1. Get 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine for only $14.99 (US/print only). Offer ends April 30. Subscribe now! (Because great beer deserves great stories AND readers.)

Cascade Pale Ale - Cascade Brewery Company Ltd.

Not Rated.
Cascade Pale AleCascade Pale Ale

Educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
65
poor

36 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 36
Reviews: 24
rAvg: 2.49
pDev: 22.89%
Wants: 0
Gots: 1 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Cascade Brewery Company Ltd. visit their website
Australia

Style | ABV
English Pale Ale |  5.20% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes & Commercial Description:
Beer added by: brewdlyhooked13 on 06-17-2002

No notes at this time.
View: Beers (11) | Events
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
to view more.
Ratings: 36 | Reviews: 24
Reviews by MCDub:
More User Reviews:
Photo of rastaman
2.38/5  rDev -4.4%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Very light, slight buttery/oily note, bit too fizzy or something aswell, which takes marks of its drinkability, very light colour aswell, its not bad, but its not good.

Photo of Anonmatel
2.8/5  rDev +12.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

What stareted out as a promising beer quickly turned into something not so.

Apperance is the usual, light ale, what looks like decent carbonation, nice frothy head.

Smells hoppy, hint of fruits. very nice smell indeed

but then comes the tatse, takes too bitter without much hops present (what i like in a pale ale)

It's still quite Drinkable, but it's one of those beers that has a lot of early expectations, then falls short.

Photo of Andrewziggy
2.43/5  rDev -2.4%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.75

Malty mouthfeel hint of hops not bad

Photo of Franchise
2.58/5  rDev +3.6%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

This offering from Cascade poured a pale yellow with a soft bubbly head. The nose is weak, not much going on, soft hop smells are followed by a sour veggie presence. The taste is pungent, harsh bitterness that dominats with a processed sugar sweetness that finishes again harsh from the high carbonation.

Photo of CrazyDavros
1.88/5  rDev -24.5%
look: 2 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Pours amber with a small quickly fading head.
Nose shows grainy malt with a hint of spicy hops. Very light on.
Flavours show some grainy malt with slight sweetness before a very dry metallic bitter finish (POR?).
Body feels very watery, carbonation is pretty high.

Photo of Kulrak
2.86/5  rDev +14.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Poured a light golden color with no head. No smell to speak of. The taste is pretty good, slightly sweet with just enough bitterness to balance it out and finish clean. I didn't notice anything particularly good about this beer, but nothing was bad about it, either. All in all, it's an easy drinking beer, but nothing to write home about.

Photo of norwichboy
1.37/5  rDev -45%
look: 3 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 1

Ironically the label says it is "pale in name only", which could more fittingly read "ale in name only" - quite clearly this is a lager! Aware that this beer has been around for some time, I initially thought this is one of those aberrations of Australian beer nomenclature that has stuck (like Victoria Bitter), but the reason was clarified by when I visited the brewery. The person I spoke with there said that yes it was a lager - it did start off as an ale, but the alcohol content was rather high - so to reduce the ABV they "changed the recipe", whilst keeping the name. Turning it into a lager seems a bit more than fine tuning to me, but there you go.

So now we've established it's a lager, is it any good? Well sadly I have to say that I find this a dreadful insipid beer, whatever type it is. On the positive side, like most Cascade beers it does produce a good head and lacing, and there's a good balanced level of carbonation. However, it has so little aroma and taste I just cannot get anything from it. I hesitated to give such low marks, but I've tried to give this beer a go a few times and I honestly cannot think of many beers I have been so thoroughly disappointed with.

Photo of joecast
3.21/5  rDev +28.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

had this beer before and remembered it being fairly bitter and that i didnt really like it. something (aside from the bottle it comes in) must have changed.

clear light amber in color. very fine head doesnt stick around long. lacking aroma however.

this is a clean tasting beer. that is, there isnt much malt or hop flavor to it and has a smooth finish. of course this is better than having a sour taste i almost expected. if this is the intended product, i think its a lot better than what i remember.

Photo of aeolianshredhead
1.48/5  rDev -40.6%
look: 2 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1 | overall: 1.5

There is no way this is a Pale Ale. I could smell it from the bottle- that typical, bland Australian macro-lager smell.

A- Just as I feared. No different from any other offering by ANY macro Aussie outlet. Little to no head.

S- Very faint hoppiness. Maybe some stale yeast.

T- Oh, god.. What we have here is an offensive, out of place sweetness which blends terribly with a bland, faint grain. There's nothing else to note at all.

M- Far too watery and insipid. This has no real bite of carbonation either.

O- This beer sucks. I am very disappointed to be honest. Nothing else to say, really.

Photo of Macca
2.36/5  rDev -5.2%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

So as almost everybody below has noted this ain't no pale ale. It's a lager. Does nobody at Cascade/CUB/Fosters care about truth in labeling? Head meet wall I suppose.

Anyway...

It pours a crystal clear light golden colour with a generous white head.

Reasonably clean smelling with only a hint of that macro lager graininess. Maybe a touch of corn.

And there is the graininess: all over the palate.

Mouthfeel? As expected. Meh.

What an average beer. And you know what makes it worse? Fosters markets it as part of its "craft" portfolio along with Matilda Bay.

Photo of WHROO
2.56/5  rDev +2.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

A: Golden, 1 finger head, good carbonation, with gr8 lacing...something about Aussie mainstreams: always great lacing.

S: very bland, maybe a touch citrus, little skunky.

T: Typical lagerish aussie macro up front but then a malty finish, clean & dry...with subtle bitterness. All up tho very bland.

M: Medium, with soft carbs across the palate...leaves a coating on the tongue.

D: Typical slam it down hard beer...one of those beers that is not too awful, but definately not very good...just too boring & bland...not too malty, not too bittery, no noble hops...gee, wish it gave me something!!!

Too Boring!!! Maybe a paired with food might be an improvement but doubt it....shame too, cos Cascade ain't too bad.

Photo of soju6
2.58/5  rDev +3.6%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.75 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

A: pours a clear straw color with a small head that fades to bits of lacing.

S: Aroma has that musty Euro Lager tinge, with some malt sweetness.

T: Taste of malt sweetness and bit of fruit. Tangy bitterness and and a lingering aftertaste that is a bit metallic.

F: Light body, fairly smooth.

O: Just another Pale Lager in an ocean of lager beer

Photo of hefevice
3.2/5  rDev +28.5%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Pale is the operative word, light gold with very little head. Nothing much in the way of aroma, a little hop spice with a light malt background. Taste is all in the finish, a pleasant charactistic English biscuit balances a lingering smooth bitterness, by far the strongest point of the beer. Quite drinkable.

Photo of koolk
2.88/5  rDev +15.7%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A good clean amber colour with a hard head and good carbonation.

Flavours and aromas are straight down the line...malt, hops, malt, hops. Nothing that is really exciting, just a good easy drinker.

A touch of bitterness in the end but only a touch. Good long finish. Nice.

Photo of vancurly
3.33/5  rDev +33.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

Yellow gold. Thick head, some sparkle in the body. Fades to a ring, but leaves a fair lace.
Nice malty nose mixed with grassy hop and a grainy note. However, towards the end of the bottle, the nose tends to lend itself to fruit, almost sauv blanc-ish...
The taste screams of Pride of Ringwood.... the workhouse of Aussie beers far & wide. Maybe I'm wrong... but I'm certainly having flashbacks of sneaking into pubs before I was of age (I am not condoning such behaviour, kids).
Again, a grainy, almost corn-like hint on the palate....
Nice mouthfeel, medium bodied. It has a refreshing bitterness, which, for mine, makes this an excellent "cleanser".
Mind you, I didn't know that the "English Pale Ale" category included Aussie Lager-clones. Perhaps the late-bottle, fruity nose may lean it towards an ale, but if I was blindfolded, I would swear this was a lager.

Photo of laituegonflable
2.04/5  rDev -18.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

Pours a champagne colour with furious, aggressive bubbling feeding a nice white head of pebbly bubbles. Sinking slowly from the top and leaving some impressive specks of steamy lace behind. It looks great, but overcarbonated. A German lager should fizz like that, not a pale ale.

Nose is quite sour, with a bourbon kind of character and a fair hit of vinegar as well. Big whiff of yeast in there contributes to the sourness as well, and malt seems a bit unbalanced, verging on diacetyl sweetness. Not a strong nose, smells raw and off-balance.

Taste is not bad at first, with a slightly tart vinous character. Gets a little sweet and buttery with a mild fruit hit like green apple, and then the guillotine drops when I realise it's primarily a pride of ringworm affair; that dreadful cloying doughy character which just leaves the sensation of unpleasant grit in your mouth. Luckily it's not sharp enough to be undrinkable, but the flavour it reaches and the one it leaves are certainly undesirable.

Mouthfeel is pretty thin, although annoyingly sticky, it feels like it leaves a film inside your mouth upon exiting, just maybe a bit viscous, not very nice anyway. Yeah, I'll happily leave this one on the shelf next time.

Photo of BeerNutta
1/5  rDev -59.8%
look: 1 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

Simply terrible.

Poured a pale straw colour. From the get go, this beer skunked bad.

Took a gulp. Tasted worse. Slight hop bitterness followed by this dirty malt aftertaste that made we want to bring it all back up.

The worst beer I have ever had. Simply avoid at all costs.

Photo of BeerManDan
2.2/5  rDev -11.6%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

While visiting Hobart, tried this beer and didn't like it out of the bottle. To bitter and not much of a taste. Then tried it on-tap and thought the same thing. NOTHING interesting here!

Photo of Cs1987
3.01/5  rDev +20.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 4.5

Appearance - 3.5 - Golden, 1 finger of head which reduced.

Smell - 2.5 - Lacks the fruity smells that are expected from ales.

Taste - 2.5 - Quite boring and lacking in taste compared to the widely available high quality Australian ales, including those from the Little Creatures and James Squire ranges. Shares a rather off putting taste similar to Australian macro lagers when served at fridge temperature. It is sweeter and tastier in general a few degrees above fridge temperature.

Mouthfeel - 3 - Low carbonation, average aftertaste.

Drinkability - 4.5 - I actually find this very drinkable, just as long as it isn't served at fridge temperature. Never drink this any colder than about 8 Celsius. Ever.

Overall - This "ale" disappointed me, simply because of the fruitiness and general high quality I expect from pale ales. However, I do prefer this to macro lagers, and I would recommend Cascade PA as an alternative. It is similarly priced to most full strength macro lagers, but better.

Photo of doktorhops
2.04/5  rDev -18.1%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Another in the scores of Aussie beers out there that completely under-whelm me with the thought of drinking them. I mean lets face it; anything that comes in a 375ml "stubbie" size bottle that doesn't have Coopers written on it will surely disappoint, but hey let's give Pale Ale a chance.

Poured from a 375ml bottle into a conical pint glass.

A: Typical Aussie lager look - amber body, weak fizzy white head that leaves a cobweb lacing. There is a slight haze to the body but we all know this is some additive macro brewers use to make it look bottle conditioned.

S: This is without a doubt the least hop smelling pale ale I've ever set my nose on. May as well be a lager with the aroma action going on here: grains, grains and more grains, with a musty rotten vegetable smell (which can only be Pride of Ringwood hops)... Pride of Ringwood hops in a Pale Ale? Yuck!

T: Same again: grains, grains, grains and a weak back note of bitterness. No real hop flavour in a Pale Ale, disgusting! If I wanted a lager I would have bought a lager Cascade.

M: Belchy, gassy Aussie lager nonsense. I'm going to be belching all night now, thanks Cascade. Watery body as expected of a lager (not a Pale Ale).

D: Fail of the most titanic proportions. This beer is not a Pale Ale. If you're looking for a Pale Ale please do not drink this beer! Other than that it rates below average as a lager and I can't imagine I'll ever buy it again (there are much better brews out there).

Food match: Also don't waste good food on this beer. A simple fish & chips will suffice, no need to attempt enjoying a tasty rib-eye fillet or whatnot with this sad disappointment of an ale.

Photo of diablo14
2.42/5  rDev -2.8%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

definatlely a beer that promises much and delivers little. im sure there was a time this beer had it all happening, but with modern brewing techniques has lost all character of note. its become nothing more than a beer wannabes drink to say theyve had a beer thats not a premium lager.

nothing remarkably different from the usual lagers, but doesnt have that cloudy hint i feel all good pales should have. decent head, and a fair bit of carbonation fizzing around in there which is always a nice sight. aroma suggested hops in a big way. seeing as there wasnt much else there to go on i thought that if this is reflected in the flavor then i could say it was in the vein of some english lagers which are brewed to give the hops full reign. problem here is that while those english lagers scream hops on the nose, they back it up with a lovely subtle but still tasty beer, and a real blast of bitey hoppy bitterness. this beer does nothing. weak malts, and no hops in the flavor which was incredibly disappointing. not a bad feel in the mouth, a bit of zing there, but again, please use hops for this effect and not fizz.

a real let down overall this brew. starts of like it could be great and goes nowhere. i dont think theres anything that annoys me more about a beer than that. well actually it does go somewhere, down into the ranks of yet another ordinary aussie beer.

Photo of jarmby1711
3.36/5  rDev +34.9%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Mid gold with a tightly bubbled white head.There was a minimal but persistent bead.
The aroma was malt dominated but it was pretty low key .
The taste was mostly malt in the initial palate , the middle having some nutmegand cloves and the finish evr so slighty sharp yeast .
In the mouth the maltiness gives the beer an oily feel and it isa bit cloying.
NOt so mush a Pale ALe as a European Lager in my view.Butter than ordinary but only just

Photo of XsoldoutX
1.54/5  rDev -38.2%
look: 1.5 | smell: 1.25 | taste: 1.75 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

Okay, let's go ahead and say that this beer IN NO WAY RESEMBLES ANYTHING CLOSELY RELATED TO A PALE ALE...at all. The color looks like a watered down Bud Light. Yet, there it is clearly marked on the label as one.

color: pale straw
taste/flavor: not good, but somehow better than "total butt".
mouthfeel: nothing that makes me want to take another sip.

It's a stretch for me to give this a 1.5 as opposed to a 1.25.

Photo of kdcreagh
2.36/5  rDev -5.2%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Cascade Pale Ale has often been hard to come by in Queensland. It's not often stocked in the major chains, and often you're left to the larger warehouse suppliers (1st Choice) to purchase. I remember a few years ago now I managed to find some 750ML bottles of this beer and thoroughly enjoyed them on a hot Australia Day.

So tonight, I saw Cascade were on special and thought I'd chance it again having not had the beer for a long time. Recently, we've enjoyed the Bright Ale and Lager. What a disappointment the repackaged Pale Ale is.

The appearance is first-class - exactly what you'd expect from a commercial brewer of the scale of Cascade.

However, that's where the good ends and the bad begins. There is just no body to this ale, and being an avid home brewer, I have a pretty good knowledge of how beer is made, the selection of grain and hops to make a good, if not, great ale.

A nice malted mouth-feel, a hint of hops and some slight bitterness - trademarks of a classic ale. This beer had none of these. There is the most slight malt taste, almost no discernible hop flavoring and almost no bitterness on the palate.

What was worse for me was the complete lack of unique character or body. This could have been brewed by anybody. Cascade make some great beers - check out their stout for example. But this ale was flat, flavorless and totally unremarkable.

to view more.
Cascade Pale Ale from Cascade Brewery Company Ltd.
65 out of 100 based on 36 ratings.