overall
3
39
style
Brewed by Fosters Brewing (CUB)
Style: Pale Lager
Southbank, Victoria, Australia

bottling
unknown

on tap
available

Broad Distribution

Add Distribution Data
RATINGS: 1844   WEIGHTED AVG: 2.01/5   EST. CALORIES: 147   ABV: 4.9%
COMMERCIAL DESCRIPTION
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."

A tick is a star rating
  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


1.8
Brew4Dug (139) - Houston, Texas, USA - JUN 6, 2002
'Foster's: Australian for Croc-piss.' This standard lager tastes like you are eating the can along with it. It has an unusually bitter aftertaste and leaves a disturbing feeling in your stomach after a few. Not worth the hype.

1.2
bubslang (438) - Kentwood, Michigan, USA - JUN 3, 2002
unimpressive, basically an american macro, at an import price, definetely not worth the money.

2
JohnDo2000 (99) - Metairie, Louisiana, USA - MAY 31, 2002
For an aussie beer, I'll take XXXX because it doesn't ahve that metallic bite that fosters has (out of the tap or not).

1.6
austinpowers (2831) - San Francisco, California, USA - MAY 29, 2002
Got the bottle instead of the oilcan and am glad I did. Those oilcans always get warm before I'm done with 'em! This is a very ordinary American Standard, but with a weird Aussie taste-twist that I can't pin down. Not all that great.

1.8
bbooth (115) - Gilbert, Arizona, USA - MAY 24, 2002
This was a basic american style lager. Not much taste, not much color, not much body, not very good.

1.2
Bulldog99 (13) - Montreal, Quebec, CANADA - MAY 23, 2002
Australian for piss. In all fairness, I had it in Canada and I don't think it's 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.

2.4
Bolt (117) - Boulder Creek, California, USA - MAY 23, 2002
Nice beer for the beach, and prepping your self for the giant dipper. Can is always fun.

2.6
ucsbdude (68) - Santa Barbara, California, USA - MAY 21, 2002
Not bad on draft.Tastes like an American Standard with a skunky aroma and bitter aftertaste.

2.1
Nuffield (4245) - Roseville, Minnesota, USA - MAY 19, 2002
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.

3.7
Diego (79) - San Diego, California, USA - MAY 16, 2002
Not bad but nothing I'd drink alone. Regular, American kinda flavor. Smelly skunk flavor. Bitter? Okay...But I like em a bit more bitter than this. Good beer if you're dreaming about Elle Macpherson and those luscious...Ahh...Not a bad beer overall. Good head!


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 « 164 165 166  167  168 169 170 » 193
A tick is a star rating
  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5