I have noticed something about canned Paulaner lager: The 16.9 oz cans that I normally drink are a completely different beer than the single, even larger cans. It is not even a subtle difference. The packaging is identical except for the size of can. The larger cans are MUCH better in my opinion. Has anyone else experienced this? Any ideas why they would be different? Thank you to anyone that responds, I am genuinely perplexed.
I've only had the 16.9 oz cans and 11.2 bottles. Haven't noticed any difference in those. I'm like Jack, I suspect you may have vastly different aged cans.
I’ve seen the larger format, it’s like a 19.2 oz can format… not sure why it would taste different, but I would go with the bigger option solely because that beer is like a nectar of the gods to me.
I now have a can of each side by side. I do not know what circumstances you imply. Rather than doubting my palate, why is no one able to offer any POSSIBLE explanation for the markedly different taste in the two beer servings. BTB, I have been drinking both servings for years and for years we have two distinctly different beers which variations in a person's palate would not explain. I do understand the doubt on everyone's part, however the situation continues to exist. Yes
They're canning dates, and 5 months can make a difference (especially since I've heard the large cans have been discontinued). What *are* those dates? Since you have them in front of you. Also, are you drinking from the can, or pouring to ( comparable) glassware? Many variables, but there's usually no reason for a brewery to make a different recipe for different sized packaging.
That reads like there is a 5 month difference between the packaging dates for those two cans. Am I understanding that correctly? Cheers!
It's a one year best by date. What's the larger can? BTW -- I'm surprised you haven't mentioned how hard it is to read Paulaner's ink jet dates. White on silver is a real PITA.
I actually can read the text on silver just fine on the 16.9's with my strong readers. The 19.2's are dark blue text on silver, so even easier. I do appreciate all that have attempted to help, still no closer to answer. Thank you anyway. I can see a bottle beer being effected by 5 months difference but these are cans. Vastly different tasting beers, both being compared after separate drinking from can and later pouring into pint glass for serving. Peace and long life all.
Any chance one is Munich Hell and the other is Urtyp Hell/1516? Munich Hell is the normal one, but I've definitely seen Urtyp Hell sold in the US as 1516. The caveat is that 1516 has always been on tap. I dunno. I haven't seen Paulaner cans in a minute, so I'm just spitballing a potential explanation. Paulaner has 2 beers that kinda look similar and are pale lagers, but they aren't the same.
And you have now learned that 5 months difference yields perceptible differences with canned beer. FWIW, I personally refuse to purchase German brewed beers that are older than 6 months from the packaging date. I would prefer they were closer to 4 months from the packaging date but... Prost!
