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 (3041) - 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 (1475) - 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.
dolemike1 (1288) - Jeannette, Pennsylvania, USA - JAN 7, 2002
2.8 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
Lambic or Wheat beer who gives a damn. Either way its not that great. Fair cranberry flavor. Pretty average beer, nothing remarkable.
ribrewmaster99 (11) - Warwick, Rhode Island, USA - DEC 31, 2001
3 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
Weak carbonation and head. A little hazy. Too cranberryish (tart) for my taste. Not a true lambic, should have been called ’Cranberry wheat’. I’ll try it again, but only if someone else is buying.
Beloved Beer (278) - California, USA - DEC 25, 2001
3.1 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
A bit weak for a wheat beer. A hint of cranberry in the flavor. In the end it was just an all around weak beer. Although, not bad nothing stands out about it.