Crown Lager | Crown Beverages

BA SCORE
62
poor
84 Ratings
THE BROS
31
awful
Read the review
Crown LagerCrown Lager
BEER INFO

Brewed by:
Crown Beverages
Australia
crownbeverages.com.au

Style: American Adjunct Lager

Alcohol by volume (ABV): 4.90%

Availability: Year-round

Notes / Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

Added by BeerAdvocate on 04-04-2002

BEER STATS
Ratings:
84
Reviews:
42
Avg:
2.09
pDev:
34.45%
 
 
Wants:
3
Gots:
6
For Trade:
0
View: Beers | Events
User Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters | Alström Bros
Ratings: 84 |  Reviews: 42
Photo of mulder1010
1.78/5  rDev -14.8%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

355 ML at Qantas club at Sydney Airport. It was free and my GF surprised me with this.

A-- Clear light straw gold color. White film for head, lots of carbonation bubbles. Some lacing left through drinking.

S-- Sweet stewed cabbage and corn. Borderline repulsive.

T-- Sweet corn, sweet bread, a little bit of cardboard.

M-- Light body, high carbonation. Bloating feeling very quickly. Metallic corn finish. Clean and boring.

O-- A few sips was enough and thought a cappuccino was a better option. It was free and a tick. Could not finish the Michelob of Australia.

 573 characters

Photo of Raebies
2/5  rDev -4.3%

Photo of aeolianshredhead
1.23/5  rDev -41.1%
look: 2 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1

Well, here is another foray into the abyss that is the Australian macro-lager industry. Come to think of it, I could probably accurately review this without ever trying it.

A- Plain, plain, plain. There is no character at all to this beer. It looks like every other Aussie macro. It's that generic piss colour with a superficially well-retaining head. Big. Fucking. Deal.

S- Awkward moment when you think you have a cold, then realise you're smelling an Australian macro. Seriously, there is very little at all here- I could be an idiot and try to discern individual scents, but doing so would make me even more stupid than I already am for drinking this shit.

T- POR. Self explanatory.

M- Strikingly similar to mineral water. Pathetic.

O- I had to drink this garbage at my mate's birthday party. It should be a criminal offence to sell this to ANYONE. Even the downability on this sucks ass. It's just too repulsive to drink quickly.

 941 characters

Photo of chinabeergeek
2.12/5  rDev +1.4%
look: 4.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 1

from notes, tasted mid to late june 2009, kro's nest, beijing, china

best by date of oct09. importer label says bottled in 2009, jun 5

poured into mug

clear golden straw color. 2-finger head, slowly fades to relatively stable, thin wispy layer. splotchy lace at first, but then improves later.

aroma: some euro hops upfront w/ touch of bready malt. hints of weird esters or fusels, plus a metallic whiff.

taste: mildly toasted, bready malts and euro hops giving a crisp, moderate bitterness, but w/ weird, astringent chemical note. from fusel or phenols? makes the bitterness unpleasant.

light, not TOO thin, but still a touch watery. some smoothness, especially with the carbonation. weird chemical notes continue the uncomfortable astringency.

hard to finish. appearance is the only thing good about this beer, as the bros noted.

 838 characters

Photo of BeerAdvocate
1.06/5  rDev -49.3%
look: 2 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

Review from BeerAdvocate Magazine May 2007.

Crown Lager touts itself as being the best of Australian beer since 1919. Personally, we highly doubt that, but let's give the beer the benefit of the doubt and try it.

Pale golden, lively carbonation and an ultra-tight and creamy head with a stick to the glass that puts many Double IPAs to shame--very appealing. Musty aroma, with some cereal grain and soft metallic notes. Thin-bodied and watery in the mouth. The carbonation showcased in the glass is barely noticeable on the palate--meaning the expected crispness is not present. No real hop bitterness to speak of, but there's something resembling a watery sourness that tastes a bit forced and contrived. Quite sweet--actually, it's too sweet. It's more of a corn-based sweetness that tastes processed. Mouthful of straw in the finish, drying and unpleasant.

Brewed by the Foster's Group, Crown Lager is merely a fizzy, yellow, bland beer with nothing going on other than looking pretty in a Pils glass. It doesn't even come close to standing up to other beers within its genre. One of the worst beers we've ever had from Oz.

 1,129 characters

Photo of philphilphil
1.4/5  rDev -33%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 1 | feel: 2 | overall: 1

awfful, just awful, totally over rated.

A - not good, not quite terrible though.
S - metallic nasty unpromising, but no indicator of its true revoltingness.
T - yuck, just yuck. Metalicly fruity, truely feral.
M - over carbonated.
D - i couldnt drink this if i was wasted. had to hold my nose to finsh one bottle.

 315 characters

Photo of benclimbs
2.1/5  rDev +0.5%
look: 1.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2.5

£2.29/4 pack at Sainsburys - cheap cheap lager.

pours clear yellow with no head, no lacing and just a bit of fizzy carbonation - a really unappealing looking brew.

Smell is just a bit so light, almost non-present, but a bit of soapy, light perfumy and skunky notes.

very watery taste, but just a hint of bready goodness in there that saves it from being absolutely disgusting - but still pretty gross.

mouthfeel is like water that is slightly carbonate.

drinkability - eh, not so good as its not a good beer, but i guess you could put away a lot of these if you dont know beer at all - worst beer i've had in a long time, i'll wait until i'm drunk sometime to finish the 4 pack - or i can cook with it!
GREAT COOKING BEER!

 733 characters

Photo of DIM
2.08/5  rDev -0.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

a: This was a very, very pale golden color. It poured with a fizzy white head.

s: A little corny sweetness, not much else to say.

t: Same as the smell, just a little corny sweetness. It actually got kind of obnoxious by the end of the bottle.

m: Fizzy and wet.

d: At least it was free.

 289 characters

Photo of ADZA
1.73/5  rDev -17.2%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

This beer pours a pale golden colour with decent carbonation and average lacing,it has weak grainy,hop aromas with an average mouthfeel,the taste an overpowering malty,fruit driven taste that doesnt taste as nice as it sounds and has a offputting aftertaste,overall because ive seen the micro light years ago i sit back and laugh at this lager considered to be australias best macro,i just hope the crown ambassador ive put away doesnt resemble this at all.

 457 characters

Photo of laituegonflable
1.19/5  rDev -43.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1.5

Pours gold, with marshmallowy gelatinous head, very dense, with mega streaming carbonation that seems to be unending. I've spent a long time with this just sitting here and it's still fizzing away like a motherfucker. Looks over-fizzy. Well it looks like it should, but I just don't trust it. The head's still there, the carbonation is unending. There's something artificial about a beer that looks so much like a quintessential image of a beer. It should be natural, and have flaws.

Very unpleasant chemical aroma, smells like maybe some grassy hops, or more correctly, grass when you've just sprayed your backyard with pesticide. Very weak, what's more, and very simple. Really, genuinely bad smell.

Taste is weak and bland, with a syrupy corn sweetness that creeps up on the start and reaches you by the mid, and then a grisly pride of ringworm dankness, creating that signature CUB bread yeast character. Very unpleasant bitter hang, nothing fresh or organic about it at all.

And that mouthfeel? HOLY SHIT. How can you have so much carbonation in the glass and such a pitiful, weak feel? Where are the bubbles when I could use them, to add some texture? What a crown turd of a beer. Yes, it wins the crown. The crown for being an utter shit beer. This is so bad it's destroying my ability to write witty comments.

 1,321 characters

Photo of CrazyDavros
1.37/5  rDev -34.4%
look: 3 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 1.5

Standard pale lager appearance, although the head shows some persistence...
Aroma is pretty horrible. Dirty, grainy aussie malt, no hop aroma (guessing isohops is used).
Flavours are equally boring, if slightly more palateble. Sweet grainy malt and some weak plain bitterness.
Pretty high carbonation.
First beer that's made me feel sick after half a glass.

 357 characters

Photo of Buebie
3.13/5  rDev +49.8%
look: 4.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

My buddy picked this up in Australia for me. As well as a fe others I plan to review today.

Poured a michelob style brown bottle with twsit off, into a grain belt premium, lager intended tulip.
Off the pour a white semi foamy head takes shape, 1'' on the head. The color is asemi darker then normal, transparent gold. Plenty of champagne resemblent carbonation rise.
The head slowly receeds leaving a thin cap of retention and plenty of thick lace rings all the way down the glass.

Aroma's of corn, grains and a bready yeast aroma that is actually pretty strong.

The taste up front is somwhat sweet with a carbonation presence providing plenty of creamy thicker mouthfeel without all that carbonation sting to the toung. Corn is prevelant as is some cereal grain taste. Becoming a bit more sweet into the swallow. Thats when things take a turn for the worse though. A metallic tin flavor dominates into the finish and leaves an ill aftertaste.
Some mild grassy hops hang out with the tin, but man, thats a gnarley aftertaste that really ruins the beer.

Minus that metallic flavor, this would be an A-class brew.

 1,116 characters

Photo of Macca
1.83/5  rDev -12.4%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 1

This poured a pale golden yellow with a good head including some lacing.

How boring and predictable this stuff is! Just the same as everything else they produce.

Graininess and that bloody metallic taste. Where is the fresh florals that so many other brewers can get in their lagers?

I would rather drink VB.

 311 characters

Photo of Lancair
2.48/5  rDev +18.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1

This beer looks good out of the bottle. A clear warm, golden orange. Not much head. When it hits your mouth, your impression changes. It has a sort of "before-taste", a bitter twang that attacks your mouth when you first down it that mellows as it goes down. Obviously, this hurts the drinkability of it.

I didn't like this one, and wouldn't drink it again.

 359 characters

Photo of LittleCreature
2.83/5  rDev +35.4%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Appearance - 3.0
Poured a finger of loose white head that quickly reduced to a thin layer over a pale, golden yellow body.

Smell - 2.5
A slightly sweet aroma of grain, husk and grassy hops

Taste - 2.5
Pretty typical Australian lager flavour, a little pale malt, grain and metallic hops. A moderate level of bitterness in the dry finish.

Mouthfeel - 3.5
Carbonation is fine and quite lively.

Drinkability - 3.5
Quite easy to drink and sessionable if you like the taste. Off flavours are there, but not enough to the extent that I would turn one down.

OVERALL - 2.8
I believe this beer is better than the majority of its reviews indicate. However, it is certainly not as good as its premium price and packaging would suggest. Average beer, poor value, undeserved reputation.

 778 characters

Photo of WHROO
2.44/5  rDev +16.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Poors very clean with 1 finger head / golden colour..
But seriously...its the same ole same ole with your mainstream Aussie Lagers...
Just because this is a 'premium' lager doesn't mean it tastes any better...
I still get the metallic lingering (iron/tin) on the tongue (& this is from a bottle)...a hint of florally malts. touch fruity, but quickly killed off by that metal stale off putting taste that is so evident with other mainstreams like VB/Melb etc.
Just not a nice beer & waaayy too carbonated for mouthfeel.
A sulphury aroma as well with a hint of egg.
Over the years I have noticed the only beer drinkers that reckon this is the bees neez are the ones who only drink a VB or Melb, or Carlton. This is maybe not as off tasting to finish but still has all the taste/aroma/mouthfeel that make it such an average drop...drink out of sufference.

 853 characters

Photo of Cs1987
3.2/5  rDev +53.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

Appearance - Light gold. 1 finger of head, which reduced.

Smell - A little stronger than average for a macro lager. The scent is pretty much what you normally expect from an Aussie macro lager.

Taste - Fairly good quality grainy tastes, with less metallic and other off-putting tastes than most Aussie macros.

Mouthfeel - Very good carbonation and texture, poor and metallic aftertaste.

Drinkability - Another typical easy drinking lager.

Overall - Yes, it is overpriced and overrated by many, but I still enjoy a Crowny. There are much worse lagers out there.

 565 characters

Photo of vancurly
2.4/5  rDev +14.8%
look: 4 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Drank this on a domestic flight.
Choice between Crown and VB....mmmm... decisions, decisions... at least I get a chance to review a beer I normally avoid.

a) Pours nicely. Golden honey, good carbonation, white 1cm head, which persists. Foamy lace. Surprisingly good start.
s) Aromas of salada biscuit, sulfur, boiled cabbage. Back to form....
f) Typical Aussie macro. Pride of Ringwood metal, sulfur, wet dog in a hessian sack. Finishes very quickly.
m) Foamy & light, but not thin. Refreshing, with a medium bitterness.
d) Quite drinkable, if a hot hot day, with nothing else in the fridge.

It irks me that most Aussie blokes consider this the beer to drink on a special occasion... it's no wonder we BA's have such a hill to climb in this country.

 752 characters

Photo of rec
2.51/5  rDev +20.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

While this remains an Australian favourite, there are clearly far better options available for flat session beers. The price tag is unjustified and its a mockery of quality Australian brews.

As reviews below stipulate, rumour has it that this and Carlton Draught are brewed in the same vat. They taste strikingly similar, and given the option I would always opt for Carlton Draught because of the slashed price.

Like Cartlton Draught, its watery and has a strange metalic aftertaste, leaving nothing to be desired but despite the less than pleasing taste and overly high carbonation, it is still easy to drink.

 616 characters

Photo of btmo
2.41/5  rDev +15.3%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

This is a bit of an odd review for me, as I genuinely used to like this beer some years ago, but on a recent revisit I found that either the beer has changed, or I have.

I suspect the latter.

The beer initially pours nicely, with a clean white head which sadly fails to linger.

Flavour and smell are flat and uninteresting with a "sharp" aftertaste I had never really noticed in the past. While I find that I still like Carlton Draught (see review elsewhere), I really wonder if they are in fact the same beer, from the same vat, with only the difference being the packaging.

I haven't had a chance to do a side by side comparison yet, or a blind test - but plan to try this as an experiment in the not too distant future.

This beer really makes me think that a new category is required here at BA - "Value for Money". It would score a 1

 855 characters

Photo of jarmby1711
2.14/5  rDev +2.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Surely the most over hyped beer in Australia that has created a top end premium tag for itself that has no justification.
It is very much stock standard CUB , tin flavoured bitter water.
It pours nicely enough , decent colour and bead but beyond that it is dullness personifird.
Most of the allure and razzamatazz about the beer is surely the cone shaped bottle and gold labelling.It looks the business but it aint

 417 characters

Photo of Finite
1.68/5  rDev -19.6%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

Golden straw color. Head retention lasted only about 1 min with a tiny bit of lacing. This beer had very low carbonization. The smell was skunked and very malty and sweet. Hints of perhaps some caramel. This beer is very flat and could benefit from more carbonization.

The aftertaste is a bit sour and off. Any Australian will avoid this brew and rightly so. It’s actually worse than VB and they have similar tastes. I’m very fortunate to have only had half of this beer because I was struggling to drink the half! It’s a really horrible attempt at a malty and yesty beer. This beer just has way to much yest in the after taste its so smooth its just wrong!

 663 characters

Photo of DaveFL1976
2.63/5  rDev +25.8%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

If this beer didn't claim to be "Australia's Finest" it might not be rteviewed so harshly. Unfortunately, it claims to be "brewed with the malt and hops, true to the traditional premium brewing heritage." Well, true, it might be brewed with the finest malt and hops, but I think 2 or 3 pounds of malt might be all they use in each big fermenter. Crown Lager pours a bright straw color with a fairly thick head, but it unfortunately settles out in quick fashion leaving a thin, white skim on the beer. The taste isn't worthy of more than one sentance. Immediate metallic bitterness followed by a mild malty sweetness, followed again by the metallic bitterness. Are those some sort of zinc-based hops that Carlton is brewing? Mouthfeel is relatively smooth, with decent carbonation, but that's aboput all I can say for it.

 820 characters

Photo of Weizenmensch
1.72/5  rDev -17.7%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 2.5

Don't get me wrong, I hate Crown Lager as much as any Aussie with a modicum of taste. Everyone knows that just because it's got a gold label and a cool-looking, unusual bottle, it's not necessarily a good beer. But I'm reviewing this even-handedly and without bias.

I wrote the above while admiring the apt head retention, ubiquitous lacing and perfectly effervescent body of the beer. Slightly too dark amber, but good appearance otherwise.

Smell: Not as bad as the non-premium offerings from Carlton, but there is nothing natural in there to speak of. Apart from a very faint maltiness (so distant it's hardly worth mentioning), there is a smell of preservative/adjunct. I don't recognise the chemical (I'm a chemistry student and have come to recognise the smell of chemicals I encounter regularly). Wait, what is this? This is meant to be a beer to enjoy, not sniffing the glass to determine whether it contains poison. The smell is better than Carlton or VB, but not what a beer should smell like.

Taste is where this beer is really let down. It looks good, it smells... inoffensive, but the taste is rough as guts. A little bit sour, a little bit adjuncty... it would taste better if it had no taste, and was just amber bubbly water with a head. It's been so long since I've bothered to drink one of these that I forgot how shite it was. Basically no different from your ordinary Australian macro, only I'm rating it more harshly because this is supposed to be premium. This doesn't stand up against Boag Premium or Squire Pilsener, other popular macros of a similar price and style. I can't think of any other Aussie macros like this, apart from the cheap Carlton and Tooheys offerings. Still, if you slam it down, drink it cold and out of the bottle at the footy, you won't notice the unpleasant ashy aftertaste. Someone spilt beer in this ashtray! No wait, it's how it normally tastes.

Mouthfeel is pretty crap too. Rough going down, though undoubtedly smoother than its non-premium cousins, the worst aspect is the sticky afterfeel... it doesn't taste like anything except nasty beer aftertaste, but it's sticky on the roof of my mouth.

Drinkability: If it's free, ice-cold, a hot sunny afternoon, and you're doing an activity to take your mind off the taste, and you've been working hard all day, this is fine to drink. Most Australians would be happier to drink this regularly than VB, merely because of its price and 'premium' allure. But it's not great. However, it does contain alcohol.

Attention All Crown Lager Drinkers - set your sights higher. It gets a LOT better than this! Non-Crownie Drinkers - Don't bother trying this, it is a complete and utter waste of time and an insult to our country that people pay $60 a case for this crap.

 2,773 characters

Photo of Kulrak
1.96/5  rDev -6.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

Pours a straw color with a lot of head at first, then dies down to pretty much nothing. Doesn't smell like much at all, very very faint yeast scent. The taste is a not so faint yeast taste, some hop bitterness, no other distinguishable flavors, finishes dry and sour at the same time. Mouthfeel is somewhat airy, somewhat creamy, but not enough of either to really stand out. I don't really care much for this beer, seems like a pretty standard aussie macro beer, dunno why it costs any more than the others.

 508 characters

Crown Lager from Crown Beverages
2.09 out of 5 based on 84 ratings.
  • About Us

    Founded in Boston in 1996, BeerAdvocate (BA) is your go-to resource for beer powered by an independent community of enthusiasts and professionals dedicated to supporting and promoting better beer.

    Learn More
  • Our Community

    Comprised of consumers and industry professionals, many of whom started as members of this site, our community is one of the oldest, largest, and most respected beer communities online.
  • Our Events

    Since 2003 we've hosted over 60 world-class beer festivals to bring awareness to independent brewers and educate attendees.
  • Our Magazine

    Support uncompromising beer advocacy and award-winning, independent journalism with a print subscription to BeerAdvocate magazine.