grifty a écrit :
Well, in brewery doublespeak "premium" means thisproduct is not
necessarily much more expensive to produce than the basic beer from the
same brewery, yet that it can be *sold at a premium*, because
To boil it all down: same sh*t, different name, but you're expected to
feel better about yourself because you're buying it.
A premium anything is a brand for which buyers will pay a premium price.
Calling a beer premium is marketing, selling it for $2/bottle makes it
premium. Withness all the four-packs at six pack prices lately.
Yes, *provided* we agree that "premium" is defined as "a beer sold for
a high price" and not as "a beer of superior intrinsic physical
The "catch" is that, as economists will tell you, "Consumers tend to
take price as an index of quality" IOW, if swill is sold at a low
price, people will tend to think it is swill. But if it carries a
high price, gullible consumers will tend to think it must be great
One example: many people continue to pay a high price for Bayer
aspirin although it has been repeatedly demonstrated to be no better
than generic aspirin. There are countless other exaamples.
How many times have you heard, or read, "You get what you pay for."
NOTHING could be further from the truth! It is the slogan of those
who want to defend the high prices of their mediocre goods.
~ I think it's a good summer beer but I have no idea how they can get
~ away charging a premium price for it. It's just not that special and I
~ doubt if the brewing process is either.
Please ignore all those snobs who think you shouldn't drink
Rolling Rock. They're probably hung up on notions that beer
should include lots of hops and barley, rather than lots of
corn and rice. IMO, RR is just dandy when when all I want
is a bland beer with a nice corn pop flavor in a pretty green
Still, it is hard to make the case that RR is worth $5.50 a 6.
Unless you REALLY like that corn flavor.
While true of beer, that's not universally true. For instance, the use of
"premium" with regards to ice cream is controlled nomenclature, and requires
a certain percentage of milkfat to qualify.
But for a lot of goods, including beer, it has no reflection on the product
Hey, Proletariat Prince Aaron... Didja happen to notice that Grifty
essentially said the same thing all the 'snobs' did? "It's just not that
special and I doubt if the brewing process is either."
Don't call folks snobs when you're acting like one yourself. It's not our
fault you have an infantile penis and can't afford a Porsche.
~ > Please ignore all those snobs who think you shouldn't drink
~ > Rolling Rock. They're probably hung up on notions that beer
~ > should include lots of hops and barley, rather than lots of
~ > corn and rice. IMO, RR is just dandy when when all I want
~ > is a bland beer with a nice corn pop flavor in a pretty green
~ > bottle.
~ > Still, it is hard to make the case that RR is worth $5.50 a 6.
~ > Unless you REALLY like that corn flavor.
~ Hey, Proletariat Prince Aaron... Didja happen to notice that Grifty
~ essentially said the same thing all the 'snobs' did? "It's just not that
~ special and I doubt if the brewing process is either."
What's not "special" about a mashbill that has more adjunct
than any other brew?
~ Don't call folks snobs when you're acting like one yourself. It's not our
~ fault you have an infantile penis and can't afford a Porsche.
~ Lew Bryson
(Heh, I got Lew all worked up ... I feel like a true rfdb troll now!)
Maybe I can afford a Porsche but choose to drive a Buick?
Make up your mind, wad-breath: is corn in a beer "bad" or not? You sound
kind of schizo here, like you can't make up your mind if you love Rock or
hate it, if you want to be a snob or hate the snobs. Did you have problems
Don't flatter yourself. I just like to break the warm-and-fluffy mold
occasionally, and you got in the way.
Maybe you should stick to public transit.
So in our scintillating colloquium on Rolling Rock, Mr. Bryson
actually ferretted out a philosophical question that I'd sort
of been half-pondering for some time ...
~ Make up your mind, wad-breath: is corn in a beer "bad" or not? You sound
~ kind of schizo here, like you can't make up your mind if you love Rock or
~ hate it, if you want to be a snob or hate the snobs. Did you have problems
~ with toilet-training?
So here's the thing: I know intellectually (and because my wife
tells me so, and she actually has a very keen palate, except that
she doesn't like Bavarian Hefes or any Belgians) that Rolling Rock
is a "bad" beer due to its having virtually no flavor other than
some sweet corniness.
BUT not infrequently I'll grab a Rock (or a box thereof) and find
it to be thoroughly satisfactory. In a way that, at that moment
and in that context (e.g. while grilling chicken wings when it's
105 out) that most "good" beers would not be. I.e. the "good"
beers - even the relatively refreshing ones like SNPA or PU - would
be less effective in this regard.
So, when it comes to Rolling Rock, it's a bad beer that I sometimes
quite like, yep.
I don't think that Rolling Rock's "badness" (or my liking it) is a
simple blandness effect - the Rock is "badder" (and usually I like
it better) than a purer exponent of blandness for blandness' sake
such as Keystone Light or Mich Ultra. Because it actually has some
character (albeit a "bad character") in its almost cloying corny
sweetness. Sometimes (when it ain't cold enough) I DO find it
cloying, and then I wonder what the heck I'm doing drinking this
junk. But at the right temp, and when I'm not paying too much
attention to it, I dunno, it's just the thing.
Another bad beer that I pretty much like quite a bit, btw, is
Shiner Bock, which shares the Rock's maizey heritage, but has
more of a muffiny thing going on. I couldn't make the case to
anyone that Shiner Bock is a "good" beer, but on the other hand,
there's no beer that I'd rather wash down a chicken-fried steak
So, yeah, I am kind of schizo here. I gotta admit, you nailed
Let's draw the distinction between taste and quality here. Taste is individual
and shouldn't be judged. When you go into
a store to buy beer and you stand in front of a cooler figuring out what to buy
you don't have to answer to rfdb or
But beers can be judged according to quality, which is different. Quality comes
from the types of ingredients and
brewing know-how used in the process. You can say that you have a taste for
Rolling Rock and nobody can fault you for
it. But if you assert that Rolling Rock is a higher quality beer than craft
brewed beer, you will be called on it.
Define "quality." Is it brewing to a taste that you like? Is it brewing with
certain ingredients and recipes? Is it brewing a beer that's free of
infection, mistakes and flaws in the brewing, fermentation or
Quality is *every* bit as subjective as taste, and you can't pass it off as
some sort of objective standard.
If "quality" equals brewing a beer that tastes like you think beer should
taste like, that's a question of taste.
If "quality" equals brewing with certain ingredients or not certain
ingredients, it takes little to no effort at all to find a well-regarded
beer that brews using the recipe you would otherwise pan.
If "quality" equals brewing beer that's free of flaws and mistakes, the
likes of Bud and Rolling Rock kick a great deal of craft breweries' scrawny
little asses all over the countryside.
So, what's quality? And how does that become objective enough to "call
someone on it"?
When I head back home to the Midwest, I usually visit White Castle and have
some sliders. I find them totally satisfactory. I would never argue that
they are good. In fact, they are arguably the worst burgers on the planet.
Not everything enjoyable is good. And there's nothing wrong at all with
admitting enjoying something that is bad.
Do what you gotta do, Steven. I snap every now and then, I won't lie to you.
Needless to say, I don't snap in the book. But if I always had to play nice
and tell everyone who said stupid things about beer that they were perhaps
misinformed and pat them on the head...I'd strip my gears and drool all day.
I yam what I yam, an' 'at's all what I yam. Most people who've 'met' me on
the Internet who later meet me in person tell me I'm much nicer in person.
Kinda like Scheidt.
There are some nasty pieces of crap around here that you can buy frozen at
the grocery store. I did, once, when I was just getting started writing and
we were on a seriously tight budget. They tasted like hair oil. We never
bought them again, and just thinking about them makes me gag. Next to them,
a sack of sliders is heavenly.
Bingo. But acting like something you enjoy is bad and beneath you...that's
something you don't need to do. You like it. Get over it. Move on. And
extend the same courtesy to others.
Hah! If I didn't know better, I'd swear I'd written your post.
One of these days, I'll get around to posting a bit more, but busy for
now. Big revealation on the last trip: Yeah, great beer in Germany and
Austria, but fookin' hell, is Seattle a damn fine beer town or what?
The "Victory Hop Devil" at 1516 Brewing Co in Vienna rawked, though.
So did the Rauchbier at Siebensternbräu - nearly a ringer for Spezial.
And Ottakringer is brewing a true copper-colored Vienna amber lager,
and it rawx. Düsseldorf Altbier is as great as ever, while Kölsch is
undergoing the biggest dumbing-down in the history of the style.
Trend in Germany: "Gold" low-hop lagers, from the likes of Beck's and
Flensburger. Bland, bland, bland. Too bad, so sad. But when German
brewers are trending towards North American-style blandness, it's time
to call 'em as you see 'em. And as I see 'em, we can be pretty damn
proud of what craft brewing is accomplishing in North America, while
indifferent consumers and desperate-for-survival brewers in Germany slug
it out for the lowest common denominator. It ain't pretty.
Drooling Rock? Blows goats. Ice cold, marginally more interesting
than ultra-flavorless Bud Blight. That's about it.