1. The wait is over! Download the BeerAdvocate app on iTunes or Google Play now.
  2. Get 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine for only $9.99!

Melbourne Bitter - Carlton & United Breweries, Ltd.

Not Rated.
Melbourne BitterMelbourne Bitter

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
61
poor

39 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 39
Reviews: 22
rAvg: 2.29
pDev: 34.93%
Wants: 0
Gots: 0 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Carlton & United Breweries, Ltd. visit their website
Australia

Style | ABV
American Adjunct Lager |  4.60% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: brewdlyhooked13 on 06-04-2002)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Usefulness | Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50  | next › last »
Ratings: 39 | Reviews: 22 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of rastaman
1/5  rDev -56.3%
look: 1 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

Really awful stuff, tastes like chemicals and is a bit sweet, give this a big f'in miss, nothing to see here.

rastaman, Jun 04, 2002
Photo of Anonmatel
1/5  rDev -56.3%
look: 1 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

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.

Anonmatel, Sep 23, 2002
Photo of Squancho
1/5  rDev -56.3%

Squancho, Mar 26, 2012
Photo of lacqueredmouse
1.18/5  rDev -48.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

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.

lacqueredmouse, Jan 18, 2012
Photo of warmstorage
1.27/5  rDev -44.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1 | feel: 2 | overall: 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.

Pretty nasty.

warmstorage, Jun 10, 2007
Photo of Julian4077
1.5/5  rDev -34.5%

Julian4077, May 11, 2012
Photo of BILF
1.75/5  rDev -23.6%

BILF, Mar 01, 2013
Photo of diablo14
1.9/5  rDev -17%
look: 2 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

i think its quite funny that the people who actually like some of carltons beers hate this one the most, because i think of all their drivel this is the best. id choose a melbourne over any of carltons other lagers (unless theres the rare occasion you can find diamond). ok it would be the lesser of several evils, but nevertheless.

i think the bitterness everone despises so much is what makes this better. at least it justifies the harsh back body and aftertaste you always get from CUB. it actually resembles something vaguely hoppy. and in a taste test of carlton beers, this is the one you could pick out from the rest. it doesnt look any different really, althought the head retention is better and i reckon thats a sign of hops.

having said all this, its still a shit beer in anyones language. end of story.

diablo14, Oct 28, 2003
Photo of Finite
1.93/5  rDev -15.7%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Very average beer. Probably better than some of CUB's terrible beers though.

A - Golden with fat bubbles which form....nothing hardly any head and no lacing. Retention is poor.

S - Weak weak weak. Tinny sweet. Smells of carbondioxide/soda water smells with a really fake hop aroma.

T - Soda water-like with some basic flat gran taste. Hop taste is that of a fake hop syrip or artificial bitterness.

M - bitey and tinny, metalic and thin.

D - Poor, struggled to finish the one.

Finite, Dec 07, 2006
Photo of JohnnyBarman
1.98/5  rDev -13.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

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!

JohnnyBarman, Apr 24, 2011
Photo of LittleCreature
1.98/5  rDev -13.5%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Appearance - 3.0
Poured a finger and a half of foamy white head that reduced to a thin, patchy layer over a clear yellow body that has a tinge of brown.

Smell - 2.5
Grain, metal and a little vaguely fruity hop and yeast character.

Taste - 1.5
Very similar to VB, although a little more pleasant (or less nasty) to my taste. Similar stale, grain, husk and metal flavour as VB, with more hops and yeast, providing a beer that is stronger flavoured, more bitter, and still a pretty generic macro lager.

Mouthfeel - 2.5
Low to moderate level of carbonation, somewhat astringent.

Drinkability - 2.0
Strong flavour means it is less drinkable than most macro lagers.

OVERALL - 2.15
I think this is quite similar to Toohey's New - it dares to have more flavour than your regular macro lager, yet still tastes pretty bad. Not quite awful, but for from being a good beer. Another one to drink cold, it just gets worse with warming.

LittleCreature, Oct 10, 2008
Photo of BuddhaBrowett
2/5  rDev -12.7%

BuddhaBrowett, Jul 05, 2014
Photo of soju6
2/5  rDev -12.7%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

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.

soju6, Aug 16, 2012
Photo of galluch
2/5  rDev -12.7%

galluch, Jan 17, 2012
Photo of mrjez
2/5  rDev -12.7%

mrjez, Jul 27, 2014
Photo of dmorgan310
2/5  rDev -12.7%

dmorgan310, Jul 30, 2014
Photo of XsoldoutX
2/5  rDev -12.7%

XsoldoutX, Aug 05, 2013
Photo of CrazyDavros
2.05/5  rDev -10.5%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

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?

CrazyDavros, Jan 15, 2010
Photo of Kulrak
2.17/5  rDev -5.2%
look: 1.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

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.

Kulrak, May 28, 2007
Photo of jarmby1711
2.23/5  rDev -2.6%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

As a University student I wa attracted to Long neck Melbournes and the Hawking Brothers song about them.Thankfully things have changed.
It has a dull honey colour with a very loose head.The smell is like old tank water, which is not necesarily unpleasanrt but is more so when the taste backs up your nose.I could get no depth of taste throughout it started and ended the same.Tinny.
Probably at its best mid February after a hot day of playing cricket.

jarmby1711, Jun 15, 2005
Photo of bpasquetti
2.25/5  rDev -1.7%

bpasquetti, Jun 19, 2012
Photo of Stuckey_Stuckey
2.28/5  rDev -0.4%

Stuckey_Stuckey, Sep 06, 2014
Photo of Macca
2.3/5  rDev +0.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

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.

Macca, Nov 23, 2008
Photo of drpimento
2.31/5  rDev +0.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.25 | feel: 2.25 | overall: 2.25

Poured at a good temperature with a mammoth, thick, foamy, frothy, billowy, off-white head (suspect foaming agents) and lots of lace. Color is a clear yellow. Aroma reminds me of a common lager with a bit o hop. Flavor’s like nose, bitter, sweet, and tang are actually fairly balanced, adjuncts are present, as are off flavs, body/carbonation are soft. Finish is like flavor. I just want to get it over.

drpimento, Jan 22, 2014
Photo of DaveFL1976
2.4/5  rDev +4.8%
look: 1.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

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. I’m not quite sure.
Mouthfeel is actually pretty good. It’s 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 CUB’s version of “bitter” is actually copper oxide.
I’m kinda feeling ripped off for this $4.50 beer, but at least now I know that I should avoid it in the future.

DaveFL1976, Sep 14, 2005
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50  | next › last »
Melbourne Bitter from Carlton & United Breweries, Ltd.
61 out of 100 based on 39 ratings.