Who Wants Low ABV Craft Beers in Ontario?

Belgian · Post by **Belgian** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:01 pm

... and maybe a slight price break for the lower Alcohol By Volume, if possible?

I personally am a fan of Mill Race Mild, the former Stuart's Session Ale Bitter, and Wellington County Arkell when it's on cask. So who would support wider availability of lower ABV beers in this province, and pay a little less taxes per pint? Which ones would you like to see more of, and what styles modelled on?

PS also mad props to GLB Limp Puppet, rEally nice session IPA you guys!!

TheSevenDuffs · Post by **TheSevenDuffs** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 9:20 pm

For the summer, low ABV options are always great to have. I would be happy enough of GLB made Limp Puppet available all summer.

toweringpine · Post by **toweringpine** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:06 pm

I would like more of them! And a break on the "sin tax" would be nice too.

I used to really enjoy Stuart's Session Ale when it was around and have been digging the Limp Puppet this year.

I was thinking that the next time I but beer with a theme in mind that it will be low strength, high flavour. I took some Puppets and Detours to visit family with a couple weeks ago and grabbed a Guinness out of the fridge while there. Three low strength beers but all quite different. I had a Lancaster Bomber last night too, another nice quaffer.

It does seem odd that a 3.2% and a 7.1% are taxed the same. It would be nice if a sixer of Puppets or Detours were a couple bucks less than a pack of Boneshakers. ( I should be careful what I wish though... Murphy's Law says if this ever happened than the Boneshakers would likely be taxed higher instead! )

liamt07 · Post by **liamt07** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:21 pm

Absolutely. Sign me up.

S. St. Jeb · Post by **S. St. Jeb** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 11:00 pm

Low on alcohol (3.7%), high on flavour

Neustadt Mill Gap Bitter

Mike-KBCo · Post by **Mike-KBCo** » Tue Jun 10, 2014 12:08 pm

100% down with this. When the bar opens we're going to make sure that we've got one low/very low ABV offering at all times.

Ale's What Cures Ya · Post by **Ale's What Cures Ya** » Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:00 pm

If it tastes like Stone's Go-To IPA then sign me up.

midlife crisis · Post by **midlife crisis** » Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:42 pm

Me! Mill Gap Bitter is good, agreed; I think Durham LA Pale Ale (cask conditioned) is even better. Oh, and Lackey's Simple Porter, though perhaps more of a winter beer, was a stunner.

ErkLR · Post by **ErkLR** » Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:44 pm

I was a fan of the Stuart's Natural Session when it was around and I really wish the Mill Race Mild (I think it's now called Mill Race Brown) would be accepted by the LCBO. IIRC someone from Grand River said they've submitted it and been rejected several times by the LCBO. I've been buying the Muskoka Detour quite a bit lately.

Tetley's has been my go-to for parties where I may end up consuming a fair number, and/or other low ABV UK beers since there are quite a few options and a I like a lot of the UK ales. It seems the craft movement has really been going to higher ABV, with the notable exceptions above.

screw2000 · Post by **screw2000** » Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:06 pm

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! Detour and Limp Puppet have been my go-tos of late.

El Pinguino · Post by **El Pinguino** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 4:31 pm

Definitely a fan of low ABV beers that taste great.

NRman · Post by **NRman** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 6:54 pm

Stay Classy
http://bellwoodsbrewery.com/product/stay-classy/
I love this beer - killer at 2.8

BTW can someone explain the logic behind why tax should would be different based on ABV? I understand higher production cost/quality = higher price, but higher ABV?
Feels very ...odd? outdated? Ontarioesque?
Is it:
Drinking is a sin.
Drinking higher ABV drinks is a bigger sin.
Sinners are taxed.
Bigger sinners are taxed more.
???

saints_gambit · Post by **saints_gambit** » Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:18 pm

NRman wrote:Stay Classy
http://bellwoodsbrewery.com/product/stay-classy/
I love this beer - killer at 2.8

BTW can someone explain the logic behind why tax should would be different based on ABV? I understand higher production cost/quality = higher price, but higher ABV?
Feels very ...odd? outdated? Ontarioesque?
Is it:
Drinking is a sin.
Drinking higher ABV drinks is a bigger sin.
Sinners are taxed.
Bigger sinners are taxed more.
???

You know how we're a British Colony, or were until recently? It's sort of a vestigial tail left over from the evolution. British policy certainly had different alcohol taxed at different strengths and we more or less adopted their post war model after we came out of prohibition, at least as near as I can tell.

It's one of the reasons why they've got 3% mild bitter. It was less heavily taxed.

In Ontario, we didn't really make beer that low in alcohol prior to prohibition. Lager sometimes ranged down to 3.5%. Ales were more or less 6.5%-7.0%. I don't think it ever occurred to bureaucrats making the laws that people would want a 2.8% beer. We had quite low alcohol stuff between 1924 and 1927, but it didn't really do the job.