InBev offers to buy Anheuser-Busch for $46.9 billion

[Woolen Horde]

Wow. I thought Europeans hated American beer.

[ElGuapo]

Fuck you InBev! You'll never get our sweet American lager!

[charmtrap]

They may hate American beer, but they love American money. Or more properly, Chinese (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/11/business/deal12.php) money.

[Shadarr]

I just heard that Molson-Coors is merging with Miller to become #2 in America. It's merger season in the liquor industry, apparently. Getting ready for a hard-drinking recession?

[Funkula]

I can't really get too broken up about this, since AB can only be improved by association with the makers of Spaten, Hoegaarden, and Murphy's. I did notice upon going to their website to see what beers they owned that they've already incorporated Budweiser into their selection interface, so I guess this has already been handled behind the scenes and is now being finalized.

[BostonBum0]

I just heard that Molson-Coors is merging with Miller to become #2 in America. It's merger season in the liquor industry, apparently. Getting ready for a hard-drinking recession?

I thought this went through during football season, so they could buy out Budweiser's endorsement spots.

Edit: Also I think that two of the last things people give up during a recession are booze and smokes...

[Slainte Mhath]

How the hell do rural Chinese afford premium bottled beer? That article talks about rural Chinese who are expected to switch from hard alcohol to beer accounting for a 10% or more increase in sales in the next few years. I thought these guys were making like $1 a day (or $2 if they were gold farming in WoW)?

InBev better hope that this buyout does not effect American jobs at all. If they lay off employees and close plants to move production overseas they're going to find Americans suddenly developing a taste for Miller/Coors.

[triggercut]

I can't really get too broken up about this, since AB can only be improved by association with the makers of Spaten, Hoegaarden, and Murphy's. I did notice upon going to their website to see what beers they owned that they've already incorporated Budweiser into their selection interface, so I guess this has already been handled behind the scenes and is now being finalized.

Nope.

InBev and A-B actually signed a distribution deal last year giving AB distribution oversight on InBev beers in the US, and giving InBev similar rights to AB stuff in Europe.

[Bad Neighbor]

Oh good, more varieties of piss water to be shoved in my face in place of good quality beer.

[Ben Sones]

Fuck you InBev! You'll never get our sweet American lager!

Nope, they won't--they'll get Budweiser and Busch instead. Looks like the joke's on you, InBev!

[CastOutDevil]

If Budweiser loses ground, let's hope Hamm's and Pabst Blue Ribbon can take up the slack.

[walTer]

Does anyone actually like Budweiser, let alone drink it?

[WarrenM]

Well, somebody is clearly buying it.

[Phil_Stein]

Wow everyone.

Snob much?

[Athryn]

Wow everyone.

Snob much?

Budweiser is terrible beer, drunk with devices such as this:

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/bierstick.gif

so you don't actually have to taste the beer going down...

[wisefool]

How the hell do rural Chinese afford premium bottled beer? That article talks about rural Chinese who are expected to switch from hard alcohol to beer accounting for a 10% or more increase in sales in the next few years.

the Chinese beer market is was already larger than the USA's by volume sold (306 m hectolitres vs 234.6 hecolitres for the USA, 2005 figures) Apparently, the market is very fragmented, with the top brand "Snow" accounting for only 5% of the market share. I guess it can't be too hard to grab 6% of market share and be #1.

Also, beer is a lot cheaper in China. Went to China a couple of years ago and I was paying a dime for a decent, big bottle. This was tourist prices too.


The Chinese beer industry produces less than $600 million in annual operating profit on 390 million hectoliters, Credit Suisse said, or around 1.5 U.S. cents a liter. That compares with Miller's $477 million of 2008 profit in the United States on 48 million hectoliters, or nearly 10 cents a liter.

[Midnight Son]

Belgian Socialists!! Just say no!

[charmtrap]

There's nothing wrong with Bud. Budweiser is a little bland, a little sweet and entirely inoffensive. There are about 150 microbrews or foreign beers I'd rather drink before Bud sure, but when I'm a guest at someone's house and they hand me a Bud I can drink it just fine. And it's great for outdoor summer barbecue stuff.

[Slainte Mhath]

the Chinese beer market is was already larger than the USA's by volume sold (306 m hectolitres vs 234.6 hecolitres for the USA, 2005 figures) Apparently, the market is very fragmented, with the top brand "Snow" accounting for only 5% of the market share. I guess it can't be too hard to grab 6% of market share and be #1.

Also, beer is a lot cheaper in China. Went to China a couple of years ago and I was paying a dime for a decent, big bottle. This was tourist prices too.

Well hell, no wonder they don't notice they're using fake toothpaste and baby formula, they're all pissed out of their minds on 10 cent bottles of beer.

Seriously though, wow, that's a lot of beer, and they project 10% growth on top of that.

[Athryn]

Budweiser sale becomes an election year issue (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/12/politicians-line-up-to-sa_n_106672.html).

Ohnoes, Budweiser might be owned by dirty foreigners!

[Slainte Mhath]

Haha! Next thing they'll be doing a piece on how hot dog manufacturers and apple pie distributers are foriegn owned! The only thing still American in this great country is mom.

OR IS SHE?!

[Phil_Stein]

Did you actually read the article? It's the governor of Missouri (home state of AB) who is opposed to this deal. I did not see any other politician mentioned.

I strongly suspect that the main reason for his opposition is that AB is a major employer in this area, and that they have also been a good corporate citizen over the years. Despite InBev's comments about keeping North American headquarters here, I suspect (and presume the governor, and many other Missourians also suspect) that an outside buyer would lead, over time, to AB being less integrated into the area, both as a solid employer, and as a corporate citizen.

[Kalle]

Wow everyone.

Snob much?

Taste much?

[Phil_Stein]

Taste much?

Yes, I do. (Though I admit I am not a supertaster.)

Budweiser tastes good (and the American beer drinking public apparently agrees with me, but then, they're just clueless sheeple, right?). I know that it seems far cooler to rag on Bud, just as indie movies and indie music are cooler than mainstream.

For all the snobs around here, I'd be mildly surprised if most of you could tell Budweiser apart from your favorite overpriced European import Lager in blind tests 7 of 10 times. (And I'm talking Lager vs. Lager here, of roughly the same "heaviness". Yes, most of us can tell Guinness and such apart from typical beers.)

[Athryn]

For all the snobs around here, I'd be mildly surprised if most of you could tell Budweiser apart from your favorite overpriced European import Lager in blind tests 7 of 10 times. (And I'm talking Lager vs. Lager here, of roughly the same "heaviness". Yes, most of us can tell Guinness and such apart from typical beers.)

I don't drink lagers, I drink ales, and I tend to favor the ones brewed locally (http://www.olddominion.com/), thank you very much. ^_^

Generally speaking (and this includes my own father, when he was younger) people buy and drink Bud and Miller to get drunk, not for any kind of actual taste.

It's like trying to say that all wines taste alike.

[Phil_Stein]

Ahh yes, drinking Bud and Miller marks you as a drunkard, whereas ale is the Drink of Kings - the Drink for Sophisticated People. And of course, it should be locally brewed, because the people in your town certainly know how to brew it much better than the folks a town or two over. Why, those Shelbyville-ans might secretly water down their ale with Budweiser!

One more thing to think about as I drink myself into a stupor tonight.

[Ed Solomon]

Yes, I do. (Though I admit I am not a supertaster.)

Budweiser tastes good (and the American beer drinking public apparently agrees with me, but then, they're just clueless sheeple, right?). I know that it seems far cooler to rag on Bud, just as indie movies and indie music are cooler than mainstream.

For all the snobs around here, I'd be mildly surprised if most of you could tell Budweiser apart from your favorite overpriced European import Lager in blind tests 7 of 10 times. (And I'm talking Lager vs. Lager here, of roughly the same "heaviness". Yes, most of us can tell Guinness and such apart from typical beers.)
You might be right, but I don't like lager.

I know I can tell it apart from Pete's Wicked or Sierra Nevada Pale Ale.

Edit: Damn, Athryn, beaten to the punch.

[Kalle]

McDonalds sells billions of burgers. Popularity does not correlate directly to quality.

As a snob, I don't drink lager unless I want to get pissed on the cheap. If I take my tastebuds into account I'll always go with something Belgian and expensive.

And I think you're being disingenious when you're discarding the fact that beer is the cheapest alcohol typically available and that getting proper drunk is a major reason for drinking beer.

[Gendal]

There's nothing wrong with Bud. Budweiser is a little bland, a little sweet and entirely inoffensive.
Exactly. Given the choice between Bud and Water I will probably just take the water, but I am not much of a drinker. However if I really want a buzz for some reason I won't be suppressing the urge to vomit if Bud is the only thing available. Unlike Coors, which conjures up feelings of projectile vomiting.

[ElGuapo]

As long as I can keep getting Yeungling, I'm all set thanks.

America's oldest brewing company. I'll kill a thousand Dutchman and buy the company myself before you get our precious copper colored lager.

[Athryn]

Ahh yes, drinking Bud and Miller marks you as a drunkard, whereas ale is the Drink of Kings - the Drink for Sophisticated People. And of course, it should be locally brewed, because the people in your town certainly know how to brew it much better than the folks a town or two over. Why, those Shelbyville-ans might secretly water down their ale with Budweiser!

One more thing to think about as I drink myself into a stupor tonight.

Local = fresher, less travel time (vibrations) to get to you, less carbon footprint. And they honestly just taste better. I just don't like lagers, and don't like mass produced beers.

From the attitude in your posts, I don't think I'm the one being a snob here. :p At least I'm willing to explain myself as opposed to your histrionics. :D

[Phil_Stein]

Vibrations affect beer? That's a new one for me.

Local = fresher, all other things equal. But transporting beer from 1 of AB's 12 breweries to wherever you are probably takes about a day. Other factors, such as how fast the inventory is rotated, are likely to have far more impact on freshness. I strongly suspect that the Budweiser at your local convenience store, liquor store, or grocery store is fresher than the average local micro-beer.

Not liking lagers is fine.

Not liking "mass produced" beers? Your taste buds can distinguish whether the beer came from a big brewery or a small one? Uh, ok... Perhaps you are a super-duper taster.

My taste buds may not be the equal of some others here. But my nose is quite good at picking up the whiff of bovine manure.

[Anaxagoras]

Wow. That's some pretty strong knee-jerk anti-elitism, Phil. Some people can and do prefer non Budweiser beers. It might be for the image, it might be for the taste.... but what evidence do you have that it's the former? Hell... nobody was insinuating that Bud-drinkers are uncouth boors until you came in entered the thread & accused everyone of being a snob.

To be honest, you seem to be the one reacting to image rather than actual facts.

[ElGuapo]

I went on a tour of the main AB brewery in St. Louis once. After the tour you go into their tap room and sample the beer which is diverted right off the line. It's crisp, aromatic, and wonderful.

I wonder what Sam Adams straight off the line tastes like.

[Phil_Stein]

nobody was insinuating that Bud-drinkers are uncouth boors until you came in entered the thread & accused everyone of being a snob.

Before my first post:

AB can only be improved by association with the makers of Spaten, Hoegaarden, and Murphy's.

Oh good, more varieties of piss water to be shoved in my face in place of good quality beer.

If Budweiser loses ground, let's hope Hamm's and Pabst Blue Ribbon can take up the slack.

Does anyone actually like Budweiser, let alone drink it?

Yes, clearly I was reacting to phantoms.

And long before this thread, I've seen this kind of reaction - oh the mainstream American beers are piss water! My [random European beer in a weird bottle] is so much better than that swill [and by extension, I am so much more sophisticated than those Neanderthals who drink the normal stuff].

Hey, I've even done it from time to time myself. But I think I've generally done so knowing full well that most decent quality, medium body lagers taste fairly similar, and beer selection (within mainstream lagers) is likely as much about image projection as anything else.

[Athryn]

Not liking "mass produced" beers? Your taste buds can distinguish whether the beer came from a big brewery or a small one? Uh, ok... Perhaps you are a super-duper taster.


Let me just say one more thing and then I'm done. Budweiser, and other mass produced lagers, include rice as one of their main ingredients. Rice doesn't belong in beer, and it one of the things that causes it to taste bland.

If I am going to drink beer, I am going to drink something I like, simple as that. :D

My [random European beer in a weird bottle] is so much better than that swill [and by extension, I am so much more sophisticated than those Neanderthals who drink the normal stuff].

Except that many of us simply prefer the local American beers that have flourished in the wake of the microbrew renaissance. You're painting us all like we're nose-tilted, poncy, euro lovers.

I don't like fast food either, OH NOES I AM A SNOBBY ELITIST!

[Ben Sones]

For all the snobs around here, I'd be mildly surprised if most of you could tell Budweiser apart from your favorite overpriced European import Lager in blind tests 7 of 10 times. (And I'm talking Lager vs. Lager here, of roughly the same "heaviness". Yes, most of us can tell Guinness and such apart from typical beers.)

I would take you up on that bet. It needn't be European; I like lots of American beers, too.

As for the popularity argument: McDonald's is extremely popular, too. Like Budweiser, though, I suspect that has more to do with price than with quality, and suggesting that I couldn't tell a glass of Bud from a glass of Victory or Harp or Sam Smith's lager seems as absurd to me as suggesting that I couldn't tell a McDonald's hamburger from a good hamburger from my local pub.

I'm not trying to be snobby, but Bud is just not that good. It's not as awful as some people make it out to be, but it's definitely on the low side of mediocre.

[Funkula]

Let me just say one more thing and then I'm done. Budweiser, and other mass produced lagers, include rice as one of their main ingredients. Rice doesn't belong in beer, and it one of the things that causes it to taste bland.

This.

Except that many of us simply prefer the local American beers that have flourished in the wake of the microbrew renaissance. You're painting us all like we're nose-tilted, poncy, euro lovers.

I don't like fast food either, OH NOES I AM A SNOBBY ELITIST!

Yup. Shiner, St. Arnold, Real Ale, Old North (think that's the name), Widmer Bros., Pyramid, Bear Republic...I could go on even further to cement my smug beer elitist credentials, but I won't. It's not just that Budweiser lager is inferior to anything produced by these places, it's that even Anheuser-Busch's seasonal craft brews range from underwhelming to just plain nasty. For Christmas a couple years ago, I got a six-pack of cask-conditioned vanilla porter that turned out to be one of theirs (the name of the brewery was in such small print that I didn't even see it until after I got home). In retrospect, I think part of the problem was that cask conditioning and vanilla are just not going to mix, but shouldn't they have noticed that at some point as well? And underneath those flavors, you could still make out the thin, ricey Bud taste as the basis of the beer. Just horrible.

Harp

Yes. If we're talking "battle of straight-up lagers" here, Harp wins.

[Anaxagoras]

Yes, clearly I was reacting to phantoms.
Yes, you were. Those are all criticism of Bud, not the people who drink Bud. I would level similarly harsh criticisms against McDonalds, but it doesn't mean that all who eat at McDonalds have no taste buds. Sometimes you're just in the mood for crap.


And long before this thread, I've seen this kind of reaction - oh the mainstream American beers are piss water! My [random European beer in a weird bottle] is so much better than that swill [and by extension, I am so much more sophisticated than those Neanderthals who drink the normal stuff].
That extension is precisely the knee-jerk anti-elitism that I was referring to. That extension hadn't been made by anybody in the thread, although Kalle came close in his response to you.

It is possible to criticize a product w/out criticizing the people who consume the product.


Hey, I've even done it from time to time myself. But I think I've generally done so knowing full well that most decent quality, medium body lagers taste fairly similar, and beer selection (within mainstream lagers) is likely as much about image projection as anything else.
One HUGE advantage that micro-breweries bring to the table is that they can provide me, the consumer, with a wide variety of slight variances within the same general theme. Although I usually don't like lagers, I have been to restaurants that were able to find a lager I enjoyed because they were able to bring out a whole bunch of slightly different lagers & they were able to direct me to one that I actually liked, based on my reaction to their "standard" lager.

But I do find your dismissal of image projection to be bizarre. Yeah, when people make up "taste reasons" for disliking a beer & it's actually an image thing, it's kind of silly. But what's the matter with intentionally projecting an image? I took up smoking while in Europe precisely because of the people I got to meet while projecting that image. (Yeah.. other things had to go along with the smoking: clothes, accent, etc etc. But it isn't hard to pick up the whole kit.) And then when I got back to the States.... smoking projects a different image, so I quit after awhile. I don't see anything bizarre or wrong with that.

[Ben Sones]

Yes. If we're talking "battle of straight-up lagers" here, Harp wins.


Samuel Smith's lager is also right up there. It's not quite as tasty as their oatmeal stout, but it's damn good.

[LesJarvis]

As for the popularity argument: McDonald's is extremely popular, too. Like Budweiser, though, I suspect that has more to do with price than with quality, and suggesting that I couldn't tell a glass of Bud from a glass of Victory or Harp or Sam Smith's lager seems as absurd to me as suggesting that I couldn't tell a McDonald's hamburger from a good hamburger from my local pub.

I've known a number of people for whom Budweiser was something of a comfort beer. It's not so much that they especially liked it better than other beers, but to them it represented what beer was supposed to be in some way, and living in Missouri I imagine this is in some respect cultural. But just because I like to eat mac and cheese sometimes doesn't mean I confuse it for a gourmet meal, and the same goes for some Bud drinkers.

Having said that, I've certainly drank my fair share of it, because oftentimes if I show up with something else I get bitched at. And actually I think the fact that Budweiser has less flavor than other beers is part of its appeal too. If you don't like the taste of beer, Budweiser (or more accurately Bud Light, since that's what people actually drink) will get you drunk without upsetting your taste buds too much.

Personally I like pale ales and wheat beers.

[balut]

As long as I can keep getting Yeungling, I'm all set thanks.

America's oldest brewing company. I'll kill a thousand Dutchman and buy the company myself before you get our precious copper colored lager.

Oh yeah, Yeungling is good stuff. One of my favorites back in Jersey.

[Ben Sones]

LesJarvis: Yeah, all that makes sense to me. It's not like I'd look down my nose at someone who likes to eat at McDonald's (or drink Bud), but at the same time, I'd have to draw the line if that person were to say "It's not like any other food is really better than McDonald's; if you think so, it's just because you're a food snob."

Like McDonald's burgers, Bud isn't terrible--it's just cheap and bland and inoffensive. It's full of fillers like rice and corn (Anheuser-Busch is one of the top purchasers of rice in the US) that have little flavor but ferment well and are considerably cheaper than barley.

[Morkilus]

If the World Beer Cup awards are any sort of authority, Miller has beat out A-B pretty consistently. I'm not a cheap lager fan myself, but this has been my experience as well.

[LesJarvis]

but at the same time, I'd have to draw the line if that person were to say "It's not like any other food is really better than McDonald's; if you think so, it's just because you're a food snob."

Oh, absolutely, and if I was unclear at all let me say that I completely disagree with Phil's position. Even a beer novice would easily be able to distinguish between Budweiser and, say, something as non-exotic as Sam Adams Boston Lager.

[Siren]

I love pale ales as well. But the best beer I've ever EVER had was an Urtyp 1878 by Lohrer Bier.

It's a pity that it isn't readily available in the States.

[Sidd_Budd]

In general, I'm with the majority of the posters here -- there's many other beers I'd prefer to Bud, & most people were commenting on the quality of the beer, not the character of the people who like it.

I do see Phil's point in a couple of areas. First, Bud is a fine drinkable product, & I could see a few cases where I'd really enjoy it. To me, it's like a forgettable light white wine you'd have in early evening at a cookout or something; it's pleasant and refreshing. It's not pond scum.

Second, I have known people who look down on American beers in favor of a mass-produced, typical bland non-American beer. The three I can think of are Amstel, Corona, & Heineken. None of these are really that different from Bud or Coors or Miller, so it's strange that some folks have this preference that to me is driven more by image (non-American = good) than taste. I went through this phase myself in my late 20s, so I might be able to detect Heineken from a mass domestic in a blind taste test, but I doubt I could distinguish Amstel or Corona from a large American product.

Once you move up in quality, even to something fairly well-known like Sam Adams, I'd say it's trivially easy to taste differences.

[Phil_Stein]

...as absurd to me as suggesting that I couldn't tell a McDonald's hamburger from a good hamburger from my local pub.

Despite the helpful analogies of so many folks here, I was not, in fact, discussing hamburgers, but rather, conventional medium bodied lagers.

But now that I know such strawmen comparisons are fair game here, might I try my own?

For instance, you might say "Monster cables are overpriced and in the vast majority of cases indistinguishable from cheaper brands of the same type and gauge."

But now I know that your statement can be falsified if I make a simple analogy: "They're about the same? That's ridiculous. That's like saying that a Ferrari is indistinguishable from a Ford Focus! Clearly, if the more expensive car is different from the cheaper mass produced one, then the same must hold for cables."

[Funkula]

I've known a number of people for whom Budweiser was something of a comfort beer. It's not so much that they especially liked it better than other beers, but to them it represented what beer was supposed to be in some way, and living in Missouri I imagine this is in some respect cultural. But just because I like to eat mac and cheese sometimes doesn't mean I confuse it for a gourmet meal, and the same goes for some Bud drinkers.

I think Shiner Bock kind of has that niche in Texas, or at least in the circles I've always moved in. I wouldn't say it's my favorite, but I'd never turn one down and I always recommend it. I personally think we come out ahead of Missouri in that respect.

If the World Beer Cup awards are any sort of authority, Miller has beat out A-B pretty consistently. I'm not a cheap lager fan myself, but this has been my experience as well.

I haven't had one in years, but yeah, I've had Millers that were halfway decent. I believe it was the stuff with the black label (or was it the red label). Anyway, it was something with a bit more character than MGD, but still just a no-frills lager. Something akin to Dos Equis if I remember the taste correctly.

I love pale ales as well.

Have you ever had a Bear Republic Racer 5 IPA? It is the beer that got me to start drinking pale ale, and it's still the best one I've tried. It has a distinct herby flavor of "spearmint minus the menthol" that I haven't found duplicated anywhere else.

Edited to add:

Second, I have known people who look down on American beers in favor of a mass-produced, typical bland non-American beer. The three I can think of are Amstel, Corona, & Heineken. None of these are really that different from Bud or Coors or Miller, so it's strange that some folks have this preference that to me is driven more by image (non-American = good) than taste. I went through this phase myself in my late 20s, so I might be able to detect Heineken from a mass domestic in a blind taste test, but I doubt I could distinguish Amstel or Corona from a large American product.

Really? People who hold up Corona as the proof that non-American beer is better? I find Corona to be exactly on par with American macrobrew. The only Mexican beers that distinguish themselves at all are Dos Equis and Modelo, and in both cases their lager is still pretty weak. Dos Equis Amber and Negra Modelo are damn tasty though.

Also, I'd add Stella to that list. It isn't bad, but it has tremendous undeserved cachet.

[LesJarvis]

Yes Phil, it turns out that if you replace Ben's fairly straightforward analogy solely concerning taste with something completely retarded it doesn't make quite as much sense. All analogies are equal to all other analogies, right?

[Ben Sones]

Despite the helpful analogies of so many folks here, I was not, in fact, discussing hamburgers, but rather, conventional medium bodied lagers.

But now that I know such strawmen comparisons are fair game here, might I try my own?

It wasn't intended as a strawman--just an analogy. Nonetheless, I think it's a good analogy, because I definitely can taste the difference between Bud and better lagers, and the difference is as noticeable to me as the difference between a McDonald's burger and a burger from my local pub.

For instance, you might say "Monster cables are overpriced and in the vast majority of cases indistinguishable from cheaper brands of the same type and gauge."

I would indeed say that. Thus, it's not an good analogy for the beer comparison, where the differences are much clearer. :)

[Malcolm Tucker]

Bud just isn't price-efficient. For the price of a can of Bud you can get a tallboy of Old Milwaukee.

[Phil_Stein]

My point was that there was no need for others to initiate the analogy game. My initial statements were rather clear. Making the McDonald's versus pub burger comparison did not serve to make either my point or your point(s) clearer, but rather, was a ludicrous strawman argument.

Also, to be clear, I am not saying that Budweiser is largely indistinguishable from beers in entirely different classes, but rather, within the class of beer that most folks drink (mid-bodied lagers), in a truly blind taste test, I doubt that most folks would be able to readily distinguish and prefer say, Heineken.

That's not to say NO ONE could do it, but rather, that I doubt most folks could do it.

[Funkula]

Maybe not Heineken (though I'm sure I could, I won't generalize it), but Harp, Spaten, or Sam Adams? I would think otherwise.

[Phil_Stein]

It's been a while since I had Sam Adams, but IIRC, it's not what I would call a mid-bodied lager. It's much more full bodied, and relatively easy to distinguish from more conventional lagers, for better or worse. That doesn't make it better or worse, but it's more like comparing Coke to Dr. Pepper instead of Pepsi.

Harp and Spaten - I have no idea. I don't think I've even heard of Spaten.

[Anti-Bunny]

It's been a while since I had Sam Adams, but IIRC, it's not what I would call a mid-bodied lager. It's much more full bodied, and relatively easy to distinguish from more conventional lagers, for better or worse. That doesn't make it better or worse, but it's more like comparing Coke to Dr. Pepper instead of Pepsi.
No, it makes it better, just like Dr. Pepper is better, objectively.

[Ben Sones]

My point was that there was no need for others to initiate the analogy game. My initial statements were rather clear. Making the McDonald's versus pub burger comparison did not serve to make either my point or your point(s) clearer, but rather, was a ludicrous strawman argument.

Your initial statements were, specifically, that Budweiser is actually good, and that people that rag on it are just trying to look cool and edgy, and that most of the people here in this thread couldn't tell the difference between Bud and their favorite lager in a blind taste test. The first is a matter of opinion, I guess, the second is at least as insulting as the comments that you are taking umbrage at, and the last is just incorrect. I'd be willing to bet that you could tell the difference between a glass of Bud and a glass of Harp, and I know damn well that I can.

And I think that the McDonald's analogy is quite apt, and I stand by it. Budweiser is very much the McDonalds of beers.

Also, to be clear, I am not saying that Budweiser is largely indistinguishable from beers in entirely different classes, but rather, within the class of beer that most folks drink (mid-bodied lagers), in a truly blind taste test, I doubt that most folks would be able to readily distinguish and prefer say, Heineken.

Okay, this is moving the goalposts quite a bit, because I doubt that any of the folks in this thread were thinking "Heineken" when they said that there are better lagers than Bud. But even so, I'd take this bet too, because as thoroughly mediocre as Heineken is, it has a sort of herbal, slightly skunky taste that is quite distinct from Bud's bland, ricey sweetness.

[Funkula]

Don't forget all the banana ester in Bud.

[Phil_Stein]

Ben, I've paid attention long enough to see plenty of generalized blasting of mainstream American beers, and usually these are just thin attempts to sound sophisticated and tout some odd Euro or micro beer that is either:

A) Not very different from Budweiser, except for the exotic bottle and/or label

or

B) Something quite different from Budweiser, that at first seems appealing - "Hey guys, look at this Guinness Stout - it's what REAL beer drinkers drink - you know, the Irish guys", but when the host pops out a 6 pack, after each of the 3 guys gathered has one, they start rummaging around in the fridge to see if the host has any normal beer.

Hand in hand with B is often the assumption that the only reason most Americans still drink Bud or beers like it is because they're cheap, or because they've never really tried a "good beer". While Euro and craft beers are a bit pricier than Bud, it's not enough of a price difference that most people are gonna be like, "Well, I think Bud is piss, but it's only $5/six pack. That beer is really good, but it's $7 - I guess I'll drink piss instead." And if these other beers had broad appeal beyond their exotic status, then it would be easy for AB or Miller to come out with similar styled beers and sell them at the lower price. In fact, AB regularly *does* roll out new beers, often trying to match the taste of the exotics. But generally, these new beers wither after a couple years, because folks didn't really like the taste in the first place, they liked the cool Czech bottle and the image it conveyed to their friends.

And as for the theory that most Bud drinkers have never tried anything more exotic than perhaps Miller or Coors - err yeah...

Perhaps my anti-snobbery is as bad as any real or perceived snobbery on the other side. But I've been drinking beer for a while myself. I've gone through the beer snob phase myself. I may not have tried (or may not remember trying) whatever specific exotic beers you may mention here, but I've probably tried beers like them. My opinion is a considered opinion of years of beer drinking and talking to others about beer, and so often getting attitudes much like those initially exhibited here (before I even posted).

Hey - it's beer. A beverage with some alcohol in it. If you really like the taste of Harp, Guinness, or what have you, go right ahead. But drinking Guinness doesn't make you a man, or an Irish sophisticate.

[Phil_Stein]

Oh, and since this is an AB/Budweiser thread, I will share these two:

===

Q: Do you know how to make Budweiser?

A: Send him to school.

Thanks you and please try the fish...

===

And this one. You really need an accomplice to be in on it with you.

Preferably told while a group of folks are sitting around drinking beer:

P1: Did you see that story in the paper, about that baby?

P2: Yeah, that was awful...

(Hopefully, someone in the crowds says, "What story")

P1: Well, this couple were having a party and ran out of beer. So the husband goes out to get some, and when he comes back, he just tosses the beer onto the couch. But he didn't see that someone had set a baby on the couch.

P2: The beer landed right on the baby.

(The crowd will usually mutter surprise and/or shock. Someone will ask if the baby was ok)

P1: The baby was fine. It was light beer.

Ba dum dum.

OK, it's been a while since I told that one, but it usually did get a laugh, or at least a bunch of groans...

[Funkula]

Why are you so fixated on Guinness? You're the only person who's even mentioned it thus far. Besides, Guinness is pretty crappy as far as stouts go.

I think a large part of the problem here is that the beer snobs you've known appear to have been misinformed, pretentious idiots.

[Athryn]

Hey - it's beer. A beverage with some alcohol in it. If you really like the taste of Harp, Guinness, or what have you, go right ahead. But drinking Guinness doesn't make you a man, or an Irish sophisticate.

Yeah, and wine is just some grape juice with some alcohol in it too.

[Enidigm]

Three at a time is alright
when it's you, me, and Naty Light.

[Cosmic Hippo]

This is such a ridiculous argument. Phil, it's really easy to tell the difference between bud (or ANY of the domestics brewed with rice) from any of the microbrews or imports out there. In a blind taste-test, yes. The mass-produced domestics are brewed using a process to make them as cheap to produce (and buy) as possible; hence the rice. A result of this is the very bland taste, and it's a fact of the beer-brewing industry. Anheuser-Busch and all those other companies know this is true and aren't losing any sleep over it; they make it that way by design. But the blandness of these beers is why the microbrew movement in the US began in the first place.

I'm not above drinking a PBR once in a while, especially since it's the price of soda, but if I really want to enjoy a beer, hell yes I'm going for something imported or locally produced, or home-made if I have a batch (which I don't right now). These other beers (without the rice) have about twice the alcohol content, too.

[Ben Sones]

Ben, I've paid attention long enough to see plenty of generalized blasting of mainstream American beers, and usually these are just thin attempts to sound sophisticated and tout some odd Euro or micro beer that is either:

Well, who's pulling out the straw man now? And again with the poseur accusations. I mean, come on, Phil. If you think it's insulting for people to imply that Bud drinkers must be Neanderthals looking for a cheap drunk (and I would agree that it is), then don't you think that other people might be similarly offended when you tell them "No, you don't really like what you like--you are just trying to impress people."

B) Something quite different from Budweiser, that at first seems appealing - "Hey guys, look at this Guinness Stout - it's what REAL beer drinkers drink - you know, the Irish guys", but when the host pops out a 6 pack, after each of the 3 guys gathered has one, they start rummaging around in the fridge to see if the host has any normal beer.Well, it's hard to argue with anecdotes, so I'm not sure where we go from here. I guess I would say that I agree with you that Bud is more generally popular than other beers. I attribute that to a couple of factors:

1. Most people simply aren't into beer that much. They drink it, but it's a casual or social thing; they simply don't love beer enough to put much thought into what they drink.

2. Budweiser isn't great, but it's far from awful, it's relatively cheap, and it comes from a company that spends over a hundred millions dollars annually on marketing. I suspect that its market (which is, admittedly, a large one) is people that want something inoffensive and simple and cheap--basically, the #1 folks, above. This is why I used the McDonald's analogy, because I think that McDonald's food is identical to Budweiser in these respects, but since it bothered you so much, I'll avoid it from now on. ;)

Hand in hand with B is often the assumption that the only reason most Americans still drink Bud or beers like it is because they're cheap, or because they've never really tried a "good beer".I actually, I think that most American drink Bud because they don't care that much about beer at all. They don't want to investigate other styles or types, they just want to drink something familiar without having to put much thought into it. As long as it doesn't taste nasty, one beer is pretty much as good as another.

And you know, that's fine. Different people are into different things. But that doesn't mean that everyone who enjoys a wider a spectrum of beer is a fake poseur out to impress people with their fancy beer sophistication. In my experience, taste develops with interest. And it's not a "just your imagination" sort of thing; I think that people really do develop more discerning tastes the more time they spend scrutinizing something, whether it's beer or wine or coffee or movies or literature. I know there are things that I don't have very developed tastes for, like cigars. One cigar tastes pretty much the same as any other to me, but I believe cigar aficionados when they say that there is a difference, because I've had experiences of my own in the past in which I have developed tastes for things over time (with wine, for instance, and yes, with beer).

While Euro and craft beers are a bit pricier than Bud, it's not enough of a price difference that most people are gonna be like, "Well, I think Bud is piss, but it's only $5/six pack. That beer is really good, but it's $7 - I guess I'll drink piss instead."I agree. Like I said, Bud's not as terrible as some folks make it out to be. If it were, then it wouldn't be nearly as ubiquitous as it is, no matter how cheap they sold it for.

And if these other beers had broad appeal beyond their exotic status, then it would be easy for AB or Miller to come out with similar styled beers and sell them at the lower price. I'm not aware of anyone arguing that these other beers have broader appeal. They are just arguing that they are better. I think companies like AB have been unsuccessful with alternative offerings simply because their market doesn't care.

In fact, AB regularly *does* roll out new beers, often trying to match the taste of the exotics. But generally, these new beers wither after a couple years, because folks didn't really like the taste in the first place, they liked the cool Czech bottle and the image it conveyed to their friends. I'm not sure where your fixation with fancy bottles came from, because I'd say that about 99.99% of all the microbrews and craft brews and European beers that I have ever tried came in a basic beer bottle.

Hey - it's beer. A beverage with some alcohol in it. If you really like the taste of Harp, Guinness, or what have you, go right ahead. But drinking Guinness doesn't make you a man, or an Irish sophisticate.Er, okay. Did someone say that it did? The only person in this thread equating beer choice with some sort of general feeling of superiority is you, Phil. The rest of the posters, as far as I can tell, are just saying that they prefer other beers to Budweiser.

Why are you so fixated on Guinness? You're the only person who's even mentioned it thus far. Besides, Guinness is pretty crappy as far as stouts go.

You are deeply, deeply mistaken. And also, apparently, not a true Irishman. But still mistaken, either way.

[Athryn]

You are deeply, deeply mistaken. And also, apparently, not a true Irishman. But still mistaken, either way.

I think most people don't like Guinness because they have to drink it out of those nasty cans that they come in in the US. I suspect that, closer to the source, it's a lot better. I am generally not a huge fan of stouts, personally.

[Anti-Bunny]

I think most people don't like Guiness because they have to drink it out of those nasty cans that they come in in the US. I suspect that, closer to the source, it's a lot better. I am generally not a huge fan of stouts, personally.

Guinness Special Export Stout is a very different beer then the canned stuff. Also, I love stouts.. Chocolate Stout 4eva (http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/132/1118).

[Ben Sones]

The canned Guinness (in the can with the widget) is actually very good. There is nothing "nasty" about it, though you definitely shouldn't drink it from the can--you are supposed to pour it. It's worth getting over irrational can phobias to try it, because it really is as close to a draft pour as you'll find outside a pub. The bottled version with a widget is just as good, but doesn't give you a full pint. In fact, it doesn't even give you a full bottle, because the widget takes up space, so I prefer the cans. Of course if you don't like Guinness (or stouts in general) to begin with, it's probably not going to change your mind.

And we've had the "fresher in Ireland" argument about Guinness here on Qt3 before. It's a myth. Guinness goes to great efforts to make sure that their beer reaches American markets very fresh (especially the draft stuff, but canned and bottled beers, too), and the stuff you drink here in America was likely bottled just as recently (and is also exactly the same beer, from the same brewery) as the stuff you might get in Dublin.

[Funkula]

I just find Guinness to not have a lot of depth to the flavor. It also seems to have less body. You can't really roll it around in your mouth and find nuances the way you can with a lot of other stouts.

Here are some stouts that I prefer, so you can tell me how inferior to Guinness they all are:

Young's Double Chocolate Stout (England)
Young's Oatmeal Stout (England)
Murphy's Irish Stout (Ireland)
Old Rasputin Russian Imperial Stout (USA)
Left Hand Milk Stout (USA)
Mackeson's Milk Stout (England)
Samuel Smith's Oatmeal Stout (England)

[jpinard]

I wish I could have some beer. But I will have to settle for Root Beer. I wonder if my wife will stop and get me some on the way home from work...

[Bahimiron]

Does anyone actually like Budweiser, let alone drink it?

Apparently around 47 billion dollars worth of people do.

Any more dumbass questions?

[prolix]

IYoung's Double Chocolate Stout (England)
Young's Oatmeal Stout (England)
Murphy's Irish Stout (Ireland)
Old Rasputin Russian Imperial Stout (USA)
Left Hand Milk Stout (USA)
Mackeson's Milk Stout (England)
Samuel Smith's Oatmeal Stout (England)
These are all terrific. I'd also add Stone's Imperial Russian Stout (http://www.stonebrew.com/irs/) to the list. Comparing imperial stouts to other types of stouts (Guinness included) is deeply unfair, though. They are very different animals. Guinness is very drinkable, whereas a pint of imperial stout makes a pretty good meal, and gets you hammered to boot.

[Morkilus]

Get your stout discussion out of the Budweiser thread! Back on topic, who thinks Bud Select is actually pretty good?
http://www.beerprofitguide.com/progressivegrocer/profitguides/beer/images/bud_aliminium.jpg

[Kraaze]

A lot of guys I know are big bud select guys. I think it's okay, but I still prefer the original budweiser.

[Athryn]

Get your stout discussion out of the Budweiser thread! Back on topic, who thinks Bud Select is actually pretty good?


I think we need to have an allpurpose beer thread ^_^

[charmtrap]

I think we need to have an allpurpose beer thread ^_^

There was one some time back, but it sadly went the way of all things.


These are all terrific. I'd also add Stone's Imperial Russian Stout (http://www.stonebrew.com/irs/) to the list.


Yes, as with all Stone products, this is superlative. I'd also add Rogue's Chocolate Stout (http://www.rogue.com/brews.html#chocolate). I was a bit skeptical of chocolate-tasting beer, but it's fantastic.

Also, the Barney Flats Oatmeal (http://www.avbc.com/beers/stout.html) is damn good (as are all Anderson Valley beers...the Boont Amber is probably my favorite beer of all-time).

[Jaysun]

Wow everyone.

Snob much?

Of course I'm a snob, I drink Arrogant Bastard Ale (http://www.arrogantbastard.com/index2.html).

[prolix]

Also, the Barney Flats Oatmeal (http://www.avbc.com/beers/stout.html) is damn good (as are all Anderson Valley beers...the Boont Amber is probably my favorite beer of all-time).
Yep. The Boont Amber is great, but their IPA (Hop Ottin (http://www.avbc.com/beers/ipa.html)) has essentially become my default beer; it's always available at Trader Joe's.

I like 'em bitter.

[Cosmic Hippo]

Young's Double Chocolate Stout (England)
Young's Oatmeal Stout (England)
Murphy's Irish Stout (Ireland)
Old Rasputin Russian Imperial Stout (USA)
Left Hand Milk Stout (USA)
Mackeson's Milk Stout (England)
Samuel Smith's Oatmeal Stout (England)
Great list. I've had (and enjoyed) all of them except for Left Hand and Mackeson's. If you can find it, I suggest you try Bar Harbor Cadillac Mountain Stout. It's a Maine beer, so it would probably be difficult to find, but it's my favorite even among these. Also won a bunch of awards.