Bottles vs Cans

Bottles and cans and just clap your hands

 

That was the first thing that popped into my head when I read the title

Enjoy

 

It’s much more difficult to coat the tops of aluminum cans in wax.

 

I always suspected you had two turntables and a microphone.

 

Yup,

That’s where it’s at.

Enjoy

 

A lot of beaches, lakes, parks, and campsites that I go to don't allow glass containers. I generally prefer cans unless it is something that I might keep for a long time. Cans are also great for taking beer to and from places on a flight because they're lighter and in my experience you're more likely to break a bottle than have a can burst open.

On a side-note I have some cool bottles that I have saved over the years, including ceramic St. Sebastiaan flip-tops which I keep on display. It would be neat to see more breweries doing unique packaging.

 

Looking at your profile picture, I can see why you like cans! I'd also like to change my answer to cans!

 

Either or.
Certain beers taste better in bottles, so I buy those beers in bottles.
Certain beers taste better in cans, so I buy those beers in cans.
Some beers you can't get in bottles, some beers you can't get in cans.

 

Nothing is permanent. Wall of text warning.

When technology made plastic bags acceptable for retail store use, it led to grocery stores entering into the “Paper or plastic?” question phase. At one point, paper bags developed the reputation as the choice that was unfriendly to the environment. Choose paper and you might get a dirty look. Today, this might seem hard to imagine since the characters in the narrative have flipped. Plastic bags have been assigned the “unfriendly to the environment” character, and paper bags are OK. Consumers eager to form a black and white opinion are probably unaware of most of the behind the scenes business decisions that push specific narratives designed to mold opinions. Is one option actually a (morally) superior choice? The answer of course is: “It’s complicated.”

Craft brewing companies seemed eager to create a similar narrative with beer cans at a certain point. Canned beer had an image problem. The new story became the usual: “It’s better for you and better for the planet.” It seemed like consumers ate up the new rhetoric so readily that they must have been starving. At the time, the overly-simple “cans are better” statement was being parroted quite a bit. It’s nice to see that on BA today, opinions here seem to have evolved into something far more nuanced.

One of the more eye-rolling brewer narratives was John Kimmich’s story about finding a smashed glass bottle at a swimming hole and swearing that would never be a Heady Topper. Shouldn’t the thought of empty cans of Heady (and their plastic liner) floating in the swimming hole upset him almost as much? Is this the passionate moral stance brewers should take when it comes to their production of alcohol for people making bad decisions? Maybe he should have transformed Heady to an NA beer… or keep it as a draft beer if the big motivator was to prevent people from getting Heady garbage at his watering hole.

Tony Magee at Lagunitas was famously a voice against cans for environmental reasons (and perhaps humanitarian reasons too, but I’m not really sure), and his argument was typically passionate and without nuance or balance (at first). In the end, the market pressures were too great, and he went against his principles by using cans (for 12th of Never). He said, “Principles are valuable but they can also be expensive.”

Despite one’s feeling on the can/bottle debate, it seems like brewing and business compromises due to the resulting “do or die” marketplace are an unfortunate effect.

If a brewer abandons their high quality bottling line in favor of using a rented canner or cheaper canner… and does this for the sake of sales, marketing and homogeny… then isn’t this the sort of behavior that early craft brewers were eager to claim was the poor practice of the big brewers ruining beer? Should the resulting cans really communicate quality packaging to the consumer?

If the US craft beer scene helped Belgian brewers find a wider marketplace for their unique beers… but the switch in US marketplace preference to cans then drives these brewers to partially abandon their characterful bottle conditioning, lower their carbonation levels, and ship their beer elsewhere to be canned off-premises… have we (including the aficionados) dropped the ball?

People complaining about how 16oz cans are bad because the beers are expensive, are sometimes acting as if the container choice was determining the price. It’s the reverse. The desired price is determining the container. Craft brewers embraced the 16oz 4 pack when bombers lost their appeal. The packaging communicates to the consumer that the 16oz 4 pack is a premium product (be it true or not) that deserves a premium price… vs smaller cans in larger numbers - which communicates a budget product. (This narrative can be flipped too of course… it has been the inverse with “malt liquor” at times.)

When somebody states that either cans or bottles are simply better for consumers, beer, or the environment, they are presenting a picture without nuance or complication… and without real world conditions. It feels like the empty words of a politician. If many brewers are switching to cans, they are mainly doing so for financial reasons (the strongest motivator). That’s not necessarily a critique. It’s a marketplace situation. If you prefer cans, then this scenario works well for you as a consumer.

Personally, I had no significant preference between the two options as a drinker when cans started to take off in the craft space. The rhetoric around them bothered me - but that’s an issue with rhetoric rather than containers. Over time, certain advantages to each began to reveal themselves to me… but the advantages that I responded to the most as a drinker (and beer fan) were from bottles. For me, drinking from a can or bottle doesn’t kick out enough carbonation, and pouring from a can kicks out too much. I’ll just mention that one thing, but it’s something that impacts how a beer drinks. I’ve developed a clear preference for bottles over time… and I routinely challenge those preferences through blind comparisons. This is just a preference rather than a statement of “better.” People with the opposite preference (or no preference) obviously aren’t wrong.

At one point I had some nuance to that preference in that I normally preferred bottles, but preferred cans when the alternative was green or “clear” bottles… but now I realize that that idea wasn’t nuanced enough. I prefer bottled High Life to cans due to the specifics of that beer. A preference isn’t an absolute either. Even lightstruck beer can have some appeal… albeit limited appeal and not as a default for me. Sometimes consumers show preference for lightstruck beer… and I believe we are seeing some of that now with big lager brands in the US (although folks on this site only like to view such things with contempt).

Ultimately though, I really prefer the beer brand I want rather than the beer I don’t want. That might sound like an obvious statement, but it’s quite common to see people here talk about buying the brand that happens to be freshest at the store on a given shopping trip. Personally, that’s not how I buy beer (but I understand why it works for others). I’ll take the brand I want in a can over one I don’t want in a bottle… even if I prefer bottles. If a beer was designed with high carbonation and significant bottle conditioning, then that's the beer I want. I don't want a compromised version designed to sell better in today’s market.

 

And yet, the ingenuity of craft breweries has overcome this obstacle!

Always know I'm in for some premium zid content with this alert!

You said a lot that I agree with and a lot more that I appreciated being presented for consideration. But this is the one I wish people on this board would wrap their heads around. The expensive beers in 4x16 (or, often, 1x16) packaging formats wouldn't be cheaper if they were in 6x12. They are in 4x16 because that's the format the producer estimated would create the best chance of them getting the price they want.

 

I modified the above for accuracy.

(but thanks)

 

I had my first package of water that came in a paper square carton ( like milk) last weekend. That was weird. But if it’s more friendly for the environment I’m on board and can adapt. Not sure if carbonated beverages like beer would ever work in paper cartons though.

 

What about wood or stainless steel?
Gun to the head I choose cans, but no clear winner here..

 

Never heard that Kimmich story (last time I was in Vermont, Heady Topper was still draught-only and, man, I can't tell you how often our "day trips" took us right past the old brewpub...I thought there might be something wrong with the steering on the car since every time we drove past, it made a 90° turn into the parking lot).

But my favorite "ecological" reaction to the aluminum can with the pop-top lid in the mid-60s was in one of those Outdoorsman columns by a classic-looking New Englander (L. L. Bean hat and all) called "Our Berkshires", a year-end wrap up complaining about the modern world:

 

The first thing that popped into my head was why are the bottles fighting the cans?

 

I miss bottles; they were fun, and I collect bottle caps. Glad I had saved up enough bottles for homebrewing before the can takeover happened.

That being said, when not pouring, I prefer to drink straight from the can over a bottle. I do think that most Belgian styles and big beers like barleywines and imperial stouts lose something when packaged in a can vs. a bottle. Don't see nearly as many Belgians or barleywines on the shelves these days anyhow, or imperial stouts without a bunch of weird shit in them, for that matter. For an everyday drinking beer, cans work just fine.