Suttree (5195) - Knoxville, Tennessee, USA - MAR 14, 2002
2 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
UPDATED: NOV 15, 2005 I think the recipe has changed since the early 90’s. It has a cloying sweetness, not very ’crisp’. Not a true lambic. Rerate, November 2005: Man, this stuff seems to get worse every year.
bluemeow76 (693) - Lewis Center, Ohio, USA - MAR 13, 2002
1.8 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 6/20
I couldn’t take more than a couple sips - way too bitter - just awful!
Dogbrick (8339) - Columbus, Ohio, USA - MAR 10, 2002
2.1 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 6/20
Let me start off by saying I like cranberries. Cranberry bread, cranberry muffins...but not cranberry beer. The aroma was interesting but I barely finished the bottle, and had to drink it in short doses to get through. Just not my thing I guess.
Drinkingdan (371) - East Norriton, Pennsylvania, USA - FEB 28, 2002
1.9 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 6/20
Just not my thing.
Terminus (3255) - Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA - FEB 25, 2002
2.8 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 12/20
UPDATED: NOV 7, 2005 bottle-rerate-ok, this was one of my top 5 lowest rated beers. It has been 4 years since i had this beer. I dont really think its that bad. I had to go back and give it a proper rating. pours orange with a small white head. aroma of oak, vineous berries, vanilla, lightly buttery (not diacytl). The aroma suggests oak barrel aging? It actually smells pretty good. flavors are a little on the tart side of cranberry with some sour notes. again the vanilla oak thing is apparent in the flavors. the body is a little on the thin side and the finish is medicinal moreso than the actual flavors. Its really not that bad. For years, i would’nt touch this beer with a 10 foot pole, but i dont think its that terrible anymore.
Alenightlong99 (70) - Lockport, Illinois, USA - FEB 25, 2002
1.7 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 2/10 PALATE 1/5 OVERALL 7/20
I am glad that this is a hard beer to find, because I don’t want any more of this. Cranberry is just going too far in the flavor world for beers.
igneous1 (1500) - Davenport, Iowa, USA - FEB 23, 2002
2.4 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 9/20
i have no experience with this style (although, it would appear, most here agree this isnt representative of a true lambic) but here goes...virtually nonexistent head, aroma is a combination of cloves and bubblegum. almost like a hefeweizen. color is coppery-reddish. tastes exactly like it smells. definitely a slight sour taste. aftertaste sticks around for a bit in my opinion. i dont sense the true taste of cranberries, and i love cranberries...the music and the fruit..ok, rerate....after having tried several Belgian lambics...the sam adams version is definitely too sweet
CrimsonGhost1971 (188) - USA - FEB 22, 2002
3.2 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 14/20
I always like to drink this when thanksgiving dinner is served. It seems to compliment the stuffing.
erway (1004) - Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA - FEB 4, 2002
1.2 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 1/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 2/20
As trappist ales rule pointed out this is no Lambic! Try Liefman’s and you’ll know what I mean. I don’t know what I’d call this,... Shit comes to mind. This is far and away the worst beer produced by any micro I’ve ever had. I actually poured it down the drain after a couple sips. A true disgrace to the name Lambic and a testament to why people need to look deeper than the grocery store when looking for a good beer.
666seth (222) - California, USA - JAN 16, 2002
2.8 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
UPDATED: JAN 6, 2003 Different but not bad. It feels weird on your tongue but very refreshing.