if we start a beer thread, will it be hi-jacked by those who wish to discuss speakers and wine, or that addicting stuff called ht gear? the ht gear comes with no warning labels..

BigWill will undoubtedly want to talk about spirits too

So, how about that Baseball all-star game

No, seriously Dan, thanks for helping me focus my malt related ramblings in one place. Otherwise, I'd have had to start searching for "beer" in new posts everyday.

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" - Benjamin Franklin

Is this the beer thread? I just wrote a bunch of garbage somewhere else.

Don't you guys have jobs?

I usually lurk on this forum, but I just couldn't resist this topic. *wink* Here's my top picks.

1. Chimay Blue (Red and then White)
2. Anchor Portor and Steam Ale
3. Samuel Smith's Imperial Stout and Oatmeal Stout
4. Redhook ESB and Sunrye Ale
5. Guinness of course

Fat Tire (Colorado) and Red Seel (California) are two west coast beers you should try should you be lucky enough to live some place that can get them.

Will Said in another thread...

In reply to:

---

IMHO, if it's an all malt beer (or fitting for the beer style), balanced (or fitting for the beer style), and free from defects, the argument about quality is specious. Though Becks is mass produced, it would be difficult to say it is of inferior quality to an expensive Belgian ale. Liquor is another story, however.

---

Beautifully said! I could not agree with you more. Perhaps I should be more careful about using words like "enjoyable" or "preferable" rather than "good" Your point is excellent; American Premium Lagers (Miller, Bud, etc.) are technically flawless, define the style, and nobody should call them "Bad" beers. Yet they certainly lack the character and depth that I seek in a beer-drinking experience. Plus, all that rice in Bud gives me a crushing headache.

I guess the "judgement" for me relates to not only the issues of accepted style adherence and lack of technical flaws, but also to that "enjoyability factor". Some people simply prefer some styles to others, and even within style there is enough wiggle room for some significant differences. I prefer hoppier Porters and fuller IPA's; not everyone does.

Tell me more about your liquor "quality" observation - I'm very interested.

tomtuttle,

Have you had the opportunity to partake of the deliciously quaffable Bear Republic Racer 5 (Healdsburg, CA), which I consider to be the best west-coast IPA?

Robert Pirsig was the "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenace" guy right? Didn't he go crazy and kill himself? I'm trying not to think about all that veneer stuff too much.

Adapting his philosophy to blind liquor, beer and wine purchasing at stores like Trader Joe's has been good, though. Basically: buy expensive stuff that comes with crappy labels, no stories, gold foil, etc... Bound to be good, just poorly marketed.

Quality in liquor is more objective than in beer because of the distillation process. Depending on which part of the distillation is bottled, the price and quality of the spirit will be affected. The foreshots are toxic, if I remember correctly, and the feints? or last runnings are of poor quality - harsh, medicinal, whatever. Obviously, to obtain max yield (and profit) one would blend as much of the poor quality stuff as he could. Additionally, there are two types of stills commonly used: the pot still and the continuous still. From what I understand the pot still is less efficient, but is capable of yielding finer spirits (discarding the foreshots and the last stuff). Further, many spirits are double or triple distilled - removing more impurities each time. Doesn't mean it's going to taste better, but it does seem to yield stuff that is less likely to give you a hangover. I have a triple distilled single malt Scotch that I bought in quantity at $12.99 a bottle that goes down like water and causes no distress in the morning, but many connoiseurs shun it because it is too light tasting and it is a lowland malt. But the quality cannot be disputed.
Also, the amount of time some spirits spend laid up in wooden barrels improves their flavor - quality I don't know.
Regardless, all of these things that improve quality also decrease yield and should make the product more expensive to produce. In zymurgy, it's a slap bang process that utilizes basically cheap ingredients, has a quick turnaround time and demands less precision from the maker. There is little you can do in brewing beer to justify the exorbitant cost of some of these beers. Specialty malts and rare hops are just not that expensive.

The easiest way to demonstrate the differences in quality of liquor is to buy three bottles of Cognac from the same maker - one VS, one VSOP, and one XO ($20, $30, $100). Drink a third of one bottle the first night, a third of the next a couple nights later, and the last a couple more days later. Besides the huge difference in taste (in refinement of what should be the same basic flavor) between the three, you will notice that the better stuff leaves you feeling a little more spry in the morning.

Gotta go, my glass is empty.

Not that I'm a beer expert, but I do know that beer in a clear or green bottle normally equals skunk juice! It's apparenly how light affects the beer. Corona tries to get away with their skunk juice by suggesting lime with it as if were to make it more refreshing (they dare not mention masking the skunk taste!). I admit it...I fell for it about 13 years ago while in college and thought it was such a cool concept because of the lime. That was before I was choosy about my alcoholic beverages. Now it makes me ill thinking about it because I hate skunky beer.

Ahhh, drinking in the young days (late 80's) reminds me of even more sickening memories...Sun Country Wine Coolers (in the 2 liter bottles), MD 20/20 (Mad Dog), Malt Duck, and all the other cheap alcohol at the time.

To think of all I've missed with teetotaldom. I imagine the job will drive me to drink one day. I'm taking notes for that very occasion...