Racegoer (351) - Indiana, Indiana, USA - JAN 1, 2003
3 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
Bright orange amber in appearence,carmel malts, good hops, well balanced slightly bitter and a fair Ale at best
khayman70 (154) - Indianapolis, Indiana, USA - DEC 31, 2002
3.6 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 8/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 13/20
I am rating the best of the five pints that I drank. A couple of them were quite spoiled by the clear bottle. They had a skuny German smell, but the one bottle that wasn’t bad, did taste okay. It is a decent seasonal ale but it is too expensive in most cases. The price doesn’t warrent the flavor. The body is lighter than I have come to expect from a seasonal, and the flavors were mingled, but mildly crisp. The finish of the one good beer had a slight dry-pine hint. Not a great beer from Sam Smith, but drinkable.
Kodos (200) - USA - DEC 30, 2002
3.4 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 14/20
SS needs to use better glass. Their stuff just doesnt make the trip across the pond very well. 3 bottles of this = 2 skunks and 1 good version. Good version rating: Interesting orange color, well formed lasting head. Sweet with a good drying/bitter finish. Nothing special about this beer at all. Rating given for the good version.
BückDich (5464) - McCall, Idaho, USA - DEC 30, 2002
3.4 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 15/20
Light aroma, skosh of hops. Pour was unimpressive. Sweet initially but finishes very dry and bitter, pine finishes off the flavor. Really spendy where I got it, so I’ll stick to Celebration Ale for this season.
TheRimmer (483) - Florida, USA - DEC 29, 2002
3 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
UPDATED: NOV 25, 2004 I wasn’t too impressed. Awesome packaging though. It reminded me of, dare i say, Miller cold filtered. It had that ery clean, unasseritve taste. There was some hops in the finish and it reminded em slightly of almonds. However much better than the ghastly miller, this still wasn’t TOOOOO impressive. Nice big bottle, nice abv., and a decent effort. Could have used some more xmas spice. And everyone below me is right, there IS a bit of a skunk to the nose. What the previous years’ efforts yeilded I can’t say, but the 2002-2003 was below par for this brewery.
JMerritt (1735) - Macomb, Illinois, USA - DEC 26, 2002
2.6 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
Hey, glad to see that I wasn’t the only one who thought the aroma was skunky. Flavor is roasted malt, slight hops, and finishes rather malty and dry. I was quite disappointed with this beer.
MrRomero (1972) - Nolanville, USA - DEC 24, 2002
3.1 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
Skunky nose but once I got past it, it was a decent brew. Had sort of a coffee smell to it and a mocha drink kind of flavor. Go figure. Well balanced and enjoyable.
boto (1797) - Granby, Connecticut, USA - DEC 20, 2002
3.4 AROMA 7/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 14/20
Good, but not great. Has a bit of hoppiness to it, but not all that much. Slight maltiness too. Hint of spice. Perhaps I was expecting more, but it is a fairly non-dememo beer.
npdempse (933) - St. Petersburg, Florida, USA - DEC 19, 2002
2.7 AROMA 2/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
Nose: skunky. Flavor: kind of skunky, though there was an interesting fruity/hoppy thing going on under the skunkiness. I wish Sam Smith’s would stop putting beer in clear bottles to get lightstruck on the shelf.
Re-Rate: got a non-skunky one. Nice sweet, caramelly malt flavor. But nothing too special. And not special enough to make me reconsider my low rating when Smiths continues to put this in clear bottles year after year.
kyzr (1143) - Belgrade, Montana, USA - DEC 19, 2002
3.2 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 13/20
Been judged by many, nice easy drinking Sammy.