1. Extreme Beer Fest. March 20 & 21, 2015 in Boston, Mass. Join us!
  2. The wait is over! Download the BeerAdvocate app on iTunes or Google Play now.
  3. Get 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine for only $9.99!

Samuel Adams Triple Bock - Boston Beer Company (Samuel Adams)

Not Rated.
Samuel Adams Triple BockSamuel Adams Triple Bock

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
68
poor

868 Ratings
THE BROS
94
outstanding

(view ratings)
Ratings: 868
Reviews: 627
rAvg: 2.92
pDev: 38.7%
Wants: 67
Gots: 103 | FT: 8
Brewed by:
Boston Beer Company (Samuel Adams) visit their website
Massachusetts, United States

Style | ABV
American Strong Ale |  17.50% ABV

Availability: Limited (brewed once)

Notes/Commercial Description:
This beer is retired; no longer brewed.

Though the little cobalt bottles still decorate the shelves today, this beer only had 3 vintage releases; 1994, 1995, and 1997. Brewed with two row malted barley, water, Noble hops and yeast, along with maple syrup, it was then aged several months in oak whiskey barrels before being bottled. At the time it was considered the world's strongest beer, and a precursor of today's Extreme Beers.

(Beer added by: Todd on 01-10-1998)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Usefulness | Recent | High | Low | Top Raters | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of Samuel Adams Triple Bock Alström Bros
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Ratings: 868 | Reviews: 627 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of Sammy
3.48/5  rDev +19.2%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

Thanks Crushinator. Incredible booziness and cognac-sherry aroma. Very dark brown, thick brown. No carbonation present. Worchester sauce, maple syrup, cognac, fig in the taste. Sweet and sour, with lots of malt and sweetness. Impossible to more than sip.

Sammy, Jul 03, 2008
Photo of t0rin0
2/5  rDev -31.5%

t0rin0, Aug 26, 2012
Photo of UCLABrewN84
1/5  rDev -65.8%
look: 1 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

1997 vintage.

At approximately 14 years old since it was brewed, this is the oldest beer I have ever consumed. Split with my buddy to share in this experience.

Pours an opaque dark brown/black with no head whatsoever. There is visible sediment floating around in the beer after it's poured. Swirling the beer around the glass leaves murky soy sauce legs that drip back down into the beer. Smell is of soy sauce, teriyaki sauce, dark fruits, and dark chocolate. Strong alcohol aromas are coming off this one too. Oh. My. God. The taste of this beer makes me want to punch Jim Koch in the face. Horribly sour, salty, sweet soy sauce and teriyaki flavors are most apparent. Very hidden dark fruits and chocolate are masked by this unholy taste. It says this beer was brewed with maple syrup but that is nowhere to be found. Absolutely zero carbonation with a super thick and chewy/sticky mouthfeel. Overall, this is the single worst beer I have ever had hands down. I am not so sure if it's like this because it's 14 years or so old or if this is how it tasted fresh. Either way this was an experience I won't soon forget.

UCLABrewN84, Jun 30, 2011
Photo of djrn2
1.5/5  rDev -48.6%

djrn2, Jun 13, 2012
Photo of zestar
3.5/5  rDev +19.9%

zestar, May 21, 2014
Photo of Thorpe429
1.02/5  rDev -65.1%
look: 1.5 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

Reviewed from notes. At the same time, not sure I really need them considering I wake from every one of my nightmares with this taste in my mouth.

Pours a black color that is emboldened by plenty of chunks, although I'll throw in half a point for the poor floaties, as it seemed in their misery they were almost trying to form a message. I failed to heed their request to refrain, instead diving into what I can only describe as Satan's bowels.

The nose is only nearly the worst thing ever, so maybe it'll be somewhat palatable. Not so, my friend. First reaction: gross. Second through ninetieth reactions: soy sauce. On 91 maybe some roasted smoke. Maybe I wish just wishing to taste something else. I'll never know, as I certainly won't be trying this ever again.

Mouthfeel is just disgusting. Thick and chunky soy sauce with the only thing even coming close to saving it is the fact that it is still quite boozy. I think a 1.0 on taste and mouthfeel is an unavoidable situation when the best thing to say is "at least the alcohol hides the flavors." Drinkability is so bad that I had trouble eating soy sauce for long periods after, for fear of reminding myself of this beer. Fail.

I assume Amyliz4 would give it an F as well, though she refused to complete the journey, abandoning our voyage after getting a whiff of this beast.

Thorpe429, Oct 16, 2010
Photo of acurtis
2.5/5  rDev -14.4%

acurtis, Jan 15, 2012
Photo of nmann08
3.5/5  rDev +19.9%

nmann08, Nov 26, 2011
Photo of Texasfan549
2.1/5  rDev -28.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

A: Pours very thick with no head and a viscous black/dark brown color with tons of lacing

S: Smells like burnt prunes mixed with liquor, almost a burning sensation

T: Very syrupy, very port like but not enjoyable, honestly it tastes like a big stout left out overnight

M: Full and thick almost like wine

O: Awful, considering its from the mid 90's I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Two sips and a drain pour.

Texasfan549, Apr 25, 2012
Photo of brentk56
3.7/5  rDev +26.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

1997 Bottling

Appearance: Pours a dirty motor oil color that is a bit brownish at the edge; no head nor lacing, at this stage of the game

Smell: Where others detect soy sauce, I detect brandied prune, with maple syrup and dark chocolate elements as well; some alcohol is also noticeable

Taste: Prunes, dark chocolate and alcohol, in that order, appear on the front end, but by mid-palate, the flavor moves in a maple syrup and port direction that is a bit raw, unfortunately; after the swallow, the maple syrup dominates, along with a liqueur like element that is heavy in the alcohol

Mouthfeel: Thick and syrupy, with no carbonation

Drinkability: Having tasted Utopias, I view this as an antecedent brew; that it has lasted this long and is still drinkable is an accomplishment; still, there are some distractions from the ideal that appears in the aroma; glad I had a chance to sample this

brentk56, Jan 15, 2009
Photo of BEERchitect
4.28/5  rDev +46.6%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 4.5 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 4

One of the better beers that I have ever tried. Thanks to Ernie for sharing. Dark brown-rust in color. Little in the way of head retention or lacing--fine per style. Big-time legs on the side of the glass shows good alcohols and sugars. Big aromas of prunes, raisons, dates, nuts, chocolate and sherry. Flavors of those dark fruits show up front, along with port wine, soy sauce, brown sugar, and molassas to name a few. Big body and chewy texture coats the mouth and turns into a long lasting finish and aftertaste. It's a sipper--you won't want to drink it fast.

BEERchitect, Sep 10, 2005
Photo of kjkinsey
2/5  rDev -31.5%

kjkinsey, Feb 01, 2012
Photo of Phyl21ca
2.53/5  rDev -13.4%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Bottle (1997 vintage drank in 2007): Poured a deep black color beer with no head or lacing or even carbonation for that matter. Aroma of dark brown sugar with sweet malt is quite extreme. Alcohol was no discernable which is quite a feat at 17%. Taste is extremely sweet and definitely too sweet for my own taste buds. I understand the soy sauce commentary I read in previous ratings but more gear toward sweet then salty in his case. I can see this as something to sip but this is definitely not something I would drank very often.

Phyl21ca, Apr 23, 2007
Photo of GRG1313
1.75/5  rDev -40.1%

GRG1313, Dec 24, 2012
Photo of mikesgroove
4/5  rDev +37%
look: 4 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

1994 Vintage



A – Poured the thickest darkest liquid I have ever seen come out of a bottle. This looked and poured like molasses. So think, with no carbonation, no head and no lace what so ever. It was like almost a paste, definitely syrup like and just so dark, opaque and lifeless. I really was not sure what was going on with this one here, It really looked liked it meant business but I was not too sure I wanted any part of it.



S – Aroma was very robust, I was actually shocked at all of the subtle aromas I was picking up off of this one. First notes to hit the nose were of chocolate and maple syrup. A decent amount of licorice was to follow, and mixed in with it was some kinda burnt, or smoked old coffee grinds. There was also definitely a brandy like touch of alcohol to it. This was totally unmistakable and packed quite a punch in the overall flow. This was definitely not something to take lightly though and that was obvious from the very first sip.



T – Wow, you know what, at first I would have to classify this is really, totally putrid. It really was that bad when I took the first sip. As it warms up though it becomes, somewhat drinkable. I stress the somewhat because it really only was somewhat. Lots of complex flavors in here, and I am sure it has changed very much over the years, but none the less this one was still very complex in its overall profile. Lots of licorice and chocolate notes could be found throughout and were blended in nicely with a thick, maple syrup like flavor that brought and absolute ton of sugar to the table with it. Lots of alcohol, almost too much. It was just too big for me, the flavors were there if you searched for them, but it was really big and definitely hard to find much of them.



M – Hard to describe as the sips I was able to take were soo small that I really could not get a full grasp on them. There was no carbonation at all, and this had to be the thickest liquid I have ever drank. I mean it was almost sludge like going down the back of your throat. Not much in the way of a feel good brew would be the best way to put it.



D – None, and I mean that in the best possible way. There was absolutely nothing about this that would make you wanna drink any more of it. It was a novelty pure and simple and I would not try it again, actually I change that I would try it again, just would be hard to get myself to do it.



Overall I have actually had worse believe it or not. I will give it vredit as at least this had a lot of depth and profile to it and was definitely well crafted when first made. Now as far as what it has morphed into, who knows, It is still quite drinkable though, and again I have had much worse. If you can get your hands on one, try it for the novelty, it really is not that bad and I guess it falls into the category of one of those that you really have to try at least once.

mikesgroove, Oct 09, 2007
Photo of ygtbsm94
4/5  rDev +37%

ygtbsm94, Jul 28, 2013
Photo of jaydoc
3.25/5  rDev +11.3%

jaydoc, Sep 02, 2013
Photo of womencantsail
2.98/5  rDev +2.1%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

Ah, Triple Bock, the bane of every beer drinker's existence.

A: The pour starts things off quite well, with a fairly viscous black pour that is, of course, completely flat.

S: I was surprised by how pleasant the nose was. Plenty of chocolate and roasted malt along with a hint of vanilla. There are also some nice fruit characteristics such as raisins, plums, and cherries.

T: This is where things go down hill fast. This is a mild disaster of sweetness along with a definite sourness and pungent soy sauce flavor. There is a hint of some of the goodness present in the nose, but those notes are very much overpowered.

M: The body is medium and with the lack of carbonation, the beer is very slick on the tongue.

D: I had no expectations going in to this, and after smelling the beer, plenty of high hopes. But I was not surprised when I took a sip and found this to be just awful. Glad I got to try it.

womencantsail, Feb 25, 2010
Photo of Knapp85
4.22/5  rDev +44.5%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 4.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 4.5

So I'm basing this review off of two separate bottles of Triple Bock. The first time I had it was at my college graduation party in 2007. Not sure what the vintage year was on this bottle but it was unanimous that it was pretty terrible tasting.

The brew poured out as a clumpy dark brown color with no head at all. It was thick looking leaving a tinge of brown on the glass with every sip. The smell of the beer was extremely difficult to get past. The taste was very strange kind of like a ton of different things coming together and threw in some blood metallic flavors for good measure. Very strong and hard to drink. Rather upsetting.

About a year later I was at the Bethlehem Speakeasy and was brought a bottle of the 1995 vintage and was poured a glass by my waiter Zeke. I had told him about my past experience with this beer and he assured me that my thoughts would change this time around. I can't believe it but he was right.

The beer bad changed completely, the beer wasn't clumpy anymore, it poured out as a lighter shade of brown with red highlights. The smell was much more mellow with a touch of sweetness and a little earthy too. The taste was incredibly different now, the metallic flavor was gone and it was now a earthy salty flavor kind of like there was some soy sauce in there. The mouthfeel was slick and easy to drink. It blew my mind when comparing the 2 different vintages. I can't thank Zeke enough for letting try the 1995 because otherwise this beer was probably going to be rated as an F.

Knapp85, May 26, 2011
Photo of ChainGangGuy
3.45/5  rDev +18.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

1997 vintage.

Appearance: Pours a flat, viscous, almost filthy dark brown body with no head present or even visible carbonation.

Smell: Aroma smelling of chocolate, black Sharpie markers, teriyaki marinade, and a reduction of molasses and Grade 'B' maple syrup.

Taste: A blend of chicken marinade, ink, sherry, and chocolate, with a huge, growing prune-like fruitiness that's all at once satisfying and horrific. Tastes of soil-covered molasses and timeworn maple. Warming finish. I will say it's relatively smooth for 18% ABV.

Mouthfeel: Medium-plus body. Zero carbonation. Sticky mouthfeel.

Drinkability: Yeah, there are some good aspects to this beer and just as many bad aspects, but once the alcohol kicks in you don't really mind it so much.

ChainGangGuy, Sep 01, 2008
Photo of westcoastbeerlvr
1/5  rDev -65.8%

westcoastbeerlvr, Nov 15, 2011
Photo of oberon
2.38/5  rDev -18.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 1.5

Known as fecal bock to my friends this beer is one I had high hopes for but was seriously disapointed in.Pours a pitch black with almost no head to speak of,aroma is a little nutty and raisiny with some sweet alcohol notes as well.Taste is harsh I have had a few beers higher in alcohol than this that were easier to drink its way to syrupy and medicinal just unpleasant.Well have the bottle tried it twice three years ago and now and I wont try it again.

oberon, Jan 24, 2004
Photo of JAHMUR
4.5/5  rDev +54.1%

JAHMUR, Nov 16, 2011
Photo of TMoney2591
2.68/5  rDev -8.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Served in a Chicago Bears shaker pint glass.

A 1997 vintage bottle of Triple Bock caps off Swill Fest 2010. It pours a bleak black brown topped by absolutely no head whatsoever. Even better, a strange mass of mud followed, as though the bottle had given birth to some melted Eraserhead-like abomination. The nose is a mixture of solvents, soy sauce, and maple syrup, with a dash of chocolate syrup for good measure. The taste is of a morbid stir-fry made of Deng Xiaoping's entrails, cocoa, molasses, maple syrup, and isopropyl alcohol. Ugh, it hurts a bit, not as much as the Chelada, but it's still pretty damn painful, baby. As it's taken down, a slug trail remains. A chocolate one. The body is a solid heavy-medium, with nearly no carbonation and a thick, syrupy feel. Wow, how awesome and terrible.

TMoney2591, Sep 27, 2010
Photo of emerge077
3.63/5  rDev +24.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 4 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2.5

1997 vintage *generously* shared by Botham.

After hearing the horror stories, and catching a bad whiff from an oxidized bottle at a tasting, I vowed never to buy or drink one of these. However, my self-imposed ban was recently lifted when Botham most generously shared his last beer in the fridge... a Triple Bock.

The cork was intact, stained a brownish black, it emerged without a pop, thwup, or peep.

Into a snifter, it's a deep chestnut brown. Murky and opaque thankfully, to obscure the chunky yeast that was stirred and blended in each pour. No head or bubbles at all, yet there were legs on the side of the glass, leaving a sticky film. Peering into the "empty" bottle, the sides were black with sludge, a slick oily mess that nightmares are made of.

Aroma at first was cloying, but after a bit it became more pleasant. Chocolate, currants, and prunes. Later the glass smelled of port wood and sweet pipe tobacco. Way better than the last time I smelled this, when it left an indelible impression of evil.

Flavors were rich and sweet, it brought to mind Thomas Hardy's, but with more roast flavors than toffee. Maple was dominant also, along with chocolate, bitter walnut, and the dark fruits present in the aroma. It had a sticky, coating feel that became a bit much after a few sips. That slick coating lingered too long on the palate, prompting a rinse with water. Splitting the bottle 3-4 ways is a wise idea, as it's more liqueur than ale.

emerge077, Jun 25, 2010
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | next › last »
Samuel Adams Triple Bock from Boston Beer Company (Samuel Adams)
68 out of 100 based on 868 ratings.