When is a ‘beer flaw’...not a flaw?

This might be more a testament to he power of branding. The cans certainly didn’t sell as well as the bottles. However, Corona Familiar, which at least when it was released, was just Corona Extra in a big brown bottle, sells ridiculously well.

 

I found that the Acetaldehyde sample at a sensory training was like green Jolly Ranchers to me. The gourd comment makes sense, someone I know says they get pumpkin seed for Acetaldehyde.

 

Jack,

I moved to Philly in 1984. I vividly remember going to see a band at bachanal on south street. I asked what they had on tap and was told RR or Yuengling. Never heard of Yuengling before and ordered a RR thinking Yuengling was some expensive Asian import. I did try one after learning it was a less expensive local and went on to drink countless lagers. I think lager was around before 1987 but I could be wrong. Maybe I had the "beer". I remember always having lager and to this day if you ask for a lager you get a Yuengling lager. I remember the squat Porter bottles in early 1987 and finding chesterfield in the late 1980's.

I see lager was reintroduced in 1987. Was it still produced for the Philly market before?

Enjoy

 

Probably.

Interesting brief history here:

http://allaboutbeer.com/yuengling-traditional-lager/

 

Yuengling's portfolio from the early '80s:

(Interestingly, they still claimed LCA used "top fermenting ale yeast" but they now state it became a "bastard ale" (warm fermented with the brewery's lager yeast) circa 1960.)

There was no Yuengling Traditional Lager before 1987 - as noted in the linked AAB article or on Yuengling's own website:

According to the "semi-official" book, Yuengling: A History of America's Oldest Brewery (Noon, 2005), then Yuengling brewmaster Ray Norbert based the recipe on:

 

If you were drinking a Yeungling lager beer prior to 1987 my guess is that you were drinking Yuengling Premium.

Since you were kind enough to regal me with your story I will respond in kind. This past February I attended the annual Philly German Bierfest which is hosted by the
The German Society of Pennsylvania (6th and Spring Garden St.). I spoke to the head brewer of Yuengling (John Callahan) for 15-20 minutes on a variety of beer topics. During that conversation I made mention that I enjoy drinking Lord Chesterfield. He asked me what I thought of drinking Yuengling Premium. I responded that to the best of knowledge I never drank that beer. He offered me a bottle of Premium and I accepted. Now I must caveat that this was at the end of the event (around 5:00 after a 'start time' of 2:00) but my recollection is that I enjoyed drinking that beer. I really should give Yuengling Premium another try with a fresh palate.

Cheers!

@THANAT0PSIS

 

Skunked corona actually tastes better than familiar imo

 

If you are judging a beer in a competition and it does not meet they style category it is entered in, then it is flawed. If you are drinking the same beer for pleasure and like it, then it is not flawed. My friend Bernie used to buy Heineken because he liked the skunky smell and flavor and he thought it was excellent. I couldn't drink it. For him it was fine, for me it was flawed.

 

Good to know more.

So when the author of the article I cited says:

"In 1987, D.G. Yuengling & Son introduced an amber lager that was a throwback to the Pottsville, Pennsylvania, brewery’s first decade after the repeal of Prohibition in 1933."

your source would suggest that his history is unclear as to what the throwback similarities were between that post repeal era beer and the 87 Traditional Lager.

 

The concept that 1987's Yuengling Traditional Lager was an actual revived recipe of the brewery's wasn't around in the beginning, as this 'snip' [TOP] from a circa 1990 Yuengling promo piece shows:

Might it be? Sure - could have been "based" on what appears to be a short-lived and not well-documented post-Repeal "Yuengling Lager" [ABOVE] ( they also advertised "Lager and Wiener Beers" in the pre-Pro era). But, contrary to the implication in the AAB article, based on local ads in the 1930s, Yuengling lagers labeled "Winner Beer" (probably a 3.2% beer, since it appears to disappear by 1934), "Pilsner" and "Prize Beer" - as well just "Yuengling Beer" (assumed to the the pilsner) were more common that the "Yuengling Lager".

Just seems odd it took them so long to make the claim...and, of course, their current use of Cascade hops means it's not an exact recreation.

 

I am definitely seeking it out on my upcoming trip, as well as Lord Chesterfield. I enjoy Yuengling Classic already, so I have high hopes for those two. Thanks for the tag.

On thread topic, I am generally in the camp that it is fine to enjoy beers that have flaws, even for their flaws, but that does not exempt them from being criticized when considering how they align with style. Some styles have arisen with flaws intact, as has already been mentioned (NEIPA, Czech pilsner [espeically Urquell], ESB and other English beers, and so on); I am fine with all of those and any others that are inherent in the style as long as they are kept to acceptable, reasonable levels per respective styles, which, coincidentally, tends to align with my enjoyment threshold of flaws as well.

I think it is important to be fluid in regards to our opinions of "flaws" and when they become elements of a particular style, like haze with NEIPAs. If, for some apocalyptic reason, DMS in AALs became all the rage, then I guess we would have a new style on our hands in Latrobe-style Lager. I would then review and consider all beers in that style with what became established as the attributes that such a beer should have.

This may sound like I am on both sides of the fence, but I think it is logically consistent (and that there doesn't really need to be a fence anyway). The determining factor of what is a flaw and what is a feature is not down solely to intent or whether it tastes good but rather whether the majority accepts it, which I hate to say since I believe the majority is not discerning enough, but that is how I perceive this argument nonetheless.

 

Thank you. It is a nuanced topic.

I think they both have merit, too, though I think that consumer perception tends to influence style guidelines over time (see NEIPA, though the BJCP has yet to confirm it a style).

 

Back to the music references, if the improviser meant to play the note, does it matter if it was outside the bounds of the passing harmony? If the brewer means for the flavor to be there, then it's not a mistake and it's not a flaw, it is part of the overall character of the beer. If the brewer didn't mean for it to be there, or meant for it to be there and it's not, that my friends is a flaw.

 

The original stone pale ale had a touch of diacetyl, and my lagers better have a touch of sulfur to them or i am disappointed.

 

On what grounds other than enjoyment would the majority accept it?

I doubt the answer is advertising, etc. because part of what marketing researchers have found is that when and if advertising works at all, it functions to raise awareness of the product and to motivate potential customers to try the product the first time.

Advertising doesn't motivate customers to return to a product that doesn't fit what they prefer when there are multiple competing alternatives. Indeed, a good rule of thumb is that the less real differentiation there is between two products the more advertising there will be to present a particular product as being somehow different from its competitors.

 

Yeah I suppose it is essentially enjoyment that causes the masses to accept something, but I think marketing as well as cost play into it, and some brands that have achieved "legacy" status sell based on that as well. I'm in agreement with you that I should have included that nuance in my original statement, however.

 

Howdy Jack,

That's what I suggested in my post. I do remember buying 24x16 premium returnables. Don't think I ever saw lager in that format. I do remember drinking lager well before I found Chesterfield.

Based on 1987 as the lager introduction I must say it took off quick.

Enjoy

 

I draw the line with, "where's it at?" I agree with your thoughts completely. I suppose there are beverage correlations to colloquial, slang, common vernacular, proper English, and many more. Has anyone yet mentioned Ringwood yeast?

 

How about this: Ringwood has a fine character when used properly, but the Pugsley 'system' misuses it and causes people to believe that they hate the yeast in general.