1. The wait is over! Download the BeerAdvocate app on iTunes or Google Play now.
  2. Get 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine for only $9.99!

Samuel Smith's Pure Brewed Lager Beer - Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster)

Not Rated.
Samuel Smith's Pure Brewed Lager BeerSamuel Smith's Pure Brewed Lager Beer

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
86
very good

491 Ratings
THE BROS
94
outstanding

(view ratings)
Ratings: 491
Reviews: 303
rAvg: 3.84
pDev: 12.76%
Wants: 37
Gots: 19 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) visit their website
United Kingdom (England)

Style | ABV
Euro Pale Lager |  5.00% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: BeerAdvocate on 08-10-2001)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Usefulness | Recent | High | Low | Top Raters | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of Samuel Smith's Pure Brewed Lager Beer Alström Bros
Ratings: 491 | Reviews: 303 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of pootz
3/5  rDev -21.9%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Bottle from IHB trade fest thanks Paul.

My first Sam Smith's lager...anticipation is maxed.

The pour reveals a liquid that can call itself a proper lager....straw-gold with a frothy white 3 finger cap..good lace.

Aroma is a tad sweeter than I like in a lager but there are ample bready notes and some dry hay.

Malty sweet with light stabs of target bittering, some floral essence here, light fruity notes???...clean finish.

A substantial beer but has too many tastes in it that should not be in a lager...although it is well made and satisfying

pootz, Oct 14, 2007
Photo of mwar
3/5  rDev -21.9%

mwar, Nov 30, 2012
Photo of Beefytits4
3/5  rDev -21.9%

Beefytits4, Nov 03, 2013
Photo of JAHMUR
3/5  rDev -21.9%

JAHMUR, Jan 09, 2012
Photo of Scoats
3/5  rDev -21.9%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

This beer is amazingly average. Pleasant but not great. I guess I one never knows what to expect frrom a generic "lager" but I was expecting something more. More color, more flavor, more anything. So what is this beer? I imagine this is what Heineken would taste if it was unskunked and fresh. Not a bad beer but not worth the high price.

Scoats, Sep 05, 2003
Photo of TheDM
3/5  rDev -21.9%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

This brew poured a small head of fine to medium sized white bubbles that left little lacing and a cloudy straw yellow carbonated body. It has a plesant malt-hop aroma. Ifelt it was a rather smooth brew with a mild hop flavor. Its a nice all-around brew, but nothing special to write home about.

TheDM, Jun 18, 2003
Photo of chucksim
3/5  rDev -21.9%

chucksim, Dec 06, 2011
Photo of GatorCoop
3/5  rDev -21.9%

GatorCoop, May 07, 2014
Photo of deltatauhobbit
3.03/5  rDev -21.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Didn't find much difference between Samuel Smiths own Organic Lager and this Pure Brewed Lager.

Pours a clear, golden color with minimal head.

Smell is dominantly hops with very little malt.

Fairly smooth taste with some hop bitterness, has a little more malt than the Organic, still thin tasting though.

This beer still won't make me a lager fan.

deltatauhobbit, Dec 29, 2007
Photo of TMoney2591
3.03/5  rDev -21.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.75 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Served in a Lagunitas mason jar.

For whatever reason, I have Aerosmith's "I Don't Wanna Miss a Thing" stuck in my head right now... Anyway, this stuff pours a clear brass topped by a finger of off-white foam. The nose comprises lightly-buttered biscuit, very light grass, and a hint of honey. The taste holds notes of dried honey, light toffee, even lighter biscuit, and a vague sense of funky lemon peel. The body is a light medium, with a light moderate carbonation and a fluid feel. Overall, though I could possibly see this working well on cask (don't ask me why, I just get that impression here), it just didn't do it for me out of the bottle. This is quite the letdown.

TMoney2591, Feb 07, 2013
Photo of VWBuggirl
3.03/5  rDev -21.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

This had a golden yellow color that is crystal clear, little foam and almost no lacing. As for the scent, there isn't much depth to it. Mainly maltiness. I agree with a previous reviewer that it is quite grainy, but in a non-skunked way.

This is a pretty standard euro pale lager, nothing special.

VWBuggirl, Mar 20, 2010
Photo of speterson1
3.08/5  rDev -19.8%

speterson1, Sep 06, 2014
Photo of radshoesbro
3.08/5  rDev -19.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

a - very typical of a lager. better head than average with alright lacing. i don't normally drink beers this light so i'm not super into tasting it.

s - doesn't smell like anything i like. cabbage comes to mind. very light hops..VERY light hops. no malts that i can smell.

t - okay, way better than i expected from the looks of it (but it's samuel smith's so i don't know why i wasn't psyched on drinking it). for a lager this is great. for something i'd normally drink i'm not so into it. i don't really taste the biscuit flavor everyone is talking about. it's a pretty average lager.

m - light bodied with an alright finish. the taste of it leaves your mouth after about 30 seconds though.

notes: i'm not so into this. it's better than most lagers, but i'm not so into this type of beer. personally wouldn't recommend it unless you're really really into lagers.

radshoesbro, Oct 14, 2005
Photo of brewdlyhooked13
3.1/5  rDev -19.3%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Appearance - honeyed orange appearance. Finely bubbled bead. Initial head is lively and a bit soapy, but reduces to a thin film quickly.

Aroma - dry, crackery nose with a light peppery note. Fades into obscurity.

Taste - English malts, slightly buttery, taste is good but a little watered down.

Mouthfeel - to the thin side but nicely carbonated.

Drinkability - a tasty but rather indistinctive brew. For the price I can do better.

brewdlyhooked13, Jan 15, 2006
Photo of drpimento
3.1/5  rDev -19.3%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Poured with a nice head and some lace has a nice light malty aroma. Pleasing gold color. Nice body. Very well balanced. Not a lot of flavor. Super subtle. Clean. Just not a lot there. Finish is similar to the rest. Guess it's not bad, kind of boring. I like all the other Sam Smiths a lot more.

drpimento, Sep 19, 2008
Photo of HochFliegen
3.1/5  rDev -19.3%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3.5

Light copper in appearance. Well developed head, but didnt last but a few minutes(due to my glass?). Smell was very subtle to me. It was a slight hoppines aroma. Taste was quite smooth and mellow. Very easy to enjoy. Almost tastes of pears of some other fruit I couldnt quite put my finger on it.

HochFliegen, Dec 23, 2003
Photo of Bruiser81
3.13/5  rDev -18.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

This brew was a sort of hazy color with a very small head, and thats with an aggressive pour. There wasn't any lacing either. There was a large amount of bubbles rising to the surface though. The aroma consisted sweet malts, a grassy aroma, and a sort of metallic aroma. I have no idea where the metallic smell came from? The aroma was complex, but not very good. The taste was not very good either. There was a malt taste up front followed by a grassy taste and it finished with a weird metallic flavor. Where is that coming from? Overall I was not impressed especially considering the brewery, however I don't care for many lagers.

Bruiser81, Mar 10, 2003
Photo of bambam2517
3.18/5  rDev -17.2%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

330ml bottle poured into a pint glass at 40F.

A - Very pale straw color, short-lived froth that dissipates to a watery ring, slight effervescence in the body.

S - Faintly floral, some light hops aroma.

T - Refreshing and mildly hoppy, but not outstanding. Pretty standard actually, falling in line with the Buds and Coors of the world. The floral aftertaste is an improvement over American macrolagers, but is not present in enough abundance to score higher.

M - Light and clean, pleasant.

O - This one is easy to enjoy, wouldn't mind a few in a row at a wedding or the like. Much better values to be had though. Look elsewhere.

bambam2517, Dec 23, 2012
Photo of avalon07
3.18/5  rDev -17.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Poured from a bottle to a pilsener glass. Had a clear texture and a bright golden color. Left a big, creamy head and some okay lacing.

There was a bit of citrus in the smell, along with some hops. Not particularly overwhelming.

I was a little let down with the taste. There was a mild hops flavor, but mainly it just seemed watery to me. Could've been better.

The mouthfeel was decent, with an okay amount of carbonation. Had a somewhat slick, syrupy finish.

On the whole, this was a little disappointing to me. While I've certainly had worse beers, I expected a much richer, more complex beer from Sam Smith. It was like they were intent on imitating lesser, more mainstream beers.

avalon07, Feb 18, 2008
Photo of flagmantho
3.18/5  rDev -17.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Poured from 550mL bottle into a pint glass.

Appearance: very slightly hazy yellow-gold color with two fingers of foamy head. Pretty nice looking.

Smell: very grainy and a little citrusy. It seems a little raw to me.

Taste: not bad, but I'm not really impressed. Again, it seems a little grainy and raw; it's not adjunct-y or skunky, though. Hops are rather citrusy, which isn't bad. Overall, this is an average beer.

Mouthfeel: light side of medium with a good level of carbonation.

Drinkability: well, its flavor is not my favorite but overall it is a pretty drinkable package. In a hot-weather or hot-food context, I'm sure I could down a couple of these; however, I doubt I'll seek this one out in future.

flagmantho, Jan 20, 2010
Photo of RedwoodGeorge
3.18/5  rDev -17.2%
look: 2.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

I've always enjoyed the Samuel Smith dark beers and when I saw this lager in the store I couldn't pass up the chance to try it.

The beer poured a very pale gold and if it weren't for the thick, persistent white head it could have easily been confused with any of the macros. One smell, though, and you knew this wasn't any ordinary lager - it had a nice yeasty nose to compliment the malt character and a light hop note to suggest a balanced brew.

Unfortunately, the taste didn't quite follow up on the promise of the smell - it was a rather mild lager with a mild malt taste and a soft hop finish. The mouthfeel was similar to the taste - pretty inconsequential. It could have been any of a dozen inoffensive lagers with no real character.

Overall, it was drinkable, certainly - you could drink a few without being overwhelmed, but there really wasn't anything to recommend this particular lager of any other.

RedwoodGeorge, Jul 20, 2004
Photo of philbe311
3.2/5  rDev -16.7%
look: 3 | smell: 4 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

A - Pale gold color... Slight head quickly dissappears and leaves no discernable lacing... Nothing memorable...

S - Malt and grains... Buttery biscuit... Maybe some european hops... A nice scent for a lager...

T - Mild hops... Oats... Stale biscuit...

M - Medium bodied and dry...

D - I've recently become a big fan of the Samuel Smith family of beers, but this was a big dissappointment... Not much substance other then a nice aroma...

philbe311, Jun 10, 2008
Photo of ryanocerus
3.23/5  rDev -15.9%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Golden color with moderate creamy head that dissipated quickly. No carbonation to speak of and there was a faint sweet aroma. The beer had a mild hoppy taste and the lack of carbonation gave it an average mouthfeel. A mild beer overall but not worth three times the price of most macros.

ryanocerus, Jul 26, 2002
Photo of daliandragon
3.23/5  rDev -15.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

I always kind of wondered why Sam Smith's put their Imperial Russian and Oatmeal stouts in clear botttles and their lagers in brown ones. If you're going to protect the lesser stuff from sunlight, why not protect the quality as well? Alas, I still don't have an answer, but let's review this "pure brewed" action anyway.

Color is a light golden with a respectable cap of head and a yeast influenced nose with hints of citrus. Remarkably clean for a lager smell, which is a plus.

Taste has clean crystal malt and a small amount of residual hoppiness but not much. Actuallly, in general, like the Annoat system (a shout out to Star Wars geeks), there's not much there. There is a slightly unpleasant grassy note to the taste and mouthfeel is strangely overdry one sip and refreshing the next. This isn't even real good for the style, like I expected; I feel a little cheated for my $3..99 for 18.7 oz. It hurts to give Sam Smith such a low score, but I have to call 'em like I see 'em.

daliandragon, Oct 30, 2006
Photo of robotiks
3.25/5  rDev -15.4%

robotiks, Apr 27, 2014
Samuel Smith's Pure Brewed Lager Beer from Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster)
86 out of 100 based on 491 ratings.