Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Beer News & Releases' started by BottleCaps80, Sep 21, 2015.
How about "I-just-don't-give-a-f*ck-PA"? Seems like the next logical step
Knowing Stone, I wouldn't be surprised if this was completely intentional--i.e., no we're still not sorry that we're releasing another IPA.
Up next: Unrepentant IPA.
I look forward to trying this but will tread lightly. I find myself feeling a little queasy after drinking some higher ABV IPAs and the peach flavor might be too much. Either way, it does sound tasty and I'm happy 4 Hands is involved
Millions of peaches, peach for...about $8.99 / 22 oz bottle.
Always excited for these Stone collab beers, esp this, a peach IPA. Not a fan of the name though, "Sorry Not Sorry."
Maybe not, but I'm a fan of your avatar. Very nice call, @Beerrito.
Sensitive much? Is their marketing "schtick" really causing you that much angst?
It's annoying. They make some great beers, and a few clunkers here and there, they don't need to use these juvenile tactics. They're a great company, with a great reputation. I expect better from a company of their size and scope.
I will listen to Peaches by Presidents of the USA while drinking this to enhance my overall experience
# from me
Very excited to see how this compares to Tree Shaker from Odell.
You might be reading a bit much into it. The Collaboration beer name was chosen by the participants.
We work hard to NOT have an attitude. From our collaborations, to our organic policies in our bistros, to the fact that we have more Guest Beers on tap in our restaurants than our own beer, to the fact that we work hard every single day distributing a wide portfolio of awesome craft brands in SoCal, to our environmental practices, to our annual charity beer fests, etc., we work hard to be awesome to those around us in our communities, and in the craft brewing world.
I think when someone manages to take off the "I'm going to look at Stone through the lenses that make it look like everything they do is arrogant" glasses, you'll see a real company filled with passionate, motivated, and non-attituded people. Proud of what we do? Yes. Arrogant? Very very rarely. By intent. It's more fun to be relaxed, enjoy what we do, and enjoy working with others.
Bale Breaker in the big leagues! They make great stuff on their own as well so give it a shot.
Definitely seeking this out, northwest of Seattle.
May I ask why that's something to be proud of? I see you make a lot of efforts to be sustainable at your farm and bistros- kudos! But organic agriculture is generally lower yielding, requiring the use of more land to feed fewer people. A recent study indicates if all US agriculture were organic, we'd need over 100 million acres of additional farmland.
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I realize that not every approach is going to appeal to every one, and no matter which approach a company takes, they're going to irk someone. Grains of salt and all that. I do think highly of a lot of the things you as a company do, and as I noted above, I, generally (we really need to have a chat about that Saison du Buff) find anything "wrong" with your beers that can't be chalked up to personal taste.
But, I find your marketing approach irksome. The bottle rants generally come off as false humility. It can be a very thin line between pride and arrogance, and , IMHO, Stone spends more time over that line than near it. The forklift thing and the crowd-source attempt are a couple more examples of, at a minimum, a certain level of tone-deafness.
Luck of the draw has me wearing an Arrogant Bastard t-shirt this morning, so clearly I don't think that Stone is a Nike-type bastard of a company. I will keep trying your new products, and drinking old faves. Maybe tone it down a step, sometimes?
Thanks again for taking a moment to reply. Cheers!
Thanks for the perspectives Terry. I'm guessing that maybe some of them come from misperceptions spread by some irresponsible media vs. what really happened? Not sure if you know the truth behind the forklift or Indiegogo campaigns, but in case not, this may help a little:
I wrote the Arrogant Bastard Ale label in 1997, and the Double Bastard Ale label two years later. Are you talking about those 'rants' or something different that's more recent (in the last 15 years)? Just curious.
Cheers & thanks for the convo!
Very well said.
For one, it doesn't destroy the soil and the land. Do some research and look into the importance of soil health. Organic practices promoting living and vibrant soil through minimal use of fertilizer, which provide micronutrients that make the food taste better and more healthy. Conventional practices require huge amounts of fertilizer (coming from petroleum) that destroy all soil life, resulting in food lacking in flavor and (largely) nutrients. Not to mention the effect of fertilizer runoff on our oceans. Familiar with dead zones? A huge portion of the Gulf of Mexico, a hugely productive fishery, is devoid of life because of the anoxic conditions created by fertilizer runoff coming from the Mississippi watershed.
You are right, organic food does produce a lower amount of food. But, if millions of acres in the Midwest were not devoted to growing indelible corn that is then turned into High Fructose Corn Syrup and a myriad of other unhealthy and unneeded products (which contribute to the major health crisis in America), we would be able to grow a lot more real food.
I don't mean to come off as snarky or holier than thou, it is just a subject that I am passionate about, as well as one I think far too many people don't take the time to investigate because it is easier to ignore. /end rant
This should be landing in stores next week, just sayin'. . .
Tree Shaker was my first thought. I like TS quite a bit.
One of those inefficient uses is using a majority of that "high yield" corn (and soy and wheat) to feed to farm animals at a terribly inefficient caloric rate (as much as 10 times the potential plant calories humans could just eat, rather than feeding to animals that humans eat later). You need substantially less yield if you are using it wisely.
Excited to try this. Sounds really good !
I just linked to research showing the land that would need to be destroyed (converted from forests and wildlife) to make more farming organic. As for soil health, I call it healthier when the same amount of soil can feed far more people than ever before in history due to modern agricultural technology.
Please provide a single credible study proving organic food tastes better. Here is a massive meta-study proving there is no health difference.
Organic practices require huge amounts of fertilizer (coming from manure) that require yet more land to feed more cattle , which are in turn are a major driver of global warming.
I take it you're not concerned about runoff from manure?
You're presenting a false choice. How much farming is organic or conventional has no impact on corn being turned into HFCS (and ethanol). That said, I do appreciate your acknowledgement that organic is lower yielding and feeds fewer people per acre. I also appreciate your obvious passion and that you've put a lot of thought into an important issue.
WHAT'S UP WITH ALL THE GODDAMN DRAMA POLITICS ON THIS ONE?! this Stone ipa I'm drinking is delicious. Thank you @StoneGreg
Can we get more info on, maybe, I dunno, someone who has had this beer if it is out/if you have seen it / if you've had a beer with peaches before and can't wait to try this one?? Etc etc Not back and fourth on the site we all come to, to read about BBBBEEEEERRR and are arguing about agricultural opinions
The next one should be, "your talking shit about our brewery whilst you sip our beer ipa"
scratch that. not worth ranting about.
The only beer I've had with a natural peach flavor, that I don't believe had peaches added was Night Shift - Whirlpool pale ale. I wish I could find another juicy peachy pale ale like that. Definitely excited to see a peach IPA coming from a Stone collab. All of their beers turn out great!
I'm in. Sounds great... and I actually DO like the name. ;P
I hate to derail this thread, but the evaluation of a process purely on the basis of economics (crop yields) is not the right approach because it doesn't take into account the social and environmental impacts. Furthermore, it's incredibly wasteful to focus purely on generating such massive yields when according to the USDA, 31% of our food supply goes uneaten (sent to landfill).
Of course there are many factors to consider. Yield is a very important one. Quoting the article I linked, the US going completely organic would require farming, "area equivalent to all the parkland and wildland areas in the lower 48 states or 1.8 times as much as all the urban land in the nation." There is nothing inherently sustainable about using more land to feed less people.
The amount of waste at the consumer level is completely unaffected by whether the food is organic. For farmers losing parts of their yields to pests, however, synthetic pesticides usually mean less waste.
Are you suggesting conventional farming is sustainable? There's nothing sustainable about industrial agriculture as we know it. Runoff from excess inputs are causing eutrophication of aquatic ecosystems and pollutes groundwater, pesticides are contributing the rise of pesticide resistant pests and weeds and affect populations of beneficial species such as bees (valuable pollinators), shifting cultivation produces fallow soil which contributes to top soil erosion and desertification, and the amount of pollution and waste generated during the distribution phase. In addition to the environmental impacts listed above (which isn't a complete list), there are human health concerns such as the exposure to carcinogenic chemicals that has increased cancer rates in farm workers and the exposure to these chemicals at the retail level.
While I don't look at organic agriculture as the end-all be-all, it's certainly a step in the right direction and it's stimulated the conversation and pursuit for even more sustainable methods found here and here.
Last I checked this was a beer forum ...
^^^Yes, but something as simply as having an operational model that focused on optimum rather than maximum yield would make substantial headway.
Love Stone (rated 33 now) & 4 Hands is local favorite (rated 37). Also love double IPA's. Can't tell you how ready I am to check this out.
Not a huge peach fan, but I bet i like it.
I agree. There are a lot of really silly beer names out there, but this one is about as stupid as possible.
Here's a meta-analysis finding higher eutrophication potential for organic farming. Breeding resistance is indeed a potential downside of pesticide over-reliance. The measured response involves pesticide rotation and avoiding overuse, not in dogmatic abandonment of everything synthetic. Bees are doing very well lately--better in the US than in the EU where neonicotinoid pesticides were banned. Arguably the leading cause of soiling erosion is tilling, which also accounts for a significant portion of greenhouse gas releases. Organic rules forbid some of the most valuable tools in no-till farming.
There seem to be slighter higher rates of certain cancers for conventional farmers, so I share your concern there. But for consumers to be exposed to dangerous levels of pesticides, they would have to eat hundreds of servings daily of crops in the "Dirty Dozen."
Seriously... I've been looking over all of page 2 and can't even find one person's actual opinion about how the beer tastes. Popping one tomorrow with some friends, but still wanted to see what folks thought about it. Keep on track people!
Popped it tonight. Bought it to share with a friend for laughs, and found it damn tasty and much better than expected. Wasn't expecting the peaches to work so well with the hops.
This was very good. Really citrusy and not bitter like most stone IPA's
Had it last night. I loved it. The peach was more pronounced fresh out of the fridge, and the IPA took over more as it warmed. There was a peachy sweetness throughout, but the hops took over when it got closer room temp.