Richmond Lager
Carlton & United Breweries, Ltd.

Why do they bother? Is there really anything different between this and almost everything that comes out of CUB?

It looks good, a nice big head which is persistent and there is some nice lacing. A light amber colour. That is the best I can do to describe this beer because it is almost totally with out aroma or taste. A certain tinniness but I don't think that is going to capture the beer drinking public's imagination on a billboard.

The brewing gurus at Fosters/CUB have outdone themselves .
In a climate of inceasing interest in craft beer that have managed to introduce a beer that has less flavour than their normal range .
True that have eliminated the metallic tones of their range and replaced it with the flavour of nothing . It tastes like bitter water.
It is not very enjoyable .

A very generic lager, typical of CUB. A very chemical taste, like a can of VB (suprising since it was puored from a bottle)

Intially a good head, a bit sudsy. Average lacing & cabination. A clear yelolow colour.

A fruity smell which is offset by a eggy edge to the nose (like unclean lines).

"Richmond Lager Release 2008 limited release celebrating 100 years of CUB beers".

Very similar to other CUB macros...maybe a fraction less of that horrible chemical aftertaste. Pours just like a Macro Lager, yellow, well carbonated 2 finger head.
Aroma is a touch sweeter than say a VB, & with a little fruit, & grassy hops.
Taste is once again just about the same as other CUB lagers, just a little less bitey. ie, touch fruity at first, pear, then a little bitterness together with the chemical tinny aftertaste that makes CUB's Macro lager so unenjoyable.
not impressed!!