Is there a noticeable difference between Schlitz regular and Schlitz 1960's Gusto?

Supposedly the "1960s formula" Schlitz simply has more malt and less adjunct. Personally, when they switched it went from being just like Pabst, to my favorite adjunct lager. I still hardly purchase it because I'm not a huge fan of the style, but it's by far the most tolerable for my palate.

 

I think they dropped the 60's formula name recently.

 

And, IIRC, a different hopping rate and mix, and different hop "form". Miller originally brewed the Schlitz Gusto in it's NC brewery *which was known to have more flexibility than other Miller breweries- that where the kraeusened and hop pellet-brewed BBC Samuel Adams beers were brewed, after all. They only "returned" it to Milwaukee after Miller's brewery there underwent renovations done to allow the brewing of Coors brands there. The implied suggestion was that Milwaukee previously was no long equipped to handle hop pellets (or maybe whole hops?), but was using only extract.

I thought Pabst was going to phase out the "economy/regular" Schlitz eventually - and I thought that would have happened once Milwaukee (and possibly other ex-Miller facilities) were upgraded to brew "Gusto". The fact that the OP says it's the same price might mean there are now simply dropping the "Gusto" terminology which existed only to distinguish the two Schlitz's?

​

​

 

A few years ago, when I was able to purchase Schlitz 1960s Formula Lager at my local retail beer distributor, they had a ‘sell sheet’ on top of the cases of beer which compared the Schlitz 1960s Formula beer to Budweiser and Miller High Life. The basic difference was that Schlitz 1960s formula had less adjuncts (i.e., more malt) and more hops than Bud/Miller.

Below is something I posted previously:

“Now, Schlitz 1960’s formula beer is not ‘earth shattering’ but it is indeed more flavorful than a typical BMC beer. They utilize a bit more hops (bittering and flavor/aroma) then present day BMC beers so it has more hop presence. They still use adjuncts in this beer (corn) but at a lower level; they use 30% adjunct in making this beer.

What they were going for in making this beer is just as the label say: 1960’s formula. This means a bit more hops and less adjuncts then present day beers. I thought this was a very tasty and pleasant beer given that it is an American Adjunct Lager.”

Cheers!

 

Any idea what Coors did differently at their brewery that Miller was not fit to do at theirs?

 

"Formula" sounds chemical...should use the word "recipe."

 

I've also seen the "regular" Schlitz packaging to which the OP refers recently in the Twin Cities and my initial thought was that Pabst was phasing out the 1960s version and going back to the economy Schlitz (the packaging included both the long neck bottles and tall boy cans in which I had only seen the 60s Schlitz before).

Since the "Gusto" Schlitz campaign started during the previous Pabst ownership, perhaps the Metropouloses decided that the margins weren't there with the 60s Schlitz. I haven't bought any of the "regular" Schlitz ito try it and see if there's a difference...probably because I really enjoy the 60s Schlitz and was afraid I was right.

 

I can see why you wouldn't want to risk the $4.99.

 

One tastes like horse piss, the other one tastes like donkey piss

 

“So in other words, its possible there's no more Gusto?”

It is my interpretation that Schlitz 1960s Formula Lager is available in some areas of the country but not available in other areas. As to why there is a difference in availability, I have no clue.

Cheers!

 

Well, the Pabst spokesman mentioned only "special equipment" for the hops- so one could speculate that Miller had switched all their beers to using a liquid hop extract (they do for the clear-bottled ones, using the "light stable" products to prevent skunking). Or, possible, they weren't set up for whole hops - not sure if "60s formula" Schlitz would have used pellets (their usage really take off until the 1970s) or if Coors still brews anything with whole hops.

The only other "official" thing I've read, is setting aside silos for Coors' malt, and yeast storage to keep the Coors yeast and Miller yeast separated.

Additionally, Miller supposedly had mothballed their cereal cookers in most of their breweries by the 90s as they switched to corn syrup for their adjunct - so it could be that they had to re-open them for Coors products? Coors "Banquet" once used rice and the company boasted of their special contracted rice farms --- but that was the previous generation of the family ownership, and before the mergers with Molson and then Miller. And these days their promo material only uses vague terms like "cereal grains" when discussing adjuncts.