Pre-order your Respect Beer "Hipster" Hoodie today!Plus: Free shipping (US only) on orders of $25 or more until 12/18/15. Just select "Free Shipping" at checkout.Shop now →
Discussion in 'Beer News' started by lokieman, Mar 5, 2013.
Meh. It's only 22oz. I can deal with that in one sitting any night so it doesn't really bother me
im now at the point where i can appreciate both. large format bottles exist for several reasons and im ok with that; besides, they are great for sharing.
OK, I see what you did there. Let me play. I'd rather have a date with Jessica Alba than pay $15 for a bomber. I can imagine things too!
The point is $30-40 sixpacks don't exist. That's why so much beer is bomber only.
Using the ol' six pack equivalent calculator will make you stop buying beer in any other format but 12oz
A bomber off lagunitas runs around 4$
which is better than most, but still the price per ounce would make that a 13$ six pack
and most lagunitas six packs are around 9-10$
the 5$ for a pint of sumpin' sumpin' at the bar is the equivalent of a 22$ six pack
there are horrors at every turn
Has there been a beer that went from being in a six pack prior to getting the bomber treatment? Or is it just a matter that the evolution progresses that bombers then get turned into an option for a six-pack if it sells well enough to warrant it.
Probably lots of examples over the years (what with close to 1000 bottling breweries existing now, and lots more defunct ones...). The two that come to my mind immediately are BBC putting Boston Lager and a few other of their regular line-up in 22 oz. bottles in the early '90's (they may still exist in some markets, but I don't see them) and Victory making Prima Pils and Hop Wallop avialable bombers after they had been in 12 oz. bottles exclusively previously.
16 oz cans seem to be getting little attention in this thread.
The 4 packs of 16 oz cans are my favorite "new" packaging.
Well, with a lot of other things the larger package is cheaper on a unit basis. I really never thought to do the math either. My dogs blow through about a hundred twenty pounds of food a month. I don't buy ten pounders because the forties cost me less per pound.
I don't buy so much beer that it really matters, but I do agree that a twelve ounce is a trial and a bomber is more of a commitment.
No way - it would probably be sold at about $12-$15 for a four-pack. I'm thinking specifically of DFH Palo Santo Marron - that would probably be about $15 in a 750ml-ish format.
Either way, the key is to make educated choices about the beer you buy. If it's a beer that I want and I am pretty sure I'm going to love it, I'll pay a few extra bucks. If it's overpriced garbage that has nice packaging, forget it.
but lots of stores don't sell single 12oz bottles and a bomber is usually cheaper than a 6 pack and i think somewhere along the way breweries figured out they could charge more for a bomber so they do it's simple business also many people think bombers age better not sure about that one myself though
Agree with this. I don't always feel like drinking the equivalent of 2 higher ABV brews in one night which is why there's always a supply of 12oz bottles in my fridge. But there are plenty of nights where a bomber or 750 is the perfect amount, and if I drink even a really big beer over the course of 4 or 5 hours I don't find the amount overwhelming.
Personally, I think both formats have their place and I don't have any problem with things the way they are now. 12oz for staple beers, bombers and 750s for special occasion beers.
2011 BCBS cost me from a range between $28 to $40 a 4 pack.
In a perfect world if cost wasnt a factor, I would say that low ABV beers should go in a large format(750ml) bottle with a cork and cage; especially with beer styles like saisons, sours, berliner wiessbeir, brett beers, etc. High ABV beer in 12oz or less size bottle.
Although I still buy bombers and 750s on occasion I prefer the 4/6 pack. Mostly because I can't justify paying almost twice as much for beer in a different format.
Price isn't the only thing here. I'd rather tick a more expensive bomber than have 5 extra (cheaper) bottles of something I didn't love.
My personal preference is bombers over 6'ers. I don't like to commit to a 6pk of a specific beer, especially if it's a new beer. I like to hop around and try different beers. 4pks of the higher abv and more cellarable styles I would purchase.
6 packs/4 packs are the way to do it. 750s are too damn expensive. Id buy the shit out of Interlude if it was in a 12.99-13.99 4 pk. Same with the DFH 750's. I really like Noble Rot, I really wish they'd put it in a 4pk.
I don't like paying more than $7 for a bomber.
Every large format bottle I've opened has been finished in that sitting, either by me or by company, so I don't have experience in "recapping," but I've always assumed the major concern was with loss of carbonation, not oxidation (in that short of a time period). I've seen devices that eliminate airspace in wine bottles when "recorking," would something like that help preserve a previously opened bottle over a longer period of time?
I think my beer drinking habits are probably quite a bit different than most people's, but they're probably not that much different than a lot of BAs. Personally, I really dislike 4 packs or 6 packs. Most of my beer drinking consists of meeting up with friends 2-3 times a week to share bottles and drink at a bar. I prefer variety, and a beer has got to be amazing for me to want to drink 72 oz of it. 22 oz is perfect for me to share with 3 or 4 guys and make sure that all of us get a decent pour. With a 12 oz bottle, there's not enough to go around.
I actually relish my days not drinking at all, so drinking alone isn't a big selling point for me. On the rare occasions that I do pop a bottle alone, it's rarely going to be a big heavy beer anyways, so a bomber isn't such a bad thing. 22 oz is less than a pint and a half! It shouldn't be a problem for anyone to finish that much of a decent beer that is less than 7 % abv.
let's just cut to the chase with this NYT article. this is a particularly annoying trend in journalism. create a controversy in a headline, then write a dumb story.
it's BULLSHIT. so...
"...walk into a craft-beer store these days and you’ll see shelf after shelf taken over by giants: 22-ounce “bombers,” 750-milliliter wine bottles, even three-liter jeroboams."
there are large format bottles for sale and it is not new or newsworthy. always have been. for literally decades. find me a craft-beer store that has been "taken over" by these mysterious bottles called bombers. it's not a take over by any stretch. name 10 beers for sale at this moment at your favorite store that are available in jeroboam. out of 5,000+ different craft beer labels, surely there are numerous examples of jeroboams or it wouldn't be mentioned, right? ok, name 5.
the author provides one specific example, one fact. one fact that supports his idea! DFH is going to dedicate one bottling line to large format bottles. everything else is conjecture or an opinion. that is not journalism.
"Bottles sell for as much as $30 in stores and much more on restaurant menus."
lots of $30 beer bottles out there then? have any specific beers to name? if a beer store has 300, 400 or in the case around here, 800 different beers for sale, a few $30 beers is not newsworthy. and there is no mention of how many are being sold. there are always a few $100 beers on Ebay too. so what?
"The trend toward large bottles is part of what is being called the “wine-ification” of beer"
who on earth ever said the words "wine-ification"? who are these people the author refers to? it's not a word we see around here- and if not here then where the hell else? it is a concept occasionally mentioned, and the concept is almost always discredited because in reality, brewers generally don't think about wine or try to make beer more like wine. suggesting that beer has become more upscale does not equal beer has become (or is becoming) more like wine.
there are more examples in this faux story. sorry, had to vent. love the NYT. but for chrisesake there has got to be enough real stories out there in the world of beer.
Despite what a number of BAs seem to think, "craft" brewers are no different than other businesses. They re in it for the money. Bigger packages allow brewers to make more profit. The people on here who rant and rave against Bud and talk about Beer Wars should start a boycott against these companies.
That's the whole point, the 22's are SO much more expensive. In my area( Boston), most six packs are $ 9.00 to $13.00. Four packs usually $10.00. I don't have a problem with those prices and do continue to support my local breweries. I will on occasion buy some one off's, 750 ml of BABigfoot or Prelude, but usually do not buy any of the 22's or 750's. The harpoon 100 barrel series started at $4.20 a bottle for the 22's, now $ 7-8 per. Most 22's are $ 7-10. I don't have a problem with breweries charging what they can, special brews, exotic ingredients etc. I vote with my wallet and really like the six pack and 12 pack format. Harpoon and Sam have come out with some really nice mix 12 packs recently.
yes, there are few $30 4 or 6 packs now (BCBS and KBS are the only ones that come to mind). if expensive breweries started using 6 packs, do people think that the cost would drastically drop per ounce? would the bruery charge $12 for a 4-pack of black tuesday or tart of darkness? would maine brewing company charge $12 for a 6-pack of lunch or mean old tom?
yeah....but....bomber= 22 oz...avg. price $10....6 pack= 72 oz....avg. price..$12..do the math
I would prefer the breweries to release more 6/4 packs. I feel ripped off most of the time I buy a bomber.
i tend to stay away from bombers if i can. sometimes you'll find one on sale and you gotta go for it though.
lucky for me, the store i frequent lets you break up 6 pack so i can try many beers without committing
Separate names with a comma.