I've mentioned a few times on these boards that I believe separating american adjunct lagers and american pale lagers is, in one way or another, detrimental to both styles. AAL's become alienated, and APL's get placed on an unwarranted pedestal. For instance, a kentucky common is seen in many markets as a beer delicacy, for lack of a better descriptor. PBR, on the other hand, is seen as low class swill. Totally Naked (by New Glarus) is all malt I'm told, but it tastes like a well made AAL. Honestly, I've stopped giving a shit whether a beer has corn or rice in it. Rye, oats, barrel aging, and exotic fruits and spices don't phase me either. All I care about is the overall taste. Lately, I've been thinking of APL and AAL as the same style, just a wider variety of ingredients, and I would suggest others do the same. Then we can start making some truly AMERICAN beers by pretty much inventing a new style: "American Idontgiveafuckwhatcerealgrainsiuseaslongasittasteshowiwant Lager".
Understand where you are coming from with this, but such a change is unlikely. The portion of the beer style categories you are focusing on is based on the ingredients list, not on how something tastes. Also, part of the intent seems to have been to distance AAL from everything else in an "us" vs "them" maneuver that isn't likely to change so long as there are very large scale corporations brewing AAL and much smaller more locally owned and operated breweries operating that are looking to brew almost anything else but AAL. (Not to mention the beer drinkers who love to hate on "swill." :-) ) As with most things that pretty much just grew out of different traditions, motivations and legal restrictions, the style categories have several inconsistencies and fuzzy boundaries that won't be going away soon.
1. Well put. 2. To me beers such as Hauenstein and Straub 1872 are classified under AAL but should be in classes of their own!!! 3. I'm a total Lager Head. I don't care if it is adjunct or not! American Lager Beer! 4. Thank you for this thread/post/discussion!
Straub 1872 was great, although technically it fits the AAL style due to the corn. It would be difficult to separate out the historical re-creations from the rest, because some of these older breweries have been brewing on somewhat of a continuum- so where do those beers fall? I would just hope that the cream will rise to the top in this instance. CAPs are another questionable call, although technically they are also in the AAL domain. I wrestled with where to put this beer: http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/34656/121407/?ba=TongoRad (Callicoon Country Lager) but eventually went with AAL due to the flaked maize. It was a stellar beer, though- I hope they brew it again in the spring. They improved upon the original concept in that they used Belgian Pils malt instead of the 6-row, but then again they aren't the ones calling it a CAP (I just don't know of any other way of looking at it at this time).
I agree in that the distinction is based on the use or lack of an ingredient that may or may not be obvious. I see quite a few AALs on BA that are incorrectly listed as APLs: Capital Supper Club (one of my favorites), Yuengling Premium, Shiner Premium/Blonde, Huber, Trader Joe's Name Tag Lager....even this one LOL.
It wasn't craft-era beer geeks who started the division of these two beer styles. US brewers themselves long tried to distinguished their adjunct-brewed beers and their all-malt beers:
Kentucky Common as a historic style is still in recovery mode and it's not a style which is well, "common." You can find it, but it requires an educated search and knowledge of who is making it. It's status as a "delicacy" as the op calls it rings true. Because there really are just a small number of breweries in the country who brew it. Considering that it's also a sour. It's going to require a large investment to allow it into a good many breweries. In my little world of Chicago, Local Option is the only local brewery that has taken it on, and they contract out for their production beers. Rather a shame considering there's a rather storied Chicago history of residents who have migrated from the Appalachian region, and a number of places that love Southern fare. I'm personally not terribly interested in getting lost in the weeds with classifications and their hyphenations unless there's good reason to. Up front and picking things out. I'll take an impression upon reading the label as to what its style claims it is and run with it. Breweries lie, or twist a beer of pick a style around in regards to the umbrella classifications that consumers tend to take way too seriously pretty much all of the time, and this thread is proving it. A cursory reading of brewing history tells us time and again, that one region might call it this. But another region or brewer might call it that. There might even be several countries doing essentially the same thing, but it's their water or the terroir of the land and the compilation of people living there which make the beer distinctly their own. Hence the Kentucky Common has nothing actually in common with the California Common. It becomes like chasing the tail if we were to umbrella these into a classification such as "common beer" because they are not at all similar in their grain bill, nor end product. So, in regards with something like an orphan style of beer like Kentucky Common. I'd rather just know specifically it is this style of beer and not whichever umbrella classification it might fall under cos it'd be (imo) far too confusing to unpack it or talk about it in that way.
