wildwest450
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2007
- Messages
- 8,978
- Reaction score
- 191
All you guys who can make "better" beer than Sam Adams are missing out. You could open your own brewery and start living the dream.
_
_
I dont like sam because they pretend to be innovative but they arent.
Once you go public, and invest in mikes hard lemonad, you lost your craft brew status in my opinion. Now they have to focus on profit, not beer.
I'm actually thankful for Mike's. What the hell would every non-beer drinking girl drink, while you're sipping your HB? Beer tends to not remove panties quite as fast either . It's our version of all the baby boomer's Peach Schnapps.
I'm kidding, but Hard Lemonade is one recipe I can't make enough of.
Boston Lager is definitely unique and refreshing enough for me NOT to jump on the bandwagon.
As most of you know, the ABA revised in January it's definition of "small" in its criteria for recognizing a brewer as a craft brewer. They did this largely to avoid having to disqualify Boston Beer (Sam Adams) as it was about to surpass 2 million barrels. Here's the board: Steve Bradt, Dick Cantwell, John Mallett, John Pinkerton, Gary Fish, Sam Calagione, Mark Edelson, Rob Tod, Eric Wallace, Chris Graham, Chris P. Frey, Nick Matt, Kim Jordan, Ken Grossman, Steve Hindy. A "heady" bunch of craft brewers, there. I'd call that a strongly implied vote of confidence for the brewery, its product and its contribution to the craft brewing industry.
Pilgarlic said:Some of them may want to surpass that mark. I do think it's certainly true that they wanted Boston Beer's volume to stay in their reported industry production and market share numbers. Ownership, though, seems an odd criterion. Any craft brewer could be sold to passive partners. Size may be relevant, but I'm not at all sure it is to me.
Mosher defines craft beer (and I'm paraphrasing from "Radical Brewing") "If a homebrewer (past or current) gets to decide what the beer tastes like, it's craft beer."
Pilgarlic said:First: "But its hard to be a craft brewer when you dont own your own company." Then: "he has to keep in mind his board of directors and stock holders. This is very different than a partnership or passive investors." Sounds like we agree: "Ownership, though, seems an odd criterion." I'll not defend the criterion of ownership. You offered it. I offered the passive investor counterexample. But wait, you seem to be limiting your objection to corporate ownership. You say you agree with Mosher, and you grant that Jim (a former home brewer) decides how the beer taste (case closed?) but wait, you must not agree with Mosher, because you qualify that by saying Jim has to listen to his board and stockholders. So it seems you don't agree with Mosher after all. Presumably the "taint" that comes from board and shareholder input is from things like "will it sell" and "does it cost too much to produce", et cetera.... are you saying things like this don't enter into the decisions of a craft brewer who is in business to make a profit (and, really, if it weren't to make a profit, wouldn't he still be in the garage like us)?
Back to the 12'er: I like the Pils, the lager and the White. I don't care for the Rye (way too subdued) or the Scotch.
Pilgarlic said:I'm sure you're right that Koch is subject to enormous pressures that don't apply to microbrewers. Given those pressures, his continuing ability to produce some very nice beers is to be applauded.
The scotch ale is horrid. I can't decide if this is just not my style, or if this is a bad version of it.
Pilgarlic said:I'm not sure he claimed he was a home brewer. Has he? I assumed he had been, and I may be wrong about that. I repeat. I may be wrong about that. I repeat. I may be wrong about that. (Had to do that! The times I'm inclined to say that are soooooo rare!)
Hey.. their Triple Bock vintage 1995 is Amazing!!
Enter your email address to join: