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 Adams Imperial White - Boston Beer Company (Samuel Adams)

Not Rated.
Samuel Adams Imperial WhiteSamuel Adams Imperial White

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.

1,218 Ratings

(view ratings)
Ratings: 1,218
Reviews: 638
rAvg: 3.45
pDev: 19.71%
Wants: 24
Gots: 49 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Boston Beer Company (Samuel Adams) visit their website
Massachusetts, United States

Style | ABV
Witbier |  10.30% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: Jason on 01-16-2009)
View: Beers (127) |  Events
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Latest | High | Low | Top Raters | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of Samuel Adams Imperial White Alström Bros
Ratings: 1,218 | Reviews: 638 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of gwdavis


2/5  rDev -42%

05-15-2012 23:07:45 | More by gwdavis
Photo of djrn2

New Jersey

2/5  rDev -42%

11-20-2011 18:11:14 | More by djrn2
Photo of amtriska


2.03/5  rDev -41.2%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 1.5

This beer had a cloying maple syrup flavor that was surprising and a bit unpleasant. I found myself wishing that I could have the other flavors that this beer offers without the sweetness. It's not without its merits -- the syrupy flavor I found so overwhelming had woody and brown-sugary notes that tasted good with salty food. It's definitely a beer that you'll want to drink with snacks, though I'm not sure if it would complement a real meal. I quickly got tired of the sheer sweetness, though, and couldn't get through an entire beer.

Serving type: bottle

12-05-2009 05:54:28 | More by amtriska
Photo of Norfolkbarry

2.08/5  rDev -39.7%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Concur with other reviewers about nice appearance and mouthfeel. I drink witbeer routinely but in this case the cardamom completely overwhelms everything else. There is nothing subtle about the flavor, it is just cardamom. I found it nearly undrinkable and returned the unused bottles. Not one of their better efforts.

Serving type: bottle

08-20-2012 21:21:55 | More by Norfolkbarry
Photo of kojevergas


2.1/5  rDev -39.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

12 fl oz brown glass bottle with standard pressure cap served into a N'Ice Chouffe stem beerflute in low altitude Los Angeles, California. Reviewed live. Expectations are above average; I don't think I've had Samuel Adams' imperial series before and I tend to like witbiers.

Served refrigerator cold. Acquired at Ralph's market.

A: Pours a two finger head of fair cream, nice thickness, and great retention for the high ABV. Colour is a hazy nontransparent copper. Strange looking for a witbier, but I'll go with it.

Sm: Heavy malt content, with some orange esters and clove. A bit like a tripel, actually. Some yeasty notes - which I didn't expect. Not like any witbier I've ever had. A moderately strong aroma.

T: Lemon and orange esters over a clean malt foundation. Clove. Quite simple, but pleasant. No layering. A bit heavyhanded, especially for the style. Doesn't feel fully fermented by any means. Some yeast comes through, but no alcohol. Poorly built for the style. Imbalanced. I'm not very fond of it at all.

Mf: Smooth and wet, suiting the style and the flavours generally. A touch too thick for what the flavours require. By no means overcarbonated.

Dr: I find it difficult to consume on account of its rather poor quality. This is built all wrong for the style, even if it's "imperial". The extra malt required to increase the ABV severely damaged the flavour profile. Now I know why I've never seen an imperial witbier before; it's a terrible idea. Not refreshing at all.

What happened to the delicate lemon tinges and refreshing character of the style? This is a disgrace, especially from Sam Adams.


Serving type: bottle

03-01-2012 03:55:31 | More by kojevergas
Photo of brockdidntslide


2.13/5  rDev -38.3%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

To be blunt, this beer blows. It's sweet and has an over-the-top alco-boozy taste that lingers like you just took a swig of isopropyl from the medicine cabinet. No wait, that might actually taste better. Mouthfeel and appearance are fine so maybe just look at it in the glass and then go get something better to drink.

Serving type: bottle

08-28-2012 03:10:34 | More by brockdidntslide
Photo of epicness

New York

2.15/5  rDev -37.7%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 1

A: Foggy orange, small head that quickly dissipates. Medium lacing.
I liked the color though but I was surprised that it was so dark. That should have been the first warning to me.

S: Spicy, Citrusy and wheat... lets not forget alcohol. This thing reeks of alcohol.

T: Very alcohol taste to it. I can barely taste anything else. A little bit of citrus but the alcohol is slapping me in the face. Witbiers normally have a nice complex taste but all I can seem to taste is hot hot alcohol and coriander. A big big disappointment for me being a Wit fan.

M: Full and thick. Medium to high carbonation.

D: Not very drinkable due to the high ABV.

I think Sam Adams tried to outdue themselves with the 10.3 ABV. Take it down to the normal Wit % of 5ish and this is probably a good beer.

I drank probably 1/2 to 3/4s of it and then it got a drain pour.
It's just a rough taste that I don't like. The last sip made me gag and then I figured it was time to get rid of it.

Serving type: bottle

06-06-2009 02:15:02 | More by epicness
Photo of lstokes


2.15/5  rDev -37.7%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

This poured a disconcertingly bright orange with a heady scent of sweet wheat and didn't get much better. I found it overly sweet, kind of like a chocolate orange had been dunked in eggnog and left us with a weirdly cloying mouthfeel and no hop bitterness to mention. Actually became a drain pour in the back half.

Serving type: bottle

05-08-2011 14:44:00 | More by lstokes
Photo of MetalandBeer

New York

2.17/5  rDev -37.1%
look: 4 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1

grabbed this one for lack of anything better at the store...

A-Cloudy,grainy, goldish/copper hue.head is non-existent.

S- Strong & bitter citrus notes. Very strong alcohol/booze like aroma.

T- Bitter citrus. Strong, un-plesant strong alcohol taste on the end, thena lingering, syrupy feel that lingers in the back of your throat.

M- Thick and syrup like

D- very rough to drink, especia;;y as it warms.

Overall: Not my type of beer.Not what I expect a witbier to be.

Serving type: bottle

01-15-2011 22:27:13 | More by MetalandBeer
Photo of malcontent


2.17/5  rDev -37.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 1

The head, while snowy white, is not the presence that I expect from a witbier. The cloudy deep orange body is pretty but, once again, I expect something a bit lighter in this style.

Not the corriander/lemon combo I usually get but rather a sort of iced tea with orange peel. Weird but nice. The first sniff actually smells like salt water taffy!

First of all, it's not a bad beer, it just isn' all that close to anything witbier-ish. It actually ends up tasting like a fruitier weizenbock. Unlike the Southampton Double White, though, there just isn't enough groundbreaking to make up for the stylistic deviance. No real spice to speak of and the malt body is so huge that it actually borders on cloyingly sweet. As it warms it becomes peach/mango-like at times and there is a bit of spice that desperately wants to break through but it's bludgeoned by the malt. Nice try.

Mouthfeel borders on syrupy before the carbonation has a chance to cut through it. I'm really glad to have tried this but it's going to be difficult finishing just the one bottle. A good idea, there just had to be a better way of going about it.

EDIT: the warming alcohol and the mouthfeel were both so intense that by the time I neared completion this bottle's contents were nearly undrinkable. Strike what I said earlier about this not being "a bad beer." It is.

Serving type: bottle

06-19-2009 02:12:23 | More by malcontent
Photo of dashmartino


2.17/5  rDev -37.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

Blech. Had higher hopes for this stuff. Bought a single at Goldstein's in Kingston PA. Poured into a hoegaarden glass (hey, it's a white, right?) First sniff, real boozy and not pleasant. Taste, very sweet but too boozy. Not a chugger. Very disappointed! Who knows though, it may have been skunked sitting in a singles shop.

Serving type: bottle

04-04-2009 23:08:30 | More by dashmartino
Photo of OWSLEY069


2.2/5  rDev -36.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 1.5

Pours a hazy orange-ish color with yellow hints and an off white head. In the aroma, quite spicy, cinnamon, dry alcohol, kind of like rubbing alcohol. In the taste, orange and or coriander, a cinnamon spice and dry alcohol all the way through. A smooth and medium to big bodied mouthfeel, with a semi dy orange citrus and spice in the aftertaste. Alcohol is too big, kind of smells of rubbing alcohol or like hairspray.

Serving type: bottle

10-30-2010 13:54:30 | More by OWSLEY069
Photo of arboristfish


2.2/5  rDev -36.2%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

The beer pours a hazy copper color, had a white head but faded fast. The smell of the beer is of booze and licorice. The taste stars out with a weird sweet taste, but is boozy all the way through. The sweetness tastes like possibly wheat, with some caramel sweetness. The mouthfeel is medium, and the carbonation is low. Overall it is drinkable, but I guess im not overall impressed with this one.

Serving type: bottle

11-23-2010 21:53:42 | More by arboristfish
Photo of filmguy


2.23/5  rDev -35.4%
look: 3 | smell: 1 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2

No aroma whatsoever. As Gary V would say...Aromatically challenged. The initial attack is promising with some coriander, sugar, hint of orange. Then....nothing....then....what is that god awful finish? What is that nasty aftertaste? What is that 9.3% smacking me upside the head for?

Oh well...I had to try it.

Serving type: bottle

01-29-2012 00:46:26 | More by filmguy
Photo of Thorpe429


2.23/5  rDev -35.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

Reviewed from notes.

Pours a cloudy moderate golden color with a white head. Nose brings a lot of booze and some stone fruits, peaches, and a bit of banana and spice. The taste is really dominated by booze with some slight peach flavors in the background. Feel is very poor, nearing on awful, with some cloying sugar and booze. Way too thick, even for an imperial wheat beer. Much thicker and more boozy than the typical wheatwine. Not a good beer.

Serving type: bottle

10-16-2010 19:10:33 | More by Thorpe429
Photo of beerme626


2.23/5  rDev -35.4%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Wow, what a disappointment from Sam Adams.

A: Thick, cloudy, with minimal head. Looks like thick, pulpy orange juice.
S: Orange for sure, but also with a massive whiff of alcohol.
T: Here's where it gets nasty. Citrus is too strong, wheat taste is too weak. Alcohol taste (which is very strong) doesn't match either.
M: Makes you pucker up at the beginning from its sourness, and blasts the back of your throat going down.
O: Gross. So much for that $3.50 a bottle.

Serving type: bottle

03-11-2012 15:05:11 | More by beerme626
Photo of mikesgroove

South Carolina

2.25/5  rDev -34.8%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

reviewed from notes, part of the big sam adams tasting on xams day. we plowed through everyone we could find in the damn state! served cold and poured into a pint glass.

alex grabbed this one from the four pack and it may have been the loser of the night to be honest. the pour was ok, nothing to write home about with a quick and fleeting head that did not stay around long at all. aroma is way boozy, holy crap. hot alcohol dominates the smell and the taste, the flavor to the point of obnoxious. thick light cough syrup with soo much candied malt to cover it up i was just insure of where to even begin, this was just not well done. too much for me and it ended in a drain pour, the only one of the night.

overall this was a bad release i have to say, it is just too hot, unbalanced and just does not work on any level.

Serving type: bottle

01-14-2011 03:03:20 | More by mikesgroove
Photo of Imperial_Sapient_Groat


2.25/5  rDev -34.8%

11-20-2012 18:46:16 | More by Imperial_Sapient_Groat
Photo of Chug-a-lug

South Carolina

2.25/5  rDev -34.8%

07-28-2013 14:59:05 | More by Chug-a-lug
Photo of wise456

New Jersey

2.25/5  rDev -34.8%

12-26-2013 16:03:39 | More by wise456
Photo of RblWthACoz


2.25/5  rDev -34.8%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Eh. This just hits me as too sickly sweet. And the fact of that makes it so that it overpowers anything else that may be trying to show. So, it's a one act show with a strong alcohol and boozy tone stepping in for an intermission. A miss in my book.

Serving type: bottle

08-27-2012 03:03:04 | More by RblWthACoz
Photo of broob


2.25/5  rDev -34.8%

05-27-2013 16:48:11 | More by broob
Photo of joeland


2.25/5  rDev -34.8%
look: 4.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 1

appearance- a cloudy orange color very inviting with a small amount of head.

smell- i can smell the orange in the beer a very good smell.

taste- a very dull taste with a a after taste of alcohol.

mouthfeel- very light in the mouth.

drinkability- this is a beer i took a while to drink and just sipped on it. and didn't want more.

Serving type: bottle

05-20-2010 18:08:59 | More by joeland
Photo of Alex5

South Carolina

2.25/5  rDev -34.8%

12-10-2013 05:37:51 | More by Alex5
Photo of Miles228


2.25/5  rDev -34.8%

02-23-2014 00:25:31 | More by Miles228
Samuel Adams Imperial White from Boston Beer Company (Samuel Adams)
79 out of 100 based on 1,218 ratings.