Brewed by Fosters Brewing (CUB)
Style: Pale Lager
Southbank, Victoria, Australia


on tap

Broad Distribution

Add Distribution Data
RATINGS: 1839   WEIGHTED AVG: 2/5   EST. CALORIES: 147   ABV: 4.9%
Filtered and pasteurised. Available with added carbon dioxide in keg, can and bottled formats. First brewed in 1887.
Available in Britain as Export.
"A light-coloured lager style, it presents full malt character with a balanced clean hop bitterness. Combined with a slightly hoppy, but yeasty/malty nose, Foster's lager is a full bodied beer with excellent drinkability."

Tick this beer for your profile
  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

JoeM500 (1908) - Crown Point, Indiana, USA - APR 14, 2002
fizzy, fizzy, fizzy, tinny, rusty, tinny, tinny. The oil can adds even more tinnyness to this dreadful mix.

grymy (105) - Bel Air, Maryland, USA - APR 14, 2002
foster, australians, yeah we know nothing about beer

Nate (4279) - Indiana, Pennsylvania, USA - APR 12, 2002
Australian for mediocre. Cold from the tap, it’s passable with dinner. Metallic from the oil can - cheap drink.

hennes (934) - Fountain, Michigan, USA - APR 12, 2002
This is actually the best beer on tap at the place I like to go for fish fries and, on tap and very cold, is pretty good with a pile of smelt. Otherwise, and especially out of those oil cans, it’s pathetic - no body to speak of and a terrible tinny aftertaste.

chug18799 (36) - Lakewood, Ohio, USA - APR 10, 2002
Overly bitter taste at the end completes this overrated beer. It’s not even brewed in Australia (nor is it drunk there).

Tom Servo (424) - Arlington, Virginia, USA - APR 7, 2002
Looks fine, tastes alright, but the smell is way too much like urine. Oh, well. Australians are all criminals anyway.

ampp (155) - Cleveland, Ohio, USA - APR 5, 2002
tastes like many other mass-produced lagers. it isn’t too bad. A slightly bitter aftertaste with a little ’nut’ flavor to it. might go well with snacks on a hot summer day. And like Budweiser, the cool advertising far outweighs the actual product

Brian (145) - Ontario, CANADA - APR 2, 2002
Bland mass-market lager. Slightly better than some other mass-market brews (Bud comes to mind here as the eternal point of reference for swill) but faint hops does not a good beer make. Foster’s appears to be trying to make up for the lack of quality with quantity as the can seems to get bigger every year. No word on when ’Fosters in an oil drum’ will hit the market.

NJBeerman013 (1054) - Hamilton Twp., New Jersey, USA - MAR 31, 2002
hmm... Tastes a lot like Bud with a bit more of a zest. Decent beer all the same.

ultraspank (867) - Alverca, Lisboa, PORTUGAL - MAR 30, 2002
**Re-Rate** My, but my tastes have changed. It’s nice to come back to an old favorite after a while though. This brew pours a clear light gold with a massive creamy white head that has some of the best lacing I’ve seen to date. I haven’t seen big hunks of foam sticking to the sides of my glass since I sampled a Bass. The light piney, soapy, doughy nose is clean with some fruity perfume accents. The flavor is light also with a fruity middle and an average nutty finish. The watery palate is smooth but weak with a metallic mouthfeel to the finish. Very good for an American Standard. *Original Rating 2/24/02* I love this beer on tap. The depth charges aren’t bad either. This has the ’bite’ that I like in a beer. Very smooth and crisp.

We Want To Hear From You

Join us! RateBeer is made by beer enthusiasts for the craft beer community. Your basic membership is free and allows you to read all beer ratings. Click here to create your account... and give your opinion!

Join Us »

Page  1 « 163 164 165  166  167 168 169 » 184
Tick this beer for your profile
  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5