bfgill (120) - Tasmania, AUSTRALIA - OCT 9, 2003
3.2 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 14/20
This beer is refreshing enough, fresh aroma, supporting malt with a sturt hoppy finish finishing with a lingering bitterness. Not a bad lager, it stumbles against coopers though, but is superior to cascade draught. a beer you can drink and drink and drink and drink.....cheers
lasonovich (151) - AUSTRALIA - OCT 2, 2003
2.7 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
Nothing special about this beer. Its easy drinking but without any great flavour.
bluevegie (3052) - Perth, AUSTRALIA - SEP 19, 2003
2.9 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
Poor head retention but decent lacing, very slight floral aroma, medium bitterness but overall it wasn't too bad.
Fez (17) - AUSTRALIA - SEP 8, 2003
2.8 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
A good pale that falls just short of the Coopers equivalent. Tends to lose head and in my view there are better Cascade beers. However for those keen on pale, always seems to get a good wrap. Widely available on tap and very drinkable on those occasional stinking hot Tassie afternoons.
farmboy (218) - Barwon Heads, AUSTRALIA - AUG 12, 2003
1.4 AROMA 1/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 1/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 10/20
This has to be the most confusing beer I have ever had. My cricket club sells it in cans and stubbies and sometimes it tastes magnificent and one is never enough. Sometimes it tastes rancid and dirty.
Nice on tap if your local has it.
Jahills (151) - Cambridge (Hobart), AUSTRALIA - AUG 10, 2003
2.8 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
UPDATED: NOV 21, 2003 A good beer on tap, full body and quite smooth. Unfortuately for me being a taswegian, not as good as coopers sparkling.
Sully (1377) - Potts Point, New South Wales, AUSTRALIA - JUN 4, 2003
1.5 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 4/20
Many years ago my good mate SBgoodDave and I sat down and agreed that this was a pretty good drop. Now, either through affluence or education we probably would not think the same thing. Perhaps the local beer industry is also to blame, as while the ABV has been kept constant I question whether the malt:sugar ratio has been maintained. Now this is a thin and pale pretender compared to the older (pre CUB) version. Is it an ale or simply a piss poor lager? Good now for its burpability. Barneybeer.
mutant (854) - Melbourne, AUSTRALIA - OCT 18, 2002
1.9 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
Very yellow & quite sweet. Little bitterness in the finish. IMHO not a Pale Ale just a slight variation on their lager.
OlJuntan64 (1265) - Perth, AUSTRALIA - OCT 16, 2002
2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
Well it’s a lager and that means I’m not excited to begin with. Pours a pale gold clear under a medium size and short lasting white head. Fresh sappy woody faintly soapy aroma. Medium to light watery body. Mild bitter and stronger corn sweet malt flavours. Soft almost tasteless finish. A standard Aussie lager.
dubs (117) - St Peters, NSW, AUSTRALIA - OCT 13, 2002
3.2 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 13/20
This is actually OK. I dont have wet dreams over this shit, and I agree that its not as flavoursome as Coopers equivalent, but a damn fine way to get pissed at the Botany View watching cricket on the big screen (its about 0.7% stronger than Coopers too). When they have this on tap, i dont get anything else: a perfect summers afternoon beer. Lion Nathan, hands off!!!