Change in Duggan's Bottle Size?

Belgian · Post by **Belgian** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:43 pm

Oh and since I know people are wondering this - if everything in life were completely linear (which nothing is) the re-selling bar's price of the new bottles should be 20% off of the old price, but that's the seller's business.

What Milos did with 30 cent proce drop in good faith to the customer is fair enough in my view.

Selling smaller units probably doesn't help him pay rent on his bar stools.

I hope this encourages everyone's support of a great local IPA.

WilliamEstevan · Post by **WilliamEstevan** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 5:11 pm

Well, if that take-out price break down is right, I feel better about the state of beer in Ontario... Now if only Sobeys were as cool as Milos, maybe I wouldn't be paying for the five crackers I'm no longer getting in a box of Triscuits!

GregClow · Post by **GregClow** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:44 pm

phirleh wrote:Was Duggan at Mill Street when they released the original Organic in the "sample size"?

Mill St Organic actually went the other way. It was launched at 195 ml bottles, later went up slightly to 222 ml, and then finally to 341 ml.

midlife crisis · Post by **midlife crisis** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 10:42 pm

Like the non-pint-sized pints at the pub, I find the logic behind this baffling. I would be very interested in hearing an explanation, if anyone from Duggans was inclined to give one. I just think he has so much goodwill within the craft beer community, due to his obviously fine products, and I'm mystified as to why he would choose to squander some of it with silly decisions like these. But perhaps there is a good explanation.

SteelbackGuy · Post by **SteelbackGuy** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 12:22 pm

midlife crisis wrote:Like the non-pint-sized pints at the pub, I find the logic behind this baffling. I would be very interested in hearing an explanation, if anyone from Duggans was inclined to give one. I just think he has so much goodwill within the craft beer community, due to his obviously fine products, and I'm mystified as to why he would choose to squander some of it with silly decisions like these. But perhaps there is a good explanation.

I know a lot of Scandinavian brewers are using these types of bottles, and they are gaining popularity in Europe. In the right circumstances, these bottles can be fantastic. Take a big ass barleywine or imperial stout and put it in one of these smaller bottles........makes perfect sense. Take an average strength IPA and downsize it.........seems silly to me.

I really like this beer, and I drank hordes of it when it was on tap at Chancey Smith's. I was buying 16 oz glasses of it for $4.75. The the keg blew, and from time to time I'd get a 341 ml bottle for $4.25. But often I want more than a bottle or 12 oz. Now that it is going to be 275 ml, I am really not interested. Not because it isn't a good beer, but because I don't want a thimble of beer. I usually like a good serving of something if I am having a craving, and I don't want to have to drink 6X275 ml to satisfy my craving. I'd rather have a few 16-20 oz servings.

Belgian · Post by **Belgian** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:03 am

Then again we'd like to encourage Craft Beer Noobs - people who traditionally drink lighter, low-quality beer - to 'drink less and drink better..' So 275mls of beer WITH flavor is a good option for new people. And easier to keep count of # beers they've had equivalent to the macros they are used to drinking (which are more watery and may have a bit less alcohol.)

For a bigger quaff at home I can always pour two of these new #9 bottles into a 20 oz pint glass (550ml = 19.6 oz). Not a bad serving size by any means.

viggo · Post by **viggo** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 12:28 pm

Belgian wrote:Then again we'd like to encourage Craft Beer Noobs - people who traditionally drink lighter, low-quality beer - to 'drink less and drink better beer..' So 275mls of beer WITH flavor is a good option for new people. And easier to keep track of how many beers they've had equivalent to the regular stuff (which is less strong due to the higher water content.)

For a bigger quaff at home I can always pour two of these new #9 bottles into a 20 oz pint glass (550ml = 19.6 oz). Not a bad serving size by any means.

Higher water content?

pootz · Post by **pootz** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:14 am

Beer is meant to be consumed by the pint. These thimble sized containers can only be explained as some form of nanny state ragging about stronger beer needing smaller portions so the soiled masses don't make themselves into drooling inebriates , or some cheap marketing slight of hand to make less cost more.

Start pouring by the pint Mike

Derek · Post by **Derek** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:39 am

Could be the Starbucks psyche... they figured nobody would want to pay that much for a 'small' coffee, so they called it 'tall'. They developed their own stupid languange.

Similarly, maybe 'Joe Public' isn't ready to spend big bucks on a bottle of beer... so Duggan is offering a quality brew, for a 'bottle' that's roughly the same price (you just don't get as much).

It could work... or it could totally backfire. I like the smaller sizes at the pub, cause you can change it up & try different things. Unfortunately, I don't think that translates to bottles very well. The brewers cost per bottle won't significantly decrease with that modest size, but the value to the consumer (beer/mL) certainly does.