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 Winter Welcome Ale - Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster)

Not Rated.
Samuel Smith's Winter Welcome AleSamuel Smith's Winter Welcome Ale

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
83
good

1,779 Ratings
THE BROS
84
good

(view ratings)
Ratings: 1,779
Reviews: 1,074
rAvg: 3.67
pDev: 12.53%
Wants: 21
Gots: 55 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) visit their website
United Kingdom (England)

Style | ABV
Winter Warmer |  6.00% ABV

Availability: Winter

Notes/Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: BeerAdvocate on 01-29-2001)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Usefulness | Recent | High | Low | Top Raters | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of Samuel Smith's Winter Welcome Ale Alström Bros
Ratings: 1,779 | Reviews: 1,074 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of kbub6f
3.78/5  rDev +3%

I enjoyed this last year and was looking forward to seeing it again this year. I've had some off-tasting Sam Smiths in Texas, so I snatched this up the day it came into the store. I was rewarded with a fresh bottle.

The head is medium-sized, a creamy tan-colored and dense. Nice. Body is clear, deep amber. Also nice. The aroma is sweet caramel with just a touch of metal. It's probably too cold. Nice grainy malt notes with fruit. A little sour. Nice bitter finish with tangy malt. Bready when warm. Good hoppy burps. This is very fruity, quite malty and nicely bitter. It really needs to warm, though.

kbub6f, Nov 04, 2003
Photo of WVbeergeek
3.73/5  rDev +1.6%

2003-2004 Winter Welcome Ale

Appearance: Pours a copper tone with a cream colored rather thin head forms full dwindles kind of fast, lacing is formed in a big collar than with each sip the rings become more and more sparse. Aroma: Fruits seared in alchohol come through with a very mild burn, and this one contains more hops than I was expecting. Floral hopping with a slighty nutty doughy edge to it characteristic of many of the Sam Smith's I've tried. Taste: The malt profile consists of a doughy sweetness backed by fruit tones, alcohol notes, and a great nutty flavor. The most impressive part of this ale was it's hop profile fairly hoppy bitter finish tops of the flavor for me. Mouthfeel: A tad thin sort of a sharrp carbonation in my eyes a Winter Warmer needs to have more body going on. Drinkability: Decent not a beer I yearn for but glad I tried this year's edition after passing on it last year numerous times.

WVbeergeek, Nov 03, 2003
Photo of Stopper
4.2/5  rDev +14.4%

This light-colored barleywine pours a transparent orange color with a gigantic fluffy, nearly white head, mostly of small bubbles, but with a few big ones in there. The head dissipates, but very slowly. The aroma is pretty malty-sweet. The mouthfeel is pretty smooth -- it seems that most of the bubbles have risen to the head, although it's still a bit effervescent. Initially there's a very nice balance between the base-malts and the hops, and a flowery fruitiness is very quickly the dominant flavor. This fruit evolves into a very noticeable, though mild, earthy hop finish, whose bitterness and dryness become more evident as the malt sweetness fades.

This certainly isn't as big in body, sweetness, or alcohol as most barleywines I've had, but its sweet floral hoppiness is particularly enjoyable.

Stopper, Oct 14, 2003
Photo of Rumrunner
3.65/5  rDev -0.5%

550 ml. clear bottle. 2002-2003 version listed on the lable.

A very winter feeling ale. I wish I was at a ski lodge by a fire drinking this one.

It pours a deep amber with a nice head that lasts. Excellent lacing. The picture of a ski slope map across my glass. Even the clear bottle had lacing in it after the final pour. Nice consistent bubbles float to the top. The scents give and airy grass and buttery malt to start with. A hint of pine cone but mostly malts.

The flavors are very heavy malts. Butterscotch and candied fruit. There is a sweet dough taste and some sour bread. I wish the hops were just a bit more present. There is a pine flavor but it gets bounced by the malts. A good buttery and caramel aftertaste. If you are a malt-o-phile this is a great ale for you. I like it but I want a bit more hops.

A deep sticky mouthfeel. It is sweet on the tongue. It leaves an oily quality. Easy to drink and I recommend this as a sipping ale.

I liked this offering. I did not love it. It is I have to be in the mood to drink it ale. It would go great with a cigar on a cold night.

Rumrunner, Oct 11, 2003
Photo of AudioGilz
3.43/5  rDev -6.5%

Damn these clear bottles. Immediately after popping the cap off, there's the familiar unpleasant "skunked" smell. It's not strong at all, quite mild, but noticeable nonetheless. The beer pours wonderfully though, a clear copperish brown color with a thick head. The aroma is slightly skunky, malty, and my nose is horrible so I don't get all that much out of it. Well the skunking must have just begun, because the flavors didn't involve any skunked flavors. This is a superbly smooth brew with the perfect amount of carbonation. The common and yummy Sammy Smith's yeast character is there with a pleasant balance of malt and hops. I don't sense anything intricate here, just a wonderfully balanced welcome to the horrible Chicago winter that is around the corner.

AudioGilz, Oct 10, 2003
Photo of beerguy101
2.95/5  rDev -19.6%

Medium brown color, small foamy head. Aroma is slightly malty. A lighter bodied ale. Mild malts and hops. Slight toffee and malt flavors, slightly spicy. Well balanced and very drinkable, but there is not much to this beer. Mouthfeel is full. Finish is clean and dry. Aftertaste is slightly bitter.

beerguy101, Sep 21, 2003
Photo of oberon
3.83/5  rDev +4.4%

Pours a deep gold to amber color with a light almost non existant head,arom is malty and a little spicey-sweet.Taste is a little complex malty and and slightly sweet with some biscuity flavors rounding this out.A slight skunk taste and aroma but I am quite sure it was from the bottle.This was the 2001-2002 offering.

oberon, Aug 29, 2003
Photo of granger10
2/5  rDev -45.5%

I must have gotten a skunked bottle. I heard this doesn't happen with Sam Smith's but I'd hope that this bottle wasn't their true beer. Even though it was skunked it still seemed better than macro lights! But I couldn't finish this. I don't know if I'm supposed to review skunked brews but I wanted to let it be known that I got a Sam Smith's brew that was skunked. I'm going to get this again and re-review it sometime.

granger10, Aug 07, 2003
Photo of hotstuff
2.98/5  rDev -18.8%

This beer poured an off-white head with small-medium sized bubbles that was long lasting. The body was clear and had an amber hue. This was another beer that I found to have a bitter taste to it.It is easy to say that this will not be a beer at the top of my beer list.

hotstuff, Jul 22, 2003
Photo of TheDM
3.03/5  rDev -17.4%

Another aroma I cannot place. Its initial pour yielded a frothy off white head of small to medium bubbles that lasted a long while with a very nice transparent amber brown body. Initial taste was not full of flavor, but was not bad. There was the hint of an aftertaste that caused me to keep sipping it to try and place it. It was sort of smooth with an aftertaste that was hard for me to place. Not a bad beer, but not a great beer either.

TheDM, Jul 06, 2003
Photo of RBorsato
4.25/5  rDev +15.8%

2006-2007 version: Solid golden color with a low tan head and nice active carbonation. Aroma and tastes were similiar to the notes from the 2001-2002 version.

2001-2002 version: Dark gold to copperish amber with a full beige head, good carbonation, and light lace. Malty aroma (a bit spicy) with earthy notes. Spicy earthy malt flavor and crisp maltiness (if that is possible). Light medium bodied (leans medium) with a dry finish.

1999-2000 version: A touch darker with more lace. Not as lively or as spicy as the newer bottle. Fuller and more rounded. Smoother and a bit creamier. Not harmed at all by aging - Ages Well !

Good but not sure it's worth the premium price...

2006-2007 version - Tasted 04/09/07
2001-2002 version - Tasted 05/28/03
1999-2000 version - Tasted 05/28/03

($2.79 / 12 oz. 355 ml clear glass bottle emb. with lots of S.S. info): 2006-32007 version
($4.79 / 18.7 oz. / 550 ml): older versions

RBorsato, May 29, 2003
Photo of fattyre
3.78/5  rDev +3%

This beer pours a clear reddish golden color with a large rocky tan head. The mouthfeel is pleasant smooth and rounded. The smell is toasted bread and earthy. The taste is smooth breadlike with hints of tea, warming alcohol and a zesty piney bitterness. A nice pleasing enjoyable ale that seems a bit mild for a barley wine.

fattyre, May 01, 2003
Photo of jlervine
4.4/5  rDev +19.9%

Poured an amber color with a crisp white head. The smell was very malty with a hint of citrus. The taste was excellent - malty sweetness giving way to a strong hops character, finishing up with almost a lemon aftertaste lightly mixed with alcohol. Starts at the tip of the tongue and works it's way back from there. I was honestly expecting something a bit heavier in flavor for a barley wine, but I was pleasantly surprised - it seems closer to an English ale.

jlervine, Apr 17, 2003
Photo of HardTarget
4/5  rDev +9%

2002-3 550 ML Bottle.
Aroma: A malty sweetness topped with a hint of orange.
Appearance: A sunny tangerine with a frothy head of small bubbles that linger a while, but fade into a light lace.
Flavor: OMG that's good! Very well balanced with a slight edge to a malt sweetness. Has a wonderful lemon/citrus finish and aftertaste. I was shocked to find this in the Barley Wine category, think Strong Ale may be more precise, but still misleading. Those beers invoke the idea of a meal in a bottle. This is more of an appetizer.
Mouthfeel: Full, rich, round, beautiful. Thin for a Barley Wine, but again, not your average Barley Wine.
Overall: Drinkability? Like a book you can't put down. Had no trouble at all with the 550 ML's and could drink two more and be a happy man. Expected a heavier beer for a winter welcome, but this warms the belly and cheers the tongue. I know what I'm going to ask Santa for!
Re-reviewed about a year later. Well, I asked Santa for some, but I was disappointed in the gift. I don't know if this years batch changed, or I got a particularly aged bottle for my first review. This beer is much harsher, none of the fruity malt tastes I got last time. Looks like the category changed from barleywine (good). All in all, a decent beer, but just didn't re-blow my socks off.

HardTarget, Apr 15, 2003
Photo of Ave
3.93/5  rDev +7.1%

I am never a fan of clear glass bottles, it just makes you think about how much light has hit the beer, but SS seems to pull it off most of the time with out common problems. It pours an ochreish golden brass color, thinish head. Not a nut or roasted ale. Nice even balance of hops & yeasts in the nose, slightest touch of skunk, but not bad. Bites lightly of hops early on the tongue, but warms up with honey & woody flavor quickly. An easy drink that doesn’t get stale on the pallet as some of the style tends to. I could have many, & probably will.

Ave

Ave, Mar 20, 2003
Photo of canucklehead
4.22/5  rDev +15%

This sample came from Maui and was thankfully not skunked.
The nose was slightly skunky but not in a way that detracted
from the beer. The balance was very good with caramel overtones
coming to the fore. This was a very good Xmas style ale that
seems to be a template for more than a few Pacific NorthWest
winter ales. The alcohol is not very high compared to other winter
ales so cellaring for a year may not improve this beer.

canucklehead, Mar 19, 2003
Photo of francisweizen
3.43/5  rDev -6.5%

Batman...I've been skunktified. This bottle of sam Smiths Winter Welcome must have been light-struck or just plain skunky. It was the 2002/2003 edition and it opened with a loud sound and a rush of carbonation. The appearance was average enough and what one would expect from a buttery English style ale but the smell was pure skunk. The taste was skunky as well but what I could taste through the skunk was pretty good. malty, with a touch of hops, and buttery with some nice alcohol notes. Still for a winter brew this is two week and two suceptible to light damage and skunkiness to be worthwhile. Maybe a fresh-er example would be a lot better, but probably not. The mouthfeel on this was OK if not a little thin and the drinkability was good as well...
Still this is my least favorite brew out of the Sam Smiths that I have had...it was also the first one of their brews that I have ever drank..that was skunky. They should really ditch the clear bottles or at least put warnings on the cases so that packies can keep these things away from the light!!!
Cheers!,
F.

francisweizen, Mar 19, 2003
Photo of pezoids
5/5  rDev +36.2%

The sample I tasted was the 2002-2003 version.

I must give this beer a perfect score. The reasons are: 1. I have had this beer many times before in the past and have never been dissapointed. 2. in my opinion, this is the perfect example an English ale that I would like to drink (and brew!). In other words it just doesn't get any better than this.

The beer poured out with perfect clarity, a bright copper color.
A pleasant citrus aroma rises from the tall dense white head.
The head slowly laced the glass as the beer was consumed.
This beer has a good malt body to match the perfect hop
bitterness.

Very clean aftertaste with an excellent drinkability. I wouldn't change a thing with this beer. There's no wonder that I wait for this one to come out every year. A superb beer and worth waiting for every year.

pezoids, Mar 15, 2003
Photo of marburg
3.55/5  rDev -3.3%

Pours with a fair amount of head that lasts quite a while, and the beer itself is an orange-ish red color, kind of light rust. Translucent for sure and pretty clear. Malty, caramel, butter nose. Malty taste with a pretty dry finish after a tiny hop kick that makes it a well-balanced brew. A nice beer when you're not in the mood for tea and just need something to drink.

marburg, Mar 09, 2003
Photo of feloniousmonk
3.73/5  rDev +1.6%

2001 bottle, reviewed in December '02. Now why is it I never saw the '02 anywhere? So, the question is :how does it hold up after a year?
Thin white head, dark reddish appearance. Vinous nose, raisin, reminds me of a barleywine, but just a smidge. Spicy, aromatic, with notes of vanilla, sweet and malty. Smooth, and quite downable, with just enough flavor.
This used to be a wintertime staple for me, but I've fallen for the darker, bolder type of winter ales.
Quite good after 12 months, nothing wrong with it at all, though it tastes maltier than bottles I had last winter.

feloniousmonk, Feb 27, 2003
Photo of OldFrothingSlosh
3.1/5  rDev -15.5%

Presentation: Clear 12oz. bottle. Very busy purple label. $2.79 as a single as Carytown W&B.

Appearance: For some reason, I expected a "Winter Warmer"-type beer to have more...pizazz coming out of the bottle. I was rather disappointed by the clear golden color. Briskly bubbling head is quickly tamed and sits idly atop beer.

Smell: Not a very "busy" beer. Just a little bit of earth and spice.

Taste: I'm surprised this is considered a barley wine / strong ale. The flavor is on the thin side. There is a mixture of the earthy-flavored hops, the spice, and some sweetness in the background. Virtually no warming from the alcohol.

Mouthfeel: Again, rather thin. There is a bitter component that also sprouts up in the aftertaste.

Drinkability: Very dry finish with some bitterness thrown in as well.

OldFrothingSlosh, Feb 21, 2003
Photo of brakspear
3.53/5  rDev -3.8%

2002-2003 Queen's Golden Jubilee

This strong ale is not generally what I think of when I am looking for a "winter warmer" beer. It definitely is British in style, but very mellow and mild, even with a 6% apv.

The beer pours a clear copper color with a moderate tight head forming and lingering, moderate lacing as well.

The aroma is an undistinguished malt base with perhaps slight English hop notes.

The taste is again mellow, smooth, and malty with an English biscuit flavor most prominant, though not very impressive, with a slight finishing hop bitterness.

All in all Samuel Smith's brews better beers than its Winter Welcome.

brakspear, Feb 12, 2003
Photo of rabidawg
3.73/5  rDev +1.6%

Appearance: Golden amber with a nice fluffy head that turned a little rocky before petering away, leaving a nice lace on the glass.

Smell: Not a very aromatic beer, as far as winters go. Slightly fruity, with minimal spice characteristics.

Taste: As with the smell, the lack of spices is apparent. To me, this an advantage. Carbonation bursts on your tongue at first, and slowly fades into a slight foam in the mouth. The alcohol is apparent, particularly in the finish. Slight maltiness, without much of a hoppy presence.

Mouthfeel: Nice and round, with a very pleasant fullness.

Drinkability: Very smooth, and the lack of heavy spice flavor definitely makes this a very drinkable winter ale.

Overall, a decent winter, but not on par with Sam Smith's other beers.

rabidawg, Feb 04, 2003
Photo of RonfromJersey
3.9/5  rDev +6.3%

Shiny copper body, with little carbonation, topped by a frothy whie head. Very herbal nose, with some caramel sweetness. Nice biscuity start, then a touch of earthy hops arrive, in a supporting role, before a caramel-sweet finish. Long a winter favorite of mine, I shall continue to look forward to its annual appearance.

RonfromJersey, Jan 31, 2003
Photo of Bunnyhop
3.88/5  rDev +5.7%

A clear reddish golden beer with a large rocky tan head. The smell is sweet and malty with a nice hint of spice. It is nice and smooth in my mouth. The smoothness has a slight sweet creamy taste to it mixed with its maltiness, there is a taste of spice but not overwhelming, and it finishes with a mild cedarness. Overall, a very nice winter ale, the flavors blend very well with nothing too overwhelming.

(source: Broudy's; Jacksonville Beach, FL)

Bunnyhop, Jan 25, 2003
Samuel Smith's Winter Welcome Ale from Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster)
83 out of 100 based on 1,779 ratings.