American...Hefeweizen?

I have. The results were striking for me. There are a lot of reasons why a beer might seem different from one to the next (age, abuse, batch variation, inconsistent packaging, my own palate, etc.), but my impressions have still shown a decent enough pattern over the different beers at different times.

I've had canned Weizenbier from Weihenstephaner, Schneider and Paulaner. Keep in mind that I ordinarily decant Weizenbier when I pour it (at least for the initial pour). Across the board, the canned beers were quite different than the bottled beer for me. The trend was that the bottled beer was fruitier and much more expressive in this regard... and possessed more of the unique character associated with beers of that type.

The canned beers tended to be more lemony, bitter, angular, and subdued. Adding the yeast didn't help matters. Relatively speaking, I actually disliked the Weihenstephaner and Paulaner (I normally love the bottled Weihenstephaner Hefeweißbier). I also disliked the Schneider Helle Weisse, but 1) I don't recall ever having it in bottle form, and 2) my cans were too old for it to be a fair assessment... but the issues I had with this beer were still the same as with the Weihenstephaner and Paulaner. I loved the canned Aventinus, but the differences between the canned and bottled product were the same as with the other beers... with the bottled product having a more expressive fruitiness. I just happen to love Aventinus, and this beer still worked in the canned format.

To add to all this, the differences between 750ml bottles of Saison Dupont and cans of Saison Dupont matched this as well. ( @JackHorzempa ). I compared these a lot. The trend was that the 750 bottles had a more expressive fruitiness while the cans had more amplified bitterness. Unliked the pale Weizenbier, the canned Dupont was still delicious, The canned Dupont appeared to have yeast added for fermentation in the package.

So... beyond all of the variables I mentioned at the top, pouring from a can will be different than from a bottle... and as a result, differences in carbonation can cause differences in how I'm perceiving the flavors of these beers. BUT, I wonder how much the container is impacting the effects of the yeast in each container. Dupont uses a fancy machine to lay their 750 bottles on their side for secondary fermentation because they prefer the results over the bottles being stored vertically. Are these canned Weizenbier allowing the yeast to have the same impact it would have in the bottle?

I don't know. But I am confident that a different drinker would have different experiences than mine with these beers.

 

very interesting. we recently started a switch from crowler cans to returnable liter bottles. our customers have all said they find the beer tastes...different. better. they also mention the pouring aspect.

 

... and not just with our weissbier

 

I discussed my side-by-side taste test of Weihenstephaner Hefe Weissbier can vs. bottle in the side-by-side thread and for this instance I preferred the canned beer.

Too many variables in play here IMO to state one format is 'better' than the other for this particular beer. IMO how a given beer was handled during the long supply chain from Germany to your local beer retailer is the most significant variable.



https://www.beeradvocate.com/commun...-side-by-side-2021.653775/page-9#post-7291779

Cheers!

@zid

 

those are some washed-out looking weißbiers. camera? was yeast decanted in both?

 

The G. Schneider Tap 7 is still my favorite of the Germans.

 

So no more American-brewed "Lager"? Just "Stored Beer" ?

For me, in the mid-70s, it was this.

Being a regular purchaser of Ballantine India Pale Ale in the US, I thought I knew what to expect when I found this at an Ontario Beer Store.

"...have an "i"..."? Damn, IPA wasn't short enough for Canadians? (OTOH, the even more rare hoppy Molson Stock Ale was pretty nice stuff... sadly, only found it once in my trip across the border).

Yeah, the Bass IPA came and went pretty quick about a decade ago. They even had an equally short-lived companion Bass Stout, for those who wanted to make a 100% AB-InBev Black & Tan.

 

When in a regular tavern (non-craft beer-centric), I see Miller Lite and Bud Light being the most oft ordered beers... and the majority of the drinkers don't look concerned about their diets.

I think they drink them because they're non-descript. The "lite trend" turned into the "beer trend" a long time ago.

 

I did buy Labatt IPA in the mid 70s at Ontario Beer Store too. I don't remember having high hopes that it was going to be great (it wasn't). But it was far better than the Keith IPA of the 2000s. I agree that Molson Stock ale was good.

 

It is my understanding that Miller Lite was an ‘acquired’ product; below is from Wikipedia:

“That year, Peter Hand Brewing was purchased by a group of investors, renamed Meister Brau Brewing, and Lite was soon introduced as Meister Brau Lite, a companion to their flagship Meister Brau. Under the new management, Meister Brau Brewing encountered significant financial problems, and in 1972, sold several of its existing labels to Miller.”

Below is a photo of Meister Brau Lite beer and you will notice that the label details “A Fine Pilsner Beer”.



My guess is that Miller after acquiring the Meister Brau brands/recipe simply chose to continue to label the same way for the Miller Lite product.

Cheers!

 

Meister Brau was also the name of a Chicago brewing company when it shutdown, formerly known as Peter Hand Brewing Co. Miller bought the Meister Brau and Lite brands in 1972, the brewery itself was purchased by Fred Huber and other investors and reverted to the original Peter Hand name.

Miller did revive the Meister Brau brand in the early 1980s.

 

Not according to Wikipedia, Miller purchased the Meister Brau brands and Miller Lite was subsequently brewed.

Cheers!

P.S. Some more info:

“Back in New York, Bob Lenz of McCann Erickson had an inspiration; use a retired athlete to endorse the product (laws forbade using active athletes). He chose Matt Snell, a former New York Jets running back and star of the 1969 Super Bowl. In July 1973, McCann Erickson rented a bar in Manhattan for three days of shooting. The script was made up as they went along; it wasn’t until late in the third day that Matt Snell uttered the memorable words on camera, “You know, new Lite Beer from Miller is all you ever wanted in a beer ... and less.” Snell then went on to explain that Lite had a third fewer calories and fewer carbohydrates. Later, the wording about carbs was changed to simply say, “Less Filling.”

The next month Miller Lite began tests in Providence, R.I., Knoxville, Tenn., San Diego, and Decatur, Ill.”

https://truthinadvertising.org/wp-c...e-Creation-of-Miller-Lite-Behind-The-Beer.pdf

It would seem that the new product branded as Miller Lite was test marketed in 1973.

Cheers!

 

Pretty sure this was what the branding strategy looked like when making this completely unnecessary distinction

 

I never heard about this movie before.

The fact that Taco Bell* made the song is hilarious!

Cheers to you!!

* The 'magic' of product placement!?!

 

Movie was made by the guys who created South Park, cult classic and kind of insane.

 

I did a web search and this movie is available on Amazon Prime.

I will indeed watch it! Maybe after drinking a few beers!!

Cheers!

P.S. I recall an old conversation with a co-worker where he was discussing the movie Dude, Where's My Car. I asked him if it was a 'good' movie. His response was that he watched it with friends while drinking massive quantities of alcohol and they all liked the movie (that way). Later, I did watch the movie and I too concluded this is a movie you are best to be drunk while watching.

 

We can also start the "do you decant hefeweizen" debate too...