DiamondD (38) - Sammamish, Washington, USA - OCT 25, 2003
3.5 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 15/20
This is a lager not a pale ale.I used to drink this as a quality alternative to budweiser in the early 90's. I really enjoyed it then and I really enjoyed it today. Even though I have haven't had it in 10 years. I've been drinking alot of micro-brews. I've had alot of high quality
beers since then.Yet this one is still very quaffable. Moosehead and Heineken are very similar. Both lagers.
jstu9 (402) - Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA - JUN 9, 2003
1.5 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
(bottle) I had a Henry Weinhard's Pale Ale. Since no other Pale Ale is listed under Henry Weinhard, I'm guessing this is the same. Anyways, this is a slight step up from the Budweisers of the world, but not by much. I'll give it a nice rating for aroma though.
Ernest (6542) - Boulder, Colorado, USA - MAY 20, 2003
1.4 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
Head is initially average sized, frothy, off-white, mostly diminishing. Body is clear medium yellow. Aroma is lightly malty (grain, light bread), lightly hoppy (flowers, lemon), with a note of DMS. Flavor is moderately sweet, lightly acidic, lightly bitter. Finish is lightly sweet, lightly acidic, lightly bitter, slightly unclean. Light to medium body, watery texture, fizzy carbonation, metallic. Plenty of DMS and an unclean flavor, letting you know this has been micturated upon by an evil giant.
celogan (201) - Oroville, California, USA - MAR 28, 2003
2.6 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
Not too bad for a macro brew. Nice head that hung around longer than some, but dissappeared in a short time. Adquate Carbonation. Aroma wasn't bad, color was nice and had at least some taste.
I wouldn't seek this out, but it's not bad at all; good thirst quencher. Got this from a beer trading buddy at work, so I don't know if it's worth the price or not. If it's cheap; I'd say it is worth a try at least.
Aubrey (3482) - Bellingham, Washington, USA - MAR 5, 2003
1.3 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 1/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 5/20
UPDATED: JAN 18, 2006 Very clear and pale yellow ... headless. Corny nose. Thin and watery texture. Malts were reminiscent of wet bread with honey and a little DMS on top. Ripe apple notes were nice, albeit subdued. No head, but rather carbonated mouthfeel ... a little chewy, too. Finish was dry and relatively lifeless. A few seconds later, in the aftertaste, some bitterness (with a hint of toast) surfaced. Not quite enough to balance things out, though. Yawn.
harlequinn (2744) - Tacoma, Washington, USA - JAN 20, 2003
2.2 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
I did not like it the first time I tried it, but after the 2nd and 3rd time it is not bad stuff and it is cheap.
jimmydoug (32) - Operation Joint Forge, USA - JAN 6, 2003
3.3 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
OK, I"m a goober because I like it! It is one of the very best cheap beers out there. We keep a 12 pack in the fridge.
deftrager99 (7) - Grantham, Pennsylvania, USA - NOV 22, 2002 does not count
3.3 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 14/20
pretty good stuff but the private reserve is better and its cheap so eh whatever
Slick (1969) - Thief River Falls, Minnesota, USA - NOV 3, 2002
3.5 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 14/20
not bad was a little skeptical at first but it wasnt bad for a cheaper beer
ElGaucho (2280) - Minnetonka, Minnesota, USA - OCT 28, 2002
3.5 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 5/5 OVERALL 13/20
Sweet malt aroma. Dark gold with thin, fine bubble head. Nice flavor, but not nearly hoppy enough for a Pale. Nevertheless, makes for an exceedingly good session beer. As a stand alone, a little thin, but for volume, at least keeps your taste buds interested.