When is a ‘beer flaw’...not a flaw?

You had me until that last bit. A lot of times the final product isn't what the brewer intended, but is still something palatable. IMO, "intent" doesn't count for a whole lot in brewing. Execution does.

 

"Now, if that beer is entered into a competition like GABF or World Beer Cup, it’s not going to fare very well..." - Depending on where it is in the line-up and how many beers the judges have already had it might not matter!!!

 

That's a very slippery slope. If the consumer doesn't know that something is a flaw, they may pretend to appreciate it because "the beer is supposed to taste like that".

Also, if every beer had above threshold levels of diacetyl and those beers still sold well, I'd stop drinking beer.

 

Or other 'authorities'. Below is something I posted a few years ago:

"There was an old Consumer Reports article about beer where they ‘hired’ beer experts to evaluate the beers. Those beer experts skewered Rolling Rock because of its DMS flavors.

Below is what I found via a quick web search:

“Unbalanced, due to an off-flavor reminiscent of canned corn.”

-Consumer Reports, August 2001."

Cheers!

 

Haha! OK, I can see that, but as a professional myself I'd say that 'most' of us can execute what we intend. I'm sure that there are a lot of happy accidents though, and we're probably all familiar with the ones that weren't so happy!

 

No slipperier than the slope of telling someone that something is a flaw so they decide to believe you and that they shouldn't enjoy it any more.

If you stopped drinking beer because of dacetyl, I don't think the world or the brewers would care very much if all those other customers continued to buy and enjoy.

 

However they choose to speak, if a brewer can do it consistently then I'll go along with 'intent', and judge it on its own merits from there.

Actually doing that is easier said than done; and that's a big reason why these things are generally considered brewing flaws. Aside from being signs of a procedural error along the way, they're pretty difficult to control with accuracy.

 

What would happen if all of the European brewers stopped using green glass and there were no more 'Euro-skunks' - we'd lose an entire 'style' of beer!

 

No, but I like that.

Especially after discovering some years back, (before ABInBev) that there was only one State where Budweiser sold fewer beers per capita than in PA.

 

I wonder how big a part the glass-lined tanks in Newark (AB's first brewery outside St. Louis, built in the early 1950s) played in that decision - or was it just a coincidence that AB chose to (at the time) play up? Newark's excess capacity was probably just as big a factor. As for proximity, Columbus was closer and Baldwinsville not much further than Newark.

And AB shutdown Newark's bottling lines a few years back (cans and kegs only), so any bottled Rolling Rock is coming out of other AB plants. Last I looked, the COLAs for RR list ALL the AB breweries, so one would have to check the bottling code to find the actual brewery (and stainless steel tanks ) it's coming from. Pretty sure I've seen bottled RR's coming out of Baldwinsville on the local shelves in NJ but could see it coming out a few others around the country since, it seems, AB expanded the distribution (once pretty large by the 1990 into the early 2000s when Latrobe - briefly - actually hit the million barrel mark .

Back when Molson was the #2 imported brand in the US and all 3 of their beers (Canadian, Golden Ale, Export Ale) came in the same green "Heineken-style" semi-long neck "heritage" bottle for the US market, folks who went to Canada and drank those same Molson beers from the then-standard Canadian brown stubby bottles complained "Molson doesn't taste the same up there..."

Industry legend has it that the guy who started Martlett Importers, which then had the Molson rights, had formerly been a Van Munching (Heineken) sales exec and had to talk Molson into using the green bottle for their US exports...

 

Now you know that I didn't say that they shouldn't enjoy it, just that it's a flaw. If I did, you certainly could take exception.

Agreed. I'm sure they wouldn't bat an eyelash.

 

I am a lifelong Pennsylvanian and I have never heard that expression before.

I grew up (and still live) in the Philly area. The 'big' beers of Philly when I was a kid was Schmidt's and Ortliebs. I really can't remember when I first heard the name of "Yuengling". You would think this would be memorable since the pronunciation of "Ying-Ling" is kinda funny/different. My guess is that the first Yuengling I had was their Black & Tan in the 80's? For a period of a few years this was a popular beer that you would see available at local bars. The popularity of this beer dimished pretty quickly. Maybe when Yuengling started pushing their Traditional Lager (which first came out in 1987)?

Cheers!

 

Of course I know you didn’t say that, just as you know I didn’t say you said that.

 

When its done on purpose. Doesn't matter if YOU don't personally enjoy it. If it was done intentionally, its not a fault in my book.

 

This is an obvious point with which I totally agree. What some folks aren't capable of getting is that a flaw is considered a flaw because either now or at some point in history a large group of customers were repulsed by a flavor of ingredient or process. Customers lead the way, by definition they are incapable of being under-educated about how they react to flavors that enter their mouths.

A flaw starts its life as something enough folks find distasteful to allow it the status of being a flaw. That's how I see it anyway.

 

See . . . here's where I completely disagree. Whether purposeful or not, these things are faults of fermentation or storage because they result from the improper fermentation or storage techniques.

If they are intended by the manufacturer because they are an integral aspect of the product's character, however, that fault is an acceptable one.

 

This discussion seems related when the NEIPA was first gaining traction and the intense arguments between those that supported the [traditional] filtered/clear IPA and unfiltered/cloudy IPA. The latter was considered by all standards then a "flawed" IPA. Now look where we are. Point being if enough people like and want a "flawed" product, there's a point that it stops being a flaw.

The slippery slope has to be walked on. It's reality of living in an ever-changing society. There is no avoiding it [apart from living the rest of your life alone on a deserted island somewhere].

The "loss" would be worth it.

 

@JackHorzempa I looked at the link you posted, and under Acetaldehyde it is stated.

Commercial Example: Budweiser contains low levels of acetaldyhde as part of its flavor profile.

I’m pretty sure @Peter_Wolfe can refute that for the record, as the yeast used has an apple ester that is mistaken for Acetaldehyde, and Bud is below threshold.