New cans, new brands from Third Street

The Minnesota Gold Light is 3.9% abv. This could become the first 3.2 Minnesota craft beer. They are probably the only brewery that has experience dealing with the regulatory compliance involved due to its connection to Cold Spring.

 

Schell's Light?

Grain Belt Premium Light from Schell's?

Also, didn't Summit used to make a 3.2-compliant version of EPA?

 

Let's not forget Brau Old 56! Actually they might've been above 4%...

 

You are correct. Schell's does 3.2 versions of Deer Brand, Schell's Light, and Grain Belt Premium. It sounds like Summit was mainly doing it for the state fair.

I guess I need to revisit the Target "beer" section.

 

These cans hit shelves in March? I'm intrigued by the Gold Lager and Gold Light as potential boat beers. Too bad it's not a 12oz can though. Low alcohol in a larger format is counter-productive IMO

 

The Gold Lager has been out for awhile now. 12 pack of 16oz cans.

 

Not a fan of the Minnesota Gold. Do like the other, and am looking forward to Hop Lift.

 

Just a little clarification: 3.2 beers (which is how they're usually referred to) is actually 3.2% a.b.w (alcohol by weight), which equates to approx. 4% a.b.v. (alcohol by volume). ABW is rarely used, except for ASBC-types who are "scientific" and like "accuracy" - nerds...

 

Well, in the US "Alcohol by Weight" was also used extensively in the wording of Federal and the state laws for most of the 20th century. Wilson's so-called "Wartime Prohibition" (via the "Lever Act") limited brewers to brewing under 2.75% abw during and after WWI before National Prohibition. 1933's Cullen Act changed the definition of "non-intoxicating" from below 0.5% abv to under 3.2% abw, before full Repeal in December later that year. And, as seen by the few "3.2 states" left (OK, UT, KS, CO, MN, MO in order of volume of 3.2 beer sold), most state alcoholic malt beverage laws continued to use abw right up to the current era - another example being Texas' notorious Beer v. Ale/Malt Liquor tax and labeling rules were based on 4% abw.

ABW was still commonly used right into the "craft" era - M. Jackson's first US editions of his Pocket Guide to Beer listed beers by both abw and abv. US beers labeled with "abw" also contributed to the old "Canadian beer is stronger than American beer" urban legend, especially when Canada was still using "proof spirits" on domestic beer labels.

Currently, the TTB regulation is:

 

What don't you like about it? I'll most likely grab a 12 pack after work.

 

Last year's Bitter Brewer too

 

@jesskidden Thanks for further clarifying my clarification! Your extensive and deep knowledge of all things beer is really an asset to this site. You also gave away our ages (so to speak...).
Your reply did bring up another question: when did abv become the "norm" when posting alcohol content? And why? ABW is more accurate - was it a marketing angle, in that abv is "more" so consumers would think they're getting more booze for the buck?
Then there's the metric system...
​

 

I'd guess most (all?) of the participants in this thread already knew about the legal 3.2 being ABW and that it is approx equal to 4% ABV. Look at the beers discussed... most are at ~4% ABV.

 

Gold Light is gonna be a smash hit imo. I met up with several high school friends over my winter break who know next to nothing about craft beer, and they said (they're in Duluth) MN Gold is like all they drink. I'm always down with more all-day beers that aren't gonna bloat the shit out of me. I will probably give that IPA a go as well.

 

I was really looking forward to it last year. When I tried it on tap, I was very underwhelmed. It was bland, and lacking flavor, in my opinion.

 

Pre-Prohibition in the US, many non-industry sources measured beers' alcoholic content by both volume and weight. For instance, from an 1891 Almanac:

(Never "did the math" on these two quantities in this list.) More frustrating, many such articles and even industry sources often didn't mention which measuring system they were using in that era. In general, the industry's attitude, especially as the temperance movement gained strength in the late 19th century, was to downplay or ignore the alcohol in beer, saying it was insignificant, to distinguish it from spirits.

As noted, ABW became the dominant legal and industry method after Repeal in the US (although contrary to myth, it was commonly and well-known that the figure was lower than ABV and was not meant to "trick" the pro-Prohibition forces or beer drinkers). For instance, this United Press quote about the US Brewers Association, during the discussion about changing the Volstead Act's definition of "non-intoxicating" at the end of the Prohibition era in 1932

The FAA Act's original wording for malt beverages' alcohol listing permitted both, when required by state law only:

After Repeal, but before 1935's FAA Act, some brewers were labeling their beers with the "proof" or "extract" figures, resulting in beers claiming to be 10-12%.

The thinking behind the Federal prohibition of listing alcohol content on beer labels, which (contrary to another urban legend) was fully supported by the brewing industry, was (from the Legislative History of the FAA Act):

I've always just assumed that ABV became the standard measurement in the US on a Federal level because it was the same measurement required for wine and spirits, and the same type as "proof" - based on volume rather than weight - which was used for spirits.

​

 

I wish you guys would just ditch the 3.2 rule.

For all the great beer in Minnesota, your alcohol laws are just obnoxious. I kinda thought the craft beer boom would start knocking down those walls the way it did here, but it doesn't seem like it has, other than the taproom laws. What's the reason? Minnesota isn't exactly a Bible Belt red state, but it acts that way towards booze.

Sorry to derail the thread, I've just always been fascinated by this cultural inconsistency.