Controversial Beer Opinions Thread

I was one of those posts a few days ago. Sight & Mind BA Barleywine from Bottle Logic (13.7%). I was just getting off work from the graveyard shift though. Only other time I would crack open a double digit abv beer early in the morning would be if I were on vacation otherwise I'll wait until at least lunch time

 

According to one gripe group, our country is plagued by one style of beer making other, once abundant, styles unavailable. This is because craft beer drinkers today are too narrow minded, and stick to only one or two styles.

Or, according to different complainers, beer drinkers today demand breweries constantly switch up brands and styles. This is because craft beer drinkers today have no brand or style loyalty like folks had in the past.

Guess complainers gonna gripe is my (not so) controversial opinion for today

 

If I have one gripe about the current variety of beer available to me, it’s that there are far more awesome sounding beers available in too wide a variety of styles for me to drink everything I’d like to. It’s an awful problem to have.

 

Can't disagree there - every time I go into the store there's another half-dozen new breweries on the shelf I haven't even heard of. So of course I have to check to see if they're another made-up label from BMC or something...
It's such a bad problem to have - but I have to think there will be a weeding out at some point - the level of average is shifting up, and those that are merely 'average' now will be on the wrong side eventually. I can't imagine that all those breweries opening up every day are going to make it in the long term.

 

I have very little to no interest in trading for beer now. I probably never will unless there's something I absolutely want to try.
The beer scenes are good enough nearly everywhere in the country now that I can easily find great examples of nearly every style.
Not to mention that I prefer to support local breweries and local distributors, anyway.
I don't have the FOMO for every beer across the country. I don't feel the need to try every NEIPA and BBAIS in the world when I can find dozens of them in my local supermarkets, beer stores, and breweries.

I've had a few IPAs with lactose that were great, but by and large I find it to be an entirely unnecessary ingredient that adds nothing desirable to the beer. And I still think it's mostly just acceptable in milk stouts.

 

What about Belgian ales, dopplebocks, barelywines, scotch ales, etc? Aren't these old styles that were traditionally more than 6%?

 

I was referring to the early period of "beer appreciation" in the US at the dawn of the "Craft Era" mid-1970 -mid-1980s - just not a lot of high ABV beers brewed in the US at the time. The highest ABV beers sampled at the 1982 GABF were Falstaff's Ballantine India Pale Ale at "between 6 and 7 percent by volume" and Matt's malt-liquor-ish Maximus Super at 6.6 ABV. M. Jackson's first US ed. Pocket Guide to Beer [1982] noted that Ballantine IPA and Olde English 800 were the highest alcohol beers brewed in the US - both listed at "6.0% w; 7.5% v". (Anchor was very infrequently brewing Old Foghorn by the mid-70s, but it had a limited in-state market, apparently).

Note that the two sources above (Jackson and GABF) had the ABV for Ballantine IPA different. That's the problem discussing alcohol content for beers in the US from that period, since listing the ABV on the label was still prohibited, and the sources varied greatly (and, sometimes, the abv did also). Further, some old reference sources don't specify "by volume" or "by weight" and others are actually noted in proof or Plato. Like these quotes:

And many of the foreign beer styles with higher alcoholic content weren't exported or, if so, weren't commonly available in the US (see this list of maximum ABV laws in the US in the 1970s, for instance). Into the 1970s and '80s, the strongest imported beers typically mentioned were Kulminator 28 (12.4%) and Thomas Hardy's Ale (11.2%) with Samichlaus the strongest lager at 11.2%.

So, yeah, they were around (in some places) but I think saying "few beers were over 5-6% abv" is accurate.

 

Thanks for clarifying. Why was it illegal to list abv on the label? It seems like the opposite would make more sense.

 

Well, (since you asked ), from 1935's THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL ALCOHOL ADMINISTRATION ACT:

"Alcoholic content is prohibited from being stated in the case of malt beverages. Malt beverages should not be sold on the basis of alcoholic content. The variation of alcoholic content has little consumer importance and the industry recognizes that attempts to sell beer and other malt beverages on the basis of alcoholic content are attempts to take advantage of the ignorance of the consumer and of the psychology created by prohibition experiences.

"Legitimate members of the industry have suffered seriously from unfair competition resulting from labeling and advertising that uses such terms as "strong", "extra strength”, "high-test", "high proof ", "prewar strength", "14 percent original extract", and from brand names or other statements or references which include conspicuous numerals or symbols intending to suggest that the numerals or symbols represent the alcoholic content. Usually such representations of excess alcoholic content are false, but irrespective of their falsity, their abuse has grown to such an extent since repeal that the prohibition of all such statements is in the interest of the consumer and the promotion of fair competition."

 

Contrary to popular belief (as noted in the second paragraph above) the brewing industry in general, fresh off of Prohibition (and still wanting to distinguish their industry from wine and spirits) was for the regulation, as illustrated by this quote from the chairman of the Master Brewers Assoc. of America at the time, Walter Sippel:

Part of that was also due to the brewing technology of the time. Herbert Schwarz, grandson of Anton Schwarz, and head of the United States Brewers Academy was quoted in 1932 (as the new laws to amend the Volstead Act and eventually Repeal Prohibition were being considered):

The prohibition of labeling of alcohol content for beer at the Federal level didn't end until a Coors lawsuit in the 1980-90s, which went all the way to the SCOTUS. Even today, it is permitted (where legal at the state level) but not mandated.

§7.26 Alcoholic content [suspended as of April 19, 1993; see §7.71].
(a) The alcoholic content and the percentage and quantity of the original extract shall not be stated unless required by State law.
§7.71 Alcoholic content.
(a) General. Alcoholic content and the percentage and quantity of the original gravity or extract may be stated on a label unless prohibited by State law.

 

Interesting, thanks for the info. I would have never have expected that. About lager containing 7% or more, again I would like to ask about German beer. Weren't the Germans brewing some strong lagers already at that time? And what about ice beer? Even if your yeast only allowed you to brew a lager up to 5 or 6 percent, that could still be increased through freezing. I read the Germans were brewing eisbocks as early as 1890.

 

This is not controversial, just something I hate hearing/reading

"________ is a solid brown"

I know dropping the "ale" seems innocent enough, but it sounds gross, and why is "solid" always the choice term for bigging up a brown ale?

 

This reminds me of one of my favourites:

“I’m going to be running in a 5K race to raise money for cancer.”

 

Because people (beer geeks) don't see brown ales as "mind-blowing;" that terminology is only saved for triple NEIPAs these days. What may be an exemplary brown ale is still seen as boring or underwhelming compared to the latest and greatest IPA or BBA Stout.

 

ya solid is all a brown ale can really aspire to these days. It's the pinnacle. A brown ale rated a 4! thing must be freaking world class. Although probably just BBA and DDH...

 

but we are living in the golden age!!

 

You missed my point. This wasn't a "why can't people appreciate the subtle nuances of a brown ale" rant....it was why must they always say "solid brown"...which to me sounds like taking a solid shit. For whatever reason, people like saying "solid brown"...and it makes me wince

 

I also hate people referring to IPA/DIPA/APA etc as "hops"

 

It's better than a watery brown. Maybe the ideal could be a creamy brown or a smooth brown

 

Me too.