Proof that there are some REALLY stupid people in England

[Richard English]

J D Wetherspoon presently have a special promotion for selected beers with all those in the promotion being sold for less than they would normally cost.

Included in the promotion are both Fuller's London Pride - a beer of unsurpassed quality and Dudweiser (brewed at Mortlake in London - not imported).

The London Pride is being sold for £2.19 an Imperial pint ($3.90) and the Dudweiser for £2.79 ($4.97) for the same quantity.

You have to admire the marketing chutzpah of the boys at A-B since they have managed to convince the British drinker that their tasteless rice-water concoction is a better drink than Fuller's wonderful brew - and that they can thus charge more for it. And, believe it or not, more were drinking Dudweiser than were drinking Pride - having fallen for the A-B marketing hype.

[MeridianFC]

Over here, land of 82% of the beer being from 4 companies nearly 50% which comes from one (the aforementioned A-B), we had a fellow by the name of Menken who said "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." I think we can now safely expand the category from which wealth is created.

[steveh]

Richard, I'm surprised this answer hasn't occurred to you -- all the more Fuller's for you if the lemmings parade over the marketing cliff!

S.

[fretlessman71]

We also had a man by the name of Barnum who said "There's a sucker born every minute." Dunno if he was being country-specific, know what I mean? ;)

[zoom6zoom]

Well, if you think how dumb the average person is - just remember, "average" means that 50% are even dumber.

[Vienna Lager]

Don't be so hard on Sludgeweiser, it does have it's uses. Washing out my carboy for one. HaHaHaHaHa.

[studentofbeer]

A-B's marketing certainly is impressive. "Lager" in general seems to be quite the thing in England. Listening to The Streets or watching The Office, it seems they constantly talk about or drink lager. i agree with steveh, nice that you get the better part of the deal, even if the rest of them are drinking crap.

[Richard English]

Sadly there's more to it than that. If the sales of Real Ales fall much further (and they are now well below the sales of chemical fizz) then it will become less and less profitable to brew them. Then the breweries that do so will all switch to chemical fizz or close down.

That's what has happened in most of the rest of the world (including the USA) and it was due solely to the efforts of CAMRA in the 1970s that it didn't happen here. The US revival in craft beers grew originally from CAMRA's initiatives (although few US drinkers realise this) and the revival is a fragile thing.

Most people in the USA drink chemical fizz - as they do in the UK and most of the rest of the world. To simply say, "I'm fine, I can drink the beer I want and the others can drink what they want" will not work.

Unless there is constant action and vigilence, Dudweiser will be in there and, along with SAB Miller and InBev will quickly succeed in taking over the entire brewing industry. That's what their intention is and they have nearly succeeded several times. We are now under threat again as the mega-fizz companies have changed their marketing tactics yet again and are (very successfully) selling their rubbish to young and inexperienced drinkers on the basis of its lifestyle advantages - and they will win unless something is done.

And the first thing that you should ALL do is join CAMRA - www.camra.org.uk - (a year's subscription costs less than an evening's drinking).

Secondly, at every opportunity, buy a Dudweiser drinker a proper beer and watch the amazement in his or her face. You will probably make a convert.

Doing nothing and being complacent will not work. It didn't work with your or our motorcycle industries, and it won't work with our brewers. Be quite sure of that.

[steveh]

Originally posted by Richard English
The US revival in craft beers grew originally from CAMRA's initiatives (although few US drinkers realise this) and the revival is a fragile thing.

Is there anything at all we have over here that we don't owe to the English Richard? I mean I really am starting to figure that I ought to start saving all my pocket change just to send back to the U.K. to repay them for being allowed my sorry existence!

The biggest push in the rise of craft brewing in the U.S. was the rise of home-brewers - looking for better beer than the swill available on our shelves, influencing etrepeneurs (some of them home-brewers themselves) that there was a market - even a need for better, more palatable beer.

I'd never deny that English ales had influence on craft or home-brewing because beer lovers the world over recognize all good beer, and CAMRA's "initiatives" are noble indeed, but we Yanks have our own initiatives and ideas and inventions and desires that lead to good results. We wanted better beer, we started making it - simple as that. The rise of craft-brewing was seeded long before CAMRA sprung up, and would have grown even if the group never existed.

S.

[Richard English]

Quote "...The rise of craft-brewing was seeded long before CAMRA sprung up, and would have grown even if the group never existed...."

Check out the antecendants of the man who started the first of the new wave of craft breweries.

[chazwicke]

His name was Jack McAuliffe. He was stationed in Scotland and had a taste for real ale and determined to open his own brewery when he got home to the USA. He opened New Albion. The rest is history.

I've got a buddy that knew McAuliffe since before he opened the brewery. He was in the service with him.
I was also fortunate enough to drink the New Albion Stout way back then.

I was homebrewing before 78 when it became legal here. I used English kits that one of my neighborhood friends whose parents were English diplomats brought back on frequent trips home.

I am a life member of CAMRA

But I think lots of things came together to fuel the micro revolution in the USA most of which is $$. There is not a craft brewer out there who brews for fun only. Most of our favorite micros are profitable ventures that do care about their product but probably would not be in existance if they were not money making operations. Lots of micros fell out in the mid 90s after the fad slowed.

[Richard English]

Quote "...He was stationed in Scotland..."

Exactly. And why did Scotland have Real Ale back in those days? It was losing market share to chemical fizz even more quickly was England back in the 1970s.

CAMRA stopped the rot and managed to get Real Ale back to Scotland as it had already managed to get it back to England. And it was as a result of CAMRA's success that Jack McAuliffe was able to sample and enjoy Real Ale.

The craft brewery pheonomenon might well have started without the existence of CAMRA - but there was certainly no sign of it back in the 1970s when I first visited the USA. Dudweiser and its clones ruled the roost and the only drinkable beer was Anchor Steam (and who knows how long they would have stayed in business had it not been for the revival of interest in good beer?)

And, incidentally, home brewing was a very strong movement in England long before it became so in the USA. It was legalised in England several years before it was legalised in the USA and many people took it up for the same kinds of reasons (as indeed did I). But it is less popular now than it was, simply because the move to keg beers of the 1970s that was one of the drivers was stopped by CAMRA. Now that it's possible to buy good beer at just about any outlet many people don't think it's worth the effort.

I would not allocate credit to England and CAMRA just for the sake of it; but the facts are there and, as I suggested, I suspect that very few American drinkers are aware of them.

[steveh]

Originally posted by Richard English
...only drinkable beer was Anchor Steam (and who knows how long they would have stayed in business had it not been for the revival of interest in good beer?)

And Fritz Maytag staked his claim in the Anchor Brewery in 1969 - because he loved the beer that was being brewed at there and didn't want to lose it.

S.

[Richard English]

Quote "...nd Fritz Maytag staked his claim in the Anchor Brewery in 1969 - because he loved the beer that was being brewed at there and didn't want to lose it...."

Which just goes to show how the actions of just a few people can affect the lives of millions. CAMRA was founded at almost the same time by just FOUR men.

Had it not been for Fritz Maytag Anchor would now be just a brand name for a chemical fizz; had it not been for CAMRA we'd all be drinking that chemical fizz.

But. as I said, the war has not been won, even though we've won a few battles. Chemical fizz is now the world's most popular beer style, by far. I would guess that the outputs of all the US craft breweries combined could be replaced by Dudweiser without their even having to pay their staff overtime!

[chazwicke]

Originally posted by steveh
And Fritz Maytag staked his claim in the Anchor Brewery in 1969 - because he loved the beer that was being brewed at there and didn't want to lose it.

S.

I saw Maytag recently at a tasting. When he took over Anchor he traveled to England and Germany for inspiration. He claimed English beer was interesting but warm and flat. Then he said they went to Germany and all the beer tasted the same and was non descript. I lost major respect for Maytag that day. He deserves some credit but he certainly is not in the mainstream of thought that most beer geeks are. He also has released beers that by his own admission were sub standard or mistakes. I found him to be a grumpy, crusty old man with a bit of ego.

[Richard English]

Well, I've never met him but I have drunk Anchor Steam. In San Francisco in 1986 it was nectar compared with the mainstream chemical swill; in England I don't even bother to pick up a bottle in the supermarket these days - unless it's on a really good offer. There's a lot (including much from the USA) that's far better.

And he certainly doesn't know much about beer if he reckons that all English beer is "warm and flat" - unless he is comparing it with Dudweiser, of course.

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Richard English
Most people in the USA drink chemical fizz - as they do in the UK and most of the rest of the world. To simply say, "I'm fine, I can drink the beer I want and the others can drink what they want" will not work.

Unless there is constant action and vigilence, Dudweiser will be in there and, along with SAB Miller and InBev will quickly succeed in taking over the entire brewing industry. That's what their intention is and they have nearly succeeded several times. We are now under threat again as the mega-fizz companies have changed their marketing tactics yet again and are (very successfully) selling their rubbish to young and inexperienced drinkers on the basis of its lifestyle advantages - and they will win unless something is done.



Craft sales grew last year in the US while Anheuser Busch sales fell. I don't want to say that we can stop worrying, but the US craft industry is no longer an infant in need of constant attention.

[Richard English]

It's good to be positive but dangerous to be complacent. In 2003 A-B alone sold 102.6 million barrels. The entire craft brewing industry sold 6.2 million in 2003.

A-B alone is 16.5 times the size of the entire US craft brewing industry. And we haven't even looked at the figures for SAB Miller and InterBev who, added together, would probably make the three groups around fifty times the size of the craft beer industry.

US craft beer may not be an infant but it's a pretty small toddler. As I said, A-B need only increase its production by around 15% (which is could easily do without breaking into a sweat) and its volumes would replace those of the entire craft brewing industry.

There is no reason to let up the fight just because A-B have had a minor set-back.

[HogieWan]

Originally posted by Richard English
I would guess that the outputs of all the US craft breweries combined could be replaced by Dudweiser without their even having to pay their staff overtime!

This is probably true.

As a one too young to experience the craft beer revolution as it took off, I have to rely on the "history" passed to me in various forms, but, from my understanding, the movement in England started before ours, and helped us a bit, but didn't create the US situation. I believe that a segment of the US population was starving for better brew. I think the US craft revolution would have occurred without the help of CAMRA, but would be a longer, slower battle. That said I'm looking into joining CAMRA - not sure if I'l pay yearly of do the lifetime member thing.

[Richard English]

At your age take life membership. I took it out around 25 years ago and the annual membership fee now is about a quarter of what I paid for life membership. So every four years I recoup my investment. And of course, the longer I live the more I'll save.

The other benefit is that you don't need to remember to renew - which is easily forgotten.

[fretlessman71]

After repeated tries, I have been unable to reach the head of the chapter in my area, by email or otherwise. Dunno what's up with that...

[Richard English]

I have heard of this problem myself.

I always email the head office in St Albans and invariably get a reply. If you tell them your problem I am sure they'll help. I see no obstacle to your joining via CAMRA's head office.

It may be that they are looking for a head of chapter for your area, so be prepared to offer your services ;-)

Go to www.camra.org.uk for the e-addresses.

[MeridianFC]

A couple of points I feel need to be made.

1. I don't think CAMRA alone is responsible, certianly not directly, for the rise in the US craft brewing movement. Did it's existence play a part? Absolutely, but there are a lot of other factors in play (homebrewing, import/expat culture, marketing pushes by some foriegn (mostly european) brewers, demographic shifts, growth of foreign travel for Americans, economics, etc.). It's a complex stew that has got us where we are. I would neither diminish nor elevate what CAMRA existence has done for the US. It's influence on some of the revival brewers of the early 70s can not be overlooked, but the expanding palate of US drinkers due to the wider availablity of the likes of Guinness, Heineken, Bass, and a host of German brews (Becks, St. Pauli Girl, DAB, etc.) plays a big role too.

My first experiences with quality beer and the desire to follow this path started with Heinneger, DAB, Guinness Extra, Bass, Steinlager, Whitbred, St. Pauli Girl, Tuscher, Fosters (Australian brewed at the time), and some fortunate encounters with fresh Hacker-Pschorr. The German imports (and Guinness) had the biggest impact early on for many of the folks I know, myself included, who drink good beer. Some of these brews may seem very tame, even revolting now, but at the time it was a revelation. It's many of these imports (I didn't see an American craft brew till maybe Sam Adams in the late 80s, though I did experience some regionals a la Stoney's) that created the consumer based demand.

Again it's complex brew (!) that created the situation we have now. It's all interelated.

That said my first experience with Real Ale was life altering as it has been for many who try it.

2. My memory of Fritz Maytag's comments is slightly different than Chaz's. During the small part of the talk I saw he did dinegrate Real Ale (specifically he talked about British beer) as all being "session beers" and somewhat uninteresting. He commented on the almost universal use of brewing sugar in British brewing as opposed to the all malt recipes he thought made better beer. He also addressed adjuncts as it related to American mega brewing, which he said was not necessarily a bad thing, just something he didn't think made the best beer. Afterwards when Chaz and I took him to task for his cask comments, he reveresed some and acknowledged that there were some good British brews and that session beers had their place, though it might have been as much to placate to obvious Real Ale nutjobs as anything else. Though he appears to me to be a man not given to much compromise, which has allowed him to survive in thrive living through some of the darkest beer times in this country outside of pr*******n.

3. As I have recently discovered the Society for the Preservation of Beer from the Wood actually predate CAMRA having been founded in 1963 with CAMRA officially formed in 1971. I'm a member of both.

4. I agee completely with Richard that vigilance on the part of real craft beer supporters is required lest we find ourselves ruled, the planet over, by a handful of companies that could not give a rat's ass what they serve us.

In the end the truth is in the glass.

[MeridianFC]

Originally posted by fretlessman71
After repeated tries, I have been unable to reach the head of the chapter in my area, by email or otherwise. Dunno what's up with that...

You should join through the main office, I believe the local US chapters can be somewhat iffy as far as contacts and the like.

[Richard English]

Quote "...As I have recently discovered the Society for the Preservation of Beer from the Wood actually predate CAMRA having been founded in 1963 with CAMRA officially formed in 1971. .."

I used to belong to SPBW but found it offered very little that CAMRA didn't offer. I confess I am surprised that it still exists, the more so since wooden casks are almost a thing of the past.

[MeridianFC]

From the main site http://www.spbw.com

"In 1963 wooden casks were still regarded as being synonymous with traditional draught beer in contrast to the sealed dustbins which contained the processed and artificially carbonated product. For this reason the name seemed ideal. After a few years, realising that metal casks were rapidly replacing wooden ones, the Society decided to relax its principles accordingly. Nowadays only about a dozen breweries use wooden casks at all, and the SPBW is more concerned with the contents than the container, which we accept makes little or no difference to the taste of the beer. However, the original name has been retained for the sake of tradition. "

I agree that the SPBW mostly mirrors the aims of CAMRA though it seems far more socially driven, not that CAMRA is not very social. In the end it was a tenner (US) to join the local branch so I said what the hell. At this point there's no local CAMRA branch, something I hope to rectify.

[fretlessman71]

Yeah - the only "local" branch of CAMRA that I saw was, ironically, for the Southeast US, where most of the outdated alcohol laws are still in effect. Go figure.

[HogieWan]

Originally posted by MeridianFC
4. I agee completely with Richard that vigilance on the part of real craft beer supporters is required lest we find ourselves ruled, the planet over, by a handful of companies that could not give a rat's ass what they serve us.


While I enjoy what some craft brewers are doing, I can (and probably prefer to) brew my own. If I want something different than what I'm making, there's another homebrewer that will trade half a batch.

[studentofbeer]

Some interesting comments about fritz maytag, though i'm not completely surprised. from what i understand he is a pretty uncompromising person who knows what he likes. so, yeah i would say he definitely has something of an ego. When i saw him at the brewery i was a bit intimidated and didn't talk to him because he seemed busy.

from what the tour guide said he basically dictates all aspects of their operation, and the recipes for beers are his, and his alone. he is also a very big Americana buff, as an article about Fritz by Stephen Beumont in the most recent Saveur points out, so i can see him bagging on beers from other countries. i think he must get a kick out of the craft brew movement in America. In any event, I'd say he is entitled to his opinion, even if it might be outside the mainstream of craft brewers nowadays.

i also find this beer from the wood group interesting. the thread about Pilsner Urquell and the fact that it used to ferment in giant oak barrels made me wonder why more beer isn't put in wood, like it used to be. if wineries can do it, surely some brewers can too.

[MeridianFC]

Originally posted by studentofbeer

i also find this beer from the wood group interesting. the thread about Pilsner Urquell and the fact that it used to ferment in giant oak barrels made me wonder why more beer isn't put in wood, like it used to be. if wineries can do it, surely some brewers can too.

Wood contact is, or should be, key to the development of the flavor of wine. It is not (usually) part of the flavor of beer, it had been just the material for containment. It's all about cost, wood barrels being significantly more expensive to create and maintain. Orders of magnitude really.

[critch]

Originally posted by MeridianFC

My first experiences with quality beer and the desire to follow this path started with Whitbred, [/B]

saying that alone may earn you a visit from a camra death squad:D

[MeridianFC]

I'll ignore that fact that you snipped to that point ;) and only remark that compared to what was available to that point, Whitbred was practically Veuve Cliquoet Grand Dame. If I was honest I'd mention a brief flirtation with Watney's Red Barrel in college when it was at the local market for $.99 per litre bottel (plastic of courese). But I'm not that honest.

Welcome aboard by the by.

[HogieWan]

Originally posted by MeridianFC
Wood contact is, or should be, key to the development of the flavor of wine. It is not (usually) part of the flavor of beer

while i conceed the cost is much greater, the flavors imparted by roasted wood barrels are not much different than what we sometimes look for in beers

Here is a chart of the different flavors imparted by carmelized sugars in wood barrels roasted at differing temps


the flavor from wood barrel aging is the main component of flavor and color in whiskey

[Richard English]

I suspect that there is little or no difference in the flavour of beer stored in wooden casks for one very simple reason - it is not in them for long.

Cask-condtioned beer spends only a few days, or maybe weeks in cask; wine spends far longer and whisky spends many years. Even 50% alcohol takes a long time to leach much flavour from a cask and 5% alcohol would take longer. I just don't think that a 5% beer would leach anything detectable in the time it has.

[MeridianFC]

I've been doing a little research and wooden casks cost about twice what a stainless steel cask cost. There's a lot of variable (French or American Oak, quality issues, char, etc.) not to mention finding serving size wooden vessels takes some doing. With stainless there are some variations for kegging v. Real Ale service, etc.

I didn't do any research for storage/lagering size vessels figuring whatever figures I could find would probably increase equally for each material.

10-12gal American Oak Cask (domestic) $188-255/£105-143
(the prices on Oak cask goes much higher depending on inumberable options)

10gal Stainless steel firkin (imported to the US) $125/£70

Multiply that by the amount needed in a production brewery and you're talking a lot of money. This is completely outside the fact that you need specialist labour (a cooper) to maintain your wooden casks. Any lunk can clean a SS cask.

[chazwicke]

Originally posted by Richard English
At your age take life membership. I took it out around 25 years ago and the annual membership fee now is about a quarter of what I paid for life membership. So every four years I recoup my investment. And of course, the longer I live the more I'll save.

The other benefit is that you don't need to remember to renew - which is easily forgotten.

I'm a life member and I recommend others do the same. CAMRA, whatever it's impact, is a worthy organization and worth the support.

[chazwicke]

Many brewers use old bourboun or whiskey barrels to impart flavor into their beers. This of course is caused by the product liquor.

I've got my own application for SPBFW. I'll be joining for certain. I have no aversion to joining more than one beer advocacy group.

And the comment Maytag made about all German beer tasting the same really got me fuming.

[studentofbeer]

Originally posted by Richard English
I suspect that there is little or no difference in the flavour of beer stored in wooden casks for one very simple reason - it is not in them for long.

Cask-condtioned beer spends only a few days, or maybe weeks in cask; wine spends far longer and whisky spends many years. Even 50% alcohol takes a long time to leach much flavour from a cask and 5% alcohol would take longer. I just don't think that a 5% beer would leach anything detectable in the time it has.

i was thinking more of the barrels pilsner urquell (and i assume most brewers a few hundred years ago) used to ferment and age their beers in. would that have a measurable affect on a beer? Lambics spend a few years in wood barrels, right?

[studentofbeer]

Originally posted by chazwicke
And the comment Maytag made about all German beer tasting the same really got me fuming.

he must not really mean that since he just made a "bock" of sorts.

[Theakston]

Originally posted by Richard English
I suspect that there is little or no difference in the flavour of beer stored in wooden casks for one very simple reason - it is not in them for long.

Cask-condtioned beer spends only a few days, or maybe weeks in cask; wine spends far longer and whisky spends many years. Even 50% alcohol takes a long time to leach much flavour from a cask and 5% alcohol would take longer. I just don't think that a 5% beer would leach anything detectable in the time it has.

That's very true but many brewers use wood not so much for the woody taste that the wood itself imparts but also for the little beasties that can live there. The classic example of course is lambic beer where the fermentation is finished by wild yeasts and bacteria that live in the wood barrels. Then there's Rodenbach and other versions of bruins and sour ales that are started with a regular yeast strain and finished in wood to add a sour taste (in the USA there's Cuvee de Tommee or the classic "la folie" from NB).

Even though English cask ales were not supposed to develop a sour taste or any trace of "infection" from the wood, I often thought that there was always a hint of it - a taste you would typically associate with a sour ale - in a beer that had been conditioned in the wood that you would not get from a totally sterile cask such as a stainless steel one.

This could also be responsible for the "green apples" taste that people who remember the classic wood conditioned Pilsner Urquell wax on about. True they were not really designed to have these "off" or sour tastes but I suspect that there was always a hint of it no matter how hard the brewer was (presumably) trying to avoid them.

[Richard English]

At one time the cost of wooden casks versus the cost of metal ones was more closely balanced and I recall hearing the Brakespears (one of the last to use wood) said that the longer service life of the wooden cask outweighed its extra initial cost. A wooden cask, unlike a metal one, can be repaired by simple replacement of staves, hoops and ends.

However, the increasing cost of labour has changes this, as it has changed so many things. The appprenticieship of a cooper (the world's longest, I believe) is seven years and that costs a lot of money. The cost of replacing a stave or hoop is high because of the labour costs. The cleaning and sterilising process takes longer and therefore costs more.

So, sadly, in spite of its visual appeal, I fear that the wooden cask is bound for extinction in the beer world.