Old School (cheap) Beers

I have to agree with you, especially in regards to Pabst. That poor beer's the butt of so many jokes it gets a bit dizzying, but all-in-all, it's far superior to most domestic choices we have (I mean you, Budweiser!). It's just a little twist of luck that the stuff's cheaper than Pepsi. Alas, I wouldn't ask questions, just smile and nod, smile and nod...

The bottom line is taste. I would love to see a double blind survey with some old school beers mixed in with imports and home brews. It's hard to fake a stout or an IPA. No doubt the home brews would be obvious. But I bet Bud would be at the bottom.

-Valerie

Well, if you bring imports in, of course the old schoolers would taste like piss, I mean taking a sip of Pabst after a sip of Red Stripe is foolish, the Pabst is a watery can of boredom in comparison. It would be interesting to see what might win between Bud and O'Douls, or even Bud and horse piss. I'm thinking the Bud would lose. Badly.

There is no Pabst brewery. Pabst closed it's Milwaukee brewery in the '90s and "contracted" it's beer (i.e. sold it's name) to the Miller brewing company. Miller makes its cheap ass Red Dog and Ice House beer as "off brands"--like AB's "Busch" or Coors "Keystone"--and you can bet your ass that the Pabst that is made now is the exact same thing as Red Dog and/or IceHouse--they are playing off the name of a great old time beer. I drank PBR in the 70's--it was my beer of choice--and the garbage that is passed off as PBR now is a joke. It is NOT Pabst--the price should give you a hint right off the bat--and the taste is an insult to anyone that's ever drank PBR.

NO, that's NOT what it means. The company (that is, the company that bought Pabst- S&P, which also owned the General Brewing Co., Pearl and Falstaff Brewing Co. and was owned by Paul Kalmanovitz, now deceased) still owns the name(s)- Miller (and other breweries) merely makes their beers for them. Miller DOES NOT own the brands it brews for Pabst- which includes MANY once famous brands like Schaefer, Stroh, Schlitz, Ballantine, Heileman, etc, etc...

LOL!

You mean a shitty imported lite lager is somehow more interesting than a shitty domestic lite lager? Is it the commercials mon?

If you're talking imported *quality* lagers against Pabst then I would suggest Ayinger Jahrhundert, Pilsner Urquell, Paulaner Urtyp, etc. etc. Hell, even compare it to domestic lagers such as Victory Prima Pils, New Belgium Blue Paddle and Only The Best Czech Pils.

_Randal

Then why is the taste so different (highly inferior) then when Pabst had a brewery in Milwaukee? The word is that Pabst contracted out it's beer brewing to the Miller Brewery--taste it--it sure as hell isn't the real Pabst that I remember. It's getting popular again among younger people (college students, etc), not because of the taste, but because they can spend $1,50 for a pint instead of $3.75 or so for anything else. In other words, it is popular because it is CHEAP. It still tastes like Red Dog/ Icehouse to me (and priced the same,too). I remember Pabst (in the 80's and early 90's) being priced the same as Bud or Miller. Sorry, but I am still convinced that it is just the off brand of Miller with the PBR label.

How does anything I say about the legal ownership of the Pabst brands suggest a reason why a beer tastes different? Ownership of a brand/label has no relationship to a recipe- certainly you're not suggesting that S+P has such pride >snicker< in the original recipe of Pabst that it would *never* allow it to be changed- so the dreaded Miller must secretly own it ?

Nothing I said challenges the fact (it's not a rumor- it's well reported throughout the press and on the label of the beers) that Miller makes the Pabst brands but "contract brewing" doesn't not mean they OWN the label. It's a business deal and not uncommon in LOTS of industries.

Well, I don't recall drinking Pabst since well before the original company got bought by Heileman and was then spun off and certainly haven't had any since the S+P deal, so I can't talk about it's taste (again, I was only talking about ownership). But, Pabst has long (since the 50's?) advertised it's Blue Ribbon brand as being "Now at Popular Prices", so for many years it's been priced a bit under Bud and Miller High Life, at least in many markets. There is no doubt that S+P (& Miller) dumbed down many recipes of it's many beers (talk to any Ballantine Ale drinker or ex-Heileman fans) and S+P markets many of them at "discount" prices.

Sorry, but I am still convinced that it is just the off

Again, that may very well be- but it's something the owner of the brand (S+P dba Pabst) and it's contractor, Miller, have both agreed upon. Frankly, S+P is notorious for having little interest in it's beers (their website used to mis-spell "Schaefer" and it still calls Ballantine Ale "lager beer") and when reporters CAN get someone from the company to talk re: Pabst's new success, it's obvious that no one there has a clue on how to market a beer that's become successful (with no help from the company itself.)

Take a look at the fine independent Falstaff website and learn more about the S+P Corporation and it's destruction of great breweries and famous brands...

Jess Kidden, (A still pissed former drinker of Ballantine XXX and India Pale Ales)

If "Dumbed Down" means that the recipe has changed, it isn't the original PBR, it's just some cheaper beer being marketed as Pabst. It's a shame--Pabst used to be a very good beer.

The recipe may very well be the same, truth in advertising demands it, but with inferior ingredients. I can tolerate PBR, but not the Pabst variants like:

Pabst Genuine Draft Pabst Ice Pabst Light

These are newer beers and don't have to adhere to the ORIGINAL recipe.

Let me get this straight- you think there is some sort of "truth in advertising" law that "demands" that a beer adheres to a particular recipe? Exactly what government agency controls that? Where and how does a brewer "register" their recipe? Do they have to petition this agency to change a beer? Is there an 800 number where one complains about such things? Man, what planet do you live on?

Of course the recipe is a trade secret, but why change it? I'm saying it's more likely that the PBR recipe is the same and the ingredients are lower grade. There is no purity law in the U.S., but if the label says it is original and there is no basis for originality, PBR is open to a challenge either by competitors or consumers. There has never been such a challenge. Could it be that only the name and label are original? Is that all it takes to make the statement on the label true?

AMEN!! That is what I have been trying to get across---NOT the real deal--cheaper everything--you recognize the name, but don't know that this was a REAL beer--not the piss that it is passed off as PBR today--what a rotten shame!!