http://www.sierranevada.com/beers/cans.html

Good beer in cans! This is long overdue. If Sierra Nevada was a
public corporation, I'd be talking to Chuck. This is big. Very big.

Now it's time for Modelo to start putting the Negra in cans.

--Bryan

On Mar 17, 9:30*am, Bryan > wrote:
> http://www.sierranevada.com/beers/cans.html
>
> Good beer in cans! *This is long overdue. *If Sierra Nevada was a
> public corporation, I'd be talking to Chuck. *This is big. *Very big.
>
> Now it's time for Modelo to start putting the Negra in cans.
>
> --Bryan

I think beer in bottles is much better.

On Mar 17, 12:06*pm, Chemo the Clown > wrote:
> On Mar 17, 9:30*am, Bryan > wrote:
>
> >http://www.sierranevada.com/beers/cans.html
>
> > Good beer in cans! *This is long overdue. *If Sierra Nevada was a
> > public corporation, I'd be talking to Chuck. *This is big. *Very big.
>
> > Now it's time for Modelo to start putting the Negra in cans.
>
> > --Bryan
>
> I think beer in bottles is much better.

It has been because you couldn't get good beer in cans. Cans are very
convenient, and it is against the law to bring glass onto Missouri's
waterways. I imagine there are similar laws in a lot of other states
as well. Cans are lighter when full, and way lighter when empty.
They get cold much faster too. Plus, aluminum blocks 100% of light.
I drink very little beer these days, especially high carb beer like SN
Pale Ale, but I'll make exceptions for paddling and camping.

--Bryan

Bryan > wrote:
> On Mar 17, 12:06 pm, Chemo the Clown > wrote:
>> On Mar 17, 9:30 am, Bryan > wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.sierranevada.com/beers/cans.html
>>
>>> Good beer in cans! This is long overdue. If Sierra Nevada was a
>>> public corporation, I'd be talking to Chuck. This is big. Very big.
>>
>>> Now it's time for Modelo to start putting the Negra in cans.
>>
>>> --Bryan
>>
>> I think beer in bottles is much better.
>
> It has been because you couldn't get good beer in cans. Cans are very
> convenient, and it is against the law to bring glass onto Missouri's
> waterways. I imagine there are similar laws in a lot of other states
> as well. Cans are lighter when full, and way lighter when empty.
> They get cold much faster too. Plus, aluminum blocks 100% of light.
> I drink very little beer these days, especially high carb beer like SN
> Pale Ale, but I'll make exceptions for paddling and camping.
>
> --Bryan

With a good can, it still may make electricity in your mouth. Might add
something.
Pour them out and taste test. Those are pretty cans.

Greg

On Mar 17, 11:22*pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 09:30:56 -0700 (PDT), Bryan wrote:
> >http://www.sierranevada.com/beers/cans.html
>
> > Good beer in cans! *This is long overdue. *If Sierra Nevada was a
> > public corporation, I'd be talking to Chuck. *This is big. *Very big.
>
> You sound like Jerry Sauk discovering Dorito Tacos at Taco Bell.

No, Steve. This *is* a big deal for those who like good beer, but
find themselves in places where glass is forbidden. I expect that
they'll sell the shit out of those cans. Grupo Modelo should get a
clue and start offering Negra Modelo in cans, since they already have
the capacity to do so. They put the Especial, and that Corona junk in
cans. If you were into canoeing and beer, you'd be pretty hyped too.
In New Orleans they don't have laws against drinking alcoholic
beverages on the street, but they do have laws against glass. Brew
pubs should offer aluminum growlers. Sure, the initial cost of buying
the metal "bottle" would be higher for the consumer, but aluminum
performs better than glass in every way if a snuggie is involved.
Sierra Nevada is out in front of what I believe to be the future.
Right now they have the only high quality beer that comes in cans,
unless you happen to like Sapporo or Modelo Especial.
>
> -sw

--Bryan

Bryan > wrote in news:cd86aa94-85d4-4495-a7e9-
:

> On Mar 17, 12:06*pm, Chemo the Clown > wrote:
>> On Mar 17, 9:30*am, Bryan > wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.sierranevada.com/beers/cans.html
>>
>> > Good beer in cans! *This is long overdue. *If Sierra Nevada was a
>> > public corporation, I'd be talking to Chuck. *This is big. *Very bi
> g.
>>
>> > Now it's time for Modelo to start putting the Negra in cans.
>>
>> > --Bryan
>>
>> I think beer in bottles is much better.
>
> It has been because you couldn't get good beer in cans. Cans are very
> convenient, and it is against the law to bring glass onto Missouri's
> waterways. I imagine there are similar laws in a lot of other states
> as well. Cans are lighter when full, and way lighter when empty.
> They get cold much faster too. Plus, aluminum blocks 100% of light.
> I drink very little beer these days, especially high carb beer like SN
> Pale Ale, but I'll make exceptions for paddling and camping.
>
> --Bryan

The part about "they get cold much faster too" is a non-starter. Beer
should be consumed at cellar temperature to appreciate the flavor. The
idea of ice cold beer was started by the mass market breweries so the
first gulp would chill the taste buds to the point where you couldn't
tell you were drinking bad beer. Next time you pick up a six of your
favorite brand, put one aside in a cool, dark place for a while and give
it a try. It might surprise you.

On 2012-03-18, gregz > wrote:

> Pour them out and taste test. Those are pretty cans.

I'm surprised SN is taking up the ball so late. Many beers having
been changing to cans, both in the US and in EU. Bitbuger has had
16oz 4-paks for some time. More than a couple local beers here in CO,
including IPAs, have been showing up on shelves in cans. I think the
can vs bottle thing for beer is a lot like the cork vs screw-on cap
situation for wines. Hard to break tradition and convince buyers to
change.

As for cold beer, you are dead on. Ice cold beer is for the
flavoerless canoe beers the mega-swill brewers make. You can't drink
that stuff warm. Good micro-brewed ales, OTOH, blosom at warmer
temps, at least above 40F. Granted, lagers are better cold, but ice
cold is no way to serve an good ale.

nb

--
Fight internet CENSORSHIP - Fight SOPA-PIPA
Contact your congressman and/or representative, now!
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/
vi --the heart of evil!

On Mar 18, 3:48*am, Alan Holbrook > wrote:
> Bryan > wrote in news:cd86aa94-85d4-4495-a7e9-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 17, 12:06*pm, Chemo the Clown > wrote:
> >> On Mar 17, 9:30*am, Bryan > wrote:
>
> >> >http://www.sierranevada.com/beers/cans.html
>
> >> > Good beer in cans! *This is long overdue. *If Sierra Nevada was a
> >> > public corporation, I'd be talking to Chuck. *This is big. *Very bi
> > g.
>
> >> > Now it's time for Modelo to start putting the Negra in cans.
>
> >> > --Bryan
>
> >> I think beer in bottles is much better.
>
> > It has been because you couldn't get good beer in cans. *Cans are very
> > convenient, and it is against the law to bring glass onto Missouri's
> > waterways. *I imagine there are similar laws in a lot of other states
> > as well. *Cans are lighter when full, and way lighter when empty.
> > They get cold much faster too. *Plus, aluminum blocks 100% of light.
> > I drink very little beer these days, especially high carb beer like SN
> > Pale Ale, but I'll make exceptions for paddling and camping.
>
> > --Bryan
>
> The part about "they get cold much faster too" is a non-starter. *Beer
> should be consumed at cellar temperature to appreciate the flavor. *The
> idea of ice cold beer was started by the mass market breweries so the
> first gulp would chill the taste buds to the point where you couldn't
> tell you were drinking bad beer. *Next time you pick up a six of your
> favorite brand, put one aside in a cool, dark place for a while and give
> it a try. *It might surprise you.

When it's 85-95F outside, I want it cold. And why a dark place? Is
an hour of light going to spoil it? If so, that's an argument for
cans. Also, SNPA is dry hopped such that it sings with hoppiness at
32F, and even in a snuggie it warms up quickly on a hot Missouri
summer's day. We're not talking one or two beers at home or in a pub,
but a bunch on a gravel bar in the sun, or at the campsite. There's
no cellar for miles, just a cooler with ice.

--Bryan

Bryan wrote:
>
> When it's 85-95F outside, I want it cold.

<minor snippage>

> ...a bunch on a gravel bar in the sun, or at the campsite. There's
> no cellar for miles, just a cooler with ice.

I agree with you there, Bryan. Cold beer on a hot day is good. Cools your
body down and hits the spot. I was thinking you could put that beer in the
river you're on but I'm guessing the water "on a hot Missouri summer's day"
probably isn't very cold at all.

Many years ago, we were surfing for hours and hours on a hot sunny day. A
6-pack of beer was in the trunk all that time. When we got out, we were
tired and dehydrated. Nothing to drink at that deserted beach so we hit the
beer. It was VERY hot but it was wet and actually not bad at all.

Gary

On Mar 18, 5:22*am, notbob > wrote:
> On 2012-03-18, gregz > wrote:
>
> > Pour them out and taste test. Those are pretty cans.
>
> I'm surprised SN is taking up the ball so late. *Many beers having
> been changing to cans, both in the US and in EU. *Bitbuger has had
> 16oz 4-paks for some time. *More than a couple local beers here in CO,
> including IPAs, have been showing up on shelves in cans. *I think the
> can vs bottle thing for beer is a lot like the cork vs screw-on cap
> situation for wines. *Hard to break tradition and convince buyers to
> change.
>
> As for cold beer, you are dead on. *Ice cold beer is for the
> flavoerless canoe beers the mega-swill brewers make. *You can't drink
> that stuff warm.

Well, yes you can, but why. Beer has 3 purposes:
1. Getting ethanol into the bloodstream
2. Getting water into the bloodstream
3. Taste

****water beers like Mich Ultra, Miller Lite, Bud Select or
Milwaukee's Best Light are mostly about #1, and not much--if at all--
about #3.
Good beer is more about #3, but is also about #1 and #2.

> Good micro-brewed ales, OTOH, blosom at warmer
> temps, at least above 40F. *Granted, lagers are better cold, but ice
> cold is no way to serve an good ale.

The idea that if you want cold beer, you should make sure it's shitty
lager is silly. Now my canoe (actually, it's a kayak) beer can taste
good. That's like Sheldon's nonsense about cheap vodka being more
appropriate than mid-priced vodka for mixed drinks. Those who like
beer cold shouldn't be treated as Philistines who deserve for their
beer to taste bad.
>
> nb
>
--Bryan

Alan Holbrook wrote:
> Bryan > wrote:
>
>> It has been because you couldn't get good beer in cans. Cans are very
>> convenient,

Kegs are cans. Plenty of home brewers and other beer hobbyists even
have keg-erators at home. Just sayin'.

>> and it is against the law to bring glass onto Missouri's
>> waterways. I imagine there are similar laws in a lot of other states
>> as well. Cans are lighter when full, and way lighter when empty.
>> They get cold much faster too. Plus, aluminum blocks 100% of light.
>> I drink very little beer these days, especially high carb beer like SN
>> Pale Ale, but I'll make exceptions for paddling and camping.

On the other hand the equipment to can is much more expensive and
industrial than the equipment to bottle. The majors are capable of
canning because of thier industrial size. Amount of beer produced
correlated negatively with been quality. It's the majors who make the
canoe beers.

> The part about "they get cold much faster too" is a non-starter. Beer
> should be consumed at cellar temperature to appreciate the flavor.

I'll offer a different take on this. If you taste a beer at room
temperature and you don't like it, that's not a beer you should be
drinking. Life is too short for crappy beer (says this beer snob). But
once you know that brand is good at any temperature feel free to have to
cold.

> The
> idea of ice cold beer was started by the mass market breweries so the
> first gulp would chill the taste buds to the point where you couldn't
> tell you were drinking bad beer. Next time you pick up a six of your
> favorite brand, put one aside in a cool, dark place for a while and give
> it a try. It might surprise you.

Exactly. Beer was made for millennia before refrigeration was invented.
The stuff had to taste good without being cold back then. So have one
not chilled and see. There are *plenty* of beers that taste great not
refrigerated and those brands taste every bit as good refrigerated as
well.

sqwishy is getting testy.

>>>> Good beer in cans! *This is long overdue. *If Sierra Nevada was a
>>>> public corporation, I'd be talking to Chuck. *This is big. *Very big.
>>>
>>> You sound like Jerry Sauk discovering Dorito Tacos at Taco Bell.
>>
>> No, Steve. This *is* a big deal for those who like good beer, but
>> find themselves in places where glass is forbidden. I expect that
>> they'll sell the shit out of those cans.
>
>And just like Jerry - you think the world revolves around what YOU
>prefer.

That's quite a leap you just made. Expressing an opini0n now means you
think the world revolves around what YOU prefer". Does that apply to
everybody, including you? Or maybe just to those few lucky individuals
who are on your s$(* list?

> How's this: All canned beer is crappy and only crappy people
>drink canned beer It's just empty carbohydrates anyway - totally
>useless nutritionally. Sierra Nevada is a crappy company who just
>wants to take advantage of the expanding crappy people market.

You realize you're babbling, right? Right?

>And they sure have you hooked already, and you haven't even TRIED it
>yet. At least when somebody says they like Pepperidge Farms puff
>pasty (for example), they have tried it first.

You need more therapy, sqwish.

On Mar 18, 8:59*am, Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
> I'll offer a different take on this. *If you taste a beer at room
> temperature and you don't like it, that's not a beer you should be
> drinking. *Life is too short for crappy beer (says this beer snob). *But
> once you know that brand is good at any temperature feel free to have to
> cold.
>
Good beer tastes good no matter the temperature. Bad beer tastes bad
even ice cold. ****water beers like Mich Ultra, Miller Lite, Bud
Select or Milwaukee's Best Light are just a cheap way to get buzzed.
I can't imagine savoring that kind of junk. I like all beverages ice
cold, even coffee.

--Bryan

On Mar 18, 11:33*am, Sqwertz > wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 12:18:45 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:
> > sqwishy is getting testy.
>
> >>>>> Good beer in cans! *This is long overdue. *If Sierra Nevada was a
> >>>>> public corporation, I'd be talking to Chuck. *This is big. *Very big.
>
> >>>> You sound like Jerry Sauk discovering Dorito Tacos at Taco Bell.
>
> >>> No, Steve. *This *is* a big deal for those who like good beer, but
> >>> find themselves in places where glass is forbidden. *I expect that
> >>> they'll sell the shit out of those cans.
>
> >>And just like Jerry - you think the world revolves around what YOU
> >>prefer.
>
> > That's quite a leap you just made. Expressing an opini0n now means you
> > think the world revolves around what YOU prefer".
>
> Uh, Bryan included me (and millions of others) in his sweeping
> statement when he said, "This is a big deal for those who like good
> beer". *I, OTOH, included nobody in my sweeping statements.
>
You quoted half a sentence because you thought that made your point
better. I wrote, "This *is* a big deal for those who like good beer,
but find themselves in places where glass is forbidden." Perhaps I
should have been even more specific, but previously I had written,
"...it is against the law to bring glass onto Missouri's waterways. I
imagine there are similar laws in a lot of other states
as well." I canoe, kayak, hike creek beds, and camp on gravel bars,
all places where glass bottles are illegal.
>
> -sw

--Bryan

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 09:30:56 -0700 (PDT), Bryan
> wrote:

>
>http://www.sierranevada.com/beers/cans.html
>
>Good beer in cans! This is long overdue. If Sierra Nevada was a
>public corporation, I'd be talking to Chuck. This is big. Very big.
>
>Now it's time for Modelo to start putting the Negra in cans.
>
>--Bryan

The news that Sierra Nevada Pale Ale is available in cans is very good
indeed! I've drank a lot of SVPAs on or around the river from glass
bottles but have always been srupulously careful to to allow the
bottles to become broken.

Now to get Schlafly's to follow suit! :-)

John Kuthe...

notbob wrote:

> I'm surprised SN is taking up the ball so late. Many beers having
> been changing to cans, both in the US and in EU.

True, but beware of the following step: beer in plastic bottles. Sheesh I
can't handle them without thinking they're some sort of soda. Once this was
only in eastern europe, then they started in Belgium too. Not the fancy
beers, sure, but some lager beers are switching to plastic bottles.

Bryan wrote:

> http://www.sierranevada.com/beers/cans.html
>
> Good beer in cans! This is long overdue. If Sierra Nevada was a
> public corporation, I'd be talking to Chuck. This is big. Very big.

The downside of beer in cans, at least here in Italy, is the price: all the
0.5l beer cans cost more then the 0.66l bottle of the same beer, always, and
sometimes the difference is more than a good 50%

On Mar 19, 7:40*am, John Kuthe > wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 09:30:56 -0700 (PDT), Bryan
>
> > wrote:
>
> >http://www.sierranevada.com/beers/cans.html
>
> >Good beer in cans! *This is long overdue. *If Sierra Nevada was a
> >public corporation, I'd be talking to Chuck. *This is big. *Very big..
>
> >Now it's time for Modelo to start putting the Negra in cans.
>
> >--Bryan
>
> The news that Sierra Nevada Pale Ale is available in cans is very good
> indeed! I've drank a lot of SVPAs on or around the river from glass
> bottles but have always been srupulously careful to to allow the
> bottles to become broken.

I once chased a Pete's Wicked Ale a long ways downriver after tipping
at Welch Spring. It was bobbing upside down in a snuggie. That was
the last time I took glass on the river.
>
> Now to get Schlafly's to follow suit! :-)

The only thing they have in cans is their crappy summer lager. That's
because they don't even make it, but have it made for them by some
brewery that has canning capabilities, and then they put their brand
on it. The best I think we could expect from them is aluminum
growlers. This much smaller brewery sells aluminum growlers:
http://www.yakimacraftbrewing.com/ourstuff.html
>
> John Kuthe...

--Bryan

On Mar 20, 11:09*am, Sqwertz > wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 15:24:22 -0700 (PDT), Bryan wrote:
> > On Mar 18, 11:33*am, Sqwertz > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 12:18:45 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:
> >>> sqwishy is getting testy.
>
> >>>>>>> Good beer in cans! *This is long overdue. *If Sierra Nevada was a
> >>>>>>> public corporation, I'd be talking to Chuck. *This is big. *Very big.
>
> >>>>>> You sound like Jerry Sauk discovering Dorito Tacos at Taco Bell.
>
> >>>>> No, Steve. *This *is* a big deal for those who like good beer, but
> >>>>> find themselves in places where glass is forbidden. *I expect that
> >>>>> they'll sell the shit out of those cans.
>
> >>>>And just like Jerry - you think the world revolves around what YOU
> >>>>prefer.
>
> >>> That's quite a leap you just made. Expressing an opini0n now means you
> >>> think the world revolves around what YOU prefer".
>
> >> Uh, Bryan included me (and millions of others) in his sweeping
> >> statement when he said, "This is a big deal for those who like good
> >> beer". *I, OTOH, included nobody in my sweeping statements.
>
> > You quoted half a sentence because you thought that made your point
> > better. *I wrote, "This *is* a big deal for those who like good beer,
> > but find themselves in places where glass is forbidden."
>
> I didn't include that because I didn't think it was important. *I am
> strongly of the opinion that beer taste worse in cans rather bottles.
> And I'm not alone in that thinking. *So in that respect, my point
> still stands regardless of what you think I deceptively snipped; you
> still spoke me and for others.

The cans are lined, and poured into a glass, the beer is essentially
identical.
Do you like to drink beer in places where glass is not allowed? If
not, I was not speaking for you, or the old wives who whisper in your
ear about canned taste from aluminum beer cans.
>
> -sw

--Bryan

ViLco wrote:
> notbob wrote:
>
>> I'm surprised SN is taking up the ball so late. Many beers having
>> been changing to cans, both in the US and in EU.
>
> True, but beware of the following step: beer in plastic bottles. Sheesh I
> can't handle them without thinking they're some sort of soda. Once this was
> only in eastern europe, then they started in Belgium too. Not the fancy
> beers, sure, but some lager beers are switching to plastic bottles.

I have some one liter plastic bottles from when I started brewing my own
beer at home. I have enough glass bottles now that I don't use them any
more. Most likely they will get used when I brew my next batch of mead
in a few months. Mead stays in the bottles a lot longer so it gets a
weird mixture of my best and worst bottles.

On Mar 20, 3:51*am, "ViLco" > wrote:
> notbob wrote:
> > I'm surprised SN is taking up the ball so late. *Many beers having
> > been changing to cans, both in the US and in EU.
>
> True, but beware of the following step: beer in plastic bottles. Sheesh I
> can't handle them without thinking they're some sort of soda. Once this was
> only in eastern europe, then they started in Belgium too. Not the fancy
> beers, sure, but some lager beers are switching to plastic bottles.

There are a couple of Korean workingmen's bars here that sell beer,
soju, and snacks. The Korean beer (rice adjunct lager similar to
Coors) comes in two-liter bottles. A good place to relax with your
friends after work, especially if one of your friends speaks Korean.

Bryan wrote:

>The cans are lined, and poured into a glass, the beer is essentially
>identical.
>Do you like to drink beer in places where glass is not allowed? If
>not, I was not speaking for you, or the old wives who whisper in your
>ear about canned taste from aluminum beer cans.

You can't reason with sqwishy. He already knows everything worth
knowing, and he has the pix to prove it.

Sqwertz wrote:
> Bryan wrote:
>
>> You quoted half a sentence because you thought that made your point
>> better. I wrote, "This *is* a big deal for those who like good beer,
>> but find themselves in places where glass is forbidden."

Around the hot tub I've had beer in a plastic tumbler. It started in a
bottle or can. Generally the places I go to where glass is forbidden I
have the option of pouring my beer into an allowed container and take
the allowed container with me.

> I didn't include that because I didn't think it was important. I am
> strongly of the opinion that beer taste worse in cans rather bottles.
> And I'm not alone in that thinking. So in that respect, my point
> still stands regardless of what you think I deceptively snipped; you
> still spoke me and for others.

I wondered if canning made the beer crappy or if only crappy beers were
put into cans. Which was the cause and which was the effect? The
answer for me came when Guinness invented the can with the nitrogen jet
pellet. Canned Guinness is now clearly better than bottled Guinness.
The answer is in the past it tended to be the crappy beers that went
into the cans. The rule that only canoe beers are canned expired with
the Guinness can.

Sqwertz wrote:
>
> I like to drink beer anywhere. Except maybe in the shower. I don't
> find myself in places where glass bottles are not allowed except on
> the streets in Austin (where drinking is allowed). In that case I'm
> usually drinking cheap beer or Four Loko in cans - because I don't
> like carrying bottles, period. I only drink bottles in places where I
> can sit down and enjoy my beer.

Many years ago, when I occasionally went to a local surfers bar (surfing
videos playing along with great music), I always ordered Bud Ice in bottles.

Whenever I drink now, it's the cheap Natural Ice in cans and I usually pour
it into a plastic cup (ie - an old sour cream container). Horrors!

Gary

On 20/03/2012 4:28 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:

> I wondered if canning made the beer crappy or if only crappy beers were
> put into cans. Which was the cause and which was the effect? The
> answer for me came when Guinness invented the can with the nitrogen jet
> pellet. Canned Guinness is now clearly better than bottled Guinness.
> The answer is in the past it tended to be the crappy beers that went
> into the cans. The rule that only canoe beers are canned expired with
> the Guinness can.

I can only think of one Canadian brewery that does not sell beer in
cans, and to the best of my knowledge, all the major breweries sold all
their products in cans and bottles. I recall that there was an issue in
Denmark over the use of cans, but I think that insisting on bottles was
was about protecting their local breweries.

I used to prefer beer in a bottle, and liked drinking it from the
bottle. I don't like drinking it from cans, but I have had some pretty
good beer out of cans.

On Mar 20, 3:28*pm, Doug Freyburger > wrote:
> Sqwertz wrote:
> > Bryan wrote:
>
> >> You quoted half a sentence because you thought that made your point
> >> better. *I wrote, "This *is* a big deal for those who like good beer,
> >> but find themselves in places where glass is forbidden."
>
> Around the hot tub I've had beer in a plastic tumbler. *It started in a
> bottle or can. *Generally the places I go to where glass is forbidden I
> have the option of pouring my beer into an allowed container and take
> the allowed container with me.
>
> > I didn't include that because I didn't think it was important. *I am
> > strongly of the opinion that beer taste worse in cans rather bottles.
> > And I'm not alone in that thinking. *So in that respect, my point
> > still stands regardless of what you think I deceptively snipped; you
> > still spoke me and for others.
>
> I wondered if canning made the beer crappy or if only crappy beers were
> put into cans. *Which was the cause and which was the effect? *The
> answer for me came when Guinness invented the can with the nitrogen jet
> pellet. *Canned Guinness is now clearly better than bottled Guinness.
> The answer is in the past it tended to be the crappy beers that went
> into the cans. *The rule that only canoe beers are canned expired with
> the Guinness can.

They don't put the good Guinness into cans (Extra Stout) do they?

--Bryan

Bryan wrote:
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
>> I wondered if canning made the beer crappy or if only crappy beers were
>> put into cans. *Which was the cause and which was the effect? *The
>> answer for me came when Guinness invented the can with the nitrogen jet
>> pellet. *Canned Guinness is now clearly better than bottled Guinness.
>> The answer is in the past it tended to be the crappy beers that went
>> into the cans. *The rule that only canoe beers are canned expired with
>> the Guinness can.
>
> They don't put the good Guinness into cans (Extra Stout) do they?

Absolutely. The cans are patented and I'd had other stouts that used
the exact same can. The can is pressurized with nitrogen. Inside the
can is a pellet that's a little bigger than the hole at the top. The
pellet is a sphere with one point put off.

What happens is over time the amount of nitrogen in solution stablizes
at all points inside the can including inside the pellet. The pressure
is high and uniform throughout the can. When the top is popped most of
the inside of the can depressurizes immediately. The pressure is then
higher inside the pellet because the hole is too small for the pressure
to release in a faction of a second. Nitrogen starts to come out of
solution inside the pellet and there's a jet of turbulant nitrogen
bubbles. The Guinness in the can ends up with the same fine nitrogen
foam that you see with Guinness from a keg. It's a brilliant
application of fluid dynamics.

On 2012-03-21, Doug Freyburger > wrote:

> foam that you see with Guinness from a keg. It's a brilliant
> application of fluid dynamics.

It's a bullshit gimmick to impress the impressionable.

Those cans are low alcohol (~4.2%), while the extra stout in bottles
(US) is closer to 6% abv. "Ooooh.... lookee the bubbles are going
down. Jinkies!"

nb

--
Fight internet CENSORSHIP - Fight SOPA-PIPA
Contact your congressman and/or representative, now!
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/
vi --the heart of evil!

On Mar 21, 10:44*am, notbob > wrote:
> On 2012-03-21, Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
> > foam that you see with Guinness from a keg. *It's a brilliant
> > application of fluid dynamics.
>
> It's a bullshit gimmick to impress the impressionable.
>
> Those cans are low alcohol (~4.2%), while the extra stout in bottles
> (US) is closer to 6% abv. *"Ooooh.... lookee the bubbles are going
> down. *Jinkies!"

The stuff in the cans is junk. They put the Extra Stout only into
bottles.
>
> nb

--Bryan

notbob wrote:
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
>> foam that you see with Guinness from a keg. It's a brilliant
>> application of fluid dynamics.
>
> It's a bullshit gimmick to impress the impressionable.
>
> Those cans are low alcohol (~4.2%), while the extra stout in bottles
> (US) is closer to 6% abv.

Higher alcohol is for the folks with no taste. Quality of flavor has
little correlation with alcohol in beers until you get to the lite beers
and 3.2 beers.

> "Ooooh.... lookee the bubbles are going down. Jinkies!"

The bubbles contribute to the creamy mouth feel. Part of why the canned
Guinness in small cans and large kegs are both better than the Guinness
in the two most common bottle sizes.

Sqwertz wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>> Higher alcohol is for the folks with no taste. Quality of flavor has
>> little correlation with alcohol in beers until you get to the lite beers
>> and 3.2 beers.
>
> I thought You were good guy. There is there is no excuse for
> disrespecting Belgian ales. They are very good at cramming alcohol
> into highly flavorful beers (and don't normally hop the shit out of
> them).

If you're drinking a Trappist specifically for the alcohol you're
wasting the religious experience of its flavor. That flavor is not
dependent on the higher alcohol content than Guinness.

On 2012-03-21, Sqwertz > wrote:

> I thought You were good guy. There is there is no excuse for
> disrespecting Belgian ales. They are very good at cramming alcohol
> into highly flavorful beers (and don't normally hop the shit out of
> them).

Sic 'em, Steve!

nb


--
Fight internet CENSORSHIP - Fight SOPA-PIPA
Contact your congressman and/or representative, now!
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/
vi --the heart of evil!

On 2012-03-21, Sqwertz > wrote:

> I'll drink Baltika Porter all day long, though.

Boy, I really cringed when I first read yer post. Last time I had a
Baltika anything, it was atrocious. Apparently, they've improved or
my taste has learned. It has a pretty good rating on ratebeer.com.
I'll give it another shot if and when I run across it again, cuz I do
enjoy a good porter.

http://www.ratebeer.com/beer/baltika-6-porter/6110/

nb

--
Fight internet CENSORSHIP - Fight SOPA-PIPA
Contact your congressman and/or representative, now!
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/
vi --the heart of evil!

Doug Freyburger wrote:

>Higher alcohol is for the folks with no taste.

Nice Sheldon impersonation.

King Dodo splats again.

> (and don't normally hop the shit out of them).

Some days you should just stay in bed. And you know it, sqwish.

On 3/21/2012 5:15 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2012-03-21, > wrote:
>
>> I thought You were good guy. There is there is no excuse for
>> disrespecting Belgian ales. They are very good at cramming alcohol
>> into highly flavorful beers (and don't normally hop the shit out of
>> them).
>
> Sic 'em, Steve!

Ah Stella Artois! The Budweiser of Belgium.


--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

On 2012-03-21, James Silverton > wrote:

> Ah Stella Artois! The Budweiser of Belgium.

Someone hadda fill the niche. A canoe in every country!

nb

--
Fight internet CENSORSHIP - Fight SOPA-PIPA
Contact your congressman and/or representative, now!
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/
vi --the heart of evil!

On 21/03/2012 6:23 PM, Gary wrote:

> LOL! That's pretty funny, Steve. I've never noticed any signifiant
> difference in beers. They all taste equally "not that great" to me.


That may be due to you and your taste buds knowing diddly squat about beer.


> My favorite adult beverage is homemade white wine coolers. Problem was....I
> liked them too much so I quit buying wine and switched to beer. I'm good
> with a 24oz can of beer vs enough wine coolers to start seeing twins walk by
> all the time.


Some people actually enjoy the taste of beer and drink it to enjoy the
flavour as well as to quench thirst or to compliment a food, and not as
a vehicle to a drunken stupor. Count yourself among those whose
criterion for a good beer is one that you can drink lots of without
puking or farting in excess.

On 21/03/2012 5:46 PM, James Silverton wrote:
> On 3/21/2012 5:15 PM, notbob wrote:
>> On 2012-03-21, > wrote:
>>
>>> I thought You were good guy. There is there is no excuse for
>>> disrespecting Belgian ales. They are very good at cramming alcohol
>>> into highly flavorful beers (and don't normally hop the shit out of
>>> them).
>>
>> Sic 'em, Steve!
>
> Ah Stella Artois! The Budweiser of Belgium.
>
>

It may be the Budweiser of Belgium, but it is being rated on a scale
above that on which North American beer is rated. I prefer Stella to
most (not all) NA beers, but it does not compare with the best beer I
have ever had.... which happened to be in Belgium.

Sqwertz wrote:
>
> Fortunately I don't like stouts. Which is good because my stomach
> refuses to process stout beers. It just sits in my stomach and
> sloshes around. The more I drink, the more it sloshes. It's lousy
> feeling (especially when you're trying catch a buzz).

LOL! That's pretty funny, Steve. I've never noticed any signifiant
difference in beers. They all taste equally "not that great" to me. My
favorite adult beverage is homemade white wine coolers. Problem was....I
liked them too much so I quit buying wine and switched to beer. I'm good
with a 24oz can of beer vs enough wine coolers to start seeing twins walk by
all the time.

Gary