General LCBO Debate & Discussion Thread

[sprague11]

]I hope not. I don't like the fact that everythign seems to be moving to bombers.

Great for sharing, not so great for when you just want to pop open a quick beer while doing yardwork, watching sports, etc. maybe I just have to get a bigger lawn.

[TheSevenDuffs]

]I hope not. I don't like the fact that everythign seems to be moving to bombers.

Great for sharing, not so great for when you just want to pop open a quick beer while doing yardwork, watching sports, etc. maybe I just have to get a bigger lawn.

Exactly. Great for sharing and trading through the mail That's about it...

[Kel Varnsen]

]I hope not. I don't like the fact that everythign seems to be moving to bombers.

Great for sharing, not so great for when you just want to pop open a quick beer while doing yardwork, watching sports, etc. maybe I just have to get a bigger lawn.

Yea I find I have to be careful with 750ml beers. For anything over 8% if I don't drink it with a good amount of water it leads to a massive headache either later that day or the next morning. But then if I do drink a bunch of water between that and the beer I end up with a stomach full of liquid.

[Belgian]

if I do drink a bunch of water between that and the beer I end up with a stomach full of liquid.

Some of us can drink water / beer / water nonstop like a horse. that water does clear you out.

Another solution is to try to really load up on water and get super hydrated early in the day. One trick is two big glasses of water by the night stand to drink the minute you wake up. When I was in the Caribbean, out all afternoon and drinking all evening, I never carried around water because I hydrated in the AM (juice, water, and maybe fresh fruit all in large amounts 1hr before breakfast.)

I would also advise a champagne stopper for 750mls, I have a LTM beer I've been drinking for 3 days and it's still carbonated with no sign of oxidation.

[Baulz]

Maybe larger format, I think the Summer Saison has new packaging (650ml) out of the brewery.

I hope not. I don't like the fact that everythign seems to be moving to bombers.

Do the breweries make more selling bombers? I wanted to get a bottle of Amsterdam Framboise, $11.95 for a bomber is too much for me.

[Craig]

Maybe larger format, I think the Summer Saison has new packaging (650ml) out of the brewery.

I hope not. I don't like the fact that everythign seems to be moving to bombers.

Do the breweries make more selling bombers? I wanted to get a bottle of Amsterdam Framboise, $11.95 for a bomber is too much for me.

As a general rule, the larger the bottle the less packaging (and I'm assuming lower cost) needed. I'd wager that cans are probably cheaper than bottles regardless of the size of the bottle, but that's just my guess. Obviously there's more to it than that for beer, as price points and retail appeal have to enter into it. But strictly on packaging price alone, I'm pretty sure larger bottles are cheaper.

A couple years back I was trying to figure out the most environmentally friendly way to drink wine. It turned out that the packaging was the main contributor to CO2 emissions, because of the shipping weight, which has to translate into shipping costs. Aussie wine in a tetra pack is much better than Euro wine in glass. Wine shipped in bulk then bottled here is better still. Interestingly, In Ontario getting European wine is better for the environment than Californian. Boats use less gas than trucks.

[ritzkiss]

Maybe larger format, I think the Summer Saison has new packaging (650ml) out of the brewery.

I hope not. I don't like the fact that everythign seems to be moving to bombers.

Do the breweries make more selling bombers? I wanted to get a bottle of Amsterdam Framboise, $11.95 for a bomber is too much for me.

Packaging is one issue, but brewers also have the option of charging more per ounce in the bombers. You, as a consumer, are far more likely to buy an $8 bomber, which works out to about .36/oz, rather then spend the same on 12oz bottles where, if the price point were the same per oz as a bomber, a six pack would cost $26.18.

Very few people would pick up a $26 six-pack. So in terms of being able to command more for your beer per ounce, the bomber also offers a higher price point for brewers, though less value for consumers.

[Craig]

I hope not. I don't like the fact that everythign seems to be moving to bombers.

Do the breweries make more selling bombers? I wanted to get a bottle of Amsterdam Framboise, $11.95 for a bomber is too much for me.

Packaging is one issue, but brewers also have the option of charging more per ounce in the bombers. You, as a consumer, are far more likely to buy an $8 bomber, which works out to about .36/oz, rather then spend the same on 12oz bottles where, if the price point were the same per oz as a bomber, a six pack would cost $26.18.

Very few people would pick up a $26 six-pack. So in terms of being able to command more for your beer per ounce, the bomber also offers a higher price point for brewers, though less value for consumers.

When I did the math, I got 22.72 for a 6 pack. Which changes nothing at all about your point.

[ritzkiss]

Do the breweries make more selling bombers? I wanted to get a bottle of Amsterdam Framboise, $11.95 for a bomber is too much for me.

Packaging is one issue, but brewers also have the option of charging more per ounce in the bombers. You, as a consumer, are far more likely to buy an $8 bomber, which works out to about .36/oz, rather then spend the same on 12oz bottles where, if the price point were the same per oz as a bomber, a six pack would cost $26.18.

Very few people would pick up a $26 six-pack. So in terms of being able to command more for your beer per ounce, the bomber also offers a higher price point for brewers, though less value for consumers.

When I did the math, I got 22.72 for a 6 pack. Which changes nothing at all about your point.

8$ divided by 22oz is .3636repeating, which is the per ounce price.

.3636repeating times 12 is $4.3636repeating, which is the per 12oz bottle price.

4.3636repeating time 6 bottles is $26.18, more or less.

But you're right, $23 or $26 a six-pack is not really the issue - most of us would be pretty hesitant to make that a regular purchase, or even a purchase at all, while many of us would happily pick up at least one bomber.

[Craig]

I was using 750 ml, my bad.

[Mike-KBCo]

We've been debating the use of 500ml v. 650ml bottles for quite some time. We still haven't quite decided what we want to do at our new facility. Thoughts on these two formats?

[TheSevenDuffs]

We've been debating the use of 500ml v. 650ml bottles for quite some time. We still haven't quite decided what we want to do at our new facility. Thoughts on these two formats?

I much prefer 500 ml. 650 and 750 ml is just too much (unless you are sharing), especially if you are drinking a higher ABV beer.

[midlife crisis]

I like your cans, to be honest. If you're also adding a bottle, wouldn't you want to go 650 ml to differentiate them a bit from the 473 ml can?

[JerCraigs]

A couple years back I was trying to figure out the most environmentally friendly way to drink wine. It turned out that the packaging was the main contributor to CO2 emissions, because of the shipping weight, which has to translate into shipping costs. Aussie wine in a tetra pack is much better than Euro wine in glass. Wine shipped in bulk then bottled here is better still. Interestingly, In Ontario getting European wine is better for the environment than Californian. Boats use less gas than trucks.

I wrote a paper on beer packaging for school a few years ago, and that's about right. Reusable bottles are better then disposable glass within a certain travel radius, single use cans depend partly on recycled vs virgin aluminum since the mining process is not super environmentally friendly. Recycled PET is actually the best bet in a lot of cases based purely on the weight.

[icemachine]

500ml is my preference, although I really hope you get a canning line rather than bottling