NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/beer/7952

Text File | 1992-12-23 | 1.6 KB | 37 lines

Newsgroups: alt.beer
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!jhoskins
From: [e-mail] (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: SA's Cranberry
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: top.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:52:17 GMT
Lines: 24

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Wil
son) writes:
>Well, I tried the cranberry lambic from Sam Adams last night.  First, I must
>make this disclaimer.  The first lambic I ever tasted was Lindemann's kriek.
I
>don't know if this is a standard type lambic as Timmermann's wasn't as good as
>I thought Lindemann's was.  In so say, the Sam Adams version was terrible.
>Okay, perhaps not terrible, but it did not strike me as lambic at all.  It
>struck me as a cranberry wheat beer.  As such, it's not bad, but it could be
>tarter.  On the bottle, the brewery even says that it's made like a wheat beer
>with "top fermenting yeast."  That narrows it, doesn't it?  So, in sum, if you
>want a lambic, by Lindemann's.  If you want a fruited wheat beer, Sam Adams is
>just fine.
>
>[e-mail]
>Mike Wilson

Let me offer confirmation of the sagacity of your tastebuds.
Somewhere in Ohio, USA I was sampling a SA Cranberry Lambic yesterday
evening too.  Similar to your impression, I was not at all impressed.
Just "fruited wheat beer" and as you say not tart enough.
Good looking label though.

JH