Samuel Adams Cranberry Lambic
Boston Beer Company (Samuel Adams)

Samuel Adams Cranberry LambicSamuel Adams Cranberry Lambic
Rate It
Beer Geek Stats | Print Shelf Talker
Boston Beer Company (Samuel Adams)
Massachusetts, United States
Fruit and Field Beer
Ranked #495
Ranked #30,617
2.67 | pDev: 28.09%
Aug 01, 2022
Nov 01, 2001
Samuel Adams Cranberry LambicSamuel Adams Cranberry Lambic
Notes: None
Recent ratings and reviews. | Log in to view more ratings + sorting options.
Ratings by weeare138:
Photo of weeare138
Reviewed by weeare138 from Pennsylvania

3.53/5  rDev +32.2%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5
Appears a semi-transparent, slightly hazed amber with a gigantic head of fluffy, white foam that slowly fades out into a mild cap and hearty collar. Plenty of streaky, webbed lacing is left all around the glass.
Smell is of doughy bread, honey, cran-raspberry cocktail, splashed in a hefeweizen containing notes of orange, cloves, and perhaps a touch of cheesyness from the lambic strain.
The taste is mainly of the mentioned aromas with some tart notes of cranberry juice mixed with a hearty helping of wheat and spices. There's something about this beer that makes me think I'm chewing on fruit loops and following it up with fun stripes bubble gum.
Mouthfeel is medium bodied, sweet & tart up front, mostly smooth, with a decent chewiness via the heavy wheat malt that keeps things interesting.
Overall, this is an interesting one. This is one of the ones that made me cross over to craft beer many years ago. I would be harping if I carried on that this is certainly not a true lambic. I think if they changed the name to Cranberry Wheat, they would sell a lot more during the season albeit through seasonal mixed cases. The typical Sam drinker doesn't know what the hell a lambic is and probably doesn't care. I guess I'm just not sure what target market they're shooting for. It's not dulled down enough to be a "foo-foo" drink that college women would be attracted to ala Redbach. It's certainly not shouting out to beer geekdom either, as it's a far cry from the some of the geeky releases like the Imperial Pils, or the Chocolate Bock.
Apr 24, 2007
More User Ratings:
Rated: 3 by LAM01833 from Massachusetts

Aug 01, 2022
Rated: 1.59 by smi69 from New York

Jan 02, 2022
Rated: 2.48 by LesDewitt4beer from Minnesota

Nov 19, 2021
Rated: 2.75 by LasVinny from Nevada

Mar 19, 2021
Rated: 2.5 by mattjp03 from Alabama

Jun 03, 2019
Rated: 2.83 by KMcGrath from Massachusetts

Nov 26, 2018
Rated: 2.32 by bobstockwell from Massachusetts

Mar 28, 2018
Rated: 3.49 by BenHoppy from Michigan

Nov 26, 2017
Rated: 2.55 by Khaack from New York

Oct 29, 2017
Rated: 2.74 by robebo44 from Virginia

Mar 19, 2017
Rated: 1.75 by SebastianMandeville from New Jersey

Feb 21, 2017
Photo of LeRose
Reviewed by LeRose from Massachusetts

2.14/5  rDev -19.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2.75 | taste: 1.75 | feel: 2 | overall: 2
Reviewed from notes. This is one of the worst beers I have ever had. It has no resemblance to a traditional lambic and can't be construed as "stretching" the style boundaries.

Looks are decent enough - a slightly reddish, golden color. Lively carbonation to the eye.

The aroma is a muddle of wheat bread, vague fruit notes, medicinal, a little yeasty. It is not fresh or inviting in the smell.

The taste falls far short of expectation. The base beer seemed off somehow, and the cranberry flavor seems artificial and medicinal. Some sweetness, some tart from the cranberry, but it is pretty much a muddle of indistinguishable and unremarkable flavors.

The feel - this looked pleasantly carbonated, but it is quite bloating and very harsh on the tongue. Some of the sting is cranberry, but it seems to be carbonated with very small bubbles that become uncomfortable.

Overall, this is a poor representation of a lambic and is generally a poorly constructed beer against what sounds like a good concept - good idea, bad execution?
Feb 13, 2017
Rated: 4 by Noelito76 from New York

Jan 25, 2017
Rated: 3.52 by 1mrbeer from Ohio

Dec 30, 2016
Rated: 1.66 by DavidST from Texas

Dec 19, 2016
Rated: 2.9 by Benjolovesbeer from Michigan

Dec 15, 2016
Photo of rodbeermunch
Reviewed by rodbeermunch from Nevada

1.83/5  rDev -31.5%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.75 | feel: 1.75 | overall: 1.75
Quite the abomination to what could be considered a lambic. Right up there with some super failed homebrew attempts at lambic.

Did you want a cranberry vodka? Because thats you get when you order a cranberry lambic. The aroma is wheat-esque.

Taste is nothing like a lambic. This is a bad beer by any standard, but damn if you didn't call it a lambic. They just dumped a bunch of cranberry juice into a wheat beer. Homebrew surprise all over this one. good for nothing. Acidic, I'd rather drink juice.
Oct 03, 2016
Rated: 1.33 by vienna_mantrap from Idaho

Sep 03, 2016
Rated: 2.78 by BigMike from Pennsylvania

Aug 03, 2016
Photo of BeerStud187
Reviewed by BeerStud187 from California

1.15/5  rDev -56.9%
look: 3 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1.25 | overall: 1
This is the worst "beer" I've ever had in my life. I first had it when I was a depraved college kid who would play Edward 40 hands wth OE and still could not finish a bottle of this garbage. For years I thought all "lambics" were terrible because this garbage that I got in a Sam Adams sampler pack. I've since grown and learned the virtues of true sour beers and even more so want this to f--- off. It's not a lambic, it's a crap wheat beer with horrid cranberry flavoring and maple syrup that do not go at all and are not even a fraction as good as it sounds, in fact it's awful. The fact that this beer continues to exist would make aliens, if they existed, not want to land here because the world does not make sense and is too scary because this garbage swill continues to be sold to the masses rather than used to torture prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. You prevent the growth of America's youth by selling this garbage as "craft" beer, thereby ensuring a country of Bud drinking drones. If I could punch this beer in the face i would. I poured this down the drain to drink a bottle of Mohawk vodka instead because it was a better alternative. Burn in Hell, you POS "beer".

Color ok, mouthfeel ok, taste a--.

I'm surprised you named your company Sam Adams, not Benedict Arnold because your sewage swill has been a traitor to my mouth.

F U and F your entire family for making this wretch.
Jul 12, 2016
Rated: 2.5 by Rcaisse from Massachusetts

May 13, 2016
Rated: 2.35 by puftdank from Illinois

May 05, 2016
Rated: 2.53 by Ecxeeder616 from Massachusetts

Mar 11, 2016
Rated: 2.32 by Laplander from New Hampshire

Mar 05, 2016
Rated: 2.56 by HoppyBeerisHappyBeer from Indiana

Feb 15, 2016
Rated: 1.95 by PorterLambic from Florida

Jan 24, 2016
Rated: 2.5 by Zylod from West Virginia

Jan 02, 2016
Rated: 2.44 by swimmatt from Connecticut

Nov 03, 2015
Rated: 3.07 by GregJ from Louisiana

Oct 20, 2015
Rated: 2.7 by mbeerdino21 from New Jersey

Oct 18, 2015
Photo of Hans_Olo
Reviewed by Hans_Olo from Georgia

1.95/5  rDev -27%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 1 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.75
Piss poor excuse for a beer. I sincerely hope the Boston beer company listens to its customers and removes this product from the shelves of the beer consumer. It should instead be placed with the insect repellant. I believe flies wouldn't be foolish enough to attempt consuming this monstrosity. Also, don't lie to the consumer, you made a generic beer and put cranberry juice in it. This beer... this beverage is as close to lambic as the titanic is to successful.
Aug 08, 2015
Rated: 3.37 by trxxpaxxs from New York

Aug 04, 2015
Rated: 3.31 by jrob21 from Georgia

Jul 29, 2015
Rated: 2.65 by connecticutpoet from Connecticut

May 04, 2015
Rated: 3.02 by redsoxjim from Massachusetts

Apr 17, 2015
Rated: 3.12 by Spaceman_Jer from Colorado

Feb 04, 2015
Rated: 2.58 by wethorseblanket from California

Jan 23, 2015
Rated: 2.36 by Superbohl4 from Wisconsin

Jan 17, 2015
Rated: 3 by wrightst from Maryland

Dec 11, 2014
Samuel Adams Cranberry Lambic from Boston Beer Company (Samuel Adams)
Beer rating: 63 out of 100 with 1393 ratings