XXXX Gold - Castlemaine Perkins

Not Rated.
XXXX GoldXXXX Gold

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
60
poor

73 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 73
Reviews: 27
rAvg: 2.38
pDev: 29.83%
Wants: 3
Gots: 4 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Castlemaine Perkins visit their website
Australia

Style | ABV
American Adjunct Lager |  3.50% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: brewdlyhooked13 on 09-16-2002)
View: Beers (4) | Events
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | Likes | High | Low | Top Raters
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 73 | Reviews: 27 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of jjkatter
2.5/5  rDev +5%

Photo of klipper
2/5  rDev -16%

Photo of birchholz
2/5  rDev -16%

Photo of heygeebee
2.48/5  rDev +4.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

'XXXX Gold Now On Tap' proclaims my nearest club.

Joy! Celebration! or not....

Sadly this falls into the category of most other mass-produced macros with the sole plus being this is mid-strength so all the usual metallic / macro flavours have a little more reason to be present, ie to give at least some flavour.

Is it 40 deg? Drink it from the Esky.

Is it not 40 deg? Don't drink it...

Photo of aeolianshredhead
1.13/5  rDev -52.5%
look: 1.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

A- Well, no surprise here, it looks just like every single other Australian macro lager- boring as shit and a heavily carbonated straw colour. Honestly, what else could I expect?

S- That stupid, annoying, goddamn corn/starch smell which I'm sure every poor beer drinker with actual taste buds DREADS whenever he/she goes over to their mate's place.

T- Insipid, weak, diluted. People actually drink this voluntarily?!? Let alone en masse?!?! How ridiculous. Tastes as if vegemite and bread were put through a blender and "brewed" up as beer. Absolutely nothing but a stale, yeasty aftertaste on the palate.

M- Exactly like soda water. Carbonated into submission and ridiculously abrasive. Water has more body to it.

O- I can't believe this passes for beer. People always say, "It's refreshing," but these same people probably wouldn't even know what Hoegaarden was. This is no more refreshing than the average glass of tap water. A truly abysmal brew.

Photo of dansmcd
2.25/5  rDev -5.5%
look: 1.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2.5

A - like flat ginger ale, absolutely no head even with an aggressive pour, the carbonation is gone within seconds and zero lacing at all

S - that very artificial beery smell without intricacies, as if based on a 'beer' flavoured jelly bean or ice cream

T - citrus and corn, very typical of the chemical macro Aussie beer

M - like water

O - the only thing going for it is it's cheap. Absolutely has to be served ice cold to be drinkable, if so - it does serve it's purpose after some hard yakka in the sun - you can really slam them down fast if you dont have to taste them. less horrible on tap.

Photo of WoodBrew
3.3/5  rDev +38.7%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 5

If there was a Foster's commercial....like the ones they used to have...What's Australian for Michelob Ultra...XXXX Gold Lager!!! The previous people who reviewed this beer did not take into consideration the purpose of the beer. This beer was created for the hard working Australian in northern Queensland where the summers are long, hot, and humid...much like the legs on many a Sheila!!!! This beer looks, smells, and tastes like Mich Ultra. Stop being a snob and enjoy the beer as it was created. You can suck this SESSION down ...FOREVER!!!

Photo of laituegonflable
1.35/5  rDev -43.3%
look: 2 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 2

Pours a dirty pale golden colour with slow, slow bead feeding a modest white head that sits listlessly and retains artificially well, with a sheet of lacing around. Looks bland, and you know, mass-produced on a factory line. Not abysmal though.

Smell is that "beer" smell that since childhood I've tried to avoid - sweet corn and grain husks with that soda-stream forced carbonation acerbicness. Touch of POR at the back, but not a lot of hop, just a weird sweet tang overall. Pretty poor.

Taste is bland; yeasty. Touch of sweet corn with rice grain on the front, then becomes bready yeasty on the mid, with an odd lemon/honey tang as a faint mid-palate. Finish is awfully sweet, just adjunct grain with a touch of children's cough medicine. Slight sweetness but otherwise just phenolic and raw. But on top of all that, it's bland as well. I'd be angry with how bad this beer is, if it didn't just suck all the spirit out of me.

No texture at all; no body. Not even carbonation sizzle. I've had tea with more fizz than this.

It's unpleasant enough to be bad and beyond just blandly drinkable. Powerfully mediocre.

Photo of biboergosum
2.45/5  rDev +2.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

375ml bottle, on an Aussie-themed patio on Whyte Ave, on a nice, bird-watching spring day.

This beer pours a crystal clear medium golden yellow colour, quite reminiscent of watery apple juice, with two fingers of weakly puffy, thinly foamy dirty white head, which leaves some decent fuzzy, tightly honeycombed lace around the glass as things quickly sink away.

It smells of grainy malt - barley and husky corn alike - with a thankfully small dose of weedy, lightly skanky hops. The taste is mildly sweet corn grist and spent barley awn, some stale yeast, and acrid, chemically astringent 'hops'.

The carbonation is generally quite high upfront, before petering out rather quickly, the body a pithy medium-light weight, and pretty plainly smooth. It finishes off-dry, the corn cereal sweetness, and a little skunkiness lingering in yer typical unholy duo.

Nice to try some different offerings from Down Under, but this just seems like more of the same ol', same ol' shite, and sadly, this time with less petrol! Not worthy of the price tag here all the way across the Pacific Ocean, and, I'm guessing, equally so right at home.

Photo of yaegerje
2.95/5  rDev +23.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

Got this one in a bottle from some Australian Air Force I was working with, great bunch of Aussies.

I wish I could say the same about the beer. There's not much remarkable about this brew.

A - Pours nicely, good carbonation and nice color.

S - Um... leaves something to be desired, a bit skunky and reminescent of a pharmacy

T - Much better than the smell let on, pleasing malts, a little corn

M - Not impressed with the mouthfeel, really light, carbonation comes through too weakly for a adjunct

D - Totally average, no place for taste in this bottle

Photo of Viggo
2.5/5  rDev +5%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

12 oz can, from the LCBO! Sweet another premium lager!

Pours a clear straw yellow, kind of pissy, big thick white head forms, pretty tight, actually has a nice head on it, good retention and leaves a ton of lace. Smell is familiar, corn, urine, wheat, honey, bread, adjuncts of all kinds, some citrus, bit of a skunkiness. Taste is more of the same, watery adjuncts, some honey and bread, sugars, lemony twang, very weak finish, little bit of sourness. Mouthfeel is light bodied with medium carbonation, pretty low carbonated for the style which makes it slightly more drinkable.

Photo of allergictomacros
3.03/5  rDev +27.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A - Pours a clear straw with a 1 inch head. Pretty solid for a macro.

S - Sweet sort of aroma, a floral/chalky hop and maybe a touch of honey.

T - Bland, macro-ness with a bare touch of citrus in the finish.

M - light and fizzy,

D - Not bad, kinda basic, average, run of the mill macro.

Photo of funkengruven
3.18/5  rDev +33.6%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Got a 6 of these at the LCBO last weekend, was just expecting a typical macro lager, which is pretty much what I got. Poured a standard yellow with a fizz that subsides quickly to nothing, smell is a little corny, some alcohol, little else. Flavor is not terriible, aromas of corn and weak malts, barely a hint of hops, however flavor is slightly better than your average macro. Carbonation is abundant, a little over abundant actually, but overall this was quite an easy drink.

I'd say it's slightly better than Coors Light, but certainly not worth the $11 i paid for a six pack.

Photo of SargeC
3.8/5  rDev +59.7%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

Appearance: Deep golden color. Dense head with good lacing. Large carbonation bubbles slowly rise to the top.

Smell: Sweet tones, grass, small touch of alcohol

Taste: Very light hop flavor backed up by mild malt flavor. Good tame balance.

Mouthfeel: Good body for a lager.

Drinkability: Great session brew. This was hand carried back from Queensland to me. It is a great reminder of good times in Australia. A very high percentage of those times involved a Castlemaine product.

Photo of LittleCreature
2.63/5  rDev +10.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

Appearance - 2.5
Poured a finger of frothy white head that steadily reduced to a thin and unattractive layer. Looks to be highly carbonated, the colour is a pale clear yellow/gold with a tinge of brown.

Smell - 2.5
Slight skunk upon opening, but this died away. Even when the glass is half empty I have to really snort it in to smell the vague malt sweetness and cheap bread. Nothing offensive.

Taste - 2.0
Reasonably refreshing cold, but most macros are anyway, so that's not saying a lot. Again, nothing really offensive. It is very dry from start to finish, slight malt sweetness, weak grain flavours, a bit of stale hop bitterness and a slight metallic twang. Most do it better, but certainly some do it worse.

Mouthfeel - 3.0
Carbonation is moderate, despite the early appearance, although there is a bit of a sting in the finish. Moderate to heavy in the mouth, which is a bit surprising for a mid-strength.

Drinkability - 4.0
The 3.5% ABV scores drinkability points, and it is definitely sessionable for those who are not seeking taste.

OVERALL - 2.5
Despite the low score, this is actually not too bad for a mid-strength macro lager. It's cheap, highly drinkable for the masses and tastes better than some full-strength macros. Still, when there are far tastier mid-strength beers out there like Rogers (admittedly for a higher price) why would you bother with this? If you are in Queensland, you don't mid macro lagers, and you aren't afraid to be seen drinking a mid-strength, this is not a bad choice.

Photo of Sammy
2.3/5  rDev -3.4%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Yellow with significant white head that soon dissipitates. Neutral aroma. On thin side, bit goes down easy. Not much taste and long metallic and bitter finish. Some corn. Carbonation is OK. Why does our government or any one else decide to bring this in? Proof that New Zealand, the underdog, produces the decent Australian beer.

Photo of pootz
1.85/5  rDev -22.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2.5

Can from the LCBO

Pours a pale straw colored lager with a flaccid white cap that collases quickly...only light lacing.

Aroma of sweet rice and cardboard

Taste is bland and fizzy with light malts but mostly dextrine sweetness...clean finish, no off tastes just a boring adjunct bland lager with a watery weak character and an annoying dextrin sweet after taste.

It pains me Dogfish head 60 Min. IPA was rejected this summer so we could enjoy bland adjuct lagers like this...with a far too pricey tag for what you get...I won't go back for more...this is the Miller Genuine Draft of OZ.

Photo of biegaman
2.28/5  rDev -4.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

330ml can listed as Castlemanine XXXX Export Gold... and is by all accounts very underwhelming and painfully average...
Pours a brilliantly clear yellow body. Small bubbles drift about. There is a creamy white head that persist the entire tasting. The body is a little flat, with flavours of stale grassy hops and basic (adjuncty) malt bill. The drinkability is about average for a macro lager but I wouldn't by any stretch reccommend it.

Photo of Finite
2.65/5  rDev +11.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Actually better than I thought. Im from NSW and everyone says this is poison well its better than carlton or new and about the same as VB. It was a basic malt profile with some surprising hop flavours and smell. Small yet more than expected. A crisp BBQ beer for sure. An easy drinking aussie larger and probably on the better side in terms of macros but in the end its poor in the scheme of craft beer.

Photo of Kulrak
1.63/5  rDev -31.5%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

Pours a nice golden color with a decent amount of white fluffy head (though I did pour into the middle of the glass) which fades away fairly quickly. Smells faintly of chemicals, not very pleasant. The flavor is about on par with the smell, faintly of chemicals, slightly sweet, and a horrible aftertaste I can't place. The mouthfeel is fairly creamy with only a slight scraping from the carbonation, not too bad until it hits the back of my tongue and the horrible taste comes in again and ruins it. All in all a horrible beer. I can't imagine why anyone would drink this.

Photo of DaveFL1976
2.98/5  rDev +25.2%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

I drank a few…or more than a few on my Queensland trip to Cairns, the Great Barrier Reef and Palm Cove, but never got a chance to do a review. I meet XXXX again at the Red Gum Hotel on the corner of Victoria and Peel in Melbourne.
It pours a dark straw (not quite golden) color with a thin white head that settles down to not much more than a cap in short order. The smell is fairly sweet and malty with little hop presence. The taste is better than your average CUB product in my opinion. The taste is light, a bit sweet. Not hoppy, but still fairly crisp. What separates this brew from Carlton, Crown and VB is the lack of the horrible metallic aftertaste. That’s a relief.
It’s by no means a great beer, but it’s not horrible and would be great to consume in quantities on a hot day…sort of the same way as iced tea or Gatorade.


Addendum: My wife and I recently took a NT trip to Kakadu National Park. It's a beautiful park and there's heaps of fantastic hikes to do that all end in waterfalls and rock pool swims. Anyways, we stopped at the 'last-chance-for-beer-before-the-park' stop where our choices were VB or XXXX. We chose XXXX because I do everything I can not to give CUB my money.

It really isn't a bad drink on a hot day. It's really closer to Sprite or Iced Tea than it is beer, in my opinion. I had like 6 of these on a hot afternoon/eve and never caught a buzz. I don't know if it's possible to get drunk on XXXX. In a way, that's good. It's a refreshing drink that doesn't taste horrible and won't leave you with a hangover.

Photo of jarmby1711
1.78/5  rDev -25.2%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

The look of this beer is unusual It is the brightest clearest yellow/gold with a pure white head and the most bubbles I have ever seen.It all looks to a computer generated image of an enticing beer Wierd stuff.
The smell is off putting chemically water
The taste is stock standard bitter water with the vaguest of malt backgrounds.The more of the glass you had the less flavour there was to back up the bitterness.
It is not awful nor has it any merits to recommend it beyond being thirst quenching on a very hot day.But as there are many beers that do this AND add flavour it is hard to recommend it

Photo of rastaman
1.1/5  rDev -53.8%
look: 1 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1.5

even worse than the regular XXXX, this is a midstrenghth brew (3.5% ABV), and it sure as hell tastes like it, very weak, chemically and watery, most beers are better than this, too light for me.

« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
XXXX Gold from Castlemaine Perkins
60 out of 100 based on 73 ratings.