Carlton Midstrength - Carlton & United Breweries, Ltd.

Not Rated.
Carlton MidstrengthCarlton Midstrength

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
58
awful

28 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 28
Reviews: 18
rAvg: 1.96
pDev: 32.14%
Wants: 0
Gots: 1 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Carlton & United Breweries, Ltd. visit their website
Australia

Style | ABV
Light Lager |  3.50% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: BeerAdvocate on 08-20-2002)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | Likes | High | Low | Top Raters
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50  | next › last »
Ratings: 28 | Reviews: 18 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of Andrewziggy
3.64/5  rDev +85.7%
look: 3.75 | smell: 3.25 | taste: 4 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.25

Best mid strength going tastes like full strength good to take to party and have to drive better than xxxx gold

Photo of nitrofenix
1.5/5  rDev -23.5%

Photo of spycow
2/5  rDev +2%

Photo of CairnsBeer
3.5/5  rDev +78.6%

Photo of BuddhaBrowett
1.5/5  rDev -23.5%

Photo of BILF
1.75/5  rDev -10.7%

Photo of GraduatedCashew
1.75/5  rDev -10.7%

Photo of magpieken
1.75/5  rDev -10.7%

Photo of Jake321
1.5/5  rDev -23.5%

Photo of Furtanken
1/5  rDev -49%

Photo of dmorgan310
2/5  rDev +2%

Photo of lacqueredmouse
2.05/5  rDev +4.6%
look: 1 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 1 | overall: 2

Bottle purchased for me by @epiclurk, in a long quest to find me beer I've not reviewed. Thanks, I guess...

Pours a clear, bright golden colour, with an absolutely appallingly abysmal head of filmy, inconsistent bubbles. Even the ring around the edge is patchy, leaving a vain foam of apathetic bubbling as lacing. Really, it looks like a broken-down beer that doesn't care any more. Really appalling.

Nose is... well, it's bad, but it's not as bad as I thought it would be. It has a genuine hint of hops to it, albeit the earthy, but slightly fragrant spiciness of Pride of Ringwood. Under this is a slight sweetness that smacks of corn more than anything, or at least a sweet, adjuncty grain character. It's not all that bad, to be honest.

Taste really is where it goes downhill, but fortunately not into the realms of genuine unpleasantness. Sure, it's weak, it's light, it's lacklustre, it has almost no discernible flavour whatsoever. But it drops out quickly leaving a watery nothingness on the finish; really it could have been much worse, dropping into metallic harshness or yeasty fecundity.

Feel is weak, however, and that's never a good sign. Weak, watery and lifeless.

Overall? Yeah, it's bad. In fact, it's really quite an abysmal beer. But compared to what I thought it was going to be like, and compared to what CUB in their infinite cynicism usually serve up: it's surprising.

Photo of aeolianshredhead
2.17/5  rDev +10.7%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Well, here's another Aussie macro lager. This beer is probably the very first beer I consistently drank in my younger, more naïve days. But still, it's been a fir while since I've even touched this, so to be fair, I will review it.

A- It's that typical, pale straw colour. Difficult to get a decent head out of it and what you do get fades away into nothing all too quickly. Interestingly enough, it doesn't go completely tepid after a short while like a lot of this type of beer. Still, this is mediocre at best.

S- Not much. There is a faint hoppiness and a little grain. Certainly, it's a little offensive but I've smelled much worse beers. So far, this is getting the benefit of the doubt.

T- Artificially sweet upfront with a saccharin-esque candy note. Yuck. However, it becomes a little better with a clean, slightly POR influenced finish. There's nothing else really there. To be honest, compared to some other macros, it isn't awful, but is truly dreadful when compared to a decent beer. Take from that what you will.

M- Straight up- too watery. Like a Justin Bieber song, there's just no substance to it. Like Justin Bieber, this is mass-marketed for idiot drones who know no better. Oh sorry. Anyway, some fair carbonation saves this.

O- This is definitely a below average, budget beer. It would be a stretch to say that it was a pleasant drinking experience honestly. I believe this brew is merely for Joe six-pack to slam down several of these in a row to forget his shitty ass day. Or life for that matter. Levity aside, however, Joe six-pack COULD have picked up something far worse. His hand could have gravitated slightly to the left where Carlton Cold lay waiting.

Photo of Macca
2.42/5  rDev +23.5%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

This pours clear orange/amber colour with a loose white head that disappears totally leaving a dead looking beer.

The nose isn't as bad as I thought it would be. A bit of hoppiness. Only a bit though and then THAT macro lager graininess comes through.

Similar to the nose. Not totally horrible. (That's actually a compliment considering.)

Reasonably dead in the mouth.

Meh...

Photo of CrazyDavros
1.73/5  rDev -11.7%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Pours gold/amber with a large fading head.
Nose shows dirty cardboardy malt with a faint hint of floral hops hiding underneath.
Flavours have similar malt followed by a sharp but short bitterness.
Carbonation is very high.
I gotta say, this did go down well in the Queensland summer humid heat.

Photo of rjimlad
1.55/5  rDev -20.9%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 1 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

This is wrong at every level. The real national disgrace is that this is not the worst beer from Australia. This one stinks pretty bad of something yeastlike. Flavour is, unfortunately, not non-existent. It is hollow on the palate with a veneer of yeasty hop residue that leaves a lingering bitterness that is far from pleasant. Mouthfeel is watery with a soapy carbonation that gets flatter with every swig. You don't want to be sipping this because you can't afford it to warm up. If you are offered one from a well meaning cobber at a barbecue drink it cold and quickly. Don't hesitate and don't let it stand. It is swill and it will hurt you.

Photo of rhoadsrage
2.2/5  rDev +12.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

(Served in a short weizen glass)
A- This beer has a crystal clear yellow hue with a thin snow white film.
S- This beer has a faint sulfury nose but otherwise clean.
T- This beer has a field corn note when it warms and there is a light sulfury faint watery taste in the finish.
M- This beer has a light mouthfeel
D- This beer is really light and tasteless. It has some watery taste that are the strongest part of the beer.

Photo of ADZA
1/5  rDev -49%
look: 1 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

Again this is another beer that i cant believe rates a mention but over in australia this what they call the old mans drink absolutely crap it pours well carbonated but just smells of water and tastes like water with weak malt,not bad if your stranded in the desert with nothing to drink but if your not from australia and like beer and see this in your local bottleshop avoid at all costs.

Photo of LittleCreature
2.3/5  rDev +17.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Appearance - 2.5
Pours half a finger of bubbly white head that quickly reduced to a thin layer over a golden yellow body.

Smell - 2.5
Very little aroma, vague pale malt sweetness and grain.

Taste - 1.5
Not much in the way of taste, faint grain and husk, minimal hop bitterness and a dry finish. Slight chemical and metallic aftertaste.

Mouthfeel - 3.0
A moderate to high level of carbonation, feels light in the mouth.

Drinkability - 3.5
Low alcohol and general lack of flavour means this is easy to drink for most, but not for those who know how real beer can taste.

OVERALL - 2.25
Without the horrible metallic taste of Carlton Draught, but still a rather poor excuse for a beer. Mid is quite easy to drink ice cold from the bottle at a barbecue, but sitting down and analysisng it, it becomes immediately obvious that this is yet another beer for people who do not really like beer.

Photo of Boilermaker88
2.85/5  rDev +45.4%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Presented in a 375ml bottle brought back from Australia by my brother. Poured into a pint glass.
Clear yellow color toppped by a 1/2 inch of intensely white foam that settled down to a thin cap and left scant lace. Readily apparent carbonation.
Smell: soft grain notes and a hint of grassy hops but not much going on elsewise.
Taste: mild husky grain flavor up front. Decent bitterness at the back of the tongue.
Feel: very light and a touch watery.
Overall, when evaluated against some of its American bretheran, Carlton Mid isn't all that bad. I'd drink a bottle of this over a can of Coors Lite or Mich Ultra any day. I'm not saying this is a great brew (it's not) but given the competition, it's okay.

Photo of Franchise
2.63/5  rDev +34.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Brought back from Australia in the "Beers down under" six pack. This offering from Carlton pours a pale yellow with a highly carbonated body. The inital smell is lemon, somewhat herbal hop presence. The taste is dry, I'm finding that alot of Carlton's beers are basically the same. The taste reminds me of dried lemon rind, merged with a simple syrup (sugar and water) sweetness. The finish is sour, gives your mouth a tart aftertaste for a bit.

Photo of Kulrak
1.83/5  rDev -6.6%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Pours a pretty nice deep gold color with light white head. Doesn't smell like much at all.. Slightly sweet smelling, and a little yeasty, but nothing else you could pick out. The taste is very thin. Again, slightly sweet, a little yeasty, not much in the way of hops. Certainly not 'double hopped,' whatever they intend that to mean. Has a strange flavor on the back end. Some sort of chemical taste. All in all, it's not the worst beer, but it's definitely not a good one, or even average.

Photo of jarmby1711
1.8/5  rDev -8.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 1.5

Deep gold with a retentive head and lace , it starts off with a modicum of promise.
But alas it is downhill from there.
There is very little to smell but what there is , is unappealing and metallic.
The label claims a unique double hopped brewing process that delivers a full bodied bitter beer.
The double hopping and full bodiness was elusive , to my palate.
There was however a bland corn like adjunctness that seems to be the basic building block of most CUB products.
It has plenty of carbonation and a certain crispness that makes it bearable in the mouth.
This is borderline on my list of never drink again ( and it would certainly have to be free) beers.
Dull insipid disappointing

Photo of amicar
2.38/5  rDev +21.4%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

I don't actually have much to say about this one.
Yes, it's yellow/ golden/ white head.
Minimal aroma; didn't detect much of anything
The only taste is bitter, but not in a pleasant, well- balanced way; almost sour.
Also feels thin in the mouth
Didn't get seconds on this one...

Photo of joecast
1.78/5  rDev -9.2%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

no head to top off this bland looking yellow beer.
definite hoppiness to the aroma (it says "double hopped) on the label), though pretty one-dimensional.
fairly unbalanced taste.mostly made up of a sour bitterness, with nothing else to distract from it. after most of the glass it gets pretty difficult to finish.
cant say much else about this one. oh, its probably low carb.

« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50  | next › last »
Carlton Midstrength from Carlton & United Breweries, Ltd.
58 out of 100 based on 28 ratings.