cheap alternative to Guiness?
Matt Garman
(typically $8 for the 4 pack of draught cans, $6 on sale). Are there
cheaper alternatives to Guiness that I might enjoy?
And, along the same lines, if I enjoy Guiness, I might also enjoy ______
(help me fill in the blank).
Thanks for any info,
MG
--
Matt Garman, gar...@uiuc.edu
"I may make you feel, but I can't make you think."
-- Jethro Tull, "Thick as a Brick"
all dougie all the time
guiness for $12. SO that makes it cheaper, as for cheaper
alternatives...nope, I don't know any.
special_bob
> I've recently become a big Guiness fan, but it's rather costly around here
> (typically $8 for the 4 pack of draught cans, $6 on sale). Are there
> cheaper alternatives to Guiness that I might enjoy?
I know what it is like to have a college wallet and Guinness tastes.
There are a lot of great stouts/porters that are available. Most seem to be
in the range of Guinne$$. These include imports like Beamish and Murphy's.
These 2 being great examples of Irish stouts and Guinness's main competition
in Ireland.
Sam Smith's Oatmeal Stout, Imperial Stout and Taddy Porter are great brews,
but you are looking at Guinne$$ money for them. As I think about it, most
imported stouts (Young's Double Chocolate, Mackeson Cream, etc) are in the
price range of Guinness. YIKES!
For a decent American stout that's cheaper than Guinness, but doesn't have
the taste as bottles Guinness there is Sam Adams Cream Stout.
Seems to me if you want cheap you can't really get a good stout or porter.
Unless someone can come up with an inexpensive easily accessible (a la
Guinness & Sam Adams) stout.
Let me know if you come up with some yourself. My recommendation is to save
up and do a mix/match 6 pack of stouts/porters if you have a great beer
store in your area. Pick up one of each that they have. Experiment and see
what you like. Don't settle on Guinness. There are better stouts and worse.
Think of GUINNESS as the median by which to measure all other stout.
Remember,
Cheers!
Robert~
If you email me I can send you a list of the top 5 stouts and porters by All
About Beer.
--
Visit My GUINNESS Homepage!
www.geocities.com/westofstjamesgate/enterhome.html
Slainte!
Joel Plutchak
>> And, along the same lines, if I enjoy Guiness, I might also enjoy ______
>> (help me fill in the blank).
Murphy's and Beamish stouts are obvious choices. For a bit
more assertive stout-like beers, try Sierra Nevada Stout and
Porter. Bell's Porter is also good, but a little thinner body
and more of a toastiness than the signature stout roastiness.
And dare I suggest brewing your own? The University does
have an active homebrew club...
--
Joel Plutchak "I said nothing, because I knew that this spited him more
plutchak@[...] than any retort, and that every time he shouted at me he
lost face." - from _Fifth Business_ by Robertson Davies
Lew Bryson
Joel Plutchak <plut...@SncsaP.uiucA.eduM> wrote in message
news:8il7tn$6...@brew.ncsa.uiuc.edu...
> >On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Matt Garman wrote:
> >> And, along the same lines, if I enjoy Guiness, I might also enjoy
______
> >> (help me fill in the blank).
>
> Murphy's and Beamish stouts are obvious choices. For a bit
> more assertive stout-like beers, try Sierra Nevada Stout and
> Porter. Bell's Porter is also good, but a little thinner body
> and more of a toastiness than the signature stout roastiness.
>
> And dare I suggest brewing your own? The University does
> have an active homebrew club...
You're teasing me, Joelllll.....
<put another one in the anecdote file>
--
Lew Bryson
It's a fragmented world these days; You might as well pick up the
pieces.
Author of Pennsylvania Breweries, now available at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/081172879X/002-1904346-8002803
special_bob
> Murphy's and Beamish stouts are obvious choices. For a bit
> more assertive stout-like beers, try Sierra Nevada Stout and
> Porter. Bell's Porter is also good, but a little thinner body
> and more of a toastiness than the signature stout roastiness.
Joel,
This guy's in college and is concerned about his beer budget. What can you
recommend in the way of a stout with premium tastes (a la Guinness,
Murphy's) but at near Budweiser prices? (Nothing, like I did, I'm sure!)
Shame Yuengling Porter isn't available in Chicagoland. Cheap, decent flavor
for a lagered porter.
Robert~
Donald Scheidt
> >
> > Murphy's and Beamish stouts are obvious choices. For a bit
> > more assertive stout-like beers, try Sierra Nevada Stout and
> > Porter. Bell's Porter is also good, but a little thinner body
> > and more of a toastiness than the signature stout roastiness.
> Joel,
> This guy's in college and is concerned about his beer budget. What can you
> recommend in the way of a stout with premium tastes (a la Guinness,
> Murphy's) but at near Budweiser prices? (Nothing, like I did, I'm sure!)
Basically, there is no down-market substitute for Irish stout, no
adjunct-laden cheapo "megastout" that compares to the Guinness/Murphy's/
Beamish trinity. There are craft/micro beers that do, like Full Sail's
Mainsail Stout, but that still has the same "higher" price.
Another fine budget alternative is simply to moderate one's drinking. If
you're slugging down good store-bought stout like any other swill, you're
gonna spend the dough; simple fact of life.
> Shame Yuengling Porter isn't available in Chicagoland. Cheap, decent flavor
> for a lagered porter.
Anheuser-Busch has marketed a porter under the Michelob label. Dunno if
it's available in the original poster's home market. It isn't much of
a substitute for Irish dry stout, but comes at a relatively low price.
And note that Joel did propose an excellent alternative that, if applied
with a modicum of care, will produce perfectly good stouts at low
prices. That alternative, of course, is home-brewing.
--
Don Scheidt
dgs1300...@SUCKteleport.com
If you had a penny for every brain cell you possess, you'd be on welfare.
-- Toby Guidry
scoats at greylodge dot com Scoats
isn't a stout or even a true porter, but quite tasty and quite dark.
We also have Stegmeyer Porter.
There are other regional breweries in the USA making reasonably priced
dark beers, such as Augsburger Alt. I'm sure you can find something
in Chicago. I'm not familiar with what is out in Chicago, maybe
something from Leinenkugels?
My recommendation is to go a good beer store and pick up a few
sixpacks of reasonably priced dark beer. I haven't had a terrible dark
beer yet. Several that were less than great, but nothing terrible
(except maybe Mississippi Mud).
Scoats
"special_bob" <spc...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>Cheers!
>Robert~
>--
>Visit My GUINNESS Homepage!
>www.geocities.com/westofstjamesgate/enterhome.html
>Slainte!
"My friend says we're like the dinosaurs
Only we're doing ourselves in much faster
Than they ever did" - Porno for Pyros
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scoats World - http://www.greylodge.com/scoats
Where virtual fun is better than real fun.
Arthur Wohlwill
>From: NO-...@PLEASE.COM (scoats at greylodge dot com) (Scoats)
>Subject: Re: cheap alternative to Guiness?
>Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:30:26 GMT
>Alternatives: Here in the Phila area we have Yuengling Porter, which
>isn't a stout or even a true porter, but quite tasty and quite dark.
>We also have Stegmeyer Porter.
>There are other regional breweries in the USA making reasonably priced
>dark beers, such as Augsburger Alt. I'm sure you can find something
>in Chicago. I'm not familiar with what is out in Chicago, maybe
>something from Leinenkugels?
For a cheap dark beer Huber Bock is a good deal.
Arthur Wohlwill adwohlwi@UIC>EDU
Jon Binkley
>There are other regional breweries in the USA making reasonably priced
>dark beers, such as Augsburger Alt. I'm sure you can find something
>in Chicago. I'm not familiar with what is out in Chicago, maybe
>something from Leinenkugels?
Some years ago, when I lived in CO, I could get Berghoff beers
for a very good price--I think they were as cheap or cheaper than
Budmilloors. IIRC, they had a pretty tastey "Dark" beer. I
think it was more like a dark German lager than a stout, but
it couldn't be beat for the price. Are they still around,
and are they still such a great bang for the buck?
mike stevens
Jon Binkley wrote in message <8ime1c$mvm$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>...
beers, but moved away from any store that carried them. Great stuff, good
price. I'll have to ask my local retailer if he can still get them--I
haven't thought about either in years. These were great American beers
before the damned hop craze made people equate unbalanced beer with being
fresh. Sorry to be an iconoclast here, but I think the
craft/regional/microbrewers are abusing the hop cone. Styles that shouldn't
have a hop nose or flavor are just bursting with it. Obviously maltier
beers need more bittering to balance, but barleywines, 2bocks and the like
shouldn't have a hop nose. Oops, didn't mean to rant...just missing those
good ole American beers. Feel free to bash me now.
Mike
special_bob
> Alternatives: Here in the Phila area we have Yuengling Porter, which
> isn't a stout or even a true porter, but quite tasty and quite dark.
> We also have Stegmeyer Porter.
Out of shear curiosity I've wanted to try Steg Porter, but can't seem to
find it in package shops within NJ. Surely not at the Foodery. Out of
frustration I may have to go to AJ's in Levittown. Know of any local yocal
places that carry singles or 6's?
And, isn't it "Fire Brewed" like Stroh's?
Robert~
Joel Plutchak
special_bob <spc...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>This guy's in college and is concerned about his beer budget. What can you
>recommend in the way of a stout with premium tastes (a la Guinness,
>Murphy's) but at near Budweiser prices? (Nothing, like I did, I'm sure!)
Nothing is the right answer (along with homebrewing), so a good
compromise is to just drink less of the good stuff. It's what I
did as a college-budget young 'un.
>Shame Yuengling Porter isn't available in Chicagoland. Cheap, decent flavor
>for a lagered porter.
True enough. And IIRC Big Shoulders Porter from the late
Chicago Brewing Co. would've done nicely, though it was a variable
beer at best. Hmmmm, wonder how expensive Summit Porter is? Didn't
used to cost a lot, but now may be a premium beer, especially way
down here.
ObPeeve: G-U-I-N-N-E-S-S. Two ens, two esses.
Joel Plutchak
>>dark beers, such as Augsburger Alt. I'm sure you can find something
>>in Chicago. I'm not familiar with what is out in Chicago, maybe
>>something from Leinenkugels?
>For a cheap dark beer Huber Bock is a good deal.
Auggie Dark (they make an "Alt" now?!), Leinies Bock and
Huber Bock are all interesting regional beers, but not at all
in the Guinness category.
Joel Plutchak
Donald Scheidt <dgs130...@SPAMMERSteleport.com> wrote:
>And note that Joel did propose an excellent alternative that, if applied
>with a modicum of care, will produce perfectly good stouts at low
>prices. That alternative, of course, is home-brewing.
Since the initial poster lives in the same urban area,
I thought it my duty as a club member to mention it. What
I didn't mention the first time around is that although
it's a homebrew club, we all enjoy good beer regardless of
the source, and almost always have commercial beer around
at club meetings and other gatherings. It's easier to
brew great beer if you know what great beer tastes like.
(Next unofficial tasting gathering will feature lambics,
of which only one will be homebrew[-style].)
Lew Bryson
special_bob <spc...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:eBAr1ho2$GA.435@cpmsnbbsa08...
> Out of shear curiosity I've wanted to try Steg Porter, but can't seem
to
> find it in package shops within NJ. Surely not at the Foodery. Out of
> frustration I may have to go to AJ's in Levittown. Know of any local
yocal
> places that carry singles or 6's?
AJ's might be your best bet, and you should also try Trenton Road Take
Out (1024 Trenton Rd. in Fallsington), they've got a large selection,
though nothing like what you'll find in NJ. Prices are better at TRTO,
though.
> And, isn't it "Fire Brewed" like Stroh's?
Not that I know of, well, no, I'm sure it isn't.
Jon Binkley
>I believe the Berghoff was a Dortmund(er).
I think they billed their regular "Berghoff Beer" as a Dortmund
style, but they also had a "Dark" and "Bock." Nothing
spectacular, but flavorful and really great for the price.
>Obviously maltier
>beers need more bittering to balance, but barleywines, 2bocks and the like
>shouldn't have a hop nose.
I totally agree on Bocks and Dopplebocks, but I think the barleywine
style is broad enough to handle both hoppy and malty examples.
Joel Plutchak
Jon Binkley <bin...@fafner.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>Obviously maltier beers need more bittering to balance, but barleywines,
>>2bocks and the like shouldn't have a hop nose.
>I totally agree on Bocks and Dopplebocks, but I think the barleywine
>style is broad enough to handle both hoppy and malty examples.
Especially if you allow for the distinction between
"American-style" and British. The former *demands* elevated
hop levels all around, including the nose. (IMHO.)
Kirk Nelson
> There are other regional breweries in the USA making reasonably priced
> dark beers, such as Augsburger Alt. I'm sure you can find something
> in Chicago. I'm not familiar with what is out in Chicago, maybe
> something from Leinenkugels?
My suggestion along these lines would be Huber Bock. It is dirt cheap
and surprisingly flavorful. Hopefully it is still around. I used to
buy it for about $8 a case in Michigan in the mid '90s.
Kirk Nelson
Lew Bryson
Joel Plutchak <plut...@SncsaP.uiucA.eduM> wrote in message
> Jon Binkley <bin...@fafner.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
Someone else wrote
> >>Obviously maltier beers need more bittering to balance, but
barleywines,
> >>2bocks and the like shouldn't have a hop nose.
>
> >I totally agree on Bocks and Dopplebocks, but I think the barleywine
> >style is broad enough to handle both hoppy and malty examples.
>
> Especially if you allow for the distinction between
> "American-style" and British. The former *demands* elevated
> hop levels all around, including the nose. (IMHO.)
That distinction's a little chicken-and-egg, though. Before Americans
started hopping the living shit out of barleywines, there were no
stupendously hop-character'd barleywines. If the trend continues will we
have American-style d-bocks, festbiers, and Scotch Ales; and if we do...
what will they truly be except overhopped d-bocks, festbiers, and Scotch
Ales? Philosphical points, admittedly, and not arguable to any
conclusion.
Joel Plutchak
Lew Bryson <bee...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>If the trend continues will we have American-style d-bocks, festbiers,
>and Scotch Ales; and if we do... what will they truly be except
>overhopped d-bocks, festbiers, and Scotch Ales? Philosphical points,
>admittedly, and not arguable to any conclusion.
True, that last bit. You didn't think I won't try though,
did you?
I'd argue that in the case of all the beers you have
listed above (but especially the lagers), the emphasis
has always been on the malt, so overhopping them puts
them way out of style. Barleywines, though, have always
had a fair amount of hops, so using more hops and especially
the more assertive PNW varieties is just extendingthe range
a bit in a recognizable way.
Two side issues that dilute my argument a bit are that
(1) we already have "American-style Festbier", e.g.,
Samual Adams and a variety of other domestic examples,
and (2) Scottish brewers are using more hops these days
so their beers may already be Americanized [with a
:-) for Peter].
Daniel McConnell
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Lew Bryson wrote:
>
> Joel Plutchak <plut...@SncsaP.uiucA.eduM> wrote in message
> news:8io4ut$c...@brew.ncsa.uiuc.edu...
> > Jon Binkley <bin...@fafner.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> Someone else wrote
> > >>Obviously maltier beers need more bittering to balance, but
> barleywines,
> > >>2bocks and the like shouldn't have a hop nose.
> >
> > >I totally agree on Bocks and Dopplebocks, but I think the barleywine
> > >style is broad enough to handle both hoppy and malty examples.
> >
> > Especially if you allow for the distinction between
> > "American-style" and British. The former *demands* elevated
> > hop levels all around, including the nose. (IMHO.)
>
> That distinction's a little chicken-and-egg, though. Before Americans
> started hopping the living shit out of barleywines, there were no
> stupendously hop-character'd barleywines. If the trend continues will we
> have American-style d-bocks, festbiers, and Scotch Ales; and if we do...
> what will they truly be except overhopped d-bocks, festbiers, and Scotch
> Ales? Philosphical points, admittedly, and not arguable to any
> conclusion.
>
Isn't the Brooklyn Lager already something of a hoppy festbier?
(its one of my favorites, too)
Anyway, interesting points. Certainly overhopping the d-bocks, Scotch
ales and festbiers is a violation of traditional style (not that it would
taste bad). My question is - do barleywines have as much of a prescribed
style as these other 3 styles?
My understanding is that barleywine is something of a catch-all term for
ultra-potent beers outside of the Belgian trippel variety.
But my understanding can easily be incorrect.
special_bob
> --
We share the same PEEVE.... gui*N-N*e*S-S*!
Robert~
Andrew D. Ager
<plut...@SncsaP.uiucA.eduM> wrote:
> In article <8iokag$292c$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,
> Lew Bryson <bee...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >If the trend continues will we have American-style d-bocks, festbiers,
> >and Scotch Ales; and if we do... what will they truly be except
> >overhopped d-bocks, festbiers, and Scotch Ales? Philosphical points,
> >admittedly, and not arguable to any conclusion.
>
> True, that last bit. You didn't think I won't try though,
> did you?
>
> I'd argue that in the case of all the beers you have
> listed above (but especially the lagers), the emphasis
> has always been on the malt, so overhopping them puts
> them way out of style. Barleywines, though, have always
> had a fair amount of hops, so using more hops and especially
> the more assertive PNW varieties is just extendingthe range
> a bit in a recognizable way.
Like, right on, dude, on the, like, hops'n'barleywine thing. Dude.
> Two side issues that dilute my argument a bit are that
> (1) we already have "American-style Festbier", e.g.,
> Samual Adams and a variety of other domestic examples,
Yup, the ale Oktoberfests. Not that this is bad, just diff'ernt.
> and (2) Scottish brewers are using more hops these days
> so their beers may already be Americanized [with a
> :-) for Peter].
American-style Scotch ale has all that fucking nasty peated malt in it.
Keep it in the Scotch, please. Or use real rauchmalz.
--
Andy Ager
Chicago, IL
andrew - ager at nwu dot edu
Sean Vadas
There's no cheaper way to duplicate the style.
Lew Bryson
Joel Plutchak <plut...@SncsaP.uiucA.eduM> wrote in message
> Lew Bryson <bee...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >If the trend continues will we have American-style d-bocks,
festbiers,
> >and Scotch Ales; and if we do... what will they truly be except
> >overhopped d-bocks, festbiers, and Scotch Ales? Philosphical points,
> >admittedly, and not arguable to any conclusion.
>
> True, that last bit. You didn't think I won't try though,
> did you?
Nope! Just a warning that I wasn't gonna get wrapped around the axle or
heavily invested.
> I'd argue that in the case of all the beers you have
> listed above (but especially the lagers), the emphasis
> has always been on the malt, so overhopping them puts
> them way out of style. Barleywines, though, have always
> had a fair amount of hops, so using more hops and especially
> the more assertive PNW varieties is just extendingthe range
> a bit in a recognizable way.
Barleywines have always had a fair amount of hops? What barleywines,
pray tell? You can't even say that of American barleywines, since the
first modern example, Old Foghorn, is surely not a hop-whopper. If
d-bocks, festbiers, and Scotch Ales have smaller hops additions, they
also have smaller malt additions: proportion, please.
Is it perhaps that being on a bigger frame, barleywines are more
recognizable under a steaming heap of hops?
> Two side issues that dilute my argument a bit are that
> (1) we already have "American-style Festbier", e.g.,
> Samual Adams and a variety of other domestic examples,
Do failed attempts to emulate classical examples constitute a "style?"
Where is Amy Carter when brewing needs her! What is the greatest danger
facing brewing today, Amy? "Style proliferation, Daddy."
> and (2) Scottish brewers are using more hops these days
> so their beers may already be Americanized [with a
> :-) for Peter].
Bastards. Next thing you know, they'll be smoking the malt.
Lew Bryson
Andrew D. Ager <real.a...@bottom.of.message> wrote in message
news:200620001642534689%> In article <8iolkj$d...@brew.ncsa.uiuc.edu>,
Joel Plutchak
> > (1) we already have "American-style Festbier", e.g.,
> > Samual Adams and a variety of other domestic examples,
>
> Yup, the ale Oktoberfests. Not that this is bad, just diff'ernt.
Jeez, I didn't even include them. Of course, we can always counter with
Thomas Hardy's, the lager barleywine.
> > and (2) Scottish brewers are using more hops these days
> > so their beers may already be Americanized [with a
> > :-) for Peter].
>
> American-style Scotch ale has all that fucking nasty peated malt in
it.
> Keep it in the Scotch, please. Or use real rauchmalz.
Ah lahk the way yew think, Junior.
Dr H
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Lew Bryson wrote:
}Joel Plutchak <plut...@SncsaP.uiucA.eduM> wrote:
}
}> I'd argue that in the case of all the beers you have
}> listed above (but especially the lagers), the emphasis
}> has always been on the malt, so overhopping them puts
}> them way out of style. Barleywines, though, have always
}> had a fair amount of hops, so using more hops and especially
}> the more assertive PNW varieties is just extendingthe range
}> a bit in a recognizable way.
}
}Barleywines have always had a fair amount of hops? What barleywines,
}pray tell? You can't even say that of American barleywines, since the
}first modern example, Old Foghorn, is surely not a hop-whopper. If
}d-bocks, festbiers, and Scotch Ales have smaller hops additions, they
}also have smaller malt additions: proportion, please.
Re barleywines, hops in terms of bittering agents, for sure. You don't
get 80-100+ IBUs in a 1.120 OG brew without lots and lots of hops.
Hop -flavor- is, of course, another matter.
}Is it perhaps that being on a bigger frame, barleywines are more
}recognizable under a steaming heap of hops?
Certainly one possibility. As you get into the super-high gravity
brews the efficiency of hop utilization falls off pretty significantly.
There may well be a point beyond which you *can't* add more hop
flavoring without either resorting to the use of concentrated extracts,
or serving the finished brew with fresh hops floating in it.
}> Two side issues that dilute my argument a bit are that
}> (1) we already have "American-style Festbier", e.g.,
}> Samual Adams and a variety of other domestic examples,
}
}Do failed attempts to emulate classical examples constitute a "style?"
}Where is Amy Carter when brewing needs her! What is the greatest danger
}facing brewing today, Amy? "Style proliferation, Daddy."
This is the old "when does a beer become a beer-style" argument.
Rather than see a huge proliferation of "American-[fill in traditional
European, etc. style]" brews, I'd like to see American brewers to
have the cojones to define their *own* styles, even if they were
originaly derived from an existing style.
}> and (2) Scottish brewers are using more hops these days
}> so their beers may already be Americanized [with a
}> :-) for Peter].
}
}Bastards. Next thing you know, they'll be smoking the malt.
Or smoking something, anyway, ;-)
Dr H
Lew Bryson
Dr H <hiaw...@efn.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSU.4.05.10006211317020.13110-
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Lew Bryson wrote:
> }Barleywines have always had a fair amount of hops? What barleywines,
> }pray tell? You can't even say that of American barleywines, since the
> }first modern example, Old Foghorn, is surely not a hop-whopper. If
> }d-bocks, festbiers, and Scotch Ales have smaller hops additions, they
> }also have smaller malt additions: proportion, please.
>
> Re barleywines, hops in terms of bittering agents, for sure. You
don't
> get 80-100+ IBUs in a 1.120 OG brew without lots and lots of hops.
>
> Hop -flavor- is, of course, another matter.
Well, yeah. You must have more hops just to balance more malty beers.
But what's the IBUs in a beer like Fuller's Vintage or Old Nick? I'll
bet they're high in absolute terms but not much in relative terms.
Ipswich Oatmeal Stout runs around 70 IBU, and you hardly notice it. Big
beer, well-balanced.
Jeff Frane
wrote:
>
>Barleywines have always had a fair amount of hops? What barleywines,
>pray tell? You can't even say that of American barleywines, since the
>first modern example, Old Foghorn, is surely not a hop-whopper.
Uh, the only thing I can figure is that Lew is getting really, really
old Old Foghorn. Even the five- or six-year-old kegs I've tasted have
had an amazing amount of hop flavor. Of all the many American
barleywines one might have chosen that exemplified a malt orientation,
OF is one of the last I'd choose. Old Knucklehead, maybe, or (more
recently) Old Boardhead from the PNW.
--Jeff Frane
Andrew D. Ager
<bee...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> Dr H <hiaw...@efn.org> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSU.4.05.10006211317020.13110-
> > On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Lew Bryson wrote:
> > }Barleywines have always had a fair amount of hops? What barleywines,
> > }pray tell? You can't even say that of American barleywines, since the
> > }first modern example, Old Foghorn, is surely not a hop-whopper. If
> > }d-bocks, festbiers, and Scotch Ales have smaller hops additions, they
> > }also have smaller malt additions: proportion, please.
> >
> > Re barleywines, hops in terms of bittering agents, for sure. You
> don't
> > get 80-100+ IBUs in a 1.120 OG brew without lots and lots of hops.
> >
> > Hop -flavor- is, of course, another matter.
>
> Well, yeah. You must have more hops just to balance more malty beers.
> But what's the IBUs in a beer like Fuller's Vintage or Old Nick? I'll
> bet they're high in absolute terms but not much in relative terms.
> Ipswich Oatmeal Stout runs around 70 IBU, and you hardly notice it. Big
> beer, well-balanced.
Just drank a Lakefront Beer Line Barleywine yesterday -- 29 Plato, 50
IBU. You notice that the hops exist, but that's only because the beer
doesn't taste like syrup. It's still prety swet, though.
Oh, and good. Very, very good.
Andy Ager
special_bob
to its original standing...)...
Anchor Porter.
What'd ya think of them apples?!? You can find it (if at all) cheaper in
some instances that Guinness. Damn fine brew. Not too dry (hoppy) and very
mellow maltiness.
I like! I like!
Robert~
Joel Plutchak
Jeff Frane <fran...@pcez.com> wrote:
>Uh, the only thing I can figure is that Lew is getting really, really
>old Old Foghorn. Even the five- or six-year-old kegs I've tasted have
>had an amazing amount of hop flavor. Of all the many American
>barleywines one might have chosen that exemplified a malt orientation,
>OF is one of the last I'd choose. Old Knucklehead, maybe, or (more
>recently) Old Boardhead from the PNW.
Foghorn can be deceptive. A bunch of us sat down and did
a tasting of something like 14 barleywines (and Gales Prize Old
Ale if you don't consider that a BW). We tried the Anchor
just after the maltier British entries and it was quite
hoppy and bitter in comparison. When revisiting it after all
the other US entries, it seemed quite a bit less hoppy/bitter
and much maltier.
What does that mean? I dunno. I think Old Foghorn is
definitely hoppier than the British examples, but does give
more than a nod to its precursors in the malt arena.
--
Joel Plutchak
"I never let anything as tenuous as moral standards get in the way of
drinking beer." - Jon Binkley in rec.food.drink.beer
Joel Plutchak
special_bob <spc...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>I came up with a semi-cheap alternative to Guinness (to get this post back
>to its original standing...)...
>Anchor Porter.
Unfortunately, in the market of the original poster, Anchor
products are at a super-premium price-- something like $14/six.
Widgetized Guinness can be had cheaper in town, if you know where
to look. Much fresher, too, since Anchor doesn't exactly fly off
the shelves at that price.
But yeah, Anchor's Porter is very robust and stout-like.
Andrew D. Ager
<spc...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> I came up with a semi-cheap alternative to Guinness (to get this post back
> to its original standing...)...
>
> Anchor Porter.
>
> What'd ya think of them apples?!? You can find it (if at all) cheaper in
> some instances that Guinness. Damn fine brew. Not too dry (hoppy) and very
> mellow maltiness.
Cheaper? Wow. In Chicago, Anchor Porter's like 7.99 - 8.99 for a
sixpack. widgetGuiness is like 8.99/9.99 for 8, and the bottled
product is about 6.99. I mean, it's good beer and all (Anchor), but
it's not cheaper in this neck of the woods.
Andy Ager
Lew Bryson
Jeff Frane <fran...@pcez.com> wrote in message
news:3951473f....@news.pcez.com...
> >Barleywines have always had a fair amount of hops? What barleywines,
> >pray tell? You can't even say that of American barleywines, since the
> >first modern example, Old Foghorn, is surely not a hop-whopper.
>
> old Old Foghorn. Even the five- or six-year-old kegs I've tasted have
> had an amazing amount of hop flavor. Of all the many American
> barleywines one might have chosen that exemplified a malt orientation,
> OF is one of the last I'd choose. Old Knucklehead, maybe, or (more
> recently) Old Boardhead from the PNW.
I'd argue that, Jeff, but mostly what I was doing here was trying to
come up with a b-wine that most of us would be familiar with, that was
one of the first, and that was notably less hoppy than something like
Bigfoot. Old Foghorn fit that profile best. I've compared OF to BF, and
OF always comes off as not-so-hoppy.
Though... I did have some Old Foghorn ice cream once, and it was so
bitter as to be inedible. Maybe not the best example at that.
I still hold to my original idea: highly hopped barleywines are every
bit as much an american "out-of-stylism" as are highly hopped
doublebocks. They've been more successful, and they're tasty, but that's
not really what I'm talking about. I'm not even saying that this
"out-of-stylism" is wrong, just that it IS, it exists.
wbassett
isn't a cheap alternative to Guinness? Or I should say "cheaper" -- even in
my neck of the woods, and I live in the middle of nowhere, Guinness isn't
THAT expensive.
Geez, when I was in school we drank Gennessee and thanked God for it.! Kids
today....
doug
special_bob <spc...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:ubD30mB3$GA.280@cpmsnbbsa07...
> I came up with a semi-cheap alternative to Guinness (to get this post back
> to its original standing...)...
>
> Anchor Porter.
>
> What'd ya think of them apples?!? You can find it (if at all) cheaper in
> some instances that Guinness. Damn fine brew. Not too dry (hoppy) and very
> mellow maltiness.
>
Joel Plutchak
Lew Bryson <bee...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>I still hold to my original idea: highly hopped barleywines are every
>bit as much an american "out-of-stylism" as are highly hopped
>doublebocks.
Anybody got a copy of Ray Daniels' _Designing Great
Beer_ handy? He went through most of the non-Belgian
styles evluating commercial examples. One of the
parameters he came up with for each style was some type
of a gravity to bitterness ratio. It'd be interesting
to see his conclusions for some of the styles you
mentioned.
--
Joel Plutchak
"I expect to visit Chico [CA] only one time during my life, as I do not
plan on leaving once I get there." - Tim McNerney on Sierra Nevada brews
Dana H. Myers
> Well, yeah. You must have more hops just to balance more malty beers.
> But what's the IBUs in a beer like Fuller's Vintage or Old Nick? I'll
> bet they're high in absolute terms but not much in relative terms.
> Ipswich Oatmeal Stout runs around 70 IBU, and you hardly notice it. Big
> beer, well-balanced.
On a slightly related note, wine can be similarly deceptive. A few months
ago I tasted the Robert Mondavi 30th Anniversary Cabernet Sauvignon, and
found it _wonderful_, and thought "wow, this stuff is drinking fabulously upon
release!". It took me a while to realize that the wine is firmly structured enough
to cellar easily 20 and perhaps more like 30 years; the stunning balance and
finesse of the wine just tricks the palate. The irony here is that such elegance
can be difficult to achieve, yet many wine enthusiasts are apt to become orgasmic
over less elegant wines. I frequently use the Pamela Lee analogy - many of the
big California trophy wines are made in a huge, sensual, excessive way that
immediately appeals at an instinctive kind of level. On the other hand, I find
I usually prefer the Sela Ward/Catherine Zeta-Jones kinds of wine, with a
greater sense of elegance.
Likewise, while I certainly enjoy most of the highly-hopped 'good' beers made
in the US today, and certainly appreciate huge "Pamela Lee" IPAs (for example),
I'm increasingly appreciative of beers that attain a fine sense of elegance and
balance. I sometimes suspect this is a kind of uniquely American "a little is
good, more is better" mentality that places too much emphasis on a memorable
first impression. Perhaps we also confuse "excess due to imbalance" with
richness or concetration.
Very interesting thread, in any event!
Dana
dana....@sun.com
Daniel McConnell
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Dana H. Myers wrote:
>
> Likewise, while I certainly enjoy most of the highly-hopped 'good' beers made
> in the US today, and certainly appreciate huge "Pamela Lee" IPAs (for example),
> I'm increasingly appreciative of beers that attain a fine sense of elegance and
> balance. I sometimes suspect this is a kind of uniquely American "a little is
> good, more is better" mentality that places too much emphasis on a memorable
> first impression. Perhaps we also confuse "excess due to imbalance" with
> richness or concetration.
>
True - regarding food, I found that cajun restaurants outside of New
Orleans and LA typically over-spice their dishes. After visiting a few
famous spots in N.O., I was surprised at how mild and under-stated things
were. It seems there's a tendency to exaggerate styles and go to
excesses.
Also - I think with beer, somes of those highly hopped examples are
reactions against the more mild and watery mainstream beers. Perhaps some
of these brewers want to prove that Americans like strong flavorful beers
because of the criticism so often levelled by Europeans and others.
Dan Lansing
the over abuse of hops in american beers...i have yet to find a goo american
beer i can drink because of the damn hops evey single style ive tried from any
american beer maker tastes the same hoppy....sorry i had to rant too
+>These were great American beers
>before the damned hop craze made people equate unbalanced beer with being
>fresh. Sorry to be an iconoclast here, but I think the
>craft/regional/microbrewers are abusing the hop cone. Styles that shouldn't
>have a hop nose or flavor are just bursting with it. Obviously maltier
>beers need more bittering to balance, but >barleywines, 2bocks and the like
>shouldn't have a hop nose. Oops, didn't mean to rant...just missing those
>good ole American beers. Feel free to bash me now.
dan
Lew Bryson
Joel Plutchak <plut...@SncsaP.uiucA.eduM> wrote in message
> Lew Bryson <bee...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >I still hold to my original idea: highly hopped barleywines are every
> >bit as much an american "out-of-stylism" as are highly hopped
> >doublebocks.
>
> Anybody got a copy of Ray Daniels' _Designing Great
> Beer_ handy? He went through most of the non-Belgian
> styles evluating commercial examples. One of the
> parameters he came up with for each style was some type
> of a gravity to bitterness ratio. It'd be interesting
> to see his conclusions for some of the styles you
> mentioned.
I'm not sure it would be relevant, though. I'm as big a fan of testing
by the real world as anyone, but hell, there are a lot more "American
IPAs" out there than "British IPAs." Doesn't mean the AIPA is the way
things should be. Sure there are hoppy-assed barleywines, and a LOT of
them; that's because Bigfoot is the one everyone knows, and a natural
target for emulation.
But numbers are not what I'm looking at.
DonS
>yes i know this is off subject but its good to hear someone else complain about
>the over abuse of hops in american beers...i have yet to find a goo american
>beer i can drink because of the damn hops evey single style ive tried from any
>american beer maker tastes the same hoppy....sorry i had to rant too
Don't know where you are, but I can think of quite a few micro/
craft brews that aren't like that. Victory's Fest Bier and
Brandywine Valley Export Lager are malty in the best ways.
Red Hook has a new ale out, Chinook (well, in the Pacific Northwest,
anyway), that has the character of a malty Scottish 60-shilling
ale. Grant's has a new Belgian-style ale, Luvin, with a distinctive
yeasty malt character and subdued hops (yes! From Grant's!).
Brewpub chain Gordon Biersch features malty Bock and Maerzen
beers on their taps. Tinye North Cascades brewery, a micro in
Bellingham, WA, has a delicious milk stout out, and Widmer has
also done a milk stout, as well an extraordinary Bourbon Bock.
Deschutes Black Butte Porter is a dark malty classic.
So maybe it's just a matter of the beers you've picked out. Some
beers, like ESBs and IPAs, are meant to be hoppy, and some go
over the edge. What region do you live in? Have you sought out
styles that aren't meant to be hoppy-bitter?
--
dgsSPAMS...@teleportSHOVEYOURSPAM.com
http://nwbrewpage.com
eliminate capital letters to e-mail
DonS
wrote:
>Isn't the real problem with this whole discussion the fact that there really
>isn't a cheap alternative to Guinness? Or I should say "cheaper" -- even in
>my neck of the woods, and I live in the middle of nowhere, Guinness isn't
>THAT expensive.
You hit the nail on the head with that one. There really isn't a
"cheap" alternative. A really cheap alternative is simply to drink
less, and savor what you have until you can afford more (or better).
Bruce Reistle
Lew Bryson wrote:
>
> I'm not sure it would be relevant, though. I'm as big a fan of testing
> by the real world as anyone, but hell, there are a lot more "American
> IPAs" out there than "British IPAs." Doesn't mean the AIPA is the way
> things should be.
C'mon Lew, there is no "way things should be." APA and AIPA
are glorious styles, and are definitely what they should be.
> Sure there are hoppy-assed barleywines, and a LOT of
> them; that's because Bigfoot is the one everyone knows, and a natural
> target for emulation.
> But numbers are not what I'm looking at.
>
So Lew, what is the correct barleywine?
Bruce Reistle
Joel Plutchak
Lew Bryson <bee...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>I'm not sure it would be relevant, though. I'm as big a fan of testing
>by the real world as anyone, but hell, there are a lot more "American
>IPAs" out there than "British IPAs." Doesn't mean the AIPA is the way
>them; that's because Bigfoot is the one everyone knows, and a natural
>target for emulation.
>But numbers are not what I'm looking at.
Give Ray some credit; he didn't just ignore hundreds of years
of beer history. While he wrote what was in fact a book for
homebrewers, his numbers and descriptions have as much to do
with historical examples (and extant commercial ones, like
those weak-ass Brit IPAs :-) as with homebrew.
Which means I'll quote some numbers at you anyway. The
BU/GU ratio is one of "bittering units" (hop biterness) to
"grain units" (original gravity, expressed as specific
gravity - 1), so it gives some feel for relative bitterness.
BU:GU ratio
Style Average Range
---------- ------- ---------
Barleywine 0.94 0.53-1.83
Doppelbock 0.21-0.36
Maibock 0.29-0.53
Bock 0.27-0.45
Maerzen 0.39 0.37-0.45
IPA 0.66-1.10
Now, all those numbers aren't normalized-- some are from
an AHA study of 10 years ago (the barleywine; note many examples
from that time were necessarily imports), some are current
figures (the bocks), and some are historical data (the Maerzen,
which are from German beers in the early- to mid-1970's). So
I'm saying up front that the numbers are mushy.
However, I do think they illustrate a few things. One is that
even for the current data, we're not seeing relative hop levels
in traditionally malty beers getting way out of hand. They're
still significantly less than the barleywine and IPA numbers.
Secondly, barleywines simply represent a much broader scale in
general, from the relatively wimpy Old Nick to the more recent
US hopmonsters like Old Crusty and Bigfoot. There's room in that
style for some serious messing around. It's just that the US
versions can be seen to have differentiated themselves, in general,
by coming in on the high end of the BU/GU ratio more often than
not, based at least in part on the use of higher-alpha domestic
hops. And in the case of barleywines, there are obviously some
who think that merits a distinction on the sub-style level.
(My next brewing session will produce a decidely British-style
barleywine (floor-malted Beeston grain and imported British hops)
and a second-runnings bitter, so it's no accident that I'm
somewhat focused on barleywines these days.)
Joel Plutchak
DonS <dgs1300S...@teleportLOUSYSPAM.com> wrote:
>On 22 Jun 2000 21:41:03 GMT, mooj...@aol.com (Dan Lansing) wrote:
>>the over abuse of hops in american beers...i have yet to find a goo american
>>beer i can drink because of the damn hops evey single style ive tried from any
>>american beer maker tastes the same hoppy....sorry i had to rant too
>Red Hook has a new ale out, Chinook (well, in the Pacific Northwest,
>anyway), that has the character of a malty Scottish 60-shilling
>ale.
A Scottish 60/-? The very name Chinook conjures up to
this non-PNW homebrewer a veritable pampelmousse bludgeoning
of a hoppy beer.
DonS
Plutchak) wrote:
>In article <3952ebdb....@news.uswest.net>,
>DonS <dgs1300S...@teleportLOUSYSPAM.com> wrote:
>>[...]
>
>>Red Hook has a new ale out, Chinook (well, in the Pacific Northwest,
>>anyway), that has the character of a malty Scottish 60-shilling
>>ale.
>
> A Scottish 60/-? The very name Chinook conjures up to
>this non-PNW homebrewer a veritable pampelmousse bludgeoning
>of a hoppy beer.
Strange, innit? The label motif makes connections to the fish
of the same name (as in chinook salmon), rather than any 4C
hop connection.
Toby Guidry
>>yet to find a goo american beer i can drink because of the damn
>>hops evey single style ive tried from any american beer maker
>>tastes the same hoppy....sorry i had to rant too
>
Norwester had either a porter or a stout (Blacksmith Porter?) that used
to be available in these parts (aren't they defunct now?). That used
to be my favorite American session beer. Really nice and chocolatey.
Not overdone on the hops at all.
L8r,
--
Toby
http://strangebrew.home.mindspring.com
"Any unmoderated public discussion space, no matter what the ostensible
subject, will eventually attract a clique of contributors who will use
the space primarily to discuss their personal lives and trade in-jokes.
In addition, it will attract at least one regular contributor who will
make it his or her goal to harass and harangue the other regulars." -
Sjöberg's Law of Public Cliquishness
Toby Guidry
<Pine.SOL.4.21.000622...@linc.cis.upenn.edu>:
>
>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Dana H. Myers wrote:
>
>>
>> Likewise, while I certainly enjoy most of the highly-hopped 'good'
>> beers made in the US today, and certainly appreciate huge "Pamela
>> Lee" IPAs (for example), I'm increasingly appreciative of beers
>> that attain a fine sense of elegance and balance. I sometimes
>> suspect this is a kind of uniquely American "a little is good,
>> more is better" mentality that places too much emphasis on a
>> memorable first impression. Perhaps we also confuse "excess due
>> to imbalance" with richness or concetration.
>>
>
>True - regarding food, I found that cajun restaurants outside of New
>Orleans and LA typically over-spice their dishes.
Yeah, but that's mostly because not many have a clue as to what real
Cajun cooking is.
>After visiting a
>few famous spots in N.O., I was surprised at how mild and
>under-stated things were.
Umm...I don't mean to be too pedantic, but New Orleans <> Cajun.
Emeril is from the Northeast. Blackened <X> is only Cajun from the
standpoint that Paul Prudhomme invented it a few years back.
>It seems there's a tendency to exaggerate
>styles and go to excesses.
That's true, but when you're trying to make a buck by jumping on
popular trends, these things happen.
>Also - I think with beer, somes of those highly hopped examples are
>reactions against the more mild and watery mainstream beers.
Yep, the pendulum swinging too far back the other way, so to speak.
>Perhaps some of these brewers want to prove that Americans like
>strong flavorful beers because of the criticism so often levelled by
>Europeans and others.
That's the conventional wisdom.
L8r,
--
Toby
http://strangebrew.home.mindspring.com
"If I was a father in a waiting room, and the nurse came out and said,
'Congratulations, it's a girl,' I think a good gag would be to get real
mad and yell, 'A girl!? You must have me mixed up with that dork!' and
point to another father." - Jack Handey
Andrew D. Ager
<bee...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> Jeff Frane <fran...@pcez.com> wrote in message
> news:3951473f....@news.pcez.com...
> > On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:11:43 -0400, "Lew Bryson" <bee...@prodigy.net>
> > wrote:
> > >Barleywines have always had a fair amount of hops? What barleywines,
> > >pray tell? You can't even say that of American barleywines, since the
> > >first modern example, Old Foghorn, is surely not a hop-whopper.
> >
> > Uh, the only thing I can figure is that Lew is getting really, really
> > old Old Foghorn. Even the five- or six-year-old kegs I've tasted have
> > had an amazing amount of hop flavor. Of all the many American
> > barleywines one might have chosen that exemplified a malt orientation,
> > OF is one of the last I'd choose. Old Knucklehead, maybe, or (more
> > recently) Old Boardhead from the PNW.
>
> I'd argue that, Jeff, but mostly what I was doing here was trying to
> come up with a b-wine that most of us would be familiar with, that was
> one of the first, and that was notably less hoppy than something like
> Bigfoot. Old Foghorn fit that profile best. I've compared OF to BF, and
> OF always comes off as not-so-hoppy.
> Though... I did have some Old Foghorn ice cream once, and it was so
> bitter as to be inedible. Maybe not the best example at that.
>
> I still hold to my original idea: highly hopped barleywines are every
> bit as much an american "out-of-stylism" as are highly hopped
> doublebocks. They've been more successful, and they're tasty, but that's
> not really what I'm talking about. I'm not even saying that this
> "out-of-stylism" is wrong, just that it IS, it exists.
But at this point in time, is there much point to arguing about the
"out-of-stylism" of US-brewed barleywines? I would argue that by now,
the barleywine style has evolved sufficiently enough to include both
the hop-leaning and malt-leaning examples thereof. There's plenty of
both available, and people seem to be buying all of'em.
Now, this highly-hopped DB stuff, I don't kow about that -- I've
honestly never bumped into one in that range. And I'd say it's more of
a stretch to add shitloads of hops to a DB than to a barleywine.
Combine hops, malt, and ale yeasts, and you'll get a fruitier beer.
Add hops to a lagered DB, and it seems to me it goes out of whack.
Andy Ager
Chicago --> NYC, 7 days and counting
Dan Lansing
seams to me that no matter the style if its brewed in this country it all
tastes the same
i dont think porters are suposed to taste like a pale ale....but maybe thats
just me
dan
Brian Lundeen
"Dana H. Myers" <dana....@sun.com> wrote in message
news:39527826...@sun.com...
I frequently use the Pamela Lee analogy - many of the
> big California trophy wines are made in a huge, sensual, excessive way
that
> immediately appeals at an instinctive kind of level.
With that analogy, are you implying that the wines are chaptalised? ;-)
Brian
DonS
Guidry) wrote:
>[...]
>
>Norwester had either a porter or a stout (Blacksmith Porter?) that used
>to be available in these parts (aren't they defunct now?). [...]
Nor'wester went under. The brands were absorbed by Saxer and produced
by their brewery, but now Saxer has been absorbed by Portland Brewing.
Expect the Nor'wester brand to fade to nothingness.
DonS
>i live in minneapolis,mn.....iv tried mostly brown ales and other darks...it
>seams to me that no matter the style if its brewed in this country it all
>tastes the same
>i dont think porters are suposed to taste like a pale ale....but maybe thats
>just me
Sounds like you haven't found sufficent variety in style. I mentioned
a *lot* of malty American-made beers. They can't be that hard to
find, even in Mpls. Tried any of the New Glarus beers yet?
I've found plenty of porters that taste nothing like pale ale, too.
David Brockington
>Lew Bryson wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure it would be relevant, though. I'm as big a fan of testing
>> by the real world as anyone, but hell, there are a lot more "American
>> IPAs" out there than "British IPAs." Doesn't mean the AIPA is the way
>> things should be.
>C'mon Lew, there is no "way things should be." APA and AIPA
>are glorious styles, and are definitely what they should be.
Exactly. APA, APIA, ABW are all innovations utilizing
domestic ingredients and sensibilities to produce a
style that pays homage to, but clearly departs from,
the English original.
ESB hasn't. There is nothing that distinguishes
American-brewed ESB's or other bitters from American
amber ales, and American-brewed ESB's certainly have little
in common with the English bitters that inspired them.
But, that's my current pet peeve and a different thread.
>> Sure there are hoppy-assed barleywines, and a LOT of
>> them; that's because Bigfoot is the one everyone knows, and a natural
>> target for emulation.
Which is what makes beers like Bigfoot and SNPA classics in
my book -- they defined a new style by being among the
first to do it _and_ are heavily emulated.
--
David Brockington Seattle, USA
UW Political Science CSSCR Consultant
Beer Reviewer @ The Brewery: http://hbd.org/brewery/taproom/DBindex.html
Get a grip man. This is usenet.
scoats at greylodge dot com Scoats
would go for about $25, Yuengling Porter is Bud price, about $15.
Once again, regional breweries like Yuengling are the way to go. PA is
a big state (as Lew can personally attest) and lot's of it are in the
middle of nowhere. I don't think there's anywhere in PA where you
can't get a Bud priced dark beer is you go to a beer distributor with
a good selection.
Scoats
"wbassett" <wbas...@key-net.net> wrote:
>Isn't the real problem with this whole discussion the fact that there really
>isn't a cheap alternative to Guinness? Or I should say "cheaper" -- even in
>my neck of the woods, and I live in the middle of nowhere, Guinness isn't
>THAT expensive.
>Geez, when I was in school we drank Gennessee and thanked God for it.! Kids
>today....
>doug
>special_bob <spc...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
>news:ubD30mB3$GA.280@cpmsnbbsa07...
>> I came up with a semi-cheap alternative to Guinness (to get this post back
>> to its original standing...)...
>>
>> Anchor Porter.
>>
>> What'd ya think of them apples?!? You can find it (if at all) cheaper in
>> some instances that Guinness. Damn fine brew. Not too dry (hoppy) and very
>> mellow maltiness.
>>
>> I like! I like!
>>
>> Robert~
>>
>>
"My friend says we're like the dinosaurs
Only we're doing ourselves in much faster
Than they ever did" - Porno for Pyros
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scoats World - http://www.greylodge.com/scoats
Where virtual fun is better than real fun.
Peter Alexander
wrote:
>
>> and (2) Scottish brewers are using more hops these days
>> so their beers may already be Americanized [with a
>> :-) for Peter].
Well some of the new wave ones are and the likes of Harviestoun make
nicely hopped and pale beers (Wee Stoater yum, yum) as well as the
more traditional malty buggers. Bigger ones like McEwans are stuck in
the malt groove ( sorry malt, adjuncts and sugar groove). But yes
things are changing for the better I think but we musn't throw
tradition out altogether which with the likes of Belhaven, Maclay and
Caledonian, we haven't.
PS
Got three new beers from two Scottish Micros by courier today. Watch
out for tasting notes soon.
PPS
Two from Bridge of Allen Brewery and one from Sulwath
>
>Bastards. Next thing you know, they'll be smoking the malt.
>
>--
>Lew Bryson
>It's a fragmented world these days; You might as well pick up the
>pieces.
>Author of Pennsylvania Breweries, now available at
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/081172879X/002-1904346-8002803
>
>
Peter Alexander Chairman CAMRA Rochdale Oldham and Bury Branch
Unless otherwise stated,the opinions stated here are personal. My CAMRA connections are given for information only.
Peter Alexander
<dana....@sun.com> wrote:
Snip
I sometimes suspect this is a kind of uniquely American "a little is
>good, more is better" mentality that places too much emphasis on a memorable
>first impression. Perhaps we also confuse "excess due to imbalance" with
>richness or concetration.
>
>Very interesting thread, in any event!
Huh. I've been tring to tell them THAT for years! (-:
Nice thoughtful post though.
Lew Bryson
I have my mouth shut, and cannot have words placed in it.
You are almost all missing my point, and arguing something I have no
wish or intention to argue, something I have not meant to say or imply,
to wit, that the highly hopped American barleywine and IPA "styles" are
somehow wrong or bastardizations. I'll not be taunted or teased into
such an argument, it is ridiculous on its face. A beer cannot be wrong,
whether it be Bigfoot or Budweiser.
All I AM saying is that a highly hopped barleywine is as rootless as a
highly hopped doublebock, without provenance. It is a wholly created
thing, a "what-the-hell" thing, something without any basis in prior
art.
Is it a good thing? Well, I've only had one commercial dry-hopped
doublebock, Dock Street Illuminator, and I liked it; I did homebrew a
dry-hopped doublebock, and it was scary (overdone hopping; a team
effort, I must add). I've had plenty of highly-hopped b-wines, and liked
them to varying degree, some quite a bit, and only disliked one or two
on the basis of their hoppiness.
I DO think that creating a beer by simply adding a buttload of hops to a
pre-existing 'style' is a bit uninspired and easy, and was so especially
after about 1992. Sometimes the whole craze for hops that is still
common among the geekerie bores the living shit out of me, like the
people who insist on smothering things in searingly hot pepper sauce,
stoking the curry fires to inferno levels, and yes, sticking their head
in the peat bag with Islay malts (no, not everyone who likes Islay malts
is a wingding, I'm targeting the Islay posers, thank you). Yes, I like
hoppy beers. But I get tired of hoppy beer after hoppy beer. I know I've
said this before, but I feel it needs to be said again occasionally.
That's what I have to say.
Lew Bryson
Joel Plutchak <plut...@SncsaP.uiucA.eduM> wrote in message
> Lew Bryson <bee...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >I'm not sure it would be relevant, though. I'm as big a fan of
testing
> >by the real world as anyone, but hell, there are a lot more "American
> >IPAs" out there than "British IPAs." Doesn't mean the AIPA is the way
of
> >them; that's because Bigfoot is the one everyone knows, and a natural
> >target for emulation.
[so Joel quotes some numbers...]
> BU:GU ratio
> Style Average Range
> ---------- ------- ---------
> Barleywine 0.94 0.53-1.83
> Doppelbock 0.21-0.36
> Maibock 0.29-0.53
> Bock 0.27-0.45
> Maerzen 0.39 0.37-0.45
> IPA 0.66-1.10
>
> Now, all those numbers aren't normalized-- some are from
> an AHA study of 10 years ago (the barleywine; note many examples
> from that time were necessarily imports), some are current
> figures (the bocks), and some are historical data (the Maerzen,
> which are from German beers in the early- to mid-1970's). So
> I'm saying up front that the numbers are mushy.
If we were going to look at numbers, I'd like to see import numbers for
the 1970s, micro numbers from 1990 and 1999, and a totality for 1990 and
1999. I mean, if I could get that, which might actually be useful.
> However, I do think they illustrate a few things. One is that
> even for the current data, we're not seeing relative hop levels
> in traditionally malty beers getting way out of hand. They're
> still significantly less than the barleywine and IPA numbers.
Which is interesting, but not something I was interested in or talking
about.
> Secondly, barleywines simply represent a much broader scale in
> general, from the relatively wimpy Old Nick to the more recent
> US hopmonsters like Old Crusty and Bigfoot.
Of course they do, ONCE OLD CRUSTY AND BIGFOOT ARE INCLUDED. My point is
that these types of barleywines are new art.
> There's room in that
> style for some serious messing around. It's just that the US
> versions can be seen to have differentiated themselves, in general,
> by coming in on the high end of the BU/GU ratio more often than
> not, based at least in part on the use of higher-alpha domestic
> hops. And in the case of barleywines, there are obviously some
> who think that merits a distinction on the sub-style level.
Certainly. Why not? If we can make a less plausible (IMO) distinction in
the case of porter and "robust" porter, hell, bring it on! But it would
be as created, as new, as... a highly hopped doublebock. It's a very
small point I'm making, but I am making it.
Lew Bryson
To repeat and expand: if -- IF -- American brewers were to brew highly
hopped d-bocks, Scotch ales, and festbiers, and they survived and even
flourished as the highly hopped barleywines and IPAs we almost
dogmatically refer to as American-style barleywines and AIPAS have, and
we then began to refer to THEM as "American-style" d-bocks, Scotch ales,
and festbiers.... what would these "new sub-styles" truly be, other than
simply over-hopped d-bocks, Scotch ales, and festbiers?
This begging the question, of course: what is an "American-style
barleywine" other than an over-hopped barleywine, noting that
"over-hopped" is NOT meant to be judgmental except in the sense of it
being a somewhat simplistic change. I expect that arguments will be made
with regards to crystal malt and OG, but I would submit that the most
easily notable and consistent difference is the hopping rate.
Daniel McConnell
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Lew Bryson wrote:
>
> To repeat and expand: if -- IF -- American brewers were to brew highly
> hopped d-bocks, Scotch ales, and festbiers, and they survived and even
> flourished as the highly hopped barleywines and IPAs we almost
> dogmatically refer to as American-style barleywines and AIPAS have, and
> we then began to refer to THEM as "American-style" d-bocks, Scotch ales,
> and festbiers.... what would these "new sub-styles" truly be, other than
> simply over-hopped d-bocks, Scotch ales, and festbiers?
>
> This begging the question, of course: what is an "American-style
> barleywine" other than an over-hopped barleywine, noting that
> "over-hopped" is NOT meant to be judgmental except in the sense of it
> being a somewhat simplistic change. I expect that arguments will be made
> with regards to crystal malt and OG, but I would submit that the most
> easily notable and consistent difference is the hopping rate.
>
So maybe someone should coin a new name for these beers?
If someone makes a hoppy d-bock, instead of calling it a d-bock, or
an American style d-bock, why not call it a gumdwart or a hocknik?
it does seem that some brewers are adding hops for little good reason on
alot of these beers (sure, alot of people like them) - so seriously,
someone should come up with a few new styles instead of trying to fit
these beers into the old categories.
I mean, when they invented Scotch Ale - they didn't try to call it a
Scottish-style bitter, they called it Scotch Ale. Some of these might be
called American Ales, or Yuppie Ales.
(i'm joking some here, but serious too)
Bruce Reistle
"Lew Bryson" <bee...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
> I DO think that creating a beer by simply adding a buttload of hops to
a
> pre-existing 'style' is a bit uninspired and easy, and was so
especially
> after about 1992. Sometimes the whole craze for hops that is still
> common among the geekerie bores the living shit out of me, like the
> people who insist on smothering things in searingly hot pepper sauce,
> stoking the curry fires to inferno levels, and yes, sticking their
head
> in the peat bag with Islay malts (no, not everyone who likes Islay
malts
> is a wingding, I'm targeting the Islay posers, thank you). Yes, I like
> hoppy beers. But I get tired of hoppy beer after hoppy beer.
>
an interesting beer. BUT, consider a beer like Hop Devil (a Malt
Advocate Beer of the Year). It's clearly an AIPA, but it's a very
complex beer, with both malt and hop highlights. For that matter, Prima
Pils is an extremely hoppy (and wonderful) pilsner. Those guys at
Victory must get tired of over-hopping that awesome malt base.
You could easily argue that Celebrator is artless and over-malted; shit,
all they did is just dump more malt into the kettle, anyone can do that.
And what's with Thomas Hardy; it's so over-hopped that it takes years
before it transforms into one of the best beers in the world.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Joel Plutchak
>wish or intention to argue, something I have not meant to say or imply,
>to wit, that the highly hopped American barleywine and IPA "styles" are
>somehow wrong or bastardizations. I'll not be taunted or teased into
>All I AM saying is that a highly hopped barleywine is as rootless as a
>highly hopped doublebock, without provenance. It is a wholly created
>thing, a "what-the-hell" thing, something without any basis in prior
>art.
Er, in at least my case, that's exactly the point I was
disagreeing with. My discussion on the point was perhaps not
very well focussed (did you expect anything else? :-), but
I do disagree with that view. A doppelbock emphasizes malt
to the extent that a balance toward the hop is just plain
wrong. Not so barleywine.
>Yes, I like hoppy beers. But I get tired of hoppy beer after hoppy
>beer. I know I've said this before, but I feel it needs to be said
>again occasionally.
I don't think you'll find much disagreement with that here.
I personlly don't think it need be said it's so obvious.
Joel Plutchak
DonS <dgs1300S...@teleportLOUSYSPAM.com> wrote:
>Sounds like you haven't found sufficent variety in style. I mentioned
>a *lot* of malty American-made beers. They can't be that hard to
>find, even in Mpls. Tried any of the New Glarus beers yet?
New Glarus does indeed make several worthwhile beers that
taste nothing like a pale ale- Zwickel, Spotted Cow, Blonde,
etc. And Summit-- their weizen can be quite good and *never*
tastes like an APA. Ditto their porter.
I think it's an issue either of palate or experience. The
solution is to buy and taste a wider variety of beer.
Bruce Reistle
"Lew Bryson" <bee...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> To repeat and expand: if -- IF -- American brewers were to brew highly
> hopped d-bocks, Scotch ales, and festbiers, and they survived and even
> flourished as the highly hopped barleywines and IPAs we almost
> dogmatically refer to as American-style barleywines and AIPAS have,
and
> we then began to refer to THEM as "American-style" d-bocks, Scotch
ales,
> and festbiers.... what would these "new sub-styles" truly be, other
than
> simply over-hopped d-bocks, Scotch ales, and festbiers?
If, for example, an American brewer took a traditional beer using
traditional ingredients and traditional brewing methods, and then
boosted the hopping rate, then the result would most likely be an
unpleasant, over-hopped (there, I said it) doppelbock. If it becomes
popular enough, you might call it American doppelbock, or even
over-hopped doppelbock, or OHDB.
But IMO this has NOT happened. AIPA, for example, has different
quantities and varieties of malt and hops, generally uses different
yeast, and is usually served differently than its predecessor, BIPA.
> This begging the question, of course: what is an "American-style
> barleywine" other than an over-hopped barleywine, noting that
> "over-hopped" is NOT meant to be judgmental except in the sense of it
> being a somewhat simplistic change. I expect that arguments will be
made
> with regards to crystal malt and OG, but I would submit that the most
> easily notable and consistent difference is the hopping rate.
Lew, the term "over-hopped" is clearly judgemental. Experimenting with
different malts, yeasts, hops, - it's all simple. The results of even a
simple change can be distinct and complex.
If I had to pick a favorite style of beer, it might be AIPA. I'm also a
big fan of barleywine, including American hoppy barleywine, but
excluding that sweet, under-hopped, under-attenuated, 7.2% abv
sugar-water called Old Nick.
Lew Bryson
Joel Plutchak <plut...@SncsaP.uiucA.eduM> wrote in message
> Lew Bryson <bee...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >All I AM saying is that a highly hopped barleywine is as rootless as
a
> >highly hopped doublebock, without provenance. It is a wholly created
> >thing, a "what-the-hell" thing, something without any basis in prior
> >art.
>
> Er, in at least my case, that's exactly the point I was
> disagreeing with. My discussion on the point was perhaps not
> very well focussed (did you expect anything else? :-), but
> I do disagree with that view. A doppelbock emphasizes malt
> to the extent that a balance toward the hop is just plain
> wrong. Not so barleywine.
But why not? Before Bigfoot and Old Crusty came along and changed the
landscape, were not barleywines as malt-dependent as d-bocks? Go more
furtherer, please.
Lew Bryson
Daniel McConnell <dsmc...@linc.cis.upenn.edu> wrote in message
> (i'm joking some here, but serious too)
Me too, and it's just something to talk about.
David Brockington
>All I AM saying is that a highly hopped barleywine is as rootless as a
>highly hopped doublebock, without provenance. It is a wholly created
>thing, a "what-the-hell" thing, something without any basis in prior
>art.
Temporally without provenance, perhaps.
However, there are two weaknesses to this argument.
1. The styles on which these American highly-hopped ales
are based upon allow for a noticable hop character
in the beer.
English barleywines and, moreso, pale ales/ipa/bitters
have a pronounced hop characteristic. It is logical
to expand upon that variable. Doppelbock ought to have
little or no noticable hop character -- certainly not
in the back end of the beer.
2. There is a bit of a temporal provenance for such
beers, going back 15-18 years.
It simply makes more _sense_ to take a style like bitter
or pale ale and ramp up the hopping than it does to do
the same to doppelbock.
>is a wingding, I'm targeting the Islay posers, thank you). Yes, I like
>hoppy beers. But I get tired of hoppy beer after hoppy beer. I know I've
>said this before, but I feel it needs to be said again occasionally.
I like variety as well. Your point?
David Brockington
>This begging the question, of course: what is an "American-style
>barleywine" other than an over-hopped barleywine, noting that
>"over-hopped" is NOT meant to be judgmental except in the sense of it
>being a somewhat simplistic change. I expect that arguments will be made
>with regards to crystal malt and OG, but I would submit that the most
>easily notable and consistent difference is the hopping rate.
And, critically, hop variety. To make a distinct
substyle, it isn't enough to take an existing English beer
and ramp up the EKG or Fuggles. One needs to change the
hop variety to something obviously different, like
Cascade or Columbus et al.
Once this is done, two variables have changed: hopping rate,
and hop variety. Then, you're well on your way to making
a distinct beer. The case is sealed with the use of
1056 and domestic malts.
David Brockington
> Er, in at least my case, that's exactly the point I was
>disagreeing with. My discussion on the point was perhaps not
>very well focussed (did you expect anything else? :-), but
>I do disagree with that view. A doppelbock emphasizes malt
>to the extent that a balance toward the hop is just plain
>wrong. Not so barleywine.
Better stated than I.
Jon Binkley
>> Er, in at least my case, that's exactly the point I was
>> disagreeing with. My discussion on the point was perhaps not
>> very well focussed (did you expect anything else? :-), but
>> I do disagree with that view. A doppelbock emphasizes malt
>> to the extent that a balance toward the hop is just plain
>> wrong. Not so barleywine.
Lew:
>But why not? Before Bigfoot and Old Crusty came along and changed the
>landscape, were not barleywines as malt-dependent as d-bocks? Go more
>furtherer, please.
You guys seem to be talking past each other. Joel is talking
about IBUs, which even the overall malty English examples have
lots of, and Lew is talking about finishing hops, which the
English ones are indeed lacking.
(And Lew, I have to join others in questioning your lumping
Old Foghorn in with the English examples. Maybe it's malty
in comparison to Bigfoot, but if you miss the big finishing
hops in comparison with English B-wines, you must be getting
very old samples.)
So the question is, is the addition of finishing hop character
to Barleywines such a great departure from the original examples
that they bear little or no resemblance to the originals? I
don't think so. While it might make a novel twist, one perhaps
worthy of a new sub-style, to my tastes the similarities out-
weigh the differences. Both malty English and hoppy American
versions are very complex brews, with lots of interplay with
hop bitterness, un-fermented sugars, caramelized sugars, esters,
higher alcohols, etc, etc. In any case, like most English styles,
Barleywine strikes me as being fairly broad, loosely-defined,
and open to improvisation. I suspect that if a strong ale with
lots of finishing hops got brewed in England, nobody at CAMRA
would get their knickers in a twist if it got called "Barleywine."
Big hops in Bocks and Dopplebocks just strike me differently.
Well-made Bocks scream big, clean, melanoidin-heavy malt.
They are much less complex than Barleywines; heavy finishing
hops or fermentation byproducts would get in the way of what I
think should be a pure malt experience. Also, I bet that if a
strong, hoppy lager were made in Germany, it would be called a
"Starkbier" of some sort or another, not a "Bock."
Jon Binkley
> Once this is done, two variables have changed: hopping rate,
> and hop variety. Then, you're well on your way to making
> a distinct beer. The case is sealed with the use of
> 1056 and domestic malts.
Although at the monster gravities we're talking about, even a
normally clean-burner like 1056 throws off some funky shit.
Dana H. Myers
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:33:42 -0700, "Dana H. Myers"
> <dana....@sun.com> wrote:
> Snip
>
> > I sometimes suspect this is a kind of uniquely American "a little is
> >good, more is better" mentality that places too much emphasis on a memorable
> >first impression. Perhaps we also confuse "excess due to imbalance" with
> >richness or concetration.
> >
> >Very interesting thread, in any event!
>
> Huh. I've been tring to tell them THAT for years! (-:
You can't tell us Americans nothing, it seems :-)
On the other hand, I must say that some of the experiments in wretched
excess have been interesting. For example, someone mentioned the
use of searingly hot sauces; well, one of the most interesting hot sauces
I've encountered is Possible Side Effects. It's too effing hot to use as a
conventional sauce, but it has an interesting flavor when diluted (for example,
two drops in a batch of tuna salad is divine).
Likewise, hop-monsters like Bigfoot have a charm all of their own. Like I think
Lew is trying to say, just 'cause we've bastardized a few traditional styles doesn't
make them 'bad'. I suppose the danger is when we "embrace, extend and extinguish"
a classic style.
> Nice thoughtful post though.
Thanks!
Dana
Peter Alexander
wrote:
>This begging the question, of course: what is an "American-style
>barleywine" other than an over-hopped barleywine, noting that
>"over-hopped" is NOT meant to be judgmental except in the sense of it
>being a somewhat simplistic change. I expect that arguments will be made
>with regards to crystal malt and OG, but I would submit that the most
>easily notable and consistent difference is the hopping rate.
To me at least there seems to be two distinguishing features of
American versions of "British" styles. Number one feature a greater
degree of hopping for hoppiness, not necessarily bitterness and number
two, greater strength in alcohol terms.
Anything else, no matter what, seems just a variation on these two
themes.
Some are very well done, others less so.
Occasional new themes come along but not for British style beers. I
am thinking of American Wheats for example.
A third variable which I hesitate to discuss is the grain bill. There
are obvious differences in the character of barley at least. I don't
really worry about adjuncts, syrups, rice etc. These have exactly the
same result in the US as they have here. They make poor beers when
injudiciously used and can make a good beer less good. Only rarely do
they ever make a beer better.
Now is there anything wrong with a hoppy barley wine? Probably yes
stylistically. Over the years British brewers have come to the
conclusion that the malt and alcohol combine to make the ideal winter
warmer. Hops (or loads of hops rather)do not enhance this at all, but
may of course make a fine beer in its own right.
So is American Barley Wine a style? Not really sure, but possibly
although not yet as clearly defined as AIPA which can be a bit one
dimensional though in some cases superb.
Just like most beer really!
Peter Alexander
<dsmc...@linc.cis.upenn.edu> wrote:
>I mean, when they invented Scotch Ale - they didn't try to call it a
>Scottish-style bitter, they called it Scotch Ale. Some of these might be
>called American Ales, or Yuppie Ales.
>(i'm joking some here, but serious too)
I think the term Scotch Ale was invented here. I posted a little
treatise on the history onc.
It is, even if I say so myself, worth reading. It can be found on
deja news - date 13/01/2000 (European date style)
Joel Plutchak
Dana H. Myers <dana....@sun.com> wrote:
>I suppose the danger is when we "embrace, extend and extinguish"
>a classic style.
We can't do that, only the original brewers can. And sadly,
they seem to be doing a wonderful job of it.
Bev Blackwood
I think we've all had the occasional brew that we've looked at after
tasting it and questioned whether the brewer knew what he was doing when
he named it an IPA, Doppelbock, Barleywine, etc. However, the beer may
have been wonderful, just "not to style." I confess to being a little
bit of a "style Nazi" and questioning whether some beers fit within the
parameters laid out by the only authority I follow, the BJCP. However,
that's really unfair to the brewer. I have a friend who is the
brewmaster at St. Arnold who makes spectacular homebrewed beers that are
NEVER "to style", simply because he is required, day in and day out, to
produce beers which are consistent. I still recall an amazing "Texas
Wit" beer he made that had mesquite smoked malt as part of the grain
bill. It complemented the spicy notes of the Wit without overpowering
the delicate flavor of the base wheat beer.
I think when it comes to judging any commercial beer (assuming it isn't
obviously flawed) one cannot assume that the brewer was trying to hit a
BJCP or even a stylistic range without knowing the brewer or the
brewery's attitude toward style. Take Rogue for instance, John Maier
has a hop bias and an ale bias. He once told us "Life begins at 40...
IBU's" and we've documented here that Maierbock is certainly not a bock
and definitely not a lager. Is it a bad beer? Not really, it just
doesn't really hit a particular style squarely. However, from talking
with John, I can attest that he is a focused and very competent brewer
who pretty much gets exactly what he wants out of his beers.
I think style really only becomes important in a couple of places...
Competition, where you must have a standard to judge against and
marketing, where the consumer should be able to know what they are
getting based upon some broadly accepted definitions of a style. When I
buy an IPA, it sure as hell better be highly hopped. I would question
buying any other product from the same brewery if I couldn't count on
what was in the bottle matching the stylistic description.
I think we all know the rants against Sam Adams' loose interpretation of
styles as well as our personal regional bias against Shiner Bock, which
isn't one. However, when you view them both as marketing excercises,
they both have clearly done quite well, stylistic inaccuracies be damned.
The notion of creating a new style is certainly not unusual. Take
American Brown Ale... The Foam Rangers like to claim ownership of the
style, having judged a highly hopped "Texas Brown Ale" long before
either the AHA or BJCP formalized the style. I can't claim firsthand
knowledge of the style's history, but I would be hard pressed to provide
any documentation to disprove the claim, given the fact that much of the
club's history predates that of most craft brewers. (I'm sure Steve
Moore would fill us in on the history of Texas Brown Ale, if he's
listening...)
So, it all rolls back around to whether we want to be style Nazis or
just enjoy our beer. Given a choice, I'll take the latter anytime!
--
-BDB2
http://www.bdb2.com/
DonS
Plutchak) wrote:
>In article <3957A973...@sun.com>,
>Dana H. Myers <dana....@sun.com> wrote:
>>I suppose the danger is when we "embrace, extend and extinguish"
>>a classic style.
>
> We can't do that, only the original brewers can. And sadly,
>they seem to be doing a wonderful job of it.
Or maybe it's A-B's "denigrate, regulate, imitate." Who needs
Microsoft's model when we've already got a long-established
methodology?
J2jurado
Bev Blackwood:
<<I think we all know the rants against Sam Adams' loose interpretation of
styles as well as our personal regional bias against Shiner Bock, which isn't
one. However, when you view them both as marketing excercises, they both have
clearly done quite well, stylistic inaccuracies be damned....>>
Wow, you actually stated they are doing well. You certainly make a point in
many of your posts are always slagging Shiner (I do not think most Texans are
dead wrong to enjoy whatever beers are selling well, and should go to Hell
because they are not consuming equal volumes of St. Arnold's...and I have had
many microbrews superior to St. Arnold offerings, as well as Sam Adams brews,
believe it or not. I know, my taste preferences could be flawed. And please
don't giive us the line taht SHiner 'buys' its taps all over the state...if St.
Arnold's satisfied Texan tastes, they'd have more taps in taverns. Just one of
those business things, sufficient sales get beers in teh bar and keep them
there).
Joel Plutchak
Bev Blackwood <blac...@rice.edu> wrote:
>I think style really only becomes important in a couple of places...
>Competition, where you must have a standard to judge against and
>marketing, where the consumer should be able to know what they are
>getting based upon some broadly accepted definitions of a style.
That's exactly where I start complaining about style.
And I end up resignedly complaining when it appears the
historical style designation is being pummeled into
submission by the misuse of a label.
(I think there are more active beer judges who realize
BJCP styles are not the be-all and end-all of commercial
brews than otherwise. It's one of those positive steps
toward true beer geekdom.)
>American Brown Ale... The Foam Rangers like to claim ownership of the
>style, having judged a highly hopped "Texas Brown Ale" long before
>either the AHA or BJCP formalized the style. I can't claim firsthand
>knowledge of the style's history, but I would be hard pressed to provide
>any documentation to disprove the claim, given the fact that much of the
>club's history predates that of most craft brewers. (I'm sure Steve
>Moore would fill us in on the history of Texas Brown Ale, if he's
>listening...)
I'm still not convinced. My understanding was that
homebrewers all around the US were brewing hoppy brown
ales, so the Foam Rangers added the category. ("Wicked"
Pete wasn't from Texas, was he?)
>So, it all rolls back around to whether we want to be style Nazis or
>just enjoy our beer. Given a choice, I'll take the latter anytime!
But the dichotomy is completely artificial. The least one
can do is consider it as a continuum running from hardcore
Stylisto to mindless "Every Beer Is Good"-ism, and recognize
that there's a huge middle ground. (I personally think a
2-dimensional continuum is not sufficient.)
Bruce Reistle
j2ju...@aol.com (J2jurado) wrote:
[Jaime's response to Bev Blackwood]
>
> Wow, you actually stated they are doing well. You certainly make a
point in
> many of your posts are always slagging Shiner (I do not think most
Texans are
> dead wrong to enjoy whatever beers are selling well, and should go to
Hell
> because they are not consuming equal volumes of St. Arnold's...and I
have had
> many microbrews superior to St. Arnold offerings, as well as Sam Adams
brews,
> believe it or not. I know, my taste preferences could be flawed. And
please
> don't giive us the line taht SHiner 'buys' its taps all over the
state...if St.
> Arnold's satisfied Texan tastes, they'd have more taps in taverns.
Just one of
> those business things, sufficient sales get beers in teh bar and keep
them
> there).
>
I'm not convinced that "Texan tastes" (an oxymoron?) are at play. Shiner
Bock has been around a long time. You can go to your local icehouse and
ask for a Shiner Bock without the local yocals asking if you're queer.
Ask for a St. Arnold's and your safety cannot be guaranteed.
Lew Bryson
Bruce Reistle <brei...@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:8jaunn$pu2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I'm not convinced that "Texan tastes" (an oxymoron?) are at play.
Shiner
> Bock has been around a long time. You can go to your local icehouse
and
> ask for a Shiner Bock without the local yocals asking if you're queer.
> Ask for a St. Arnold's and your safety cannot be guaranteed.
Beer dominance by intimidation? Shiver me timbers...
Icehouse? Texan slang, or am I just stupid?
Joel Plutchak
Yup, Texas slang. A carry-over from the days before that
new-fangled electronical refrigeration. (Ever hear of Miller's
"Icehouse" beer? Same concept.)
--
Joel Plutchak
"Logic! Good gracious! What rubbish! How can I tell what I think
until I see what I say?" - E. M. Forster
Bev Blackwood
> (I think there are more active beer judges who realize
> BJCP styles are not the be-all and end-all of commercial
> brews than otherwise. It's one of those positive steps
> toward true beer geekdom.)
I think that's a fair assessment, since I frequetly hear my fellow
judges commenting, "It's not exactly to style, but it's a really good
beer" when discussing many commercial beers. I also think many of us
have given up on ever influencing professional brewersto "do the right
thing" with our opinions. :-)
> I'm still not convinced. My understanding was that
> homebrewers all around the US were brewing hoppy brown
> ales, so the Foam Rangers added the category. ("Wicked"
> Pete wasn't from Texas, was he?)
My feeling is that Pete's Wicked was merely a marketing excercise and
not the Big Hoppy Brown beer that a dedicated ABA brewer would make.
I'm not going to attempt to fight the origin battle here, since I'marmed
only with hearsay. I'd be interested in hearing other P.O.V.'s on the
origin of the style, I strongly feel it's NOT Pete, although his was an
early and very visible (and IMO marginal) commercial example.
> >So, it all rolls back around to whether we want to be style Nazis or
> >just enjoy our beer. Given a choice, I'll take the latter anytime!
>
> But the dichotomy is completely artificial. The least one
> can do is consider it as a continuum running from hardcore
> Stylisto to mindless "Every Beer Is Good"-ism, and recognize
> that there's a huge middle ground. (I personally think a
> 2-dimensional continuum is not sufficient.)
I understand your point. Naturally there's a lot of room for middle
ground there, but where would the 3rd dimension enter into this?
(Attempting to visualize the cubic space of stylistic interpretation...)
;-)
--
-BDB2
http://www.bdb2.com/
Lew Bryson
David Brockington <dbr...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message news:8j7s00
> "Lew Bryson" <bee...@prodigy.net> writes:
>
> >All I AM saying is that a highly hopped barleywine is as rootless as
a
> >highly hopped doublebock, without provenance. It is a wholly created
> >thing, a "what-the-hell" thing, something without any basis in prior
> >art.
>
> Temporally without provenance, perhaps.
> However, there are two weaknesses to this argument.
>
> 1. The styles on which these American highly-hopped ales
> are based upon allow for a noticable hop character
> in the beer.
>
> English barleywines and, moreso, pale ales/ipa/bitters
> have a pronounced hop characteristic. It is logical
> to expand upon that variable. Doppelbock ought to have
> little or no noticable hop character -- certainly not
> in the back end of the beer.
I'd be a fool to argue that pale ales/etc. have no pronounced hop
characteristic. That would be the reason I don't mention them above. But
English barleywines with a "pronounced hop characteristic"? I grant I've
not had an extremely wide range of them, but I've had my share,
breadthwise, and I don't find any hop characteristic that comes with
shouting distance of the American- brewed barleywines typified by
Bigfoot.
> 2. There is a bit of a temporal provenance for such
> beers, going back 15-18 years.
Certainly they are established HERE, NOW, and again (and again and
again) I say that I am NOT arguing that these beers are BAD beers. I
drink them, I enjoy most of them (some being better made than others), I
don't give a stylistic damn about what pigeonholes they fit into. That's
not my point, which I have restated twice.
Point: does "American-style barleywine" really mean anything more than
"over-hopped barleywine?" And PLEASE feel free to substitute equivalent
language for "over-hopped," like "heartily hopped," "healthily hopped,"
"righteously hopped," or even "not hopped like a pussy would do it".
Now, it has been suggested that yes, there is more to it.
That Chico yeast makes a difference: it does, but only in those beers
that use it, and not anywhere near all do. F'rinstance, a number of
breweries out this way hop heavily but use... Ringwood.
That using American-favored hops like Cascades and Columbus rather than
Brit-favored hops like Fuggles and EKG and Northdown makes a difference:
yes, certainly, and even though I've had American-brewed b-wines using
hearty amounts of "Brit" hops, the thing that still made them stand
right out from any British b-wine was the level of hopping, the
bittering that pulled in the back.
That the use of domestic malts rather than British malts made the
difference; errrmm, I've had American-brewed barleywines brewed with
British malts, and nuances that are quite nice in a more malty b-wine
get lost RAPIDLY in the "righteously hopped" ones. Contrariwise, has
anyone had any barleywines brewed at lower hop levels with American
domestic malts? I have, and they're much closer to the British styles
than to the American.
Am I stating the case in a way that makes my point? Of course I am.
However, I do believe that massive hopping overwhelms more subtle
differences, subtle differences which are not, in any case, consistent
across the array of examples. This is not meant to imply that massive
hopping is necessarily bad OR good. It is what it is, and sometimes it
works, and sometimes it don't. That's not what I'm arguing.
> >Yes, I like
> >hoppy beers. But I get tired of hoppy beer after hoppy beer. I know
I've
> >said this before, but I feel it needs to be said again occasionally.
>
> I like variety as well. Your point?
Well, obviously the post was not specifically targeted at anyone. My
point, and I state it because I want to, is that I find it somewhat
simplistic that there are three beer "styles" called "American-style
____", and the overwhelmingly major factor that separates these styles
from their antecedents is a whopping dose of hops.
Joel Plutchak
Bev Blackwood <blac...@rice.edu> wrote:
>My feeling is that Pete's Wicked was merely a marketing excercise and
>not the Big Hoppy Brown beer that a dedicated ABA brewer would make.
>I'm not going to attempt to fight the origin battle here, since I'marmed
>only with hearsay. I'd be interested in hearing other P.O.V.'s on the
>origin of the style, I strongly feel it's NOT Pete, although his was an
>early and very visible (and IMO marginal) commercial example.
Oops, I got ahead of myself on that issue. Pete's Wicked Ale
started as a(n award-winning?) hoppy brown homebrewed ale. The
decision to go commercial came later. IOW, Pete's Slosberg's
orginal beer may have been part of the "homebrewers brewing hoppy
brown ales" that lead to the Foamblowers making it part of the
style lexicon. And to be perfectly clear, I laud them for
recognizing the nascent style before everybody else. I'm
just not convinced they invented the style (but would be
interested in being swayed by documentation).
>I understand your point. Naturally there's a lot of room for middle
>ground there, but where would the 3rd dimension enter into this?
>(Attempting to visualize the cubic space of stylistic interpretation...)
>;-)
One potential third dimension might be situational. Even
in HB competitions some judges are more forgiving than others,
which doesn't necessarily relate to how they enjoy a commercial
beer in a different setting.
Lew Bryson
Jon Binkley <bin...@fafner.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:8j7uqp$3l$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU...
> Joel:
> >> Er, in at least my case, that's exactly the point I was
> >> disagreeing with. My discussion on the point was perhaps not
> >> very well focussed (did you expect anything else? :-), but
> >> I do disagree with that view. A doppelbock emphasizes malt
> >> to the extent that a balance toward the hop is just plain
> >> wrong. Not so barleywine.
>
> Lew:
>
> >But why not? Before Bigfoot and Old Crusty came along and changed the
> >landscape, were not barleywines as malt-dependent as d-bocks? Go more
> >furtherer, please.
>
> You guys seem to be talking past each other. Joel is talking
> about IBUs, which even the overall malty English examples have
> lots of, and Lew is talking about finishing hops, which the
> English ones are indeed lacking.
I don't think so, Jon. I'm not necessarily talking about finishing hops.
Bigfoot is downright bitter as well as hoppy. Do British barleywines
have more overall hops than German doublebocks? Yes, and usually they
have more gravity to balance. I would not call ANY British barleywine
I've ever had "hoppy," though.
Is doublebock even more malt-slanted than barleywine? Yes, but they
are/were definitely both malt-slanted beers... until American brewers
started stuffing hops in their barleywines.
> (And Lew, I have to join others in questioning your lumping
> Old Foghorn in with the English examples.
Yeah, yeah, get my mea culpa off Deja already, willya? Compare OF to Old
Crusty and get back to me.
> So the question is, is the addition of finishing hop character
> to Barleywines such a great departure from the original examples
> that they bear little or no resemblance to the originals? I
> don't think so.
I don't either, oddly enough, and that's kind of the basis of my
argument. They ARE just more heavily hopped barleywines, yet we
"sub-style" them and call them American-style barleywines. Then we
heavily hop brown ale and call it American-style brown ale. Then we
heavily hop pale ale and call it American-style IPA... and maybe that's
the one that ought to simply be called IPA.
> Big hops in Bocks and Dopplebocks just strike me differently.
Why? Because you've never had one? For the same reason so many people
think nitro stout is wonderful and every other type of beer must be
yucky? Wait, I'll read what you actually said...
> Well-made Bocks scream big, clean, melanoidin-heavy malt.
I always thought bocks bellowed more than screamed, but okay so far.
> They are much less complex than Barleywines; heavy finishing
> hops or fermentation byproducts would get in the way of what I
> think should be a pure malt experience.
I disagree about the complexity, and have had this argument here before.
The big d-bocks DO get complex; pruney, overripe dark berry flavors,
anise, and all from the weight of that malt. Tucher's got a lot of it,
the Polish porters do too... and Zywiec, one of the biggest, hops pretty
stiffly... and it's not bad at all.
> Also, I bet that if a
> strong, hoppy lager were made in Germany, it would be called a
> "Starkbier" of some sort or another, not a "Bock."
But we're not talking about German beer terminology here, but rather
American geek terminology. God knows what we'd call it, maybe
"American-style doublebock." I hope we'd have enough self-respect not
to.
Bruce Reistle
"Lew Bryson" <bee...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> news:8jaunn$pu2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > I'm not convinced that "Texan tastes" (an oxymoron?) are at play.
> Shiner
> > Bock has been around a long time. You can go to your local icehouse
> and
> > ask for a Shiner Bock without the local yocals asking if you're
queer.
> > Ask for a St. Arnold's and your safety cannot be guaranteed.
>
> Beer dominance by intimidation? Shiver me timbers...
>
Icehouses are a distinct type of bar in Texas. They typically have
garage doors on at least two sides which are open on hot days. They
generally do not have air conditioning (hence the garage doors) and beer
is frequently kept on ice. It is not uncommon to find picnic tables out
back, maybe horseshoes, maybe pool tables.
Except for a few trendy ones, these are working-class favorites, some
are biker bars. I been told that during prohibition, icehouses were the
place to go for a cold drink. Icehouses are very common in Houston.
My local icehouse, Carlo's Beer Garden, has all of the features I just
described plus a grill. Beer is served ice-cold, with a napkin wrapped
around the bottle; Patsy Cline and Marty Robbins are jukebox favorites.
If you order a pitcher - now get a load of this - they put ice in a
plastic bag and drop it in the pitcher of beer. If a train goes by, you
can order a bottle of "train beer" for $1.
Lew Bryson
Bev Blackwood <blac...@rice.edu> wrote in message news:blackwod-
> Showing up slightly late to the discussion...
> So, it all rolls back around to whether we want to be style Nazis or
> just enjoy our beer. Given a choice, I'll take the latter anytime!
Bev, I've tried real hard to get across that style nazism has nothing to
do with my argument. I don't give a damn if the beers we're discussing
in this thread fit in pigeonholes or not. I'm just saying that what we
generally refer to as American-style barleywines/brown ales/IPAs differ
from the beers that go without the "American-style" prefix mainly in
that they have a whopping stiff dose of extra hops. Point for
discussion: does adding a whoping stiff dose of extra hops make a beer
an "American-style (fill in the blank)"?
Lew Bryson
Joel Plutchak <plut...@SncsaP.uiucA.eduM> wrote in message
> new-fangled electronical refrigeration. (Ever hear of Miller's
> "Icehouse" beer? Same concept.)
So an icehouse is a bar, or an air-conditioned room, er what?
(And thanks for not taking the cheap shot on the "am I just stupid"
opening)
Lew Bryson
> > I'm still not convinced. My understanding was that
> > homebrewers all around the US were brewing hoppy brown
> > ales, so the Foam Rangers added the category. ("Wicked"
> > Pete wasn't from Texas, was he?)
>
> not the Big Hoppy Brown beer that a dedicated ABA brewer would make.
Not the early stuff I recall. Fairly big beer. Of course, we were all
much younger than, but... see below.
> I'm not going to attempt to fight the origin battle here, since
I'marmed
> only with hearsay. I'd be interested in hearing other P.O.V.'s on the
> origin of the style, I strongly feel it's NOT Pete, although his was
an
> early and very visible (and IMO marginal) commercial example.
I always dated it to Brooklyn Brown Ale, which was damned hoppy before
Garrett Oliver overhauled it (I'd say "fucked with it", but I'm trying
not to be judgmental today. Suffice to say, I drink a lot less BBA these
days). Now, having said that, I'm not sure when BBA came out, but it was
not before 1989.
Lew Bryson
> "Lew Bryson" <bee...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I DO think that creating a beer by simply adding a buttload of hops
to
> a
> > pre-existing 'style' is a bit uninspired and easy, and was so
> especially
> > after about 1992. Sometimes the whole craze for hops that is still
> > common among the geekerie bores the living shit out of me, like
[...small rant excised]
> > Yes, I like
> > hoppy beers. But I get tired of hoppy beer after hoppy beer.
> Yes, simply adding hops to an existing style is not likely to result
in
> an interesting beer. BUT, consider a beer like Hop Devil (a Malt
> Advocate Beer of the Year). It's clearly an AIPA, but it's a very
> complex beer, with both malt and hop highlights.
Sure is, they obviously didn't just dump a bunch of hops in that one.
They must have thought about the whole thing, looked carefully at how to
build up the malt base so it wouldn't be overwhelmed by hops. Clearly an
AIPA? Does Brules say so?
> For that matter, Prima
> Pils is an extremely hoppy (and wonderful) pilsner. Those guys at
> Victory must get tired of over-hopping that awesome malt base.
Yes, they do, that's why they brew their wonderful bocks.
> You could easily argue that Celebrator is artless and over-malted;
shit,
> all they did is just dump more malt into the kettle, anyone can do
that.
More malt than what, Bruce? D-bock is what it is.
> And what's with Thomas Hardy; it's so over-hopped that it takes years
> before it transforms into one of the best beers in the world.
Thomas Hardy's? Over-hopped? Stop the madness!
David Brockington
>only with hearsay. I'd be interested in hearing other P.O.V.'s on the
>origin of the style, I strongly feel it's NOT Pete, although his was an
>early and very visible (and IMO marginal) commercial example.
So, a homebrew club is claiming that they originated a
new style?
Interesting. I'm not sure what I think about that.
One would have to do two things to support this theory.
First, you need to find the first handful of "American
brown ales" brewed commercially (as we understand the
style to be today). Second, you would have to talk with
the brewers who designed those beers, to ascertain what
influenced the recipe.
It's possible, I suppose.
Full Sail, in Oregon, had a tasty brown ale (in the
American mold) back in 1988-89 through say 92 or 93.
Bev Blackwood
> Oops, I got ahead of myself on that issue. <snip on origins of Pete's>
> I'm just not convinced they invented the style (but would be
> interested in being swayed by documentation).
:-) I'd love to see some documentation as well, I would bet the AHA
might have had something to say about it in the past...
> One potential third dimension might be situational. Even
> in HB competitions some judges are more forgiving than others,
> which doesn't necessarily relate to how they enjoy a commercial
> beer in a different setting.
I see what you mean and that makes a lot of sense. I've been attending
informal beer competitions where the style is not so rigidly defined
(the last one was "lawnmower beer") and the judges are anyone who was
there to drink. I think that falls somewhere in the 3-d space, by your
definition...
The results are always interesting. I've won twice and thankfully never
come in last. (which means I would have to host the next one...) We
also toss in some "ringers" to see where they fall within the
homebrewing spectrum. In the lawnmower beer competition, St. Arnold
Kristall Wiezen was a solid second place, with Little Kings and some
lite beer I can't recall finishing nearly last. (out of 10 beers)
--
-BDB2
http://www.bdb2.com/
Bev Blackwood
> Bev, I've tried real hard to get across that style nazism has nothing to
> do with my argument. I don't give a damn if the beers we're discussing
> in this thread fit in pigeonholes or not. I'm just saying that what we
> generally refer to as American-style barleywines/brown ales/IPAs differ
> from the beers that go without the "American-style" prefix mainly in
> that they have a whopping stiff dose of extra hops. Point for
> discussion: does adding a whoping stiff dose of extra hops make a beer
> an "American-style (fill in the blank)"?
Point taken, Lew. I think one thing we're witnessing though, is a
further fragmentation stylistically as brewers get more creative in
their recipes. (and I don't think that's a bad thing, as I am very much
in favor of "truth in labeling" when it comes to beer) Thus we see the
Imperial Porters cropping back up, the American varieties of Pale Ale,
India Pale Ale and Barleywine sliding off the IBU chart, and of course
the new American Pils, that Victory Prima Pils and imitators might bring
to life.
When you get that kind of fragmentation, you're going to have people who
want to nail each one into it's box... Let's face it, brewers can be an
anal bunch. :-)
I agree though that extra hops certainly seems to be a defining element
for most "American" styles, although I'm not sure how universal that
might be.
--
-BDB2
http://www.bdb2.com/
Peter Alexander
wrote:
>Bev, I've tried real hard to get across that style nazism has nothing to
>do with my argument. I don't give a damn if the beers we're discussing
>in this thread fit in pigeonholes or not. I'm just saying that what we
>generally refer to as American-style barleywines/brown ales/IPAs differ
>from the beers that go without the "American-style" prefix mainly in
>that they have a whopping stiff dose of extra hops. Point for
>discussion: does adding a whoping stiff dose of extra hops make a beer
>an "American-style (fill in the blank)"?
Well in a very measured and exceedingly ignored post dated 26/06/2000
I agreed with it a bit at least. But I did add that the other factor
is alcohol. Your beers are almost always stronger so that affects
things as well.
So bung more hops in and make it "fuck me" strong and I agree with the
statement at the end of your post. More or less.
Peter Alexander
wrote:
>Point taken, Lew. I think one thing we're witnessing though, is a
>further fragmentation stylistically as brewers get more creative in
>their recipes. (and I don't think that's a bad thing, as I am very much
>in favor of "truth in labeling" when it comes to beer)
I think unless I misread him Bev, is that Lew is saying that
creativeness is largely confined to going overboard with the hop
pocket. Now that is becoming, from what I can see, lowest common
denominator, not creative cutting edge.
Jon Binkley
>Well, obviously the post was not specifically targeted at anyone. My
>point, and I state it because I want to, is that I find it somewhat
>simplistic that there are three beer "styles" called "American-style
>____", and the overwhelmingly major factor that separates these styles
>from their antecedents is a whopping dose of hops.
Okay, I *think* I'm finally starting to understand the nature
of the bug up your arse. I even think I agree with you. I
certainly like the way you obfusticated all your points with
discussion-bait, thereby raising the S/N of the group.
As I've said before, I think all this pidgeon-holing is
silly outside the strict realm of homebrewing competitions.
While it's certainly noticible that American Barleywines
tend to be hoppier than traditional ones, I see no
overwhelming need to whelp a new style. Simply viewing
"Barleywine" as a broader style that includes all types
is fine by me. Ditto IPA. Ditto Pale Ale.
But I still don't want to see strong, hoppy lagers called
"Dopplebocks" of any description. I don't want the Dopplebock
style to be broadened in the same way as Barleywine, Pale Ale,
or IPA have been, and would consider such a brodening to be
more diluting than enriching. If you need a justification
for this seeming inconsistancy, see Lew Bryson's aguments
for not considering a Widmeresque wheat beers to be any sort
of "Hefeweizen."