Caton (160) - Sydney, AUSTRALIA - MAR 14, 2002
1.2 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 4/20
It gets so much publicity overseas as Australia’s top beer, I dont know why when VB is clearly as good.
Saad (104) - Jacksonville, North Carolina, USA - MAR 13, 2002
2.8 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
It is a good warm weather beer. However, if this is the best Australia can do, it is nothing to brag about.
StevieMSU (64) - Kentucky, USA - MAR 12, 2002
2.2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20
decent, but it just doesn’t have the tatse I thought it would have..hopefully austrailia has more to offer than this
Evster64 (107) - Kempner, Texas, USA - MAR 12, 2002
2.1 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
Australian for mediocre.
mhs2ou99 (4) - Danville, Kentucky, USA - MAR 11, 2002 does not count
4.2 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 17/20
Most appealing about this particular gift from the land down under is the color. A light amber/golden tone sets this beer apart from most UK lagers, which are too dark to drink, let alone stomach. I especially appreciate the malty taste, combined with the light touch of flowery hops within the brew. Much better than a traditional lager, Fosters gives you the flavor of lager without the filling after effects. The aroma leaves a bit to be desired, and yet the beer is remarkably smooth, despite the slightly metallic nose (perhaps it is the oil can). Also interesting was the slightly bitter taste it had. The finish, though a touch bitter, is one that is still quite smooth for a lager. Though not quite as impressive as say a thicker, more full bodied lager in the ’head’ department’, Fosters is a reasonably priced beer, and one that will make you think twice about picking up a bottle of UL lager!
BallsToTheWall99 (11) - Houston, Texas, USA - MAR 9, 2002
0.8 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 1/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 1/20
Very skunky and watery with a horrible aftertaste. If you can finish one of these big ole’ cans without throwing up or inducing vomiting, i’ll buy your next one.
Ernest (6841) - Boulder, Colorado, USA - MAR 9, 2002
1.4 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
UPDATED: AUG 4, 2007 Bottle (Toronto, Canada production). Head is initially small, frothy/fizzy, white, mostly diminishing. Body is clear light to medium yellow. Aroma is lightly malty (grain, husks), trace hops (flowers), with notes of soap and DMS. Flavor is lightly to moderately sweet, lightly bitter. Finish is lightly sweet, lightly bitter, very unclean. Light to medium body, watery texture, lively/fizzy carbonation. Not much good to speak of here. Very unpleasant.
AxeMaster221 (343) - Portland, Oregon, USA - MAR 6, 2002
2.2 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20
Used to get these in the big can at Anna Bananas in Hawaii, served almost frozen.
noy-zee (63) - Minnesota, USA - MAR 6, 2002
2.3 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
sucks to be australian. dingo’s eating your baby’s and now this? the can aint that big either.
Choke (96) - Massachusetts, USA - MAR 5, 2002
0.9 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 1/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 4/20
For one thing this beer is neither smooth or has a good head,,no wonder why the aussie’s drink bud that tells ya how good fosters is