Sierra Nevada "not craft enough"

From BA's release on their new data "That said, the goal of this release is not to measure the health of craft beer (which the BA doesn’t define). We are trying to measure the health of small and independent brewers, using the guidelines of the BA’s craft brewer definition, which is set by our board of directors."

 

Whom exactly? Traditional European beers? The word craft is clearly a US distinction, and the quality European brewers seem to do just fine. The craft brewers who have been acquired by big beer? They have all the resources of big beer behind them, and huge numbers of customers who don' even know about the ownership - they don't need my support. The legacy brewers who were excluded because of the traditional ingredient criterion - I probably wouldn't even have heard of them (other than Yuengling - which has not needed my help, and which I am currently avoiding for reasons that are off topic) were it not for debates here about BA. Anyway, that criterion has been changed.

 

Personally I sometimes try to avoid the generic term "craft" in contexts where it will just create controversy. I use the term "independent craft" for BA defined craft, and it is independent craft that I seek out. I understand there is also "acquired craft" (or "captive craft") and also "crafty" (no, I can't bring myself to put Blue Moon and Shock Top in the same category as Devil's Backbone). Within independent craft, I prefer smaller when I can, and local when I can, but I also like to support "big craft" NBB because I admire both their ownership model and their support of cycling (as well as other green initiatives) BBC - because they were my intro to good beer, and have done much for the community - SN because they have a consistent good Quality Price ratio, and have also done green initiative (and with their NC brewery are semi-local to me - see also Stone and NBB)

 

This BA is posting on BA about the other BA because having the same acronym for this BA and that BA is confusing to many BAs

 

Yes, it has been changed, but the reception has pretty clearly been that the BA seems to be watering down their definition now. There's not as much legitimacy, I suppose, had they been included from the get go.

The rest brings me back to my original post - the focus on size instead of independence is now starting to bite the bigger and more established brewers in the ass. I'm here in defense of SN, Stone, et al, who are surely seeing an impact on their bottom line.

 

I think your first paragraph is a very good description of why many people began their exporation of more flavorful foods. In fact it is particularly descriptive of the way in which third generation immigrants in any country become engaged with the culture and foods of the country where they grandparents were born. But there are also many people with other, different, motives for their engagement with diversity of foods and beverages, etc.

But I think we are bringing two different perspectives to bear on the rest of things. So for the argument you make about the role of the Brewer's Association and their long standing core definition of craft brewers, I just can't get that and your comments about the Association's apparent failings to then extend to the popular usage of "craft" and the beers such brewers produce. In my view something much like that would be happening regardless of which word that had chosen to help differentiate their membership in the marketplace or their lobbying efforts on behalf of their membership.

Nor can I figure out how what you attribute to the word "craft" would extend to also explain the phenomena of quite similar patterns of behavior amongst some fans of other specialty areas that have professional associations and passionate fans of what their members produce and how they do so. (e.g., Artisanal Bread, Cheeses, Bourbon Whiskey, Malt Whisky, etc.) While my earlier examples did not include them I have more than once had someone tell me that the malt whisky in my glass was not really malt whisky since it had not been poured from a bottle of "cask strength" whisky. Or much as I have heard a passionate fan of artisanal breads tell me that the bread being offered wasn't really artisanal bread because it was made by a baker who sold her/his breads outside of their immediate local area.

In some ways your argument seems to me to be much like making the Brewers Association responsible for the often heard extended usage of "adjuncts" to include such things as vanilla or coffee beans, etc. It also is a reasonably common thing amongst folks who don't have certain detailed knowledge about brewers and brewing. Indeed, such over extension of a technical term from many is quite common amongst those who are new to a particular area of human endeavor.

So my bottom line is we'll just have to agree to disagree on this topic.

 

I'm a younger drinker (31), and I still appreciate the classics. Sierra Nevada, Sam Adams, and New Belgium are great beers to have when you just want a beer after work. Very affordable, and consistent brew.

I think that a lot of people in my age group tend to think that every instance of drinking beer= a tasting session of new IPA's and bourbon barrel aged imperial stouts. I can appreciate the need for a middle ground just beer to drink at a ballgame or something. There is absolutely nothing wrong with going to the store and picking up a 6 of SNPA.

 

Just being offered as an FYI, the form of BBC ownership is a bit different than many realize. Yes they do have shares publicly traded but those shares do not pay dividends or provide the owner with voting rights. They also have a second category of shares with voting rights. All of the shares in that second category are owned by a single individual named Koch. In the area of ownership this would make BBC no more, perhaps even less, responsive to the ownership than would be found in the more common privately owned brewery with a few family members and/or friends as major investors.

 

OH YEAH!!!!

 

There's definitely nothing wrong with turning down a free beer, regardless of what it is. Just do it with some tact and grace.

 

Michael Jackson' first US edition of The World Guide To Beer (1977) used the term (hyphenated) - and to confuse the chronological aspect, for pre-craft era breweries:

At the time, of course, Anchor was the only "craft" brewery discussed (New Albion was open, but not covered in the United States chapter) - although a number of brewers now consideered "craft" were - Matt, Spoetzl, Yuengling, etc.

Most modern beer researchers, however, credit beer writer Vince Cottone for using the term in the "modern" era. Ironically, his definition was even more specific (as noted in my bold/underlining) than a simple replacement for "microbreweries" about to outgrow the term. From The Good Beer Guide; Breweries, and Pubs of the Pacific Northwest [1986] chapter THE BREWER'S ART, pg. 9 :

Fritz Maytag claims to have created the "microbrewery" term, inspired by the microcomputer. Maytag used it for the breweries smaller than his, of course, even though Anchor was only brewing around 20,000 bbl/yr by 1980. Industry sources used 10k, 12k and finally settled on 15k as the maximum size of a "micro" - and that's where it's stayed.

 

You could always insist on being pedantic and point out that Boulevard isn't local. It was bought by Duvel a few years back. And Duval is further from KCMO and is a larger company that Sierra Nevada.

 

New Glarus saw this coming years ago and executed their distribution plan to perfection. Kudos to them on this. Now if they could only learn how to stay away from mixing business with politics...

 

Haha, it actually crossed my mind. I also thought about showing up with Firestone Walker and just telling them it's the same since it's owned by the same folks

 

Reminds me of an episode of Bar Rescue a while ago - a guy was running a Punk rock bar, and they had the bass player of The Vandals come in. Introduces himself to the owner, who is like, "who the hell are they? And this guy isn't punk, he looks like someone's grandpa!"
My point is, Craft beer isn't (or shouldn't be) about how big the brewery is, just like punk isn't about wearing leather jackets and mohawks. It's more the philosophy of it, and how it's implemented. SN, as big as they are, basically defines craft, in growing a lot of their own ingredients when possible, being as green as they can, helping others out when needed, and just brewing great beer. Heck, BBC (Sam Adams) also does this, to the degree allowed by their business. They have a lot of assistance they give to smaller businesses - not just breweries, but any small business they have open houses when owners can come in and mingle, network and so forth. They also have brewery specific programs, the hop share they did a few years back, and so on and so forth.

 

Is it size, or focus on local, drinking at a taproom, etc?

We have two production breweries,within a few miles if my house. New District in Arlington, Va, which is quite small and sells only out of their taproom. And Port City in Alexandria, Va, which distributes as far as NYC and North Carolina. AFAIK no one here avoids Port City because it is 'too large'. At the other extreme, I doubt anyone here favors say a mid size nationally distributed CA beer over SN because of size either . The brewers hurt by size are the macros and their affiliates, and BBC. The strength of micros is not their size, but their lesser reliance on distribution, and their local appeal, which to some degree protects them from the power of High End, etc.

 

I haven't read through the thread and I'm sure SN doesn't need anyone else to defend them but to me SN is beyond criticism. They are no less 'craft enough' than Anchor and if being a legend in American craft beer disqualifies them because they are too big then I have no problem with SN. They nurture other new breweries and they participate in every beer event I've attended.

 

Cheers to you!

The SN beers in my area (Philly burbs) are typically over 150 days old.