Haven't had a chance to read it all yet (it's long!) but it looks good.
A Better Brew
Looking for the original Bar Towel blog? You can find it at www.thebartowel.com.
We have a trivia question in order to register to prevent bots. If you have any issues with answering, contact us at cass@bartowel.com for help.
Introducing Light Mode! If you would like a Bar Towel social experience that isn't the traditional blue, you can now select Light Mode. Go to the User Control Panel and then Board Preferences, and select "Day Drinking" (Light Mode) from the My Board Style drop-down menu. You can always switch back to "Night Drinking" (Dark Mode). Enjoy!
We have a trivia question in order to register to prevent bots. If you have any issues with answering, contact us at cass@bartowel.com for help.
Introducing Light Mode! If you would like a Bar Towel social experience that isn't the traditional blue, you can now select Light Mode. Go to the User Control Panel and then Board Preferences, and select "Day Drinking" (Light Mode) from the My Board Style drop-down menu. You can always switch back to "Night Drinking" (Dark Mode). Enjoy!
Dogfish Head Article in The New Yorker
-
Wheatsheaf
- Posts: 411
- Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 7:00 pm
- Location: Midtown
- Contact:
Dogfish Head Article in The New Yorker
Here's to the slow path.
-
old faithful
- Bar Fly
- Posts: 986
- Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2003 8:00 pm
The New Yorker has shown occasional interest in good beer before. I think Corby Cummer had a piece once on Belgian beer and there may have been others on particular aspects of good beer and its links with gastronomy.
This current article is impressive for its accurate survey of the modern craft beer movement and how it situates it within the broader sweep of beer history.
The use of Dogfish Head as the spindle around which the story was wound was inspired and the description of its beers and methods provides a colourful and informative backdrop to the overall story.
I find myself largely in agreement with the author's views although I am not sure that the German Pure Beer Law had a logic that conduced (ultimately) to the industrialization of beer. Germany even today has an enviably broad range of beer styles and many great beers. So does England, and its beers (at their best) continue to be based on malt and hops without the compulsion of a law mandating certain ingredients. Thus, some brewing traditions relied only or mostly on malt and hops as the basis for their best beers because, one could argue, the brewers and drinkers felt that made the best beer. (Wheat beers are an exception under the terms of the Law and the author correctly noted their contribution to the palate-range of German beer).
In other countries, for whatever reason, brewers were more experimental and made great beers (sometimes) using a broader range of ingredients and methods. No one way is better than another.
Both perspectives are recognised in the article through the discussion of how Brooklyn Brewing and Dogfish Head view the issue of extreme beers.
My own view is that there are fine beers in both traditions (the experimental and more traditional): variety is to be encouraged and may the best beers win!
The role of imports in the U.S. was perhaps neglected (maybe for space reasons). 96% of the U.S. market may be mass-produced beers and imports but the import part is itself part of the story. Many of these are high-quality, traditionally-made beers which helped kickstart the domestic craft beer phenomenon and continue to inpsire it. In other words, while after 30 years the market share of the craft beer makers remains relatively small, when combined with imports (or some of them anyway - not the mass-production part like Corona) the quality beer segment is bigger than 4% and stands to grow at any rate much faster than the part of the beer market which drinks mass-produced domestic beers.
Anyway this was a stimulating ride through recent beer history, enlivened by the author's sense of humour which includes the odd self-deprecating touch. It has the clip and authority one associates with New Yorker magazine and was an enjoyable read.
Gary
This current article is impressive for its accurate survey of the modern craft beer movement and how it situates it within the broader sweep of beer history.
The use of Dogfish Head as the spindle around which the story was wound was inspired and the description of its beers and methods provides a colourful and informative backdrop to the overall story.
I find myself largely in agreement with the author's views although I am not sure that the German Pure Beer Law had a logic that conduced (ultimately) to the industrialization of beer. Germany even today has an enviably broad range of beer styles and many great beers. So does England, and its beers (at their best) continue to be based on malt and hops without the compulsion of a law mandating certain ingredients. Thus, some brewing traditions relied only or mostly on malt and hops as the basis for their best beers because, one could argue, the brewers and drinkers felt that made the best beer. (Wheat beers are an exception under the terms of the Law and the author correctly noted their contribution to the palate-range of German beer).
In other countries, for whatever reason, brewers were more experimental and made great beers (sometimes) using a broader range of ingredients and methods. No one way is better than another.
Both perspectives are recognised in the article through the discussion of how Brooklyn Brewing and Dogfish Head view the issue of extreme beers.
My own view is that there are fine beers in both traditions (the experimental and more traditional): variety is to be encouraged and may the best beers win!
The role of imports in the U.S. was perhaps neglected (maybe for space reasons). 96% of the U.S. market may be mass-produced beers and imports but the import part is itself part of the story. Many of these are high-quality, traditionally-made beers which helped kickstart the domestic craft beer phenomenon and continue to inpsire it. In other words, while after 30 years the market share of the craft beer makers remains relatively small, when combined with imports (or some of them anyway - not the mass-production part like Corona) the quality beer segment is bigger than 4% and stands to grow at any rate much faster than the part of the beer market which drinks mass-produced domestic beers.
Anyway this was a stimulating ride through recent beer history, enlivened by the author's sense of humour which includes the odd self-deprecating touch. It has the clip and authority one associates with New Yorker magazine and was an enjoyable read.
Gary
In the few occasions that I've read the magazine, I've found the New Yorker to be a pompous waste of space. Its self-consciously snobby and pretentious, and I hate the attitude it conveys.
Anyway, its a good story and I love the feeling of adventure that Sam exhibits. Its nice to see breweries like Dogfish pushing the boundaries, yet I'm also glad that there's still a huge majority who try to make great beer withing pre-established styles and guidelines. The article was discussed at great length on Beer Advocate where Garret Oliver came under flak for disparaging the extreme beer style that Dogfish prefers. He subsequently elaborated on what he meant and that his quote was taken out of context, but I think to some extent his point remains valid:
http://beeradvocate.com/forum/read/1632647
I like that guy a lot.
Anyway, its a good story and I love the feeling of adventure that Sam exhibits. Its nice to see breweries like Dogfish pushing the boundaries, yet I'm also glad that there's still a huge majority who try to make great beer withing pre-established styles and guidelines. The article was discussed at great length on Beer Advocate where Garret Oliver came under flak for disparaging the extreme beer style that Dogfish prefers. He subsequently elaborated on what he meant and that his quote was taken out of context, but I think to some extent his point remains valid:
http://beeradvocate.com/forum/read/1632647
I like that guy a lot.
What a great article. I'd love to try the Palo Santo Marron, but I'd kill to be able to sit in on the once-a-month experimental brewing sessions at DFH!
The stat that DFH doesn't end up filling 25% of its orders due to the demand is absolutely crazy. I'm amazed that DFH 60 made its way into Ontario with that kind of demand and the LCBO's crazy lab protocols, labeling etc. The fact that the LCBO even had a less commonly brewed product like their Raison D'etre way back in 2003 is even more amazing.
I totally get Garret Oliver's point about the "extreme beer" lable potentially putting some people off, even if I find it hard to comprehend myself. I don't know if that would be the majority of people or just a few non-adventurous souls. I do kind of suspect, however, that selling "extreme" beers might work a little better in the US than in Canada. Innovation and the "better, faster, stonger......more extreme" attitude is more ingrained in the American psyche than in Canadian minds, so they might be more inclinde to pick up a beer advertized like that. I also think that Labatt and Molson beers are tied into Canadian national identity so tightly that it's at times a fight to get the average beer drinker to try a craft pils, let alone a IIPA advertized as being an extreme beer.
The stat that DFH doesn't end up filling 25% of its orders due to the demand is absolutely crazy. I'm amazed that DFH 60 made its way into Ontario with that kind of demand and the LCBO's crazy lab protocols, labeling etc. The fact that the LCBO even had a less commonly brewed product like their Raison D'etre way back in 2003 is even more amazing.
I totally get Garret Oliver's point about the "extreme beer" lable potentially putting some people off, even if I find it hard to comprehend myself. I don't know if that would be the majority of people or just a few non-adventurous souls. I do kind of suspect, however, that selling "extreme" beers might work a little better in the US than in Canada. Innovation and the "better, faster, stonger......more extreme" attitude is more ingrained in the American psyche than in Canadian minds, so they might be more inclinde to pick up a beer advertized like that. I also think that Labatt and Molson beers are tied into Canadian national identity so tightly that it's at times a fight to get the average beer drinker to try a craft pils, let alone a IIPA advertized as being an extreme beer.