Steelback Premium Beer

[Belgian]

I can't say a Hershey bar is bad....

Don't push it!

[old faithful]

There is an old expression: give the people what they want.

Gary

[pootz]

You rightfully deserve the beer you "like".

Curious OF: Are you motivated buy another case of the Steelbacks you tasted? Did you like them enough to buy them again?

[JerCraigs]

I just found the ratebeer trumpeting a bit irrelevant to OF's comments in this case, not necessarily an attack but then is it really on point. I did think OF made a few balanced points avoiding the "easy shots" at Steelback, and that takes something more. Credibility is more than consensus.

Citing the ratebeer lists and/or ratings are essentially shorthand methods to point out that a great many people aside from me/the poster who cites it, share a particular view of the beer in question.

"Credibility is more than consensus" applies equally to OFs assertion that millions are buying...

Having met many of the raters in question I also have a greater comprehension of their personal tastes, knowledge and experience so that would provide me with assurances of credibility that you or others might not accept.

[old faithful]

Gents, it's important to read what I said earlier in the thread. I said this type of beer is not likely to appeal to most fans of micro beer, and since I am a fan of micro beer, I am not likely to buy it again.

What I was saying more latterly is this beer will appeal to many in Canada who drink beer. So it is a valid taste and valid entrant in the market - I can't see (honestly) why that should excite controversy.

Gary

[Belgian]

I just found the ratebeer trumpeting a bit irrelevant to OF's comments in this case, not necessarily an attack but then is it really on point. I did think OF made a few balanced points avoiding the "easy shots" at Steelback, and that takes something more. Credibility is more than consensus.

Citing the ratebeer lists and/or ratings are essentially shorthand methods to point out that a great many people aside from me/the poster who cites it, share a particular view of the beer in question.

Sorry JerC but we're going in circles here a bit, I think, maybe you missed some points of my first post in that regard - ie. 1) the somewhat fallible nature of this very 'shorthand' you speak of, and that 2) leaving this entirely aside OF was talking about the products (correctly) in context of mass-market beers (and not the Top 50 so why drag low rankings into it., see?)

I'm dizzy from rephrasing what I said, but never mind, nice chatting with you & happy beer tasting. JK.

[pootz]

Gents, it's important to read what I said earlier in the thread. I said this type of beer is not likely to appeal to most fans of micro beer, and since I am a fan of micro beer, I am not likely to buy it again.

What I was saying more latterly is this beer will appeal to many in Canada who drink beer. So it is a valid taste and valid entrant in the market - I can't see (honestly) why that should excite controversy.

Gary

Fair enough OF.... Please don't be offended, I was honestly curious as to what would make a repeat customer of this over priced swill....I in no way was trying to cast a pall of infamy on your taste buds I assumed you were only sampling it to see what all the negative review fracus was all about......and I can tell you're a micro drinker. I just have a curiosity as to why anyone who samples Steelback can accept their claim to be a "premium Canadian beer".

IMHO Steeback's offerings are sub par to many economy brands and as they use large quantities of corn adjuncts, does not qualify as "premium" beer. I was told by a beer store manager that this category is reserved to distinquish "all malt" beers. The Steelbacks I tasted were stinking with corn dextrin byproducts and didn't hold a cap longer than 15 seconds.

However OF, I do agree that the Steelbacks are comparable to some of the cheaper swilling beer on the commercial market...but not "premium"....perhaps this is why I was so hard on this beer when I reviewed it.....there is something that really sets me off about dishonesty in beer advertising. I see this as a case of grotesque product misrepresentation.

Frankly, if this "premium" beer category is as I was told, I can't understand how Steelback is allowed to sell its products as "all malt premium" beer...unless there is some loose definition of "all malt" by TBS which allows high gravity adjuct beer into this category....Then again, they list Budweiser and Miller as "premium" and the franchise formula for both these beers includes rice...is there rice malt???

[old faithful]

Thanks for these thoughts, but note the market is a big, sometimes unwieldy animal. There's all kinds of legal "puffery" out there, it's part of the game. One man's premium is another man's... well you see what I mean. I tried the Chain last night and while I didn't have the red can version of the Premium next to it, I thought the Chain wasn't as good. It had a similar low carbonation but kind of a "toasted yeast" taste (like Marmite) that didn't appeal to me. There may as you say be corn adjunct in it, too. Possibly the Premium tag can be justified though by the 5.5% ABV, it is a half-point above the commercial norm.

I think many people will enjoy this beer, not perhaps many here, but the average consumer who may buy beer not just for taste but e.g., for packaging or other non-taste factors (maybe they just like the name Steelback). This is a commercial-type beer although as I said earlier not quite in the commercial (Molbatt) mold either.

By the way I do generally drink micro and import beers. Occaisonally I'll drink (by choice!) a commercial product like, say Keith'a IPA or Molson Export but my taste is attuned to all malt, quality beers.

Not that I would ever compare myself, but if you look at Michael Jackson's reviews, he rarely criticises: rather he tries to describe objectively what he is tasting and its intended market. True, his star scoring system does hint at his preferences, but (as he says himself) it is just a general guide.

Gary

[Bobbyok]

I think many people will enjoy this beer, not perhaps many here, but the average consumer who may buy beer not just for taste but e.g., for packaging or other non-taste factors (maybe they just like the name Steelback). This is a commercial-type beer although as I said earlier not quite in the commercial (Molbatt) mold either.

Funny thing here is that despite the huge marketing budget behind the stuff the average consumer isn't buying the stuff, at lest according to previous comments posted here. So it's missing both the micro and mass markets.

Not that I would ever compare myself, but if you look at Michael Jackson's reviews, he rarely criticises: rather he tries to describe objectively what he is tasting and its intended market. True, his star scoring system does hint at his preferences, but (as he says himself) it is just a general guide.

But he also only chooses to talk about those beers he finds good and/or would actually drink, as I find many beverage writers do. It's when he's not talking about something you know there's a problem.

[old faithful]

Time will tell of course if they hit their intended market, the beer business is very competitive and many factors play into whether a beer brand or company will hit it big. Many companies are angling of course for the market I think Steelback is going for and not all will succeed.

Regarding Jackson, in the early years Michael reviewed all almost all the available beers. Of course there were many fewer then, but as late as the 6th edition of the Pocket Guide he described many of the commercial beers available both in Canada and the U.K..

Anyway maybe I can sum up in this way: I am not saying that, say, Ex or Keith's IPA or the Rickard's line or a Steelback Premium, etc. is as good to a connoisseur of beer as many of the brands we like to discuss here. But occasionally I find I enjoy a commercial beer, that's all.

Gary

[BeerMonger]

Tough Crowd!

[old faithful]

One thing I know is everyone here shares a passion for good beer and its traditions. Some, like I, share that but also are interested in the business of beer, both the smaller-scale and large scale operators. Personally the older I get the more nuanced I find my judgements tend to be (in all these areas). Sometimes this has been confirmed through blind tasting experiences extending not just to commercial beers but many kinds of microbrewed beer. I don't know anything about focus groups but am talking about just ordinary get-togethers where different types of beer are sampled by a range of tasters, sometimes doing blind or semi-blind tastings. It can be a humbling experience.

Gary

[Derek]

Steelback guy, where are you?

Len gave me a sample of the Bruce County Wild, and it was actually more drinkable than Labatt Blue!

Personally, I find that Blue and Canadian are both a little harsh (cheap, stale hops?). Ever try to drink one of those at room temperature?

Some of the more flavourless stuff like Coors-lite or Special Dry are actually drinkable... they're just boring.

I don't review macro lagers though... I wouldn't know where to begin.

[Josh Oakes]

While it is entirely possible for Steelback's beers to have at least improved to the point where they don't have compound brewing flaws, most of us will never go back to re-try these champions because the initial experience was so awful. I suspect the general publich feels much the same way. Plus, the conduct of the brewery raises doubts as to their committment to making better beer.

If anyone has found a clean Steelback, devoid of off-flavours, more power to them. But don't expect it to be the rule.

For the record, I believe OF is probably pretty close to right with regards to the average rating. There are a few statistical anomalies at Ratebeer, another classic being Guinness Draught. That said, while I've found many major macrobrands to have no shortage of brewing flaws, I've found them degrees less repulsive than Steelbacks. But it's all 0.5 to me anyway.

[old faithful]

A brewery (any size or kind) needs as far as possible to avoid putting out a beer with flaws, certainly. People will avoid trying a beer again if it is evidently not brewed to a certain standard. However with any new brewing operation it sometimes takes some time to work out the kinks and I don't mind cutting a newbie some slack since we should (within reason) encourage all new brewers.

Returning to the craft beer area, I find the established brands today rarely offer disappointment. Last night I had a pint of St. Ambroise Pale Ale which was very nice, full of sweet malt, orange- and minty-like flavours and very clean (no oxidation whatever, the yeast sound and vigourous). A pleasure to sample something good like that. This beer (and its stablemates) were always good but is better than ever.

Gary