goldbrew (99) - USA - SEP 21, 2007
3.2 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 12/20
UPDATED: NOV 12, 2007 Poured into a lager glass. Seeing some negative reviews here but I was marginally impressed with this beer. Relaxed and smooth with no lingering chemical tastes, perhaps a result of the organic ingredients. The beer doesnít sit with you with delayed flavors, but assimilates with you quickly. Maybe that doesnít make any sense, but that was the feeling.
bierchik (95) - lakewood, California, USA - AUG 26, 2004
3.2 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 15/20
i thought it was OK, it wasnít bad at all, very light in color & in aroma. was really smooth, donít know if i would buy this again though.
linkolnlogg (94) - your home, Minnesota, USA - AUG 17, 2006
3 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 14/20
Pours out a clear golden colour with a nice frothy head. Scent is sweet. Taste is very lightly hopped at first and then quickly proceeds into a honey and malt combo which ends in mostly just the malt with a hint of sweetness on the palate. Above average character in comparision to alot of lagers I have thus encountered.
Danny1217 (81) - Miami, Florida, USA - DEC 7, 2011
3.2 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 12/20
UPDATED: SEP 3, 2013 Not sure why some of the ratings are so low. This lager is crisp, refreshing and inoffensive.
REDBOSOX (80) - Vineyard Haven, Massachusetts, USA - JUN 11, 2008
2.6 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 7/20
I liked this beer, but itís not as good as Samuel Smithís usual great quality. Iíve had organic beers that were better. This one wasnít bad to me, although it just didnít have the full flavor that Samuel Smtih is usually known for. An average beer, in my opinion.
MontereyJimbo (79) - Monterey, California, USA - NOV 26, 2007
3.7 AROMA 8/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 15/20
The last "organically" produced beer I sampled was flushworthy. This one is very good; good balance of hops, right amount of bitterness and carbonation and has a pleasing and somewhat complex nose. None of that crappy sweet maltiness or burnt malt that induces reverse peristalsis is found here. This is a very good lager.
awwshiz (76) - USA - AUG 23, 2007
2.4 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
Not completely what I expected from a Samuel Smith brew. As with anything Organic, itís not as good, its probably not really organic, but it might be bought up buy the elusive hippie demographic. Then again it is a pale lager, so itís better than its competitors in this market, and its understandable why SS would make this
openwindow (67) - Manchester, New Hampshire, USA - FEB 3, 2005
2.9 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
Maybe this didnít survive the trip that well to the states.... Bright straw color with fast disappearing foamy white head. Good hoppy bite on the front with a less-than-palatable finish.
WesBeerGuy (62) - Rocky Hill, Connecticut, USA - JUN 1, 2005
2.6 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
Huh. Canít really smell anything at all, except a faint generic beer flavor. Looks like beer, tastes like beer. Pretty decent for a generic lager, I suppose. I guess I could drink a lot of it without complaining, because itís good, but it is not THAT good, especially not for $3.99. Ok, but I wonít buy it again. Worst Sam Smith out there.
calivania (62) - USA - OCT 29, 2006
2.5 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 10/20
This lager flattens out way too quickly-- the hops in the nose leave the party just when it should be getting started.The mouth feel is a little too thin. Not their best.