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 didn’t 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, i’m 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.
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.