Samuel Adams

Commercial Brewery in Boston, Massachusetts, United States 🇺🇸
Owned by The Boston Beer Company
Associated with 4 Venues

Established in 1984

Contact
30 Germania St, Boston, MA, 02116, United States
Description
Our passion for never settling, and brewing quality, flavorful beers started with our founder, Jim Koch. He brewed the first batch of Boston Lager in his kitchen – a recipe that belonged to his great great grandfather that he found in his father’s attic back in the early 1980’s. The Boston Beer Company has grown through the years to become the fourth largest brewery in the United States.

Initially, Koch rented excess capacity and brewed the beer at the Pittsburgh Brewing Company. As sales increased Koch developed other contract arrangements at various brewing facilities with excess capacity. To reduce reliance on contract brewing Cincinnati's Hudepohl-Schoenling brewery was purchased in early 1997).

In 2007, the Boston Beer Company purchased the former F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Company brewery in Breinigsville, Pennsylvania. By 2012, the Company was producing two-thirds of all its beer at the Breinigsville facility, and it has increased brewing capacity there. The Boston Beer Company also has a small R&D brewery located in Boston (Jamaica Plain), Massachusetts, where public tours and beer tastings are offered.

     Show


6.2
Appearance - 8 | Aroma - 6 | Flavor - 6 | Texture - 4 | Overall - 7

Updating for 2001 (no need to change the numbers tho): Dark amber color, big light tan head. Aroma: a bit of slight caramel malt, with a little metallic note as well. Flavor and body are smooth and quite buttery at first, which eventually evens out and finishes a bit winey. Lightly sweet, with only a very mild toffeeish that is dominated by the more buttery notes.------- I just sampled the 2000 offering of the SA fest, featuring a new look from that pictured above. In flavor, it seems to be milder than I remember previous incarnations. Dark amber color, malty sweetness, but very little body.

Tried on 17 Sep 2001 at 08:38


7.5
Appearance - 8 | Aroma - 7 | Flavor - 7 | Texture - 8 | Overall - 8

I'm rewriting my review based on a fresh tasting - although the numerical score remains unchanged. Having been a long time since I had this beer, I was surprised at its nice fresh and salient hop flavor and aroma. There was also a good background bitterness, esp lingering in the aftertaste. At first the aftertaste was a bit harsh, but it mellowed nicely after several sips. Nice clean malt body - a little fruitiness and this would resemble a lightly hopped APA. (sampling was a very fresh draft)

Tried from Draft on 09 May 2001 at 14:07


6.1
Appearance - 6 | Aroma - 5 | Flavor - 6 | Texture - 6 | Overall - 7.5

Dry and tart, but lacking the punch, funkiness, or complexity of a true lambic. Still, its relative clean flavor makes it a fairly easy drinking beer with a mild fruity flavor that can appeal to many. Weird smell, though.

Tried from Can on 02 Apr 2001 at 20:24


6.4
Appearance - 6 | Aroma - 6 | Flavor - 7 | Texture - 6 | Overall - 6.5

New rate: Has some nice smokiness in the flavour. Aroma is kind of soft. The body is thin and there probably aren’t enough residual sugars to hold this through. It’s okay, because of the smokiness, but far from a stellar example.

Tried on 02 Dec 2000 at 21:41


3.8
Appearance - 6 | Aroma - 4 | Flavor - 3 | Texture - 4 | Overall - 3

Medium amber-brown colour. Thin head. Aroma is bland caramel. Tastes like diacetyl, astringent bark and roots, some caramel. Finishes with an unpleasant diacetyl slickness. This 2008 version is pretty gross.

Old rating: Dark amber; aroma shows brown sugar, spice (ginger, orange peel), sweet earthy malt. Earthy, caramelly malts. Good chewy character. Funny that the brewer kept insisting this was a traditional wheat bock, when it is not made with a weizen yeast, and it is spiced with cinnamon, ginger and orange peel! 6-3-6-3-12 = 3.0

Tried on 02 Dec 2000 at 21:39


7.1
Appearance - 6 | Aroma - 7 | Flavor - 8 | Texture - 6 | Overall - 7.5

1997 vintage, tasted 2009
I’ve never liked the ’97 vintage as much as the ’94. After 12 years, the 97 now has a richly oxidized soy sauce maltiness with some nuts and coconut. It’s picked up some complexity and nuance along the way but the oxidation is so heavy with this one now it’s a challenge. Has it turned? Rating is for this tasting only.

Update: Jan 29, 2003. Whenever I’ve had this before it was young and I didn’t care for it. I enjoyed the aroma but the palate was all whisky and soy sauce. Well, I’m going to do an about face here. Not that I like this beer young, but I just had a 1994 vintage and at nine years old it is a turned itself into an excellent beer. Very dark brown, kind of murky after all these years. Whiskyish aroma with vanilla, molasses, maple sugar, and overlappig malt on malt. Very sweet - sugary, mapley, flat and slightly oily. A little alcohol dryness in the finish. Long, sweet, and complex. Rating for this nine-year version: 9-3-9-4-17 = 4.2

Tried on 02 Dec 2000 at 21:37


4
Appearance - 4 | Aroma - 4 | Flavor - 4 | Texture - 4 | Overall - 4

Light golden. Husky malt aroma, some fresh apple, hints of grass, wheat. Light pale malt notes, some grass. Sweetish (~18 IBUS), slightly honeyish finish.

Tried on 02 Dec 2000 at 21:34


4.2
Appearance - 4 | Aroma - 6 | Flavor - 3 | Texture - 4 | Overall - 4

I admit up front that I haven't had this since its first year. That's because I was overpowered by cinnamon and don't really want to go through that again.

Tried on 02 Dec 2000 at 21:32


5.8
Appearance - 4 | Aroma - 6 | Flavor - 6 | Texture - 6 | Overall - 6

A bit thin, underdeveloped. Light brown colour. Vague malts, hints of chocolate. Not very complex and it’s a bit thin. Mainstreamish porter.

Tried on 02 Dec 2000 at 21:29


4.9
Appearance - 4 | Aroma - 6 | Flavor - 5 | Texture - 4 | Overall - 4.5

Some good Noble hops, but not enough malt or complexity to see it through...

Tried on 02 Dec 2000 at 21:27