Beers brewed at one brewery, but aged and packaged at another

Discussion in 'BeerAdvocate Talk' started by bluejacket74, Oct 16, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bluejacket74

    bluejacket74 Poo-Bah (6,104) Jul 4, 2005 Ohio
    Society

    I apologize for the question but I didn't see that it was addressed anywhere else that I noticed. I have some collaboration beers that I was planning on adding to BA and drinking/reviewing soon, but these beers were brewed at one of the breweries and then barrel aged and packaged at the other brewery after aging. I was wondering which brewery should I add them under. The brewery where the beer was brewed at, or the brewery that it was aged and packaged at? And it's available for sale at both places. Just wanted to know how I should handle this when adding the beers. Thanks!
     
    ChicagoJ likes this.
  2. BBThunderbolt

    BBThunderbolt Poo-Bah (9,115) Sep 24, 2007 Kiribati
    Society Trader

    IIRC, it should be added at the brewery where it was brewed. They're the ones who have to account for the barrelage and pay the taxes on it. Here in WA, one brewery will be the brewer of record, then 'sell' the beer to the other brewery to keep LCB and the taxman happy.
     
  3. zid

    zid Poo-Bah (1,649) Feb 15, 2010 New York
    Society Trader

    I think the beer should be listed with the brewer that it is officially a product of. I mean this in the same fashion that @BBThunderbolt does, but possibly in the opposite way. Personally, I would go with the brewer that labels and releases the beer. If both brewers officially do this, then it would be listed under both brewers… but you would review the one listed with the brewer that released yours. When I say released, I don’t mean simply sold at.
     
    ChicagoJ, BigIronH and bluejacket74 like this.
  4. BBThunderbolt

    BBThunderbolt Poo-Bah (9,115) Sep 24, 2007 Kiribati
    Society Trader

    But that's not how production is looked at. The Gov't is gonna look at how much you spent on ingredients, and what expected yields should be, and you've gotta account for that. The beer was 'produced' at Brewery A; grain accounted for, labor accounted for, etc. that product, whether basic wort or beer that has at least gone through primary, is then sold to Brewery B for aging and packaging.

    Out here we have a brewery that until recently didn't have their own brew system. They had a brewery a couple hundred yards away brew the wort, and they would bring it over in a totes on the forklift. The brewery would then let the wild yeasts do their thing, and then age and package the beer.
     
    carolinabeerguy and beerjerk666 like this.
  5. zid

    zid Poo-Bah (1,649) Feb 15, 2010 New York
    Society Trader

    I could be way off, but the BA database doesn't work that way. Your example above illustrates this. For the local brewery you describe, the beers on BA are probably listed under the name of the brewer on the label - not under the brewer who produces the wort. The same logic applies to contract brewed beer that isn't done via an alternating proprietorship with a tenant brewer... or a Belgian lambic blender like Tilquin.
     
    sharpski and ChicagoJ like this.
  6. BBThunderbolt

    BBThunderbolt Poo-Bah (9,115) Sep 24, 2007 Kiribati
    Society Trader

    Right. But OPs question was about beer produced at one brewery, but aged and bottled at another. Once it ceases being wort and becomes beer, it is that breweries beer. And should be listed as such.
     
    bluejacket74 likes this.
  7. zid

    zid Poo-Bah (1,649) Feb 15, 2010 New York
    Society Trader

    I also mentioned contract brewed beer. On BeerAdvocate, a beer would be typically listed under the name of the "brewery" on the label, not the brewery that produces the beer or owns the ingredients. As a consumer site, this is the clearest avenue to take.
     
    ChicagoJ likes this.
  8. BBThunderbolt

    BBThunderbolt Poo-Bah (9,115) Sep 24, 2007 Kiribati
    Society Trader

    Yeah, that's right, but the labels always mention something like "produced at xxxx". In the OPs case, it's a collab brew, with the base beer produced in one location. They should be listed as Brewery A, in collab with Brewery B.

    Shrug.
     
    beerjerk666 likes this.
  9. zid

    zid Poo-Bah (1,649) Feb 15, 2010 New York
    Society Trader

    @bluejacket74 @BBThunderbolt - If the packaging brewer legally purchased the beer from the initial brewer... taking full ownership of it... that would make me lean towards listing it as the packaging brewer's beer.
     
    bluejacket74 likes this.
  10. Todd

    Todd Founder (6,515) Aug 23, 1996 California
    Staff Moderator Fest Crew Society Trader

    The golden rule is: a beer should ALWAYS beer listed under the company that owns the brand.
     
    bbtkd, bluejacket74, BigIronH and 3 others like this.
  11. BBThunderbolt

    BBThunderbolt Poo-Bah (9,115) Sep 24, 2007 Kiribati
    Society Trader

    But, they didn't produce it. They purchased a "finished" product. If you buy an old Ford, but put a Chevy engine in it, it's still a Ford.
     
    bluejacket74 likes this.
  12. beerjerk666

    beerjerk666 Poo-Bah (3,060) Aug 22, 2010 Florida
    Society Trader

    The OP's question seems to be more of a question about collaboration between breweries, than contact brewing, imo.
    It would appear to me that the correct course of action would be to list the beer with the brewer puttting in the work, ie. produces the beer and in this case oversees the aging and when to bottle/can the finished beer.

    Brew Hub in Lakeland, FL and St. Louis brews their own but also does contract brewing and canning for quite a few breweries. For a long time I was able to get uber fresh Pseudo Sue and Golden Nugget until TG was able to can and release on their own. That being said, it was still TG listed as the brewer.
     
    bluejacket74 likes this.
  13. Todd

    Todd Founder (6,515) Aug 23, 1996 California
    Staff Moderator Fest Crew Society Trader

    @bluejacket74: What's the name of the beer and breweries involved? That would be helpful, otherwise add the beer under the brewery that owns the brand. Thanks.
     
    bluejacket74 likes this.
  14. bluejacket74

    bluejacket74 Poo-Bah (6,104) Jul 4, 2005 Ohio
    Society

    @Todd

    There's actually 2 beers, it's a collaboration and not a contract brewing situation. The beers were brewed at Combustion, and then taken to Pretentious Barrel House for barrel aging and were also packaged at Pretentious. Both companies are on the labels, and the beers are being sold at both facilities.
     
    ChicagoJ and BBThunderbolt like this.
  15. Todd

    Todd Founder (6,515) Aug 23, 1996 California
    Staff Moderator Fest Crew Society Trader

    Thanks. You'll want to add them under Combustion. Not only do both labels have the same design as previous Combustion cans, but more importantly they're the ones that brewed the beer.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.