JonR888710 (999) - Cochabamba, BOLIVIA - JUN 25, 2004
1.5 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
a little better than the cascade light, but still a boring, uninspired beer. Yellow body with white head. Weak hops in the nose and taste is bright hops and skunky malt. Spicy finish.
Aarleks (409) - Sydney, AUSTRALIA - JUN 20, 2004
2.2 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 8/20
Bottle: Poured gold with a medium head that didnít last. Aroma of hops and weak pale malt. Flavour was similar. Nice enough body with a good bitterness. Certainly not a Pale Ale.
AlphaOne (142) - AUSTRALIA - JUN 16, 2004
0.9 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 2/20
Looks like a pale lager. Aroma is of pride of ringwood hops, slight grassyness. flavour is of cane sugar and horrible pride of ringwood, this beer is so blatantly a lager, how they get away with calling it an ale is a mystery to me. Rubbish. ps: calling it a pilsner is disgraceful(Trogdor and Muggus, iím looking at you)
theread (58) - Wagga Wagga, AUSTRALIA - MAR 12, 2004
3.2 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 13/20
Man, I like this. Not a pale ale but a lager I would think. Nice hop bitterness and malty taste, but not overpowering. You could drink this one all night if you could get past the 5% ABV. Quite easily drunk and much better than VB and the like. Cheers folks.
Spanner (60) - Canberra, AUSTRALIA - FEB 25, 2004
3.5 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 14/20
A cracking all-rounder of an ale: refreshing, tart and punch-packing, able to be drunk all night, and a winner with a host of food options.
Trogdor (196) - Cairns, AUSTRALIA - DEC 14, 2003
1.9 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 6/20
Boring lager passing itself off as a pale ale, only redeeming quality is that this beer is well hopped for bitterness and aroma, as with many cascade products. more like a czech pilzner than a pale ale.
mullet (849) - Melbourne, AUSTRALIA - DEC 12, 2003
2 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 7/20
UPDATED: JAN 27, 2004 This beer pisses me off because people always tell me how they like "pale ales" and cite Cascade as their favourite. I politely point out that it is not a pale ale at all but I really want to smack them over the head. Anyway... I always thought this was bad but I had it on tap and it was OK.
Quite similar to Cascade Premium on tap - lightly malty and lacking the metallic bitterness that most megalagers have. Might drink it again soon. RR: I had it again and it was pretty bad. Don't know how I thought it could compete with their Premium - funky fruit and metal mostly.
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 (3070) - 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.