bubslang (438) - Kentwood, Michigan, USA - JUN 3, 2002
1.2 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 5/20
unimpressive, basically an american macro, at an import price, definetely not worth the money.
JohnDo2000 (99) - Metairie, Louisiana, USA - MAY 31, 2002
2 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 9/20
For an aussie beer, Iíll take XXXX because it doesnít ahve that metallic bite that fosters has (out of the tap or not).
austinpowers (2826) - New York, New York, USA - MAY 29, 2002
1.6 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 1/20
Got the bottle instead of the oilcan and am glad I did. Those oilcans always get warm before Iím done with íem! This is a very ordinary American Standard, but with a weird Aussie taste-twist that I canít pin down. Not all that great.
bbooth (115) - Gilbert, Arizona, USA - MAY 24, 2002
1.8 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 5/20
This was a basic american style lager. Not much taste, not much color, not much body, not very good.
Bulldog99 (13) - Montreal, Quebec, CANADA - MAY 23, 2002
1.2 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 1/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
Australian for piss. In all fairness, I had it in Canada and I donít think itís the same as the Australian version but what I had was no better than your run of the mill Bud. I was looking forward to trying it. Maybe I was expecting too much.
Bolt (117) - Boulder Creek, California, USA - MAY 23, 2002
2.4 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
Nice beer for the beach, and prepping your self for the giant dipper.
Can is always fun.
ucsbdude (68) - Santa Barbara, California, USA - MAY 21, 2002
2.6 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
Not bad on draft.Tastes like an American Standard with a skunky aroma and bitter aftertaste.
Nuffield (3892) - Roseville, Minnesota, USA - MAY 19, 2002
2.1 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 7/20
Is the alcoholic content different in the UK version? (Perhaps I recall incorrectly, but I thought the can said 4.0%.) The best that can be said of this is that it holds its carbonation a long time, so even a long while later it had a nice palate. Bitter finish. Aroma of wood chips. Gets better after a few sips but otherwise not very nice--typical of the style--perhaps this is better than many other examples in the style, however.
Diego (79) - San Diego, California, USA - MAY 16, 2002
3.7 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 15/20
Not bad but nothing Iíd drink alone. Regular, American kinda flavor. Smelly skunk flavor. Bitter? Okay...But I like em a bit more bitter than this. Good beer if youíre dreaming about Elle Macpherson and those luscious...Ahh...Not a bad beer overall. Good head!
HH (165) - Everett, Washington, USA - MAY 16, 2002
1.7 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 6/20
Canadian? Australian? Budweiser with less taste? In the case of Bud perhaps thats a good thing....