SilkTork (5297) - Rochester, Kent, United Kingdom, Kent, ENGLAND - FEB 4, 2003
2.3 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 11/20
UPDATED: DEC 24, 2005 Feb, 2003Caramel toffee sweet whiskey malt. Pleasant. Not outstanding, just pleasantly enjoyable. Something I would have again. [2.9]
Oct, 2003 A sweeter, juicier, maltier Brown Ale. Not great. [2.7]
Dec, 2005. Aroma of stale pale malt and stale cooking chocolate. Brisk, but not aggressive carbonation. Strongish pale malt. Barley sugar flavours from the pasteurising process. Carbonated water finish. Some rust, some metal. Tastes like what it is - a cheap strong ale. Itís drinkable, and itís not unpleasant. But it has many flaws and indications of bad brewing practise. [2.3]
Gregory (357) - Pullman, Washington, USA - JAN 31, 2003
3.1 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
sweet, malty. slightly spicey. The palate, is light. Not one of the better sam smith beers, I must say.
dhurtubise (568) - Hamilton, Ontario, CANADA - JAN 29, 2003
2 AROMA 3/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 3/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 9/20
Beautiful copper colour. Head retention is slightly below average. Light nose of caramel malts and grain. Flavour is grainy,very macro like. Too bad it comes in a 550ml bottle. Alcohol flavour is quite pronounced. Carbonation is quite lively. Some light skuniness (clear bottle). Sam Smith has better products out there.
Frank (3102) - Chicago, Illinois, USA - JAN 26, 2003
2.1 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 2/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
On pouring, there is an intitial skunky aroma. Hmmm... maybe Sammy Smith needs to finally switch to brown bottles. Looking past the skunk, there's really not much going on here. Crisp carbonation. Some sweetness. Wine-like notes in the finish. No head. Looks like apple juice with a slight froth on top.
Verne (263) - Enumclaw, Washington, USA - JAN 22, 2003
3.1 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 7/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 13/20
Simple malty, not much hop flavor. Good looking beer. Hides its alcohol to the point that you think 6% is a lie until you stand up. The easiest drinking strong seasonal beer I can think of
TheTsunami (162) - Arizona, USA - JAN 22, 2003
2.8 AROMA 4/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 12/20
Nose was almost non-existant. Flavor was slightly malty with just a hint of citrus. A disappointment.
michael-pollack (4960) - King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, USA - JAN 20, 2003
2.2 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 3/5 TASTE 4/10 PALATE 2/5 OVERALL 8/20
I am not a malt fan, and found the taste a bit overwhelming. Could benefit from a stronger hop finish. Citrus flavor is nice however.
beerstop (173) - Roanoke, Virginia, USA - JAN 19, 2003
2.9 AROMA 5/10 APPEARANCE 5/5 TASTE 5/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 10/20
My least favorite of the Sam Smith's by a long shot. Some caramel flavors. Some citrus flavors also. Aroma was borderline bad as it reminded me of many German lagers that I've tried (i.e. skunky). I have 3 more of these to try and maybe they will grow on me a bit.
TheBeerGod (5368) - Newport News, Virginia, USA - JAN 11, 2003
3.3 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 4/5 OVERALL 13/20
Pretty much the same to me every year and Iíve had it since the early í90ís. Nothing overwhelming. Decent head. Brown in color but not as dark as the Nut Brown Ale. Standard English ale aroma to it. Some bitterness and nuttiness to it. Definite malt but not overloaded. Not sensing the floral-ness mentioned. Definitely worth drinking. The label changes every year for you enthusiasts out there.
Vac (2445) - San Diego, California, USA - JAN 11, 2003
3.2 AROMA 6/10 APPEARANCE 4/5 TASTE 6/10 PALATE 3/5 OVERALL 13/20
Bright clear orange-amber color topped with a very thick creamy head with good lace. Slightly sweet yet lemony sour aroma with a slight hoppiness. Malty flavor with a good hop balance and a slight sweet smokiness. The finish is dry and hoppy. medium bodied and dry.