Yankovitch333 (612) - Baltimore, Maryland, USA - MAR 4, 2003
2.2 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
Light amber with a huge white foamy head. Funky aroma that reminded me of regular Foster's. There really isn't much flavor and the finish is slightly bitter. Only good thing about this beer is the oil can.
kujo9 (1095) - North Ridgeville, Ohio, USA - MAR 1, 2003
2.4 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 9/20
Light amber color w/ a small white head that dissipates very quickly. Lightly malty aroma w/ a corn(DMS)scent which is the only discernable aroma, no fruity esters or hops; fairly bland by most accounts. Flavor starts slightly malty but finishes dry and slightly bitter, not as bitter as name would indicate. Fruity esters are non existant and hop flavor is nil except for the finish. complexity is non existant. Body is watery/ but has a CO2 bite that I find objectionable and definitely out of style, but I'm not really rating this to a certain style...unfortunately! It's a very drinkable beer, but not something I'd buy for myself. this is a pretty good starter beer!
legion242 (2344) - Richardson, Texas, USA - FEB 8, 2003
3.3 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 13/20
Pale orange color; white fluffy head; mild aroma hops in the nose. Nice body. Good hop character. I can't believe I liked this. I am ashamed.
Fulkrum78 (175) - Knoxville, Tennessee, USA - FEB 2, 2003
3.1 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
I remember liking this beer. Only had it once, and drank so much of it (and became so hungover after) that I can't bear to try it again.
redlem (1306) - Ohio, USA - JAN 22, 2003
1.1 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 1/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 6/20
A little more kick than regular Fosters. It has the bite of an ESB but beyond that not much else.
VTIrishman99 (64) - Virginia, USA - JAN 8, 2003
2.9 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 12/20
I’m not a huge fan of dark beers, but I like foster’s, so I gave this one a try. It wasnt too bad, and wasnt great either... I drank it with a meal though (steak as I recall) and found it to be pretty complimentary, so maybe if you just want something malty to sip on, this is a good choice, but again, I cant see attempting to get hammered on this.
wilkie (1208) - Raleigh, North Carolina, USA - JAN 7, 2003
4 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 17/20
I used to drink these in grad school because i thought they were
better than the lager. I got a big surprise on this one. The appearance
is actually nice when not viewed through the opening in the top of
a can wrapped in a paper bag. Nice lacey head. Had a nice floral
hop aroma, and tastes really good. Nice citrous and pine flavors intermingled
with a lovely malted flavor. I doubt seriously that the one I consumed
had only 2.8 ABV--maybe that’s what it is in Utah or something. I was
really surprised with how good this beer was. I may even keep the next one i buy
wrapped in the paper bag just for old time’s sake.
PorterPounder (7113) - Tallahassee, Florida, USA - JAN 3, 2003
2.2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
UPDATED: MAY 29, 2008 Rerate Too much foam; funky stale fruit aroma; worn out bitter taste - similar to sucking on copper pennies. Original 2.9 Better than regular Foster’s - which is not saying a whole lot. Nice fluffy head with good lacing - a bit of a wet towel aroma to it. I like the copper color to it. Good balance of hops and malts. Overall not bad - does not stand up to British bitters of course - but a good solid effort by a macro brewer down under.
MrGregAD199 (65) - Medford, Oregon, USA - JAN 2, 2003
3.8 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 16/20
PBOYNY (316) - Westchester, New York, USA - JAN 2, 2003
2.9 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
not much better than the regular foster’s shit...have fun avoiding this one!