1. Extreme Beer Fest. March 20 & 21, 2015 in Boston, Mass. Join us!
  2. The wait is over! Download the BeerAdvocate app on iTunes or Google Play now.
  3. Get 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine for only $9.99!

Carlton Draught - Carlton & United Breweries, Ltd.

Not Rated.
Carlton DraughtCarlton Draught

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
56
awful

74 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 74
Reviews: 34
rAvg: 2.15
pDev: 33.95%
Wants: 1
Gots: 2 | 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 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 74 | Reviews: 34 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of ADZA
1.9/5  rDev -11.6%
look: 2 | smell: 1 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Unfortunately for me when i went to my new local this was their best offering def time to get a new local,it pours a yellow,gold macro colour with hardly any smell maybe weak grains,and it basically tastes like grainy water would never buy this beer usually was just thirsty and like i said this was their best offering.

ADZA, Aug 01, 2009
Photo of Macca
2.03/5  rDev -5.6%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

This pours a golden colour. Clear. Not a lot of head to speak of and it disappeared quick. Looks dead.

I don't know how I can rate its aroma when it doesn't have one. Not even a bad one.

The lack of anything continues to the palate. A touch of malts perhaps.

Oh just so bland all round. Why do they bother? It is just an alcohol delivery device.

Macca, Jun 25, 2009
Photo of Otterburn
2.53/5  rDev +17.7%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

This is a really average beer. But not that bad. The color is a bit amber, smells , nothing really to say and the taste is average.
I not taking note while I drankthose beer but , theres nothing to say about it. Its just a ordinary beer in Australia.

Otterburn, Jun 03, 2009
Photo of laituegonflable
1.43/5  rDev -33.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

Pours a standard gold with fair amount of carbonation, virginal white head that retains well. Leaves a certain amount of lacing. Actually looks quite decent.

Strong pride of ringworm on the nose with a very carbolic edge. Nose is fairly simple, but it reminds me of my childhood impressions of beer. The ingredients are there but it doesn't smell good, rather like the Australian beer industry.

Ah, the taste. That's why I don't drink Carlton Draught. Awful. Maybe a slight hop character on the front, not much to it, and it's mostly just a chemical flavour with a corn sweetness rounding it off. The mid-palate is then subjugated by a thick, chunky, raw bread dough flavour which pervades everything.

Mouthfeel is thin but sticky and leaves a bubble of phlegm in my throat as it goes down. Seriously, this beer is a coagulate of bad yeast and bad hops and is truly repellent. Ultimately I can't say I expected anything less, though.

laituegonflable, May 29, 2009
Photo of xduderx
2.75/5  rDev +27.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

I had tons of this stuff while visiting Australia. Not because it was what I wanted, but because it was often times the only option. I expected more out of an Australian beer honestly and this beer and VB are no better (and maybe worse) than various miller and AB products. That being said...

A = Not bad. Has a nice coppery color and good head. I was really expecting a lot out of this beer based on apperance.

S = Maybe a slight malty bread smell, but not very strong.

T = Average. very bready. reminded me of a miller product, kinda.

M = Thinner than expected and overly carbonated.

D = Never gave me a hangover, was cheap, and went down easily. Overall an average beer with nothing special to it but nothing completely horrible either.

xduderx, Dec 04, 2008
Photo of WHROO
1.5/5  rDev -30.2%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1 | feel: 3 | overall: 1.5

Drank from both a stubbie & from a jug on tap!
As in previous reviews...this is a typical example of a mass produced Aussie beer...although this definately has its own taste. Chemical, metallic, just tastes wrong for a beer. The only thing I liked about it was the lacing down the whole glass recording every unenjoyable mouthful.
Mouthfeel not too bad, just a little to carbonated - this is a more livey beer.
There is a new CUB limited batch of brew called Richmond Lager - not much better let me tell ya...although it doesn't have as much chemical stale taste, but would rate only a fraction higher - I will definately avoid both.

WHROO, Sep 18, 2008
Photo of foles
1.78/5  rDev -17.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

Hardly deserves to be called a beer. Usually looks ok in the glass because its widely consumed on tap and is relatively fresh. However it tastes like you have got a mouthful of the head and are waiting to get to the beer. However the taste doesnt change. Completely one dimensional and dry with no taste to speak of. Makes normally ordinary beers look pretty good. I would much rather have a swan draught or even a tooheys new when drinking in this league.

foles, May 31, 2008
Photo of LittleCreature
1.33/5  rDev -38.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

Appearance - 2.5
Poured a finger of white head over a dark straw coloured body that looks to be moderately carbonated. The head reduced to a thin patchy layer quickly.

Smell - 1.5
Smells beery, kind of like old beer mats do. Once the head has disappeared, there is almost no smell, but what remains smells predominantly metallic, with some grains and a little hop aroma that isn't too bad.

Taste - 1.0
Wow, this is pretty much the definition of bland in beer. A little sugary sweetness upfront, with a very vague malt flavour, stale bread, a strong metallic flavour, and moderate hop bitterness in the dry finish. The aftertaste is strongly metallic. My first ever 1.0 for taste, because this truly does qualify as awful.

Mouthfeel - 1.5
The strong metallic twang seems to alter the mouthfeel also, as the beer feels somewhat filmy after it is held in the mouth for a while. Carbonation is low to moderate, and weight in the mouth is light to moderate.

Drinkability - 1.5
This was so close to being my first ever sink pour for a reviewed beer. Many use this as a session beer, and to be frank, the only thing this is good for is slamming down fast to get drunk.

OVERALL
The annoying thing is that Carlton Draught has really good commercials. Otherwise there is nothing worth even talking about here. Macro rubbish, and possibly the worst beer I have ever drank. The word swill sums Carlton Draught up pretty well.

LittleCreature, Oct 14, 2007
Photo of Kulrak
1.73/5  rDev -19.5%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Pours a somewhat dark golden color with some crumbly white head that fades away pretty quickly, but laces all over the glass.. The smell, as far as I can tell, doesn't exist. My wife says it smells like lemonade with a beer can waved over it once. The taste is like soda water with a promise of cheap beer someday. There really is nothing to this beer. Oh wait, there's a chemical aftertaste developing. The mouthfeel is very watery and slightly fizzy. Overall, it's about as drinkable as every other CUB beer. It's beer for people that don't like beer. The most impressive part of the beer is the appearance, and even that isn't that great.

Kulrak, May 28, 2007
Photo of vancurly
3.03/5  rDev +40.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Light amber in colour, low sudsy head. Plenty of CO2.
Aromas of metallic PoR. Reminds me of my youth... sun, sand, salt, and the smell or PoR...
Average Aussie macro. If you know what to expect, it's not bad compared to some others.
Medium bitterness, not much "body", but more than a dry beer. Refreshing.

vancurly, Feb 19, 2007
Photo of rec
2.53/5  rDev +17.7%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Near identical to the over-priced Crown Lager, it's bland and flat. It looks dissimilar to every other Australian session beer.

There's nothing stand-out in the taste department either. It's generally watery with a metalic aftertaste, but gets less noticable if you continue drinking.

I've drunk a lot of this beer in my time, and give it only credit due to its budget price and availability down-under - it is at least better than most other Australian beers in the same price range.

rec, Jan 21, 2007
Photo of btmo
2.93/5  rDev +36.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

This is one of Carlton's better beers. However, it appears that it doesn't travel well, it isn't too flash when poured from a can, but when it comes from the tap it is actually quite pleasant.

The flavour has a certain "nuttiness" that is nice, but as with all beers of this style (in my experience and opinion) if it ain't cold, it ain't worth the trouble.

If you find yourself in Melbourne, this *is* one to try. Don't expect great things, but it is a halfway decent Aussie macro.

btmo, Sep 01, 2006
Photo of DaveFL1976
2.68/5  rDev +24.7%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

Carlton Draught
Stork Hotel, Elizabeth St, Melbourne
Sept 7 2005 @ 3:20pm

I think that in order to appreciate good, craft-brewed beer, you need to occasionally calibrate your palate to reacquaint yourself with the local macrobrew. Here, at the Stork Hotel, just meters from the suburb of Carlton, I’ll finally review Carlton Draught.
Carlton pours a dark straw colour, and the white head lasted a lot longer than I expected it to for such a macro. Now on to smell… this might not be the most objective smell review ever, as this is a smoky bar. As I put the beer to my nose, I only notice a cooler, smokey-scented air. I certainly can’t make out any malt or hop flavour, or any adjuncts, or anything, and the bar’s not THAT smoky, so I’m just leaving it that this is not a very nose-provoking beer.
Upon first introduction to your mouth, the taste is crisp and clean. But wait, there’s more. Next comes the metallic taste. I’m not sure how Carlton United does it, but they inevitably get the same taste in the beer. Being Australia and all, I’m surprised that they’d go to the trouble of importing pennies from the United States to throw into the fermentation tanks, but evidently that’s what they do. The aftertaste is not at all unlike the sensation of touching your fingers to your tongue after rifling through a pocketful of change. Anyways, mouthfeel isn’t that bad, and perhaps that’s why it sells so much. The beer is light, thirst-quenching, well carbonated and mostly drinkable. It’s that damn copper-oxide aftertaste that gets in the way. Maybe THAT’S why it sells so well: It’s not that bad while you’re drinking it, but as soon as you swallow you become cognizant of that patented CUB metallic aftertaste and need another sip to wash away the copper taste.
In my 9 months in Australia, I’ve drank plenty of Carlton, I’ve always thought it’s less-than-good, but somehow…maybe socially…I find myself coming back for more. God help me.

DaveFL1976, Sep 07, 2005
Photo of BeerNutta
2.65/5  rDev +23.3%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

If you are in Australia this beer comes under the same banner as Victoria Bitter, Carlton Cold Etc... For all those who don't come from Australia.. This beer is basically cheap canon fodder.

A = Dark Amber

S = Bitter grass smell.

T = Chemical taste that then gets drowned out by bitterness.

M = Moderate carbonation. Bitter aftertaste is a bit unpleasant at times.

D = Cheap Canon fodder. Good at the footy.

BeerNutta, Aug 15, 2005
Photo of jarmby1711
2.1/5  rDev -2.3%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

This beer is dark gold to red with a weak insipid head.
It has the characteristic CUB tinny water smell
It is mildly bitter in taste but little depth of character.
It is not to be recommended , however it is better "on tap", best suited to a quick 3 or 4 before the football

jarmby1711, Jun 19, 2005
Photo of Weizenmensch
1.6/5  rDev -25.6%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

800mL longneck, consumed with corn chips following several other superior beers. Served in a completely inappropriate Tripel Karmeliet glass which I like drinking out of.

Appearance: Dirty gold colour, heaps of thin lacing, very little head retention except for a thin ring.

Smell: Entirely chemical. Any trace of organic produce has been smothered with the overpowering smell of organic chemistry.

Taste: Pretty bad. Much easier if you don't think about it. Thankfully, it's fairly insipid: the only other flavours are sulfury and unnatural. Pungent but watery, overall not nice.

Mouthfeel: Very thin. Fairly easy to throw back, ideally when totally inebriated. Much like the beer consumed before it, Carlsberg Elephant, only that beer had a nicer smell while you were drinking it. Little carbonation, combines well with salty food. Remember, it's cheap.

Drinkability: It all comes down to price. My girlfriend drinks it because the label at the pub has horses on it, and all the others have masculine logos, like an outline of NSW (Reschs), or a stag (Tooheys), or a pair of malting shovels (James Squire). I have no idea why my best mate drinks it, because I have introduced him to some heavenly beers and he still goes for this stuff. I think it might be because he's from Melbourne, and Carlton's a Melbourne suburb as well as a beer consumed by many in that city, and he is trying to hark back to those halcyon days before he moved to Canberra at age ten. How many Carltons he consumed before this time are known only to him, as are his reasons for drinking this O R D I N A R Y beer. Price is all it comes down to - you'd drink this over New, I suppose, if in an RSL club with $2 schooners. But why would you drink this in a place that charges the same for this as for Coopers or Squire on tap? Total bloody mystery.

Weizenmensch, May 12, 2005
Photo of amicar
3/5  rDev +39.5%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Golden beer with white head.
"Bright" smell, but I can't identify much
More bitterness than some others I had in australia, but still not too much
Not much special on the mouthfeel, a little thin and unimpressive
Easy enought to drink, but I didn't get another...

amicar, Mar 29, 2005
Photo of lacqueredmouse
2.08/5  rDev -3.3%
look: 1.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Poured deep golden yellow colour, with almost no head. A very unremarkable start.

Slight yeast on the nose, unoffensive, but standard.

Very watery. Almost no discernible characteristics on the palate. Some bitterness, with a malty back-note, but very dull overall. So yeah, I guess it goes down easily.

Wow, thoroughly uninspiring. Bland, but offensive at the same time. It's almost impressive that someone can brew a beer this bad and sell it.

They obviously put all their money into the advertising campaign (which is great!), rather than into producing decent beer.

lacqueredmouse, Jan 15, 2005
Photo of joecast
2.7/5  rDev +25.6%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

pale yellow, not too fizzy looking beer. appearance is definitely not its strong suit.
unoffensive, unobtrusive aroma. well, there isnt much i could pick up, so i guess that means it isnt bad...
taste is pretty much malt accented, but not to the point of being sweet. also lacks the off/metallic twang that many other aussie macros hang their hats on. and due to that, probably better than most.
while this would never be mistaken for a craft brew, it has some qualities that i think arent too bad. for a quick fix, and if nothing else is available, this is easily passable.

joecast, Sep 24, 2004
Photo of stoutman
2/5  rDev -7%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Pale Yellow Amber color with a small white lasting head. Bitter sweet, very metallic, with a chemical aroma. Clean, crisp and bitter in taste. Run of the mill mass produced alcohol that happens to be beer. Not much aroma, not really any flavour. I imagine a fresh tap pour to be better but this can stuff was really poor.

stoutman, Jul 22, 2004
Photo of koolk
1.58/5  rDev -26.5%
look: 2 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

Dark golden colour with a light head and decent carbonation.

Smells of grains. Not much else.

There is a bit more going on palate wise but nothing to exciting. More of a bread taste than a grain taste with a touch of fruit/floral hops. Round mouthfeel with a little drying sensation at the end.

Nothing special, but good when hot. Ruins food.

koolk, Dec 10, 2003
Photo of diablo14
1.48/5  rDev -31.2%
look: 2 | smell: 1 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1 | overall: 2

stoutbots really nailed the qualities of this beer. i can polish off one or maybe two of these at the footy simply coz i cant get anything better. that gives it a little bit of drinkability, but its still rubbish overall. i just think carlton smells and tastes like what should come out of your body cavities before, not after you drink it.

diablo14, Oct 14, 2003
Photo of Anonmatel
1.15/5  rDev -46.5%
look: 2 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 2 | overall: 1

The appearance of this lager from Carlton United is usual at best, filtered and filtered anf filtered some more. No head from the bottle
The Smell, Urgh smells of urine trough cakes that too many drunks have wizzed on.
The taste is very biter, no real flaour to mention from the bottle, and way too carbonated for my tastes.
Mouthfeel, what mouthfeel ?
as for drinkability, only try this stuff if it's a stinking hot day there is no other beer left, and it's for free.

Anonmatel, Feb 06, 2003
Photo of rastaman
1.7/5  rDev -20.9%
look: 1.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2.5

I reckon they filtered any resemblance of flavour out of this one, just a crappy non-eventful beer, its drinkable though.

rastaman, Jun 04, 2002
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Carlton Draught from Carlton & United Breweries, Ltd.
56 out of 100 based on 74 ratings.