Melbourne Bitter - Carlton & United Breweries, Ltd.
Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
Ratings: 37 | Reviews: 22 | Display Reviews Only:
Reviews by Boilermaker88:
2.48/5 rDev +9.3%
Presented in a 375ml bottle and poured into a standard pint glass. Clear bronze color topped with a fizzy white head that left a hint of lace at the top of the glass.
Smell: a bit of soggy grain and some grassy hops but nothing that really stood out in any way.
Taste: ditto, except there was a more immediate grassy hops bite and a mild husky maltiness in the back of the throat.
Feel: limp, watery and light...*yawn*
Overall, nothing to separate this brew from the hordes of (for me) nasty macro lagers that permeate the beer world. Smells, tastes, and feels like most Aussie brews I've tried. Nothing here to run out and hunt down.
04-18-2008 20:47:45 | More by Boilermaker88
More User Reviews:
1.98/5 rDev -12.8%
Single bottle picked up at a Canberra grocery store.
Poured into a small tumbler. My first clue that I had erred in my purchasing decision was the colour and appearance of this brew, which is all macro lager. Pale golden, loads of visible carbonation, thin soapy head. Doesn't look great. Even though it looks like a lager should, when a beer decidees to call itself a 'Bitter' I can't help but be disappointed when it looks like a lager. Then again, another Carlton product - Victoria Bitter - does the exact same thing. Should have guessed...
Nose is almost non-existent - pale malts, a bit of lemon, chemical. Smells like Bud.
My first sip from the bottle reminded me of those first sips of beer from my dad's nearly empty bottles when I was a kid. Not a good sign. The taste of the poured out stuff was not much better, just a macro lager with a foul, chemical character. Hard to finish. Thin-bodied, harsh carbonation. Yellow fizzy water.
Never again, nor anything else from Carlton and United. Avoid!
04-24-2011 07:20:25 | More by JohnnyBarman
New Zealand (Aotearoa)
2.6/5 rDev +14.5%
Yet another utterly forgettable, completely predictable CUB offering.
The only difference between this and ALL of the others is the colour of the can.
I swear I will do a blind side by side test of the lot of the one day when I have nothing better to do. It is my genuine belief that I wont be able to tell the difference.
If you are a fan of this style... sure. Why not? Give it a go. If you find it on special at the grog shop... sure. Why not.
Fire up the magic eightball. It will give you as good a clue on which of the CUB commercial beers is the better as anything else.
09-01-2006 08:53:34 | More by btmo
1/5 rDev -55.9%
Rastaman is right. Too many chemicals in this brew. I'd call this beer a bulimic beer, just in case you don't feel like sticking your fingers down your throat.
I've only had one of these beers in my life, and one was one too many.
09-23-2002 11:01:39 | More by Anonmatel
5/5 rDev +120.3%
Picked up one of these bad boys at my local. Was shocked at how cheap this devil is!
Cracked it on the tram home, delicious. Smashable. Aromatic hops come oozing out of this fine beer. very sessionable, recommend it to anyone! Also says melbourne on the front.
10 out of 10.
04-09-2012 08:48:10 | More by a17c
2.6/5 rDev +14.5%
Must be related to Victoria Bitter, a beer often consumed in Sydney
Appearance: pours into hotel glass, clear dull copper body, light fizzy head with no main character and no retention/lacing.
Smell: smell is of a macro lager herbal hop presence, bready malts, nothing too complex here
Taste: this is pretty mass-produced stuff but how can one be sure until they try it? Plus, I am in Melbourne so I figured Id give it a shot. The taste is mildly bitter, light saaz presence, bready watery and rather dull
Mouthfeel: carbonation is too high, watery
Drinkability: fine, just not very good
07-01-2007 00:07:38 | More by dirtylou
2.05/5 rDev -9.7%
Pale gold pour with a small head that fades rapidly.
Dirty aroma of stale beer, grainy malt and cardboard, that's all.
Cooked corn and cardboard make up the entirety of the flavours.
Pretty high carbonation.
Utter rubbish. Does anyone drink this any more?
01-15-2010 01:54:49 | More by CrazyDavros
2.17/5 rDev -4.4%
Pours a sort of orangy dark golden color with hardly any head. I even poured straight into the glass, and only got about 5mm of head, and that disappeared pretty quickly. Smells yeasty and ... watery. The taste is very clean. Not much sweetness of any kind, and not much bitterness to balance it out. The mouthfeel is a little heavy, but mostly watery. Not a lot of carbonation there. Overall, it's fairly drinkable, because there's nothing there. Hard to argue with something that makes no statements. I suppose if you were inclined, you could slam them down pretty fast. I'd rather have some flavor, though.
05-28-2007 09:24:32 | More by Kulrak
2.83/5 rDev +24.7%
small bubbly head over generic fizzy yellow colored beer.
aroma is very light, but somewhat hoppy.
taste is rathe crisp while still fridge-cold.
this one heads pretty well down hill as it warms though. mouthfeel becomes slick and aroma turns a bit sulphery. also, the taste loses its crispness.
the trick with this one, drink it cold and out of the bottle. like that, not bad at all really.
08-24-2004 09:36:03 | More by joecast
2.48/5 rDev +9.3%
Pours a yellowish brown, light bubblies, not much odor.
Flavor is fairly underwhelming but not terrible. Very malty, with some fruitiness coming through. Not particularly bitter, despite the moniker.
Easy enough to drink, but not the most drinkable beer, but better than VB.
08-01-2009 09:19:56 | More by istarilord
2.4/5 rDev +5.7%
Melbourne Bitter bottle
September 14 2005
Duke of Wellington Hotel
Melbourne Bitter pours a moderately darkish-straw color with a white, soap-foam-like head that quickly settles down and the beer is pretty boring to look at, with few carbonation bubbles floating up through the beer. The smell reminds you of every other inexpensive CUB product, with a metallic-like smell. The taste starts out watery, but then offers a bit of the metallic taste, followed by crisp bitterness possibly offered by a chemical equivalent of hops. Im not quite sure.
Mouthfeel is actually pretty good. Its thin-bodied, which is great for a hot Melbourne day, and carbonation is good. Drinkability has the possibility to be awesome, if not impeded by the weird, patented CUB metallic taste. This makes Bud and Miller Light taste acceptable. I think CUBs version of bitter is actually copper oxide.
Im kinda feeling ripped off for this $4.50 beer, but at least now I know that I should avoid it in the future.
09-14-2005 22:18:43 | More by DaveFL1976
2.3/5 rDev +1.3%
Do not judge a book by its cover could not be more apt then when applied to this beer. It looks great. A good finger of head, nice retention and good lacing. Unfortunately that is where the positive elements sort of stop.
The aroma is of grains - Weet bix. The taste is metallic and husky. Some bitterness. A low carbonation.
The beer actually gets more drinkable as it goes on. Perhaps the taste buds deaden? This is not undrinkable, and I have been known to have more than one at the footy but only because there are no other options.
11-23-2008 10:22:01 | More by Macca
2/5 rDev -11.9%
A: Pours a dark yellow color with a small head that fades to no real lacing.
S: Aromais musty. Blend of yeast and hops with a bit of sweetness in the background. Has that old stale beer smell.
T: Taste is not much better, sort of funky with yeast and malt sweetness. Coarse bitterness and a sticky finish.
F: Light body, has a lot of rough edges and high carbonation.
O: Not a decent drinker, but then you can't expect too much from a poor step sister of Victoria Bitter.
08-16-2012 03:39:56 | More by soju6
1.27/5 rDev -44.1%
375ml can states 4.6% ABV, best before date of 15 Dec 07.
Poured into a far nicer glass than it deserves, which was only a standard bell pint glass.
Appearance is hazy straw yellow, with a moderate white fizzy loose head that dissipates quickly.
Smell is of cooked corn and vegetables, and slightly metallic.
Taste is thin, crisp, weak, watery, and like a mouthfull of stale corn. It's amazingly weak and watery, and to be honest, downright bad.
Mouth: fizzy and thin, remains crispy and weak.
Overall: thin, boring, Carlton crap. Even though two cans were a gift, I was about to drainpour it, when I remembered that I could make beer batter for onion rings the next day. I did this, and two different people walked into the kitchen and commented on the (bad) beer smell. The onion rings turned out fine, but left me with bad memories of the beer.
06-10-2007 09:18:12 | More by warmstorage
1.18/5 rDev -48%
Uncaps with a weedy little sizzle, and pours surprisingly flat and lifeless for an Aussie macro lager—a dull golden colour, with a wispy film of white on the top and very little visible carbonation. Body is quite fine, and what carbonation is there actually looks quite dense.
Nose is what you expect from the genre, with perhaps a little more tilt towards the American macro style, with a strong aroma of cereal adjuncts coming through. Still some metallic twinges to it, and a hint of that muddy, gritty yeast character characteristic of these beers.
Taste is repugnant. Along with the classic CUB yeast dirge, there's a lilting organic character like worm-eaten unripened tomatoes, still containing the pesticides whose job it was to keep the worms off in the first place. Rank and fetid and lingering, leaving a really unsavoury taste in the mouth. Finish is dry and weak, except for that lingering malignancy.
Horrid beer. In some ways, even though it's not as bad all over as some other beers I have, this is worse, because the appearance and the smell don't warn you about how terrible is the thing you're about to put in your mouth.
Well, let this review be your warning instead. Stay away.
01-18-2012 08:36:21 | More by lacqueredmouse
Melbourne Bitter from Carlton & United Breweries, Ltd.
61 out of 100 based on 37 ratings.