Sierra Nevada: toning down its products?
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
I noticed, about a year and a half ago, that Sierra Nevada reduced
the alcohol content of its Pale Ale, Porter, and Stout. The stout, for
example, used to be over 6% ABV (it was sufficiently potent, in fact,
for Christopher Finch to liken it to Guiness's so-called Foreign Extra
Stout); now it's 5.8% ABV. (It's still a good brew, but the change is
discernable.)
My brother, who had a recent vacation in the U.S. (after five years
in New Zealand, where he lives and homebrews) was seriously let down by
SN's Pale Ale, which had been his favorite brew before he moved out of
the U.S. He insists that the brew has been dumbed-down.
Upon tasting the most recent incarnations of SN's Bigfoot and Pale
Bock (which had been two of MY all-time favorites), I was distressed by
how conventionally hoppy (how _diffident_, by SN's classic standards)
they were. I remember reading interviews with SN's founders in which
they virtually bragged about how "off the scale" the hop character of
these products was. One of them -- I forget if it was Grossman or
Camusi -- recounted a story about being told that his pale bock was
"much hoppier than German pale bocks"; he responded to this comment
with, "We don't make German pale bocks."
These days, there seems to be a trend at SN to make merely
_conventional_ renditions of classic styles. I visited the brewery in
August, and their "specials" included a brown ale, an IPA, and a best
bitter (all of them very English-tasting, very polite) and a pilsner,
which, again, struck me as typical rather than outstanding. The product
with which I was most impressed -- and the only one that wasn't
_already_ available to me in Berkeley, CA. -- was a "vintage" '97
Celebration Ale. The products were all _good_, of course, but I was
hoping for more ambitious renditions of their various styles, and maybe
an unusual beer style or two.
So, I'm curious as to whether or not anyone else has noticed this
seeming change of attitude at Sierra Nevada.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Ullrich
> So, I'm curious as to whether or not anyone else has noticed this
> seeming change of attitude at Sierra Nevada.
I have a pet theory that I'll throw into the pit for shredding by you
merciless dogs.
Beers aren't "dumbed down", beer-drinkers palates get familiar with bigger
flavored beers. With age, our tongues get less sensitive.
These processes are manifested in experiences such as that related by your
brother, i.e., "I used to like beer ___ , but now it's not as flavorful,
what did they do to it ?! ".
For personal examples, here are beers I once loved but I now perceive as
fairly dull:
Guinness
Newcastle Brown
Sam Smith Wintertime
Sierra Nevada pale
Watney's red barrel
Sam Adams Ale
Bass
And here are beers that I once thought of as undrinkable, but I now love:
All bocks and doppelbocks
All belgian beers
Barleywine
Finally, I've heard people claim that Duvel has been dumbed down but
perhaps the collective palate is maturing/deteriorating.
Phil
Lew Bryson
>On Fri, 3 Sep 1999 Nyarla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> So, I'm curious as to whether or not anyone else has noticed this
>> seeming change of attitude at Sierra Nevada.
>
>I have a pet theory that I'll throw into the pit for shredding by you
>merciless dogs.
>
>Beers aren't "dumbed down", beer-drinkers palates get familiar with bigger
>flavored beers. With age, our tongues get less sensitive.
Put my money on this one.
Lew Bryson
Freelance writer and fulltime father.
My opinions are my own: the good ones I sell.
Author of Pennsylvania Breweries, now available at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/081172879X/002-1904346-8002803
Ken Papai
>On Fri, 3 Sep 1999 Nyarla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> So, I'm curious as to whether or not anyone else has noticed this
>> seeming change of attitude at Sierra Nevada.
>I have a pet theory that I'll throw into the pit for shredding by you
>merciless dogs.
>Beers aren't "dumbed down", beer-drinkers palates get familiar with bigger
>flavored beers. With age, our tongues get less sensitive.
>These processes are manifested in experiences such as that related by your
>brother, i.e., "I used to like beer ___ , but now it's not as flavorful,
>what did they do to it ?! ".
Ullrich is exactly correct.
I remember when Anchor Steam (1984) was HUGE (to me).
Now it is a very light beer (to me).
I remember when Fullers ESB was big. Now it's smaller
than Anchor Steam. ...same with Bass, very small now.
I used to think SNPA was hoppy. Not any more.
>For personal examples, here are beers I once loved but I now perceive as
>fairly dull:
>Guinness >Newcastle Brown >Sam Smith Wintertime >Sierra Nevada pale
>Watney's red barrel >Sam Adams Ale >Bass
>And here are beers that I once thought of as undrinkable, but I now love:
>All bocks and doppelbocks
>All belgian beers
>Barleywine
--
Ken Papai Marin County, California
kpa...@rahul.net http://www.rahul.net/kpapai/cycling
Jon Binkley
>> So, I'm curious as to whether or not anyone else has noticed this
>> seeming change of attitude at Sierra Nevada.
Pale Bock was definitely less hoppy this year, much more like
a traditional German Bock. This was a good change in my opinion--
it's not as if the west coast is awash in good renditions of
conventional Bock. As Peter A. correctly pointed out, any
moron can dump in an extra bale of hops, but it takes skill to
make a balanced, malty lager.
Summerfest also struck me as being less hoppy this year, but
that could be in comparison to all of the Bitburger I've been
drinking this summer ($4.99/six at Trader Joe's). A really nice
beer still, but it struck me as somewhere between a Helles and
and Export, whereas last summer it struck me as a Pilsner.
Is Big Foot less hoppy? 1999 struck me as differently hopped--
more Columbus, less in-your-face grapefruit from Centennials--
but still pretty damned hoppy, still the most drinkable fresh
barleywine (and about the only barleywine I actively enjoy
drinking). Others have said it's less hoppy. Maybe.
I have noticed no changes in SN Pale Ale in the past 12 years,
and I drink it fairly often.
Phil Ullrich wrote The Truth:
Andrew D. Ager
<bee...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> Ullrich wrote in message ...
> >On Fri, 3 Sep 1999 Nyarla...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> So, I'm curious as to whether or not anyone else has noticed this
> >> seeming change of attitude at Sierra Nevada.
> >
> >I have a pet theory that I'll throw into the pit for shredding by you
> >merciless dogs.
> >
> >Beers aren't "dumbed down", beer-drinkers palates get familiar with bigger
> >flavored beers. With age, our tongues get less sensitive.
>
>
> Put my money on this one.
See Lew and I giving Nick a hard time about Bell's 2-Hearted a week or so ago.
BTW, Nick, whenever you have a shipping box available, lemme know (I have
nothing that would be good for this).
--
Andrew D. Ager
Chicago, IL
andrew-ager at nwu dot edu
Fred Waltman
Ullrich <pull...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 3 Sep 1999 Nyarla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> So, I'm curious as to whether or not anyone else has noticed this
>> seeming change of attitude at Sierra Nevada.
>
>I have a pet theory that I'll throw into the pit for shredding by you
>merciless dogs.
>
>Beers aren't "dumbed down", beer-drinkers palates get familiar with bigger
>flavored beers. With age, our tongues get less sensitive.
>brother, i.e., "I used to like beer ___ , but now it's not as flavorful,
>what did they do to it ?! ".
>
I was thinking the same thing -- it was not too long ago that SNPA was
the towards the top end of the scale w.r.t. hops -- as far as regularly
available beers go (i.e. excluding seasonals)
Now after a fresh Hop Ottin/Hop Devil/Hop Pocket/whatever it may seem
downright tame.
--
Fred Waltman
Culver City Home Brewing Supply (Los Angeles area)
fr...@brewsupply.com *or* wal...@netcom.com
www.brewsupply.com *and* www.LABeer.com
Ken Papai
>> So, I'm curious as to whether or not anyone else has noticed this
>> seeming change of attitude at Sierra Nevada.
>I have a pet theory that I'll throw into the pit for shredding by you
>merciless dogs.
>Beers aren't "dumbed down", beer-drinkers palates get familiar with bigger
>flavored beers. With age, our tongues get less sensitive.
>These processes are manifested in experiences such as that related by your
>brother, i.e., "I used to like beer ___ , but now it's not as flavorful,
>what did they do to it ?! ".
Ullrich is exactly correct.
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
<Pine.A41.3.95.990903...@black.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
Ullrich <pull...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
> I have a pet theory that I'll throw into the pit for shredding by you
> merciless dogs.
>
> Beers aren't "dumbed down", beer-drinkers palates get familiar with
bigger
> flavored beers. With age, our tongues get less sensitive.
> These processes are manifested in experiences such as that related by
your
> brother, i.e., "I used to like beer ___ , but now it's not as
flavorful,
> what did they do to it ?! ".
This familiarization process _does_ occur, of course; and the
palates of most devotees of good beer to tend to become more
adventurous.
The problem with your reply -- which, I see, EVERYONE agrees with
-- is that I was referring to objective facts about the beer. That
reduction in the strength of the PA, Porter, and Stout -- that really
happened, regardless of any changes that may be taking place in anyone's
palates. I would _bet money_ on the veracity of the assertion that the
PB and BF were measurably less hoppy in their recent incarnations than
they usually are. And then there's Sierra Nevada's introduction of all
those modest, conventional brews. So, some things at SN _are_ changing,
and you can't get away with this, "It's all just subjective" stuff.
Jon Binkley
> I noticed, about a year and a half ago, that Sierra Nevada reduced
>the alcohol content of its Pale Ale, Porter, and Stout. The stout, for
>example, used to be over 6% ABV (it was sufficiently potent, in fact,
>for Christopher Finch to liken it to Guiness's so-called Foreign Extra
>Stout); now it's 5.8% ABV. (It's still a good brew, but the change is
>discernable.)
I compared the specs on Sierra Nevada's website:
http://www.sierra-nevada.com/html/beers/cooler.htm
with the relevant specs in the 1989 edition of _Essentials of
Beer Style_ (written by one "Barney" Eckhardt, edited by one
"Giggy" Frane, B.S.). Eckhardt includes IBU and SRM values,
which the website unfortunately excludes.
SNPA:
Website says 4.4% abw [~ 5.5% abv, by my calculation], 13 deg. Plato.
Eckhardt says 4.4% abw, 5.5% abv, 13.9 deg. Plato.
SN Porter:
Website says 4.7% abw [~ 5.9% abv], 14.5 deg. Plato.
Eckhardt says 4.6% abw, 5.8% abv, 14 deg. Plato.
SN Stout:
Website says 5.1% abw [~ 6.4% abv], 16 deg. Plato.
Eckhardt says 5.1% abw, 6.4% abv, 16 deg. Plato.
SN Celebration Ale:
Website says 5.1% abw [~ 6.4% abv], 16 deg. Plato.
Eckhardt says 5.1% abw, 6.4% abv, 16 deg. Plato.
SN Bigfoot Barleywine:
Website says 10.1% abw [~ 12.6% abv], 23 deg. Plato.
Eckhardt says 8.4% abw, 10.6% abv, 25 deg. Plato.
[These latter gravity vs. alcohol specs jibe with my memory
that earlier sightings of Bigfoot were more viscous and cloying
than recent ones; that's an improvement to my tastes]
All in all, the specs look pretty similar. Where did your
numbers come from, Nyarla...@hotmail.com?
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
bin...@fafner.Stanford.EDU (Jon Binkley) wrote:
> Nyarla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > I noticed, about a year and a half ago, that Sierra Nevada
reduced
> >the alcohol content of its Pale Ale, Porter, and Stout. The stout,
for
> >example, used to be over 6% ABV (it was sufficiently potent, in fact,
> >for Christopher Finch to liken it to Guiness's so-called Foreign
Extra
> >Stout); now it's 5.8% ABV. (It's still a good brew, but the change
is
> >discernable.)
The specs you get from the website are generally consistent with
those in the Eckhardt book. However, the specs provided on the labels
of the PA, Porter, and Stout are lower (e.g., the stout purports to have
5.8% ABV, in contrast to its former 6.5% ABV) than these sources
indicate.
Remember that my claim with the BF and PB was that the _hoppiness_
(not the alcohol content) had decreased.
Jon Binkley
>Is Big Foot less hoppy? 1999 struck me as differently hopped--
>more Columbus, less in-your-face grapefruit from Centennials--
In my notes from February, I wrote:
"Nose: Medium hops-Centennial or Cascade?"
SN Website says: Centennials and Cascades!
Looks like I've reached the age to believe my notes more
than my brain cells.
I'm inclined to agree that the hop nose was more restrained
this year.
I also noted that it seemed slightly paler in color than
previous years, and that I caught a touch of roastiness
in the finish.
Tequilla_Shot (Dave
malty say two years ago. Are now normal beer to me. I remember trying a
SN pale ale two years ago and thinking wow this is hoppy. While i still
enjoy SN pale ale i wouldn't call it a hop monster now. Dave.
"So many beers.So little time...."
Andrew D. Ager
(Jon Binkley) wrote:
99 Bigfoot was, to my mind, one of the best BFs in my memory straight out
of the bottle: everything was knit together gloriously. Previous models
were also great, but went through a decreasing scale of intensity: hop
forest, spitting resins out like chaw; tastes like normal over-the-top IPA
wiht more malt; getting maltier; mmm, knit-together barleywine!
This generally seemed to be a 2-3-year process. I liked the togetherness
straight up as a refreshing change.
Jon Binkley
> The specs you get from the website are generally consistent with
>those in the Eckhardt book. However, the specs provided on the labels
>of the PA, Porter, and Stout are lower (e.g., the stout purports to have
>5.8% ABV, in contrast to its former 6.5% ABV) than these sources
>indicate.
Aha! Now we're getting somewhere. I would indeed believe
the bottles sooner than the quite-possibly-outdated website.
What do the bottles of PA and Porter say?
> Remember that my claim with the BF and PB was that the _hoppiness_
>(not the alcohol content) had decreased.
Yes, and I agreed with you. I just said I like 'em better that way.
What may we call you? I'm having a bit of trouble wrapping my
brain around "Nyarla...@hotmail.com."
Andrew D. Ager
Well, you say in your first post:
> I noticed, about a year and a half ago, that Sierra Nevada reduced
> the alcohol content of its Pale Ale, Porter, and Stout. The stout, for
> example, used to be over 6% ABV (it was sufficiently potent, in fact,
> for Christopher Finch to liken it to Guiness's so-called Foreign Extra
> Stout); now it's 5.8% ABV. (It's still a good brew, but the change is
> discernable.)
Does it say this on the label? How does it reconcile with the
website-listed strength? Has anyone *measured* the stuff recently?
Bigfoot regularly lists 9.6abv on the label, but clocks in over that more
often than not; hell, the website lists bigger numbers. I don't know that
I could definitively notice a .2% abv difference between two beers.
That's not a humongous shift. I'm a reasonably experienced BJCP judge,
too, if that means anything.
AFAIK, SN IPA, Brown, etc., are all long-time standards up in Chico.
FWIW, I've never really heard of SN getting really wacky with styles.
Lots of solid beers, executed extremely well.
So I guess I'm taking issue with the above statement that "some things at
SN _are_ changing, and you can't get away with this, "It's all just
subjective" stuff" since from everything I've ever heard, SN hasn't
changed that much. Maybe you just visited the brewery at a time when they
didn't have their over-the-top wacky stuff online? Maybe they're more
focused on producing classic beer styles than pushing the envelope, since
they did a bulk of the craqft brewery envelope-pushing for better than a
decade? I don't know the answers, but I'm of the opinion that the
"objective" facts may not be all that objective. Feel free to disagree!
As an aside, I'll relate this tidbit again: In another ng recently, a
visitor to the Bay Area described SNPA as "typical US pale ale -- WAY
overhopped." That's not dumbed-down...as the commentator is someone who
has a fair amount of beer knowledge. I don't agree with him, but that's
just me.
Jeff Stanley
Ullrich wrote:
> Beers aren't "dumbed down", beer-drinkers palates get familiar with bigger
> flavored beers. With age, our tongues get less sensitive.
I know this is true in most cases because I have had similar swings of
opinion in some of the same beers you listed, but...
I ordered a boulevard pale ale at a bar about a week ago. The only on-tap
selection the bar had was BPA and bud. My second beer was a Bud. The
boulevard pale was not well balanced at all. I am no expert judge by any
measure, but I really hate beers that are "unbalanced". Beers with big body
(very malty-sweet) and no or little hop balance do not appeal to me. This
is the problem I have always had with NB Fat Tire. I sold BPA for a
distributor for four years, it never seemed "unbalanced" to me before. I
was talking with a brewer from another brewery about this very experience
yesterday. He was completely in agreement, the beer had been dumbed down
for the masses according to our opinions.
You and Lew are correct, our palates mature and change; but I am convinced
that there are breweries out there changing their beer trying to reach a
broader audience. I just wish that they would create a new brand and leave
the old regulars alone. Remember new coke? I'm sure that Coke had plenty
of consumer tasting panels tell them that the new stuff tastes better, but
everyone knows the results. IMHO some breweries learned from this, they
just learned the wrong lesson. I think some breweries change their beer
according to what their research has told them, they just don't tell anyone
and assume no one will notice, or rely on the research that says people will
like it better. But that's just my opinion.
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
bin...@fafner.Stanford.EDU (Jon Binkley) wrote:
>
> Aha! Now we're getting somewhere. I would indeed believe
> the bottles sooner than the quite-possibly-outdated website.
> What do the bottles of PA and Porter say?
The bottles of the PA and Porter both indicate decreases in
alcoholic strength. I don't have a bottle of either brew on hand -- I
just happen to drink the stout more regularly --, so I'm unable to give
the precise figures. But surely someone here will be able to provide
the current ABV figures -- and confirm the veracity of my claim.
> > Remember that my claim with the BF and PB was that the
_hoppiness_
> >(not the alcohol content) had decreased.
>
> Yes, and I agreed with you. I just said I like 'em better that way.
>
> What may we call you? I'm having a bit of trouble wrapping my
> brain around "Nyarla...@hotmail.com."
>
I'll answer to just about anything. My allies & adversaries in
other NGs refer to me as "Nyar."
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
real.a...@bottom.of.message (Andrew D. Ager) wrote:
> Well, you say in your first post:
>
> > I noticed, about a year and a half ago, that Sierra Nevada
reduced
> > the alcohol content of its Pale Ale, Porter, and Stout. The stout,
for
> > example, used to be over 6% ABV (it was sufficiently potent, in
fact,
> > for Christopher Finch to liken it to Guiness's so-called Foreign
Extra
> > Stout); now it's 5.8% ABV. (It's still a good brew, but the change
is
> > discernable.)
>
> Does it say this on the label?
Yes.
> How does it reconcile with the
> website-listed strength?
There's a conflict, obviously; at least one of the figures must be
wrong.
> Bigfoot regularly lists 9.6abv on the label, but clocks in over that
>more
> often than not; hell, the website lists bigger numbers.
My reduction-in-ABV-claim pertains to the PA, Porter, and Stout.
My claim with regard to BF is that its last incarnation was less hoppy
than usual.
> I don't know
> that
> I could definitively notice a .2% abv difference between two beers.
> That's not a humongous shift.
Well, the stout went from 6.5% ABV to 5.8% ABV -- a difference
which a devotee of the product _should_ notice, I think.
> AFAIK, SN IPA, Brown, etc., are all long-time standards up in Chico.
> FWIW, I've never really heard of SN getting really wacky with styles.
> Lots of solid beers, executed extremely well.
I've not suggested that they have or should do anything "wacky."
My contention is just that some informed observers see signs of
toning-down.
> As an aside, I'll relate this tidbit again: In another ng recently, a
> visitor to the Bay Area described SNPA as "typical US pale ale -- WAY
> overhopped."
Ah, but there's a profound difference between this person's project
and the one I've described.
I've talked about people comparing SNPA to _earlier incarnations_ of
SNPA! Your friend seems to be comparing SNPA to _other_ (English?) PAs.
Thus, your anecdote in no way contradicts my suggestion that the _SN_
PA has changed.
Bruce Reistle
Why is everyone being so dense about this? The guy wants to know if SN has
changed specs, as the bottles seem to indicate.
--
Bruce Reistle
Anti-spam: replace "intercourse" with "intergate" to reply
Peter Alexander
> The bottles of the PA and Porter both indicate decreases in
>alcoholic strength. I don't have a bottle of either brew on hand -- I
>just happen to drink the stout more regularly --, so I'm unable to give
>the precise figures. But surely someone here will be able to provide
>the current ABV figures -- and confirm the veracity of my claim.
I have been following this with a little interest and two or three
things occur to me:
1 That taste differences over time will occur both naturally
because of ingredients varying slightly and the "getting used to it
factor" This is certainly important. (Otherwise yu could never really
move up to something challeging could you?)
2 Reduction of alcohol content IS noticable I think even at
relatively small levels. I would caveat though that this depends on
where you start from. In rocket fuel type beers - say 8% and over, a
small reduction will not really be noticable, but as you move down the
gravity range you start to notice it more readily. Now I would
contend that most beers youguys call "big" are what we would call
plain old fashioned "strong" and that most of 'em could stand a little
reduction in alcohol. At the SNPA level you are in danger of
tinkering with a classic to it detriment as the reduction in alcohol
allows other s flavours to become more noticable. Thats a bit of a
judgement call though. It aint absolute.
3 Dumbing down of beers is a marketing man's usual proposition.
Make it easy to drink and people will drink more of it. Damn though
it does work but not in beer geekdom.
I agree with whoever said that they should just invent a new dumber
beer than fuck about with a really good 'un.
4 Lastly those craft brewers who do this should remember that
taking on the big boys at their game is a sure fire loser in the long
term.
Peter Alexander, Chairman, CAMRA Rochdale, Oldham and Bury Branch
Ullrich
> > Beers aren't "dumbed down", beer-drinkers palates get familiar with
> > bigger flavored beers. With age, our tongues get less sensitive.
>
> palates of most devotees of good beer to tend to become more
> adventurous.
> The problem with your reply -- which, I see, EVERYONE agrees with
> -- is that I was referring to objective facts about the beer.
As I recall your original post, you seemed to be referring to a number
of things and I thought my reply was appropriate to your general question
paraphrased as "do you think that there is a change of attitude at SN?"
I recall that you were writing about their tame renditions of some
styles, your brother's reaction to SNPA, and of course you also wrote
about the change in specs. So that's why I wrote that problematic reply
that I suppose was directed really at your brother's reaction and the SN
attitude change comment, i.e., one might judge beers as tame and dumbed
down for a number of reasons, including change in recipes and including
palate changes. Now as this thread has progressed we know that you are
really concerned about measurable changes in beer. In your original post
I thought you were open to other tangents.
> That reduction in the strength of the PA, Porter, and Stout -- that
> really happened, regardless of any changes that may be taking place in
> anyone's palates. I would _bet money_ on the veracity of the assertion
> that the PB and BF were measurably less hoppy in their recent
> incarnations than they usually are. And then there's Sierra Nevada's
> introduction of all those modest, conventional brews. So, some things
> at SN _are_ changing, and you can't get away with this, "It's all just
> subjective" stuff.
Well, we're still awaiting data on the change in IBUs and other hop
schedule factors, aren't we? Until we have it, the perception that SN
beers are now less hoppy, less bitter could be a product of changes in
palates rather than in how they brew it.
Re: this "It's all just subjective stuff", I'm not trying to get away
with a claim that change in consumer palates explains it all, I just
offered that as a relevant and interesting phenomenon that might account
for *some* variation in how we judge beers as modest or not. I brought it
up because it has come up here before, re: other beers, I think it's
interesting. And I did say that it was just a theory.
Phil
Jon Binkley
opportunity to do some beer label reading.
>SNPA:
>Website says 4.4% abw [~ 5.5% abv, by my calculation], 13 deg. Plato.
>Eckhardt says 4.4% abw, 5.5% abv, 13.9 deg. Plato.
And the bottle says 5.6% abv. No alcohol change here, although
a degree Plato difference (from 1989 to now) might well make
a difference in body or malt profile.
>SN Porter:
>Website says 4.7% abw [~ 5.9% abv], 14.5 deg. Plato.
>Eckhardt says 4.6% abw, 5.8% abv, 14 deg. Plato.
Bottle says 5.6% abv. 0.2 - 0.3 % difference, may or may
not be noticible.
>SN Stout:
>Website says 5.1% abw [~ 6.4% abv], 16 deg. Plato.
>Eckhardt says 5.1% abw, 6.4% abv, 16 deg. Plato.
Bottle says 5.8% abv. Significant difference, good call Nyar.
They also had SN Summerfest on the shelves:
Labeled 5.0% abv; website says 3.5 abw [~4.4% abv]
and SN Wheat:
Labeled 4.4% abv; website says 3.9% abw [~4.9% abv]
Conclusions:
(1) They have made a few changes over the years. Whether
or not the changes constitute "dumbing down" is a matter
of taste. For example, I think the changes to Pale Bock
are a big improvement, but Nyar (and Eric Bogan, if I remember
correctly) liked it better hoppier.
(2) They don't keep their website up to date.
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
Bruce Reistle <rei...@intercourse.com> wrote:
> >
>
> Why is everyone being so dense about this? The guy wants to know if
SN has
> changed specs, as the bottles seem to indicate.
Amazing, isn't it? You'd think I was denying the existence of
their god or something.
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
<Pine.A41.3.95.990904...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
Ullrich <pull...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>
> Well, we're still awaiting data on the change in IBUs and other hop
> schedule factors, aren't we? Until we have it, the perception that SN
> beers are now less hoppy, less bitter could be a product of changes in
> palates rather than in how they brew it.
We are still awaiting this data. However, it seems to me that no
one here disputes my contention that the PB and BF were less hoppy in
their most recent renderings (what's at issue is whether these changes
constitute an improvement or -- as I contend -- a wimpification).
>
> Re: this "It's all just subjective stuff", I'm not trying to get away
> with a claim that change in consumer palates explains it all, I just
> offered that as a relevant and interesting phenomenon that might
account
> for *some* variation in how we judge beers as modest or not. I
brought it
> up because it has come up here before, re: other beers, I think it's
> interesting. And I did say that it was just a theory.
Fair enough. I certainly agree that the process you're talking
about takes place. It's just that my own claims re: Sierra Nevada
aren't explicable on that basis.
By the way -- I'm addressing this to everyone -- are Sierra Nevada's
porter and stout still bottle-conditioned?
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
Thanks for obtaining that information and making those comparisons.
I feel vindicated.
Chesna
>
>I just got back from grocery shopping, where I took the
>opportunity to do some beer label reading.
>
>>SNPA:
>
>>Website says 4.4% abw [~ 5.5% abv, by my calculation], 13 deg. Plato.
>>Eckhardt says 4.4% abw, 5.5% abv, 13.9 deg. Plato.
>
>And the bottle says 5.6% abv. No alcohol change here, although
>a degree Plato difference (from 1989 to now) might well make
>a difference in body or malt profile.
>
Well, I'm drinking a Bigfoot now and it says 9.6% abv on it. Was it ever any
stronger than that?
----Chesna
************************************************
To reply, remove "REMOVE" from my e-mail address
************************************************
My beer tasting page.... http://woodstock.csrlink.net/~tirinis/beer.htm
================================================
My tape trading page.... http://woodstock.csrlink.net/~tirinis/trade.htm
Chock full of goodies like: All in the Family, Andy Kaufman, AYBS?, Chris Elliott,
Christopher Walken, ILC, Quantum Leap, Seinfeld, Sliders, South Park, The State on
MTv, X Files, Sanford and Son, MST3k, Twin Peaks, Bigfoot, and a whole mess of
cheesey movies!!!
================================================
MSTie #89324
Jon Binkley
>Well, I'm drinking a Bigfoot now and it says 9.6% abv on it. Was it ever any
>stronger than that?
Their website says 10.1% abw [~12.6% abv], but I have bottles of
'97, '98, and '99 that are all labeled as 9.6% abv. I don't know
what's going on. My first inclination was that the labels must
be right, since the BATF can do a lot scarier things to you for
mislabeling a bottle than computer/beer geeks can for mislabeling
a website. However, the Bigfoot labels look suspiciously like
they just printed up a big batch and are too lazy to change them
from year to year.
Ullrich
> Ullrich <pull...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
> > Well, we're still awaiting data on the change in IBUs and other hop
> > schedule factors, aren't we? Until we have it, the perception that SN
> > beers are now less hoppy, less bitter could be a product of changes in
> > palates rather than in how they brew it.
>
> We are still awaiting this data. However, it seems to me that no
> one here disputes my contention that the PB and BF were less hoppy in
> their most recent renderings (what's at issue is whether these changes
> constitute an improvement or -- as I contend -- a wimpification).
I am with you there, a pox on wimpification.
Phil
Joel Plutchak
>In article <real.address-0...@dyna2.sesp.nwu.edu>,
>My claim with regard to BF is that its last incarnation was less hoppy
>than usual.
That may be true. However, as Bigfoot does not have a set recipe,
but changes every year, a single-year variation in hoppiness that you
perceive doesn't have statistical significance. In fact, lower
hoppiness should be expected some years.
--
Joel Plutchak
"The crux of the biscuit is: If it entertains you, fine. Enjoy
it. If it doesn't, then blow it out your ass." - Frank Zappa
David Brockington
>In article <37D0E538...@intercourse.com>,
> Bruce Reistle <rei...@intercourse.com> wrote:
>> >
>>
>> Why is everyone being so dense about this? The guy wants to know if
>SN has
>> changed specs, as the bottles seem to indicate.
> Amazing, isn't it? You'd think I was denying the existence of
>their god or something.
Well, in some ways you are, you know.
David Brockington Seattle, USA
UW Political Science CSSCR Consultant
Beer Reviewer @ The Brewery: http://hbd.org/brewery/taproom/DBindex.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote Of The Week: "And [Gov. George W. Bush] says to me, 'I value you as
a person and I value you as a human being, and I want you to know, Glen,
that what I say publicly about gay people doesn't pertain to you,'" Rep.
Glen Maxey, Texas' only openly gay legislator.
--
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
plut...@SncsaP.uiucA.eduM (Joel Plutchak) wrote:
> In article <7qq1ho$fac$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <Nyarla...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> >In article <real.address-0...@dyna2.sesp.nwu.edu>,
> >My claim with regard to BF is that its last incarnation was less
hoppy
> >than usual.
>
> That may be true. However, as Bigfoot does not have a set recipe,
> but changes every year, a single-year variation in hoppiness that you
> perceive doesn't have statistical significance. In fact, lower
> hoppiness should be expected some years.
It doesn't have "statistical significance"! What a bizarre
response.
Whatever the case, the decrease in hoppiness seriously interfered
with my ability to enjoy the beer.
Joel Plutchak
> It doesn't have "statistical significance"! What a bizarre
>response.
Why? You gave several examples of reduced hoppiness or
gravity to bolster you case that SN is deliberately dumbing
down their beers. That's using an appeal to the statistics
of the situation, whether you realize it or not. So, I respond
with the reality of the fact that the recipe for Bigfoot varies,
so of *course* sometimes it will be less hoppy, or less malty,
or of a bit lower gravity. Unless they continually ramp all
characteristics up, that is, which I doubt will happen.
> Whatever the case, the decrease in hoppiness seriously interfered
>with my ability to enjoy the beer.
I'm sure that's true, but at least in the case of Bigfoot it
merely represents your individual tastes and how it interacts with
the recipe for Bigfoot, which by design changes every year. Only
if they continually made it lower gravity and less hoppy would there
be significance to your generalization regarding SN's policies.
Incidentally, when you say you perceived Bigfoot was less hoppy,
do you mean bitterness, flavor, aroma, some combination of the three,
or what?
Andrew D. Ager
> In article <real.address-0...@dyna2.sesp.nwu.edu>,
> real.a...@bottom.of.message (Andrew D. Ager) wrote:
> > Well, you say in your first post:
> >
> > > I noticed, about a year and a half ago, that Sierra Nevada
> reduced
> > > the alcohol content of its Pale Ale, Porter, and Stout. The stout,
> for
> > > example, used to be over 6% ABV (it was sufficiently potent, in
> fact,
> > > for Christopher Finch to liken it to Guiness's so-called Foreign
> Extra
> > > Stout); now it's 5.8% ABV. (It's still a good brew, but the change
> is
> > > discernable.)
> >
> > Does it say this on the label?
>
> Yes.
Well, then. That's a change.
> My reduction-in-ABV-claim pertains to the PA, Porter, and Stout.
> My claim with regard to BF is that its last incarnation was less hoppy
> than usual.
>
>
> > I don't know
> > that
> > I could definitively notice a .2% abv difference between two beers.
> > That's not a humongous shift.
>
> Well, the stout went from 6.5% ABV to 5.8% ABV -- a difference
> which a devotee of the product _should_ notice, I think.
That is nopticeable shift -- I was working of the numbers that Jon posted.
And to be fair, I haven't been a regular SN consumer for quite some time
-- I buy local stuff more often than not, except the once in a while when
I'm revisiting old favorites.
> > As an aside, I'll relate this tidbit again: In another ng recently, a
> > visitor to the Bay Area described SNPA as "typical US pale ale -- WAY
> > overhopped."
>
> Ah, but there's a profound difference between this person's project
> and the one I've described.
>
> I've talked about people comparing SNPA to _earlier incarnations_ of
> SNPA! Your friend seems to be comparing SNPA to _other_ (English?) PAs.
> Thus, your anecdote in no way contradicts my suggestion that the _SN_
> PA has changed.
Just to be clear (not snotty), said person is not, in fact, my friend, nor
have I met him. He's a .net presence over in rcb. In the interests of
research, I consumed a fair amount of SNPA this past weekend. It seemed,
if anything, hoppier than I recall. Certainly nothing was noticeably
different.
The point of the anecdote above was that SNPA certainly hits non-regular
drinkers of it as quite hoppy and robust. My own experience says that
SNPAs I had last year were blander than I remembered. This year they're
better again. Part of this, I think, is that last year I was drinking a
LOT of high-test IPA. This summer, I've barely knocked back 2 cases of
beer, total. Fresh palate.
If SN was indeed in the clutches of marketeers who were dumbing down, I
think there would be a serious outcry in the beer-loving community. their
mainline beers are too classic to be seriously messed with. I'll have to
try the Stout again, too, I suppose. Sheesh, makin' me buy all this damn
beer....
Cheers,
David Brockington
>In article <7r3pvj$18v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <Nyarla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> It doesn't have "statistical significance"! What a bizarre
>>response.
> Why? You gave several examples of reduced hoppiness or
>gravity to bolster you case that SN is deliberately dumbing
>down their beers. That's using an appeal to the statistics
>of the situation, whether you realize it or not. So, I respond
>with the reality of the fact that the recipe for Bigfoot varies,
>so of *course* sometimes it will be less hoppy, or less malty,
>or of a bit lower gravity. Unless they continually ramp all
>characteristics up, that is, which I doubt will happen.
Technically, our pal Nyarlathotep1 is right
(although he did overstate his case -- far more
bizarre things happen here daily): statistical
significance is not the appropriate term. The problem
with his inference is not statistical, but a flaw of
research design. The pedantically correct way to state
this is that his study lacks external validity.
This is true to the point of including Bigfoot,
a variable recipe, in a study that attempts to
determine whether or not SN has been blandifying
their beers over time.
--
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
dbr...@u.washington.edu (David Brockington) wrote:
> Technically, our pal Nyarlathotep1 is right
> (although he did overstate his case -- far more
> bizarre things happen here daily): statistical
> significance is not the appropriate term.
Right, but remember that _I_ never said that the relative tameness
of the most recent edition of Bigfoot had "statistical significance."
In refuting the claim that I said that, one refutes a straw man.
David Brockington
>In article <7r401e$hrc$1...@nntp3.u.washington.edu>,
> dbr...@u.washington.edu (David Brockington) wrote:
>> Technically, our pal Nyarlathotep1 is right
>> (although he did overstate his case -- far more
>> bizarre things happen here daily): statistical
>> significance is not the appropriate term.
> Right, but remember that _I_ never said that the relative tameness
>of the most recent edition of Bigfoot had "statistical significance."
>In refuting the claim that I said that, one refutes a straw man.
I'm not sure I follow.
I tend to agree with Joel's point regarding methodology,
just his terminology was wrong.
Once you make claims to empiricism, you open yourself open
to associated criticisms. Any inferences that SN has
adopted a policy of blandification suggested by
your Bigfoot example are untenable since Bigfoot is a
variable product to begin with.
Regardless, this is a minor point, since it appears that
other beers have changed (some stronger, some weaker) indicating
that Sierra's recipes are not static. The stronger case of
blandification seems harder to make, however.
Joel Plutchak
David Brockington <dbr...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> Technically, our pal Nyarlathotep1 is right
> (although he did overstate his case --
Oh, aye. Only one of the "static" SN line-up shows
perceptible lowering of gravity. Hardly the across-the-board
evidence of anything.
> The pedantically correct way to state
> this is that his study lacks external validity.
Thanks for the correction.
> This is true to the point of including Bigfoot,
> a variable recipe, in a study that attempts to
> determine whether or not SN has been blandifying
> their beers over time.
Yeah, I muddled the statistical irrelevance of taking
a single year out of a varying event (to wit, Bigfoot
recipe formulation) and drawing conclusions from it with
the whole thing. Mea Culpa.
(And have fun in Chicago. We'll miss you here. ;-)
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
Can anyone confirm or refute the claim that Sierra Nevada has
ceased to bottle-condition its porter & stout?
Thanks.
Joel Plutchak
> Can anyone confirm or refute the claim that Sierra Nevada has
>ceased to bottle-condition its porter & stout?
Somebody can. Call the brewery in Chico and ask. That way you
get the answer from the source, rather than third-hand speculation
like the below.
I understand for the pale ale several years ago they started using
articificial carbonation to hit about 90% of total volume and did very
light bottle conditioning for the remaining 10%. It would make sense
if they did all the non-seasonals (at least) that way. The change was
quite obvious-- the amount of yeast caked on the bottom of the bottles
went down drastically, enough that you wouldn't really notice it if
you weren't looking. It was very sticky, too, so even a careless pour
wouldn't dislodge it.
Dr H
On 8 Sep 1999, Joel Plutchak wrote:
} I understand for the pale ale several years ago they started using
}articificial carbonation to hit about 90% of total volume and did very
}light bottle conditioning for the remaining 10%.
"Artificial carbonation"? They're using something other than CO2?
Dr H
Jeff Frane
Sierra's products have traditionally been naturally conditioned, H.
Y'know they started as homebrewers, so had this weird idea that they
could brew beer that conditioned in the bottle (or even the keg).
As opposed to carbonating the beer and *then* bottling it, of course.
But you knew that, didn't you?
--Jeff Frane
Joel Plutchak
Jeff Frane <fran...@pcez.spamsux.com> wrote:
>> "Artificial carbonation"? They're using something other than CO2?
>>
>Sierra's products have traditionally been naturally conditioned, H.
>Y'know they started as homebrewers, so had this weird idea that they
>could brew beer that conditioned in the bottle (or even the keg).
>
>As opposed to carbonating the beer and *then* bottling it, of course.
>
>But you knew that, didn't you?
There are two possible explanations for his inane comment. One
is that he somehow misread the common phrase "artificial carbonation"
as meaning something more like "using artificial CO2" rather than
the much easier to understand "being carbonated by other than a
natural process." The other explanantion is less than flattering,
so I'll be the nice, moral guy I am and ignore it.
Peter Rosback
>
> I just got back from grocery shopping, where I took the
> opportunity to do some beer label reading.
>
> >SNPA:
>
> >Website says 4.4% abw [~ 5.5% abv, by my calculation], 13 deg. Plato.
> >Eckhardt says 4.4% abw, 5.5% abv, 13.9 deg. Plato.
>
> And the bottle says 5.6% abv. No alcohol change here, although
> a degree Plato difference (from 1989 to now) might well make
> a difference in body or malt profile.
>
>
> >Website says 4.7% abw [~ 5.9% abv], 14.5 deg. Plato.
> >Eckhardt says 4.6% abw, 5.8% abv, 14 deg. Plato.
>
> Bottle says 5.6% abv. 0.2 - 0.3 % difference, may or may
> not be noticible.
>
> >SN Stout:
>
> >Website says 5.1% abw [~ 6.4% abv], 16 deg. Plato.
> >Eckhardt says 5.1% abw, 6.4% abv, 16 deg. Plato.
>
> Bottle says 5.8% abv. Significant difference, good call Nyar.
>
> They also had SN Summerfest on the shelves:
> Labeled 5.0% abv; website says 3.5 abw [~4.4% abv]
>
> and SN Wheat:
> Labeled 4.4% abv; website says 3.9% abw [~4.9% abv]
>
> Conclusions:
>
> (1) They have made a few changes over the years. Whether
> or not the changes constitute "dumbing down" is a matter
> of taste. For example, I think the changes to Pale Bock
> are a big improvement, but Nyar (and Eric Bogan, if I remember
> correctly) liked it better hoppier.
>
> (2) They don't keep their website up to date.
You folks ought to be aware that the label may not need to
be all that accurate. In the wine world the label may mis-
state the alcohol level by plus or minus 1.5%!
Has SN decided to make the stout appear less alcoholic for
some reason or have they in fact altered the recipe?
Doesn't someone have a connection to SN where a direct inquiry
can be made. (Not that all the speculation isn't loads of
fun.)
Peter Rosback
Peter Rosback
Are you folks aware that alcohol levels on labels may not
need be all that accurate? In the wine world where I work,
stated alcohol level may vary plus or minus 1.5% from actual!
I just talked to the Hair of the Dog boys and they tell me
beer can vary plus or minus .5% from actual.
Does anyone have the ear of somebody at SN to ask directly?
(Not that rampant speculation isn't loads of fun...)
Peter Rosback
Jim Busch
Peter Rosback wrote:
>
> >
> > >Website says 5.1% abw [~ 6.4% abv], 16 deg. Plato.
> > >Eckhardt says 5.1% abw, 6.4% abv, 16 deg. Plato.
> >
> > Bottle says 5.8% abv. Significant difference, good call Nyar.
>
This is surprising, the stout was always one of my favorites from
Sierra, must go try another to see the changes.
>
> You folks ought to be aware that the label may not need to
> be all that accurate. In the wine world the label may mis-
> state the alcohol level by plus or minus 1.5%!
1.5% on a 13% beverage is vastly different than 1.5% on a
5.5% beverage. I believe one is supposed to be within .5%
by volume in the US... if anyone checks....
Cheers!
Jim Busch
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
Jim Busch <j...@nospam.victorybeer.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > You folks ought to be aware that the label may not need to
> > be all that accurate. In the wine world the label may mis-
> > state the alcohol level by plus or minus 1.5%!
>
> 1.5% on a 13% beverage is vastly different than 1.5% on a
> 5.5% beverage. I believe one is supposed to be within .5%
> by volume in the US... if anyone checks....
That's a good point, and I look forward to your comments re: the
stout. My contention, again, isn't that the current 5.8% ABV version of
the stout is _bad_; I'm just saying the difference is _discernable_,
however inclined certain people may be towards the view that Sierra
Nevada's formulae are immutable, or the view that critical commentary
upon their products is transgression against God.
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
Some people have responded to my suggestion that certain Sierra
Nevada products have been toned-down over time with the claim that "it's
all subjective," and other people say that the changes (the
"wimpifications," as I call them) in the products which I cite are
"insignificant." Both responses, I contend, are incorrect.
I'm going to focus here on SN's stout, because it's the product
about which I currently have the most information -- also because it
used to be my favorite beer (I started drinking it in '88). It's been
noted that this product currently has 5.8% ABV in contrast to its 6.5%
ABV of about 1&1/2 years ago; and, while I can't _prove_ it, this stout
has undergone a general reduction in assertiveness. Some people respond
to this drop in alcohol with the suggestion that _even this_ isn't
significant, or with the even more credulity-straining reply that this
seeming change in ABV is really just the result of a mistake on the part
of the label-makers.
In a used book store today, I happened to come across a copy of
the stout book from the "Classic Beer Styles" series. The book is
written by Michael J. Lewis, who worked in the UC Davis Brewing Sciences
Department, and it was undertaken in collaboration with a number of
professional colleagues.
Lewis subjected dozens of stouts from numerous countries to some
very detailed, thorough testing (please see the book) -- and found that,
in many respects, the Sierra Nevada stout was more assertive than just
about everything else tested -- including, for example, Grant's Imperial
Stout and Rogue's Shakepeare Stout. For instance, SN's stout had a much
higher alcohol content than these other products, with _over 7% ABV_!
This was in '95. By '98, the stout was down to 6.5% ABV. Today it's
down to 5.8% ABV.
Now, some of you are going to say that this is all a conspiracy
between me, Lewis, and Sierra Nevada's label-manufacturers. Some of you
are going to maintain that you aren't obliged to acknowledge this
watering-down until Sierra Nevada's brewers pay you a personal visit and
confess their wimpifications face-to-face.
But I think this proves that there is an _objective_ basis to the
contention that Sierra Nevada's _stout_ is being presented in an
increasingly watered-down form. (As for the other products, I'll keep
my eyes open.)
Collin H. Powers
ago, I had bought a sixpack of SNPA and was actually going to post the very
same question to the NG about the incredible change in this pale ale (must
have had too many and forgotten).
I give full credence to the theory of "increased hop expectations."
Referring to an earlier post, I also remember when I had my first Anchor
Steam at the Stanford Univ. Coffee House in 1982, and I thought my life had
been fulfilled. Well, obviously, I now consider AS to be a mild beer.
However, the change that many of us noticed has gone way beyond increased
expectations. I have had so many SNPAs in my life that I really can
"picture" the flavor of that beer in mind's eye (tongue?); and when I tasted
the last batch, I was shocked! It's not even a beer that I would consider
ordering anymore. It tastes like a pale ale light.
For those of you who have been arguing this issue theoretically, please go
out and buy a sixpack. You will see what we mean.
Party on dudes,
Collin
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
"Collin H. Powers" <jv...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> However, the change that many of us noticed has gone way beyond
increased
> expectations. I have had so many SNPAs in my life that I really can
> "picture" the flavor of that beer in mind's eye (tongue?); and when I
tasted
> the last batch, I was shocked!
Exactly. Some of us _know_ what these beers used to taste like.
They are not the same.
> It's not even a beer that I would
> consider
> ordering anymore. It tastes like a pale ale light.
>
> For those of you who have been arguing this issue theoretically,
please go
> out and buy a sixpack. You will see what we mean.
They should taste (and publicly acknowledge) the difference. It
seems to me, however, judging from some of the replies I've been given,
that some people have a fanatical commitment to the view that "Sierra
Nevada's products haven't changed."
Jon Binkley
>However, the change that many of us noticed has gone way beyond increased
>expectations. I have had so many SNPAs in my life that I really can
>"picture" the flavor of that beer in mind's eye (tongue?); and when I tasted
>the last batch, I was shocked! It's not even a beer that I would consider
>ordering anymore. It tastes like a pale ale light.
I disagree. I have been drinking a fairly constant amount for
the past 12 years or so. I had my last one yesterday afternoon.
I can't tell the difference. Unlike the big difference in the Stout
that Nyar pointed out, we can find no major quantitatative differences
in the Pale Ale.
>For those of you who have been arguing this issue theoretically, please go
>out and buy a sixpack. You will see what we mean.
I did (well, actually a 12 pack), and I don't. I see a tasty
every-day sort of beer, with nice fresh Cascade nose and flavor,
mildly bitter, with not much malt or fruity ale character. I
don't remember it ever being any bigger than that. Maybe you
could be more specific in the differences you find.
Collin H. Powers
you've been drinking it for a couple of years longer than I have), then
that's all I was asking ... and I'll defend to the death your right to keep
drinking that beer! (jokingly dramatic).
What I noticed was a serious drop in the dryness and complexity of character
as a result of reduced hops. Heck, maybe you have been drinking it SO often
that you haven't noticed the change.
Collin
Garry Simmons
<Nyarla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7reof0$scb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <7reebo$qls$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>,
> "Collin H. Powers" <jv...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > However, the change that many of us noticed has gone way beyond
> increased
> > expectations. I have had so many SNPAs in my life that I really can
> > "picture" the flavor of that beer in mind's eye (tongue?); and when I
> tasted
> > the last batch, I was shocked!
>
> They are not the same.
>
>
> > consider
> > ordering anymore. It tastes like a pale ale light.
I pretty clearly remember my first SNPA a bunch of years ago. Great beer
with a unique taste to it. I certainly agreed with Michael Jackson's 4 star
rating. I was really digging it. I don't tend to drink much SN anymore
(aside from lots of Celebration Ale and Bigfoot), but the last 3 or 4 SNPAs
I had at the local sub shop (when working late) were very disappointing. I
know I've grown to like much bigger beers over the years, but the difference
seems pretty large to me. Now I just get a Hop Devil with my sandwich...
Garry
Jon Binkley
>What I noticed was a serious drop in the dryness and complexity of character
>as a result of reduced hops. Heck, maybe you have been drinking it SO often
>that you haven't noticed the change.
The thought crossed my mind, and I acknowledge it as a possibility,
but that puts us back in the realm of psychology: have bigger beers
raised your relative expectations, or has familiarity blinded me
to gradual change? I stand by my assertion that it's just as
hoppy as it's ever been, but if someone can get insider information
to the contrary, I will admit to being an interesting case study.
Get on it, Professional Beer Writers!
Jon Binkley
>I don't tend to drink much SN anymore
>(aside from lots of Celebration Ale and Bigfoot),
Well, that's rather illuminating, isn't it?
>but the last 3 or 4 SNPAs
>I had at the local sub shop (when working late) were very disappointing. I
>know I've grown to like much bigger beers over the years, but the difference
>seems pretty large to me. Now I just get a Hop Devil with my sandwich...
And you're certain that this is the difference between the SNPA of
today and the SNPA of yore, and not the difference between SNPA
and Celebration Ale or Bigfoot (or Hop Devil)?
This is sounding to me like several IPA and Barleywine fans
complaining that SNPA is not an IPA or Barleywine. How about
offering up some examples of PALE ALES that you feel have remained
rock-steady in character over the same time span that you feel
SNPA has become pathetic? How do you feel about Sam Adams
Boston Ale? Saranac Pale Ale? Redhook ESB?
Garry Simmons
Jon Binkley <bin...@fafner.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:7rgjlc$lk8$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU...
> Garry Simmons wrote:
>
> >I don't tend to drink much SN anymore
> >(aside from lots of Celebration Ale and Bigfoot),
>
> Well, that's rather illuminating, isn't it?
Not really. Just stating that those are the two SN products I tend to enjoy
the most. Yes, I tend to prefer big beers to session beers.
> >but the last 3 or 4 SNPAs
> >I had at the local sub shop (when working late) were very disappointing.
I
> >know I've grown to like much bigger beers over the years, but the
difference
> >seems pretty large to me. Now I just get a Hop Devil with my sandwich...
>
> And you're certain that this is the difference between the SNPA of
> today and the SNPA of yore, and not the difference between SNPA
> and Celebration Ale or Bigfoot (or Hop Devil)?
I'm not certain of anything. No doubt some of my disappointment with today's
SNPA is due to changing personal preference or experience with bigger beers.
I was just stating that it seems (to me) there is to it than that.
> This is sounding to me like several IPA and Barleywine fans
> complaining that SNPA is not an IPA or Barleywine. How about
> offering up some examples of PALE ALES that you feel have remained
> rock-steady in character over the same time span that you feel
> SNPA has become pathetic? How do you feel about Sam Adams
> Boston Ale? Saranac Pale Ale? Redhook ESB?
I still enjoy Sam Adams and Saranac Pale Ale is still one of my favorite
PAs. I've been a Saranac fan for a long time. I still like session beers.
I'll hunker down next to a nice cask of bitter for a session any time. It
just seems odd that a beer that made me go "Holy S**t! Now that's a GREAT
beer" maybe 5 or 6 years ago now has me wondering why I spent the $3 on
it... Just one person's opinion/data point, that's all...
Garry
Jon Binkley
I wrote:
>> How about
>> offering up some examples of PALE ALES that you feel have remained
>> rock-steady in character over the same time span that you feel
>> SNPA has become pathetic? How do you feel about Sam Adams
>> Boston Ale? Saranac Pale Ale? Redhook ESB?
Garry Simmons wrote:
>I still enjoy Sam Adams and Saranac Pale Ale is still one of my favorite
>PAs. I've been a Saranac fan for a long time.
Good, me too. Let's persue this a bit more. Do you think that
Saranac has *more* character than contemporary SNPA? It's certainly
a different beer--more malt character, English hops--but I feel
it's directly comparable in terms of overall "bigness" (or lack
thereof)--and has been over the time I've been familiar with
both.
>just seems odd that a beer that made me go "Holy S**t! Now that's a GREAT
>beer" maybe 5 or 6 years ago now has me wondering why I spent the $3 on
>it...
Three dollars for a beer? Be careful here--it sounds like you're
talking about Sierra Nevada Draught Ale, which has always been a
slightly different beer from the bottled SN Pale Ale. In my
opinion, the bottled beer has always been the superior of the
two, which I attribute to bottle conditioning vs. filtering
and kegging. I have always found it a fresher tasting product,
with more hop character.
Garry Simmons
> >PAs. I've been a Saranac fan for a long time.
>
> Good, me too. Let's persue this a bit more. Do you think that
> Saranac has *more* character than contemporary SNPA? It's certainly
> a different beer--more malt character, English hops--but I feel
> it's directly comparable in terms of overall "bigness" (or lack
> thereof)--and has been over the time I've been familiar with
> both.
I'd want to do them side by side (just to be fair and not rely on memory),
but sitting here now, I'd say that my recent bottles of SNPA had little
character. I'm betting that the Saranac PA I get is way fresher than the
SNPA though. I'd like to get fresh bottles of each (and a few other PAs) and
have some of my friends over for a blind sampling/tasting session...
> >just seems odd that a beer that made me go "Holy S**t! Now that's a GREAT
> >beer" maybe 5 or 6 years ago now has me wondering why I spent the $3 on
> >it...
>
> Three dollars for a beer? Be careful here--it sounds like you're
> talking about Sierra Nevada Draught Ale, which has always been a
> slightly different beer from the bottled SN Pale Ale.
$3 for a "premium/micro" bottle is pretty typical at a restaurant. It's
definately SNPA I'm talking about.
Garry
Lew Bryson
>I stand by my assertion that it's just as
>hoppy as it's ever been, but if someone can get insider information
>to the contrary, I will admit to being an interesting case study.
>
>Get on it, Professional Beer Writers!
Find someone to pay me, and I will. That is, after all, what makes me a
"professional!"
Lew Bryson
Freelance writer and fulltime father.
My opinions are my own: the good ones I sell.
Author of Pennsylvania Breweries, now available at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/081172879X/002-1904346-8002803
Collin H. Powers
comparison. As far as the Saranac and SABA are concerned, I would say that
they have been as consistent as my taste buds can discern over the past few
years (even with Sammy's subbing out to other breweries ... you got to give
them credit for that). Redhook ESB, however, has always been inconsistent
.... even sixpack to sixpack and month to month (at least where I buy it
here in the East). I had an excellent sixpack of this beer once about five
years ago and have bought many follow-ups only to find that about one out of
three are that good (45% of all statistics are made up on the spot).
You know, you really could be right about increased expectations. But I can
so clearly remember the flavor of SNPA that I just am not going to be
convinced that the current version is anything like it. I guess I'll never
know for sure.
Collin
Eric Bogan
Jon Binkley <bin...@fafner.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:7qs0l8$9ht$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU...
<snippage of beery stats>
> (1) They have made a few changes over the years. Whether
> or not the changes constitute "dumbing down" is a matter
> of taste. For example, I think the changes to Pale Bock
> are a big improvement, but Nyar (and Eric Bogan, if I remember
> correctly) liked it better hoppier.
Remember also, Jon that I liked the beer overall
(despite the hop cutback) In fact, a good friend
of mine insists that the Pale Bock is the perfect
beer chaser w/shots of Tequila(I'm too much of
a weenie to test his therory).
eb
Joel Plutchak
> Now, some of you are going to say that this is all a conspiracy
>between me, Lewis, and Sierra Nevada's label-manufacturers. Some of you
>are going to maintain that you aren't obliged to acknowledge this
>watering-down until Sierra Nevada's brewers pay you a personal visit and
>confess their wimpifications face-to-face.
Once again, starting from what was decribed as an across the
board "wimpification," you've back way down to describing how a
single beer's OG has gone down. I daresay the initial reaction
to your initial posting was justified.
Why get your knickers in a twist over it?
Jeff Frane
wrote:
> Be careful here--it sounds like you're
>talking about Sierra Nevada Draught Ale, which has always been a
>slightly different beer from the bottled SN Pale Ale. In my
>opinion, the bottled beer has always been the superior of the
>two, which I attribute to bottle conditioning vs. filtering
>and kegging. I have always found it a fresher tasting product,
>with more hop character.
>
I am as close to positive as I can be that the bottled SNPA and the
draught SN ale have always been two distinctly different beers -- not
just because of treatment but because they are/were different
formulations. The bottled version was always far more dry, far more
bitter and, IMO, far more complex than the draught beer.
OTOH, I always *loved* the draught beer, because of its soft, yet
assertive hoppiness.
But, I have to also say that I have experienced a distinct change in
the bottled SNPA over the last few years. While the beer is still very
good, I believe that the hopping has changed considerably, and that
the beer is considerably "softer" (for want of a better word) --
perhaps a different hop blend is being used, and the hops are less
harsh than earlier. I don't know, exactly, but I really think the beer
is recognizably different from what it once was. (And, my memory is
pretty fresh on this, since I have the remains of a fresh six-pack at
home, and was sipping one just last night.)
--Jeff Frane
Toby Ivey
: On 12 Sep 1999 18:53:00 GMT, bin...@fafner.Stanford.EDU (Jon Binkley)
: wrote:
: > Be careful here--it sounds like you're
: >talking about Sierra Nevada Draught Ale, which has always been a
: >slightly different beer from the bottled SN Pale Ale. In my
: >opinion, the bottled beer has always been the superior of the
: >two, which I attribute to bottle conditioning vs. filtering
: >and kegging. I have always found it a fresher tasting product,
: >with more hop character.
: >
: I am as close to positive as I can be that the bottled SNPA and the
: draught SN ale have always been two distinctly different beers -- not
: just because of treatment but because they are/were different
: formulations. The bottled version was always far more dry, far more
: bitter and, IMO, far more complex than the draught beer.
In fact Michael Jackson even rates the two differently in his pocket guide. I think the bottled version won out for him.
Cheers, Toby
Joel Plutchak
Jeff Frane <fran...@pcez.spamsux.com> wrote:
>But, I have to also say that I have experienced a distinct change in
>the bottled SNPA over the last few years. While the beer is still very
>good, I believe that the hopping has changed considerably, and that
>the beer is considerably "softer" (for want of a better word) --
>perhaps a different hop blend is being used, and the hops are less
>harsh than earlier.
That brings up a good question. To what extent do smaller
(relative to A-B) breweries try to make identical beers year
after years? Most of us realize hop harvests change from year
to year, and even grain isn't utterly consistent. I strongly
suspect no brewery takes it as far as A-B does, i.e., taking
stringent measures with grain lots, saving and blending N years
worth of M different hop varieties, etc. Do they rely on test
batches and side-by-side comparisons? Just wing it?
I won't even get into the question of whether consistency
is good or not.
I don't know, exactly, but I really think the beer
>is recognizably different from what it once was. (And, my memory is
>pretty fresh on this, since I have the remains of a fresh six-pack at
>home, and was sipping one just last night.)
>
>--Jeff Frane
--
Joel Plutchak
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds..."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Scott Kaczorowski
> You know, you really could be right about increased expectations. But I can
> so clearly remember the flavor of SNPA that I just am not going to be
> convinced that the current version is anything like it. I guess I'll never
> know for sure.
Anyone remember when SN stopped using a hopback for this beer?
I think it was long enough ago to be out of the scope of this
conversation. Just wondering.
Scott
Jeff Frane
Plutchak) wrote:
> That brings up a good question. To what extent do smaller
>(relative to A-B) breweries try to make identical beers year
>after years? Most of us realize hop harvests change from year
>to year, and even grain isn't utterly consistent. I strongly
>suspect no brewery takes it as far as A-B does, i.e., taking
>stringent measures with grain lots, saving and blending N years
>worth of M different hop varieties, etc. Do they rely on test
>batches and side-by-side comparisons? Just wing it?
My feeling is that most breweries make the *attempt*, but that they
are limited by resources in what they are able to achieve. Coors does
a fine job, mostly because they are vertically integrated, so they can
produce exactly what they need each year. A-B does a great job,
because they can specify exactly what it is they will buy in order to
guarantee that the product meets their very exacting specifications.
And, of course, any large brewery can achieve more consistent results
by blending -- which is usually out of the question for small
breweries.
It's also a lot easier, I believe, to achieve consistency if you do a
lot of blending within the prescription -- i.e., you use more than one
signature hop in your beer. If the only hop you add is Cascade, then
you are really going to be pushed around by variations in the hop from
year to year. If you blend a lot of hops, as they do to brew
Budweiser, then a lot of that variation will be averaged out and
changes will not be as obvious.
And, of course, if you have really good lab facilities it's a lot
easier to determine how to make all those adjustments. If you have a
bench in the back of the brewpub, you're going to be pretty limited in
what analysis you can do.
--Jeff Frane
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
Joel, you continually isolate a single premiss of mine, and then
say, "This doesn't prove your overall thesis." That's dishonest. The
fallacy you're committing here is that of division, but we don't need to
get technical about it. I've cited _several_ pieces of evidence (see
the post with which I started this thread) which pertain to many SN
beers, in support of my general claim re: Sierra Nevada's policy of
wimpification.
Moreover, in describing the wimpification of the SN stout, I have
not confined myself to the drastic reduction in Original Gravity. I
contend that the product has been _generally_ blandified. It's just
that the _available data_ has been limited to the OG. (They don't put
the IBUs, for instance, on the label. [I know, I know. Hops don't
merely impart bitterness.] If they did, this, too, would reflect a
sharp drop.)
With regard to your "Why get upset about these alterations?"
question, my (rather obvious) reason is that I _liked_ the robust
versions of the products in question, and I don't like to see them
dumbed down. It might also be relevant to invoke Michael Jackson's
reply to the question of whether he was a "beer snob." Good beer,
Jackson replied, is _worth_ being a snob about.
Jon Binkley
>I've cited _several_ pieces of evidence (see
>the post with which I started this thread) which pertain to many SN
>beers, in support of my general claim re: Sierra Nevada's policy of
>wimpification.
Many? We've found objective evidence for the "wimpification"
of exactly one beer: SN Stout. The available numbers for the other
year-round beers have not changed significantly in ten years.
Have they changed very much subjectively? I say Pale Ale
hasn't. I don't drink enough Stout, Porter, or Wheat to judge.
I'll take your word for it on Stout, but I haven't seen anything
about Porter or Wheat.
Apart from that, we have noted that the seasonal specials
vary from year to year, and always have. The most recent
changes that I have noticed in Bigfoot and Pale Bock--more
malt character--were improvements to my tastes; a MAJOR
improvement, in fact, for Pale Bock. Maybe they weren't
improvements to a melanoidophobe, but calling it "wimpification"
is a big stretch.
Change for the blander in ONE beer, while certainly distressing
if you happen to have been a fan of that beer, hardly constitutes
a general policy of "wimpification."
Tim McNerney
confess SNPA to this day remains my favorite everyday beer. I believe
that changes in my palette have led to changes in how I perceive many
beers, but for whatever reason, this one has not been downgraded.
The stout, however, is not the beer I had a few years back. It just
ain't. This isn't subjective or objective, just the gospel according to
Tim.
--Tim
Tim McNerney
>
> On 12 Sep 1999 18:53:00 GMT, bin...@fafner.Stanford.EDU (Jon Binkley)
> wrote:
>
> > Be careful here--it sounds like you're
> >talking about Sierra Nevada Draught Ale, which has always been a
> >slightly different beer from the bottled SN Pale Ale. In my
> >opinion, the bottled beer has always been the superior of the
> >two, which I attribute to bottle conditioning vs. filtering
> >and kegging. I have always found it a fresher tasting product,
> >with more hop character.
> >
>
> I am as close to positive as I can be that the bottled SNPA and the
> draught SN ale have always been two distinctly different beers -- not
> just because of treatment but because they are/were different
> formulations. The bottled version was always far more dry, far more
> bitter and, IMO, far more complex than the draught beer.
>
> assertive hoppiness.
As long as I have been drinking them, they have been different products.
This according to the brewery. And the bottled version is what I prefer.
I like the draught, but the bottled version is da bomb.
--Tim
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
bin...@fafner.Stanford.EDU (Jon Binkley) wrote:
> Many? We've found objective evidence for the "wimpification"
> of exactly one beer: SN Stout.
> The available numbers for the other
> year-round beers have not changed significantly in ten years.
All changes that _have_ occurred, however, in the porter, BF, and
PB have been in the downward direction; we've had nothing but
_reductions_ in alcohol and hop-assertiveness. You happen to like the
reduction in hoppiness of the PB and BF. Still, the brews manifest a
dimunition of assertiveness.
It occurs to me that my term "wimpification" term is maybe too
loaded; no fans of SN products will agree about "wimpification" because
that would make them wimpy -- by _implication_! So, maybe I should
suggest that the policy at SN is towards more _gentle_ brews? No, that
probably won't work either. There seems to be no way around the
problem; any term that captures what I think has happened to the beers
is something that the beers' fans will not want to be associated with.
> Have they changed very much subjectively? I say Pale Ale
> hasn't.
You say that. But quite a few people who know this product
contradict you -- at least to the extent that my claim is _plausible_.
> I don't drink enough Stout, Porter, or Wheat to judge.
> I'll take your word for it on Stout
You don't need to take _my_ word on the stout. You can take the
word of Michael Lewis & his colleagues; or the word of Michael Jackson
(who dropped it from 3 to 2 stars); or the word of ITS OWN FUCKING
LABEL.
> but I haven't seen anything
> about Porter
Not so fast. You've seen _something_ on the porter -- namely, a
reduction in alcohol. All the Sierra Nevada apologists here immediately
agreed that this reduction ought not to be deemed significant. Still,
it was a reduction; the change was in the downwards direction.
> Apart from that, we have noted that the seasonal specials
> vary from year to year, and always have.
They've always varied, no one disputes that. But they've never been
so...(what should I say, "innocuous"?) before. The BF and PB had never
been so bereft of hop-assertiveness as they were in their last
incarnations. The diffidence of the hops in these two products --
which, I must emphasize, had previously been two of my _all-time
favorite beers_ (regardless of which [pre-last edition] year they
represent) -- was hitherto unknown. All the pre-last edition PBs were
great, I thought. All the pre-last edition BFs were fantastic. But
suddenly, in the same year, both beers go soft.
And the fact that this occurred to the same (i.e., the last)
edition of the two beers -- an edition which closely followed the
wimpification of the stout and the reduction in strength of the porter
-- this is of the utmost significance to my general claim.
So it's more than just a matter of the stout being wimpified.
Lew Bryson
> You don't need to take _my_ word on the stout. You can take the
>word of Michael Lewis & his colleagues; or the word of Michael Jackson
>(who dropped it from 3 to 2 stars);
When did the quantifiable "diminishing" of the stout take place? Jackson's
rating dropped between 1991 and 1994. The "more assertive" characterization
you found in Michael Lewis's book was in 1995. (What appears in Lewis's book
is a spiderweb plot of sensory characteristics for three stouts -- Sierra,
Sam Smith Oatmeal, and Guinness Extra -- with Sierra plotting higher on
fragrance, bitterness, "full," roasted aroma, and alcoholic flavor; and
another chart plotting SN against 21 other stouts -- SN is an outlier, but
so is Samuel Smith Taddy Porter and the Lost Coast 8-Ball. I would advise
those interested to look at the chart and the accompanying text themselves;
the information is complex and does not lend itself well to simplification,
IMO.) Timing would appear to be of some importance in the value of these
cites.
Joel Plutchak
Jon Binkley <bin...@fafner.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>Change for the blander in ONE beer, while certainly distressing
>if you happen to have been a fan of that beer, hardly constitutes
>a general policy of "wimpification."
Yes. It's rather simple.
However, it's unfortunate if it's true. The stout is/was a nice
beer that IMHO didn't realy need changing. Haven't had it in awhile
since I can't get it fresh.
Jon Binkley
> All changes that _have_ occurred, however, in the porter, BF, and
>PB have been in the downward direction; we've had nothing but
>_reductions_ in alcohol and hop-assertiveness.
How would an INCREASE in malt assertiveness fit into your
lupulocentric world?
> It occurs to me that my term "wimpification" term is maybe too
>loaded; no fans of SN products will agree about "wimpification" because
>that would make them wimpy -- by _implication_!
I don't mind the term if it fits. It fits for the Stout.
Nyral, you have PROVED to me that SN Stout has been WIMPIFIED.
You BASTARDS at SN, how DARE you WIMPIFY our Stout!!!
> Not so fast. You've seen _something_ on the porter -- namely, a
>reduction in alcohol. All the Sierra Nevada apologists here immediately
>agreed that this reduction ought not to be deemed significant. Still,
>it was a reduction; the change was in the downwards direction.
Okay, if I grant the 0.2% decrease in Porter is significant
evidence of wimpification, will you grant the 0.1% INCREASE
for Pale Ale, or the 0.5% INCREASE for this year's edition
of Summerfest, over the same time period in question, are
significant evidence for SN beers getting more bold? Or,
more probably, might they just reflect the range of error
in the measurement, or minor batch-to-batch variations?
>> Apart from that, we have noted that the seasonal specials
>> vary from year to year, and always have.
>
> They've always varied, no one disputes that. But they've never been
> so...(what should I say, "innocuous"?) before. The BF and PB had never
>been so bereft of hop-assertiveness as they were in their last
>incarnations.
Yessirree, beer is defined as a concoction fermented from Hops,
Water, and.... ummmmm...... Gee, what was that other ingredient?
You, Nyral, are a hop head. There is nothing wrong with that.
Some of my best friends are hop heads. I myself am a recovered
hop head. Hops are great. Rah, rah, rah, go hops go.
(As a favor to you and your argument, Nyral, I will add a
third SN seasonal to which I have detected a DECREASE
in hop character and a corresponding INCREASE in malt
character: Summerfest. Maybe the brewmaster at SN has
been on a malt kick lately.)
I will never agree that a reduction in hops constitutes
wimpification WHEN IT IS CONCURRANT WITH AN INCREASE IN
MALT CHARACTER, as is the case for Bigfoot, Pale Bock,
and Summerfest.
Andrew Thibault
Nyarla...@hotmail.com wrote:
> The Summerfest and Pale Ale are gentle
> products to begin with -- any wimp can handle them, even in their most
> recent incarnations.
>
> This was illustrated for me when I visited the SN brewery over the
> summer. I was in the company of two people with extremely wimpy palates
> -- one of them drinks Coors on a regular basis, the other drinks Bud.
> (As you can imagine, I'm not particularly fond of either person; in
> fact, I made a serious effort to dissuade them from joining us.)
You dislike these people because of their taste (or lack of) in
beer? Either you are a gifted troll, or a raging asshole...
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
bin...@fafner.Stanford.EDU (Jon Binkley) wrote:
>
> How would an INCREASE in malt assertiveness fit into your
> lupulocentric world?
It wouldn't.
> > Not so fast. You've seen _something_ on the porter -- namely, a
> >reduction in alcohol. All the Sierra Nevada apologists here
immediately
> >agreed that this reduction ought not to be deemed significant.
Still,
> >it was a reduction; the change was in the downwards direction.
>
> Okay, if I grant the 0.2% decrease in Porter is significant
> evidence of wimpification, will you grant the 0.1% INCREASE
> for Pale Ale, or the 0.5% INCREASE for this year's edition
> of Summerfest, over the same time period in question, are
> significant evidence for SN beers getting more bold?
I don't know if I should be expected to grant that. Let's think
about this very carefully. The Summerfest and Pale Ale are gentle
products to begin with -- any wimp can handle them, even in their most
recent incarnations.
This was illustrated for me when I visited the SN brewery over the
summer. I was in the company of two people with extremely wimpy palates
-- one of them drinks Coors on a regular basis, the other drinks Bud.
(As you can imagine, I'm not particularly fond of either person; in
fact, I made a serious effort to dissuade them from joining us.) While
I quaffed the '97 Celebration Ale (far and away the hoppiest product
then available, even if the '97 CA was fairly effeminate), these folks
felt right at home with the Summerfest and Pale Ale.
> Yessirree, beer is defined as a concoction fermented from Hops,
> Water, and.... ummmmm...... Gee, what was that other ingredient?
There isn't one.
> Maybe the brewmaster at SN has been on a malt kick lately.
That's putting a rather benign spin on the whole thing.
Seriously, I _hope_ that my blandification theory is incorrect. I
would love nothing more than to be proved wrong by the next batches of
CA, BF, and PB. We'll see. (And we should see quite soon, in the case
of the CA.)
Nyarla...@hotmail.com
Andrew Thibault <teeb...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>
> Nyarla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > The Summerfest and Pale Ale are gentle
> > products to begin with -- any wimp can handle them, even in their
most
> > recent incarnations.
> >
> > This was illustrated for me when I visited the SN brewery over
the
> > summer. I was in the company of two people with extremely wimpy
palates
> > -- one of them drinks Coors on a regular basis, the other drinks
Bud.
> > (As you can imagine, I'm not particularly fond of either person; in
> > fact, I made a serious effort to dissuade them from joining us.)
>
> beer? Either you are a gifted troll, or a raging asshole...
Those comments of mine were intended to be taken with irony. It
was a joke -- albeit, perhaps, not an obvious enough one.
But if you want to call me a "troll" or do any of the "LOL" shit
that mentally-deficient Internet-frequenters are so fond of, go ahead.
It won't persuade me of anything.
Scott Kaczorowski
> > How would an INCREASE in malt assertiveness fit into your
> > lupulocentric world?
>
> It wouldn't.
Joking? It's hard to tell, you know. If malt is bland, does
an increase in malt make a beer more or less bland?
> The Summerfest and Pale Ale are gentle products to begin
> with -- any wimp can handle them, even in their most recent
> incarnations.
SNPA is a *gentle* product? That's about the plainest thing
you've said so far. I can't even imagine how many good beers
must be off your scale. IMO, if the Bud and Coors drinkers
that you so readily denigrate (Good joke, that. Banging ALL
drinkers - that *never* stops being funny.) "felt right at
home" with either of these beers, they're due more credit than
you give them. In fact, I've often argued that SNPA is not a
good transition beer for ALL drinkers.
I know several people who cannot drink beers with high hop
rates as it gives them a headache. It seems to be mostly high
hop flavor/aroma beers. My wife is one of these folks, and
yet she adores Tripel, Duvel, and Impies, among other big
beers. It occurs to me that I haven't called her any trite
names recently. Thanks for reminding me.
Scott
Lew Bryson
<7ron70>
>I know several people who cannot drink beers with high hop
>rates as it gives them a headache. It seems to be mostly high
>hop flavor/aroma beers. My wife is one of these folks, and
>yet she adores Tripel, Duvel, and Impies, among other big
>beers. It occurs to me that I haven't called her any trite
>names recently. Thanks for reminding me.
My brother-in-law's like this; just doesn't like hops. Drinks Samichlaus,
Aventinus, got a magnum of Goudenband for his birthday, loves doublebocks
and those big Polish porters -- just doesn't care for hops. YOU tell him
these beers are bland.
Andrew D. Ager
> In article <7rln8j$6ea$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
> bin...@fafner.Stanford.EDU (Jon Binkley) wrote:
> >
> > How would an INCREASE in malt assertiveness fit into your
> > lupulocentric world?
>
> It wouldn't.
>
>
> > > Not so fast. You've seen _something_ on the porter -- namely, a
> > >reduction in alcohol. All the Sierra Nevada apologists here
> immediately
> > >agreed that this reduction ought not to be deemed significant.
> Still,
> > >it was a reduction; the change was in the downwards direction.
> >
> > Okay, if I grant the 0.2% decrease in Porter is significant
> > evidence of wimpification, will you grant the 0.1% INCREASE
> > for Pale Ale, or the 0.5% INCREASE for this year's edition
> > of Summerfest, over the same time period in question, are
> > significant evidence for SN beers getting more bold?
>
> I don't know if I should be expected to grant that. Let's think
> about this very carefully. The Summerfest and Pale Ale are gentle
> products to begin with -- any wimp can handle them, even in their most
> recent incarnations.
>
> This was illustrated for me when I visited the SN brewery over the
> summer. I was in the company of two people with extremely wimpy palates
> -- one of them drinks Coors on a regular basis, the other drinks Bud.
> (As you can imagine, I'm not particularly fond of either person; in
> fact, I made a serious effort to dissuade them from joining us.) While
> I quaffed the '97 Celebration Ale (far and away the hoppiest product
> then available, even if the '97 CA was fairly effeminate), these folks
> felt right at home with the Summerfest and Pale Ale.
>
>
> > Yessirree, beer is defined as a concoction fermented from Hops,
> > Water, and.... ummmmm...... Gee, what was that other ingredient?
>
> There isn't one.
>
>
> > Maybe the brewmaster at SN has been on a malt kick lately.
>
> That's putting a rather benign spin on the whole thing.
>
> Seriously, I _hope_ that my blandification theory is incorrect. I
> would love nothing more than to be proved wrong by the next batches of
> CA, BF, and PB. We'll see. (And we should see quite soon, in the case
> of the CA.)
So a few beers wind up slightly lesser than before from SN. So effin'
what? It's not like there's a dearth of choices to take up the slack. Of
course, I wouldn't touch the stuff since it's obviously made by evil
conspirators at this point.
Seriously, it's a bummer the stout's been "lessened," but I haven't
noticed any change in SNPA (bottle or draught). BF and CA change yearly
anyway. It's not like I'm some rabid, drooling LOL-ing SN junkie; on the
contrary, I barely notice the stuff anymore with the exception of CA and
BF, since there's so much other good craft beer around that's fresher and
that I'd rather toss my money at.
I'm really not sure that one lineup shift is really worth the discussion
it's been given, in the long run, even with the near-mythic qualities
associated with SN.
--
Andrew D. Ager
Chicago, IL
andrew-ager at nwu dot edu
Jeff Frane
wrote:
>
>My brother-in-law's like this; just doesn't like hops. Drinks Samichlaus,
>Aventinus, got a magnum of Goudenband for his birthday, loves doublebocks
>and those big Polish porters -- just doesn't care for hops. YOU tell him
>these beers are bland.
>
Some folks are quite simply allergic to hops. Don Younger, owner of
the Horse Brass, and a known drunken lout (but a lovable lout) won't
give up his hops but gets immediately congested when drinking his
first glass of the day (Rogue YSB, of course, and for good reason).
Years ago, I was on a hopyard tour and the owner told us about the New
Guy, who didn't come in for his second day of work. Turns out he was
home in bed, needed hospitalization, because he was so sick and
swollen that he couldn't move -- had spent his first day working in
the room where the hops are actually dried and was completely allergic
to the oils released into the air.
What I've found curious is that people who "don't like beer", meaning
they can't stand Bud, Coors, et al, can really get into very hoppy
beers -- if there is a lot of hop flavor and aroma. In that case, they
don't even seem to notice the bitterness (which they claim not to
like), because it's in tune with all the hop flavor.
--Jeff Frane
Scott Kaczorowski
> My brother-in-law's like this; just doesn't like hops. Drinks Samichlaus,
> Aventinus, got a magnum of Goudenband for his birthday, loves doublebocks
> and those big Polish porters -- just doesn't care for hops. YOU tell him
> these beers are bland.
What a wimp. How do you resist the urge to kill him?
Scott
Dr H
On 9 Sep 1999, Joel Plutchak wrote:
}In article <37d80bb7...@news.pcez.com>,
}Jeff Frane <fran...@pcez.spamsux.com> wrote:
}>> "Artificial carbonation"? They're using something other than CO2?
}>>
}>Sierra's products have traditionally been naturally conditioned, H.
}>Y'know they started as homebrewers, so had this weird idea that they
}>could brew beer that conditioned in the bottle (or even the keg).
}>
}>As opposed to carbonating the beer and *then* bottling it, of course.
}>
}>But you knew that, didn't you?
}
} There are two possible explanations for his inane comment. One
}is that he somehow misread the common phrase "artificial carbonation"
}as meaning something more like "using artificial CO2" rather than
}the much easier to understand "being carbonated by other than a
}natural process." The other explanantion is less than flattering,
}so I'll be the nice, moral guy I am and ignore it.
"Artificial carbonation" would indeed imply artificial CO2 or some
substitute. There is nothing "unnatural" about force carbonation, as
you, a regular in the brewing newsgroups, should well know.
Dr H
Dr H
On Thu, 9 Sep 1999, Jeff Frane wrote:
}On Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:52:34 -0700, Dr H <hiaw...@efn.org> wrote:
}
}>
}>On 8 Sep 1999, Joel Plutchak wrote:
}>
}>} I understand for the pale ale several years ago they started using
}>}articificial carbonation to hit about 90% of total volume and did very
}>}light bottle conditioning for the remaining 10%.
}>
}> "Artificial carbonation"? They're using something other than CO2?
}>
}Sierra's products have traditionally been naturally conditioned, H.
}Y'know they started as homebrewers, so had this weird idea that they
}could brew beer that conditioned in the bottle (or even the keg).
}
}As opposed to carbonating the beer and *then* bottling it, of course.
}
}But you knew that, didn't you?
I usually see "bottle conditioned" rather than "naturally conditioned."
There is nothing "artificial" about carbonating a beer with CO2, no
matter how it is added -- bottle/keg conditioned or force carbonated.
Dr H
Lew Bryson
It's that look in his eye as he strops his bowie knife. It intimidates me.
Collin H. Powers
> that mentally-deficient Internet-frequenters are so fond of, go ahead.
> It won't persuade me of anything.
>
couple of years) on various NGs, I still haven't figured out what LOL stands
for! I've figured out every other acronym except that one. For a while I
thought it was "lots of luck" but that doesn't always fit ... It's one of
those things.
Nyarl - Yo dude, a lot of us thought your opinions were well said ... no
need to grind 'em. Just remember, great beers are worth living for; but bad
beers ain't worth all the trouble.
Party on dude,
Collin
John Staradumsky
<Nyarla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7qs9ot$u05$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Amazing, isn't it? You'd think I was denying the existence of
> their god or something.
Heh heh... welcome to rfdb. :-)
--
John Staradumsky
http://members.aol.com/bruguru2/cybeer.html
************************************************
"Throughout history, wherever cereal grains were grown, humans made a
beerlike beverage from them: they used wheat in Mesopotamia, barley in
Egypt, millet and sorghum in Africa, rice in Asia, and corn in the
Americas."
---"Beer," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99.
Lew Bryson
<7rqkl6$lpe$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
><Nyarla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> Amazing, isn't it? You'd think I was denying the existence of
>> their god or something.
>
>Heh heh... welcome to rfdb. :-)
Yeah, Nick HAS denied the existence of my God here, the poor, misguided
soul!
Joel Plutchak
Andrew D. Ager <real.a...@bottom.of.message> wrote:
>So a few beers wind up slightly lesser than before from SN. So effin'
>what?
>It's not like I'm some rabid, drooling LOL-ing SN junkie; on the
>contrary, I barely notice the stuff anymore with the exception of CA and
>BF, since there's so much other good craft beer around that's fresher and
>that I'd rather toss my money at.
What he said. In fact, I was quoted in an article about SNPA
in a _Zymurgy_ series about classic (or is it cult?) beers. Rather
than rave about it, I described it as being like a comfortable pair
of old leather shoes, or an old worn-at-the-elbows shapeless wool
sweater. You hardly ever wear them anymore, but it sure feels good
to put 'em on and putter around the yard every once in awhile.
Joel Plutchak
>> that mentally-deficient Internet-frequenters are so fond of, go ahead.
>
>couple of years) on various NGs, I still haven't figured out what LOL stands
>for!
It's not really an Internet(*) thing, but dates back to the commercial
BBSes, like Compuserve, Prodigy, and AOL. It's an acronym for "Laughing
Out Loud."
(*) The Internet is a mess of cabling, routers, computers, etc. It
is the medium through which things like USENET, email, the WWW, and
other services get transmitted. Terms like "frequent the Internet"
make little sense. One *can* frequent USENET newsgroups, AOL chat
rooms, highway rest areas, etc.
ObBeer: Enjoyed a Celis White last night. Is it my imagination,
or has that beer been dumbed down? <g> Seriously, though, it seems
less tart than it did when it first came out. Is this an(other)
case of palate familiarization, or is it real?
Andrew D. Ager
(Joel Plutchak) wrote:
> In article <real.address-1...@dyna2.sesp.nwu.edu>,
> Andrew D. Ager <real.a...@bottom.of.message> wrote:
> >So a few beers wind up slightly lesser than before from SN. So effin'
> >what?
> ...
> >It's not like I'm some rabid, drooling LOL-ing SN junkie; on the
> >contrary, I barely notice the stuff anymore with the exception of CA and
> >BF, since there's so much other good craft beer around that's fresher and
> >that I'd rather toss my money at.
>
> What he said. In fact, I was quoted in an article about SNPA
> in a _Zymurgy_ series about classic (or is it cult?) beers. Rather
> than rave about it, I described it as being like a comfortable pair
> of old leather shoes, or an old worn-at-the-elbows shapeless wool
> sweater. You hardly ever wear them anymore, but it sure feels good
> to put 'em on and putter around the yard every once in awhile.
Yup. I popped up in that article too, the weirdo who dreamed about SNPA
when I couldn't get my hands on it for a while (true!). Why mess around
with SN Stout, for example, when I can get 5 of the buggers from Larry
Bell?
Jeff Frane
>
> There is nothing "artificial" about carbonating a beer with CO2, no
> matter how it is added -- bottle/keg conditioned or force carbonated.
>
Um, er, yeah, well maybe.
There's certainly plenty of opinion to the contrary, and especially
those who consider that the conditioning created by allow the beer to
slowly carbonate in the bottle (or in the cask), produces a beer
notably different from the injection of CO2.
I suppose "artificial" may be a definition of choice, but I would say
that injecting CO2 from a tank is "artificial"; what would be subject
to debate was whether it may any difference or not.
--Jeff Frane
Joel Plutchak
Jeff Frane <fran...@pcez.spamsux.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 17:31:12 -0700, Dr H <hiaw...@efn.org> wrote:
>> There is nothing "artificial" about carbonating a beer with CO2, no
>> matter how it is added -- bottle/keg conditioned or force carbonated.
>I suppose "artificial" may be a definition of choice, but I would say
>that injecting CO2 from a tank is "artificial"...
The term "forced carbonation" may be better, since it has less
chance of getting people's knees to jerk. However, I fail to see
how injecting using canned gas can be considered natural. Nature's
way of carbonating is letting yeast do their stuff. Anything else
is not natural, and can hence be termed "articifial." (Unless one
wants to play semantic games and allow that anything done by
humankind is natural.)
--
Joel Plutchak
"Is it that men have such a hard time relating that they need... masks
('handles') to hide behind?" - Bill Whittington on obnoxious online behavior
Garry Simmons
Joel Plutchak <plut...@SncsaP.uiucA.eduM> wrote in message
news:7rqqla$1...@brew.ncsa.uiuc.edu...
> ObBeer: Enjoyed a Celis White last night. Is it my imagination,
> or has that beer been dumbed down? <g> Seriously, though, it seems
> less tart than it did when it first came out. Is this an(other)
> case of palate familiarization, or is it real?
That was my impression/question last month too...
Garry
John Staradumsky
news:7rqpct$2kbk$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
> Yeah, Nick HAS denied the existence of my God here, the poor, misguided
> soul!
I wouldn't worry too much about it. Last I heard, God denies the existence
of Nick. :-)
plut...@my-deja.com
"Lew Bryson" <bee...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >> Amazing, isn't it? You'd think I was denying the existence of
> >> their god or something.
> Yeah, Nick HAS denied the existence of my God here, the poor,
> misguided soul!
The difference between your God and SNPA is that SNPA
is not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays. (With
apologies to I. Anderson.)
ObEmoticon: :-)
--
Joel Plutchak
"You can twist perceptions/reality won't budge
You can raise objections/I will be the judge" - Rush
JW Steve
plut...@SncsaP.uiucA.eduM (Joel Plutchak) wrote:
> In article <7rplr7$kfq$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>,
> Collin H. Powers <jv...@erols.com> wrote:
> >Hey, I'm the mentally-deficient one, because after many months (okay
a
> >couple of years) on various NGs, I still haven't figured out what
LOL stands
> >for!
I figured that one out on my own. I respect that you
have the restraint to have not tried to find out.
I always figured if someone uses an acronym that's
not readily apparent, screw it.
> It's not really an Internet(*) thing, but dates back to the
commercial
> BBSes, like Compuserve, Prodigy, and AOL. It's an acronym for
"Laughing
> Out Loud."
Joel oh aged and wise one....
> (*) The Internet is a mess of cabling, routers, computers, etc. It
> is the medium through which things like USENET, email, the WWW, and
> other services get transmitted. Terms like "frequent the Internet"
> make little sense. One *can* frequent USENET newsgroups, AOL chat
> rooms, highway rest areas, etc.
And of course, "watching cable" or "listening to the radio"
aren't exactly correct. After all, the cable and the radio
are just devices and mediums used to transmit the signals
we actually listen to and watch. Of course, most people
don't feel the need to be a snot and point out such
things. At least this time you are correct, unlike
the whole distribution debacle. That one was classic,
foot in mouth unwares..
> ObBeer: Enjoyed a Celis White last night. Is it my imagination,
> or has that beer been dumbed down? <g> Seriously, though, it seems
> less tart than it did when it first came out. Is this an(other)
> case of palate familiarization, or is it real?
I'd wager palate familiarization. I don't think any of
the beers that were true originals/first styles I've had
still have the same bite. I had Celis before I had
any Belgian beers, any wheat beers, etc. At the time,
it was truly an experience. Now I think it's a decent
beer but my palate has been down most roads to the
outer edges.
> Joel Plutchak
>
> "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds..."
> - Ralph Waldo Emerson
You can say that again Ralph...
jw steve
Scott Kaczorowski
> Joel Plutchak <plut...@SncsaP.uiucA.eduM> wrote in message
> news:7rqqla$1...@brew.ncsa.uiuc.edu...
> > ObBeer: Enjoyed a Celis White last night. Is it my imagination,
> > or has that beer been dumbed down? <g> Seriously, though, it seems
> > less tart than it did when it first came out. Is this an(other)
> > case of palate familiarization, or is it real?
> That was my impression/question last month too...
I'll jump on board. My mother lives in AZ and I try this beer
at least annually. I've been asking myself "Why do I bother?"
for a couple of years now. I've gone from buying cases to bring
home, to buying single bottles in several different venues to
try to make sure that it isn't just age that makes it so bland.
Yet another beer with a reputation based more on wishful thinking
than actual taste, IMO.
Selling out to the Big Boys sure makes good business sense...
Scott
Lew Bryson
> "Lew Bryson" <bee...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>> >> Amazing, isn't it? You'd think I was denying the existence of
>> >> their god or something.
>
>> Yeah, Nick HAS denied the existence of my God here, the poor,
>> misguided soul!
>
> The difference between your God and SNPA is that SNPA
>is not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.
But my God doesn't generate a bunch of empties that have to be washed and
recycled.