Jorufo (5) - Orlando, Florida, USA - JUL 9, 2002 does not count
1.4 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 2/20
Tastes too much like medicine
ClarkVV (3892) - Allston, Massachusetts, USA - JUL 9, 2002
2.2 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
UPDATED: JAN 17, 2005 2001 bottle. pours a nice whitish-yellow. I was so impressed that the cranberry was subtle after having the cherry wheat. I love the bitterness too. why dont they make this not seasonal so i can study it more!
2002 bottle. Well I had it the next release the winter after this. TERRIBLE. one word, CLOYING. It had this nasty maple syrup taste that pervaded the beer and lingered on the palate forcing me to rinse my mouth out with something else. Letís see what next season brings.
2004 bottle Garbage. Lightly sweet cranberries, some light pils malts. This resembles a lambic about as much as I resemble a giraffe. Itís funny, though, I still do remember that first bottle back in 2001 being pretty good. Probably just an inexperienced palate, though. Canít imagine this was ever actually good.
austinpowers (2826) - New York, New York, USA - JUN 24, 2002
4.2 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 18/20
A refreshing wheaty taste paired up with a not-too-tart berry flavor. I know this is sacrilege, but it made me briefly think of Rodenbach. Wheatier than the Cherry Wheat. The bottle says maple syrup is added to counteract the tartness, but you canít taste it. Better than it sounds.
JohnDo2000 (99) - Metairie, Louisiana, USA - MAY 31, 2002
2.3 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 9/20
Iím a falvored beer fan myself, but Iím not too keen on Sam Adams flavored beers. Love cranberries, but didnít seem to work out here. A bit too tart. If given to me Iíd drink it, but I wouldnít buy it or anything. Iíll stick with the plain old boston lager.
obxdude10 (2077) - Pottstown, Pennsylvania, USA - MAY 13, 2002
3.6 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 16/20
Very fruity nose, a decent darker color for a wheat beer, a dry aftertaste
dirtymike (2016) - Manchester, New Hampshire, USA - MAY 12, 2002
2.5 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 10/20
Not a lambic, not a lambic, not a lambic. Ok, Iím through now.
karl (158) - Glendale, New York, USA - APR 14, 2002
2.9 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
This is the only one from Sam Adams, i have not liked. Try a true Belgain Lambic...
Volgon (2763) - Manchester, New Hampshire, USA - APR 14, 2002
2.6 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 9/20
UPDATED: JAN 11, 2004 Re-rate 4/14/02: One month past expiration date. The head stays around, and the taste is intensely fruity on the sour side. Hardly the same beer. Much more mellow. 11/01: Very sour. I'm going to let a bottle age for 6 months to a year and see if it helps.
PSUJason99 (96) - Montclair, New Jersey, USA - MAR 30, 2002
3 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
The bubble were cool...the flavor was decent, if you can find it, try a 6 pack
Skred (107) - Houma, Louisiana, USA - MAR 14, 2002
2.5 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
Definitely more beer-like than the Belgian lambics Iíve had, which is a plus for me. The cranberry is not overpowering, leaving this tasting more like a regular wheat beer, and I like the slightly pinkish tinge to the color, but the aroma is just a little bit off. Nothing to shout about, but not terrible. If I were on more friendly terms with dairy products (I like them, they donít like me), I might try a cranberry lambic float.