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 Macca
2.3/5  rDev +0.4%

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 LittleCreature
1.98/5  rDev -13.5%

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 Boilermaker88
2.48/5  rDev +8.3%

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.

Boilermaker88, Apr 18, 2008
Photo of dirtylou
2.6/5  rDev +13.5%

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 I’d 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

dirtylou, Jul 01, 2007
Photo of warmstorage
1.27/5  rDev -44.5%

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 Kulrak
2.17/5  rDev -5.2%

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 Finite
1.93/5  rDev -15.7%

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 btmo
2.6/5  rDev +13.5%

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.

btmo, Sep 01, 2006
Photo of DaveFL1976
2.4/5  rDev +4.8%

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
Photo of jarmby1711
2.23/5  rDev -2.6%

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 joecast
2.83/5  rDev +23.6%

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.

joecast, Aug 24, 2004
Photo of diablo14
1.9/5  rDev -17%

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 Anonmatel
1/5  rDev -56.3%

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 rastaman
1/5  rDev -56.3%

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