mid-strength Gold hold its own against the full-strength Bitter? Does anyone care? Appearance: so similar that you would need a colour spectrometer to pick the Gold from the Bitter. Both bright gold with skinny heads that were gone in seconds. 1/5 for both. Aroma: the Gold has some caramel notes, no hop presence but is less offensive than many Aussie macro lagers. The Bitter has grassy hops, a hint of honey, wet cardboard and a splash of urine. 3/5 for both. Flavour: Gold has sweet honey notes and no finish. For a mid-strength, it’s drinkable but you can do better. Bitter is also sweet upfront, with sour uric notes and a shot of bitterness in the finish. Much better than it smells. Gold 3/10, Bitter 4/10. Palate: Gold has a thin, over-carbonated soda-like body and effervescence. Bitter is better carbonated and has pretensions to a finish. Gold 2/5, Bitter 3/5. Overall: Gold tastes like fizzy honey soda. It’s not unpleasant but it’s not much like beer. Bitter wins by a nose. Gold 6/10 (Total: 1.5), Bitter 8/10 (Total: 1.9)
DuffMan (8069) - the land of bitumen, beef & beer, Alberta, CANADA - JUN 21, 2005
1.9 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
Pale golden, clear, medium head. I wouldn’t go so far as calling this "foul", but it is pretty boring. Sweet malt is really all you get for flavour (the same as all corn-adjunct, over-processed pale lagers on the market). I wouldn’t choose to drink it again if an alternative were available, but I wouldn’t turn it down if the beerfridge was empty on a Friday night. This is my standard review for all "two-star-or-less" piss.
dial90 (5) - CARLISLE, AUSTRALIA - APR 21, 2005 does not count
0.5 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 1/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 1/20
Very pale color and heavily carbonated with large bubbles, reminescent of soda water. Aroma so light it is difficult to detect. Virtually no head retention. Taste is slightly sugary reminiscent of sweet soda with little hop bitternes. Mouthfeel is like drinking soda water. Little aftertaste. This beer leaves you wondering if you would be better off drinking soda water. and represents a new low reached by the major Australian breweries.
gondorspit (4) - California, USA - DEC 15, 2004 does not count
1.8 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 7/20
An imminiently drinkable if somewhat bland macrobrew. As stated, the head dissapates rapidly and it is best to be consumed quickly as it then rapidly heads to flat. It is a light beer, very refreshing, a slightly bitter aftertaste, nothing to travel in search of.
thehipone (197) - AUSTRALIA - DEC 5, 2004
2.2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20
It’s drinkable, but is one of those beers that you want to drink as cold as possible to mute any questionable flavors. Has a distinct grainy flavor that I can’t quite pin down, but it definitely reminds me of breakfast cereal. Only the slightest bitterness.
jgb9348 (5126) - Arlington (Pentagon City), Virginia, USA - OCT 18, 2004
1.4 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 5/20
Bright golden coloured body, similar to the colours on the label with a very fast dying white head. Aroma of corn, light malt and nothing else exciting. Light to Medium-bodied; Macrobrew flavour with not good malt, no hops and some gross corn flavours. Aftertaste has just plain malt tastes with some light sugars roaming in the palate. Overall, not a great beer, but nice to try while in Australia! I sampled this twelve ounce bottle in Melbourne, Australia.
RichardGretton (4437) - Leicestershire, ENGLAND - SEP 28, 2004
2.6 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
Pale looking standard lager with a light musty aroma and a mildly dry flavour. Overall quite a plain lager.
MrRomero (1976) - Nolanville, USA - JUL 24, 2004
2.5 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
Guam SwillFest 2004: pours a clear yellow with a smallish white head.Light hop aroma with a little fruit. Taste is mildly fruity with the apple (or grape) I have come to expect in Australian lagers. Finish is slightly cardboardish with more hints of apple. Refreshing if nothing else.
haddon90 (1562) - Costa Mesa, California, USA - JUN 15, 2004
1.2 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 4/20
Not very good. I forgot where I had this, but it has a pale golden color. Soft, kind of skunky, and some hops. Crisp taste, but soapy. Kind of like Bud Light. Not that great of a beer.