Sleeman = liars

Josh Oakes · Post by **Josh Oakes** » Wed May 15, 2002 11:27 am

The crap I'm reading today in the papers is ridiculous. First, you have these guys claiming to be 186 years old. Maybe in dog years. Sleeman was founded in what, 1986? And they spout this crap.

And then you have this quote "We intend to remain a strong player in the Ontario premium market, a market which we, for the most part, pioneered."

What arrogance. Sleeman doesn't make premium products. Their flagship brand is a skunky, adjunct-laden "ale". They sell as much Old Milwaukee as they do of their own brand products. They are bigger than Moosehead. And they've done not one single thing for the premium beer market in Ontario. Wellington, Brick and Upper Canada started the (domestic) premium market here (which Brick has now largely left alone). Creemore put more serious beer handles in Toronto than Sleeman's ever did with their cornfed swill.

How anybody competing against Blue and Canadian can get away with calling themselves premium is mind-blowing.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Josh Oakes on 2002-05-15 11:47 ]</font>

Mississauga Matt · Post by **Mississauga Matt** » Wed May 15, 2002 3:54 pm

I agree. It used to really bug me how Sleeman's and Taylor & Bate used to go on about how long they'd been in the business when the truth was something entirely different. I also used to hate seeing the Upper Canada signs claiming their beers were "Extra Premium."

My take is that if I want to be lied to, I'll look to Molson's and Labatt's. After all, they're the masters of the art. e.g. "no preservatives" - are they admitting that there are no hops in their "products," or are they inadvertently admitting that don't know about the preservative qualities of hops?.

Leave the lies to the big boys. I expect the small guys to be honest.

Josh Oakes · Post by **Josh Oakes** » Wed May 15, 2002 8:56 pm

Well, in that case, Sleeman is just trying to fit in with their contemporaries. After all, if they are craft brewers then so is Moosehead, Genesee (i'm sorry, "High Falls" - speaking about honesty...), Northern, Lakeport et al.

They give away more beer bribing bar owners for tap handles than Perry makes in a year (oh wait, I'm not supposed to say that).

And you're right, Sleeman certainly isn't alone in lying about their age (what are they, women?). Even Orval does it. Doesn't make it right, though.

esprit · Post by **esprit** » Fri May 17, 2002 6:54 pm

OK Josh, so what's the deal with Orval? Actually, if we're going to talk about the champion liars of the beer world we need look no further than Leffe, brewed since 1240...yeah, right! The Leffe we see today isn't even a true reproduction of the product that was created by a secular brewery in the 1950's after an absence of a century or more. Back to Orval, as they haven't ever mounted an advertising campaign of any sort, what is it that you claim they're lying about. An abbey of one sort or another has existed on the site for about 1000 years but the current brewery traces it's roots to the early part of the 20th century. I haven't seen any claims from them to the contrary...have you?

Josh Oakes · Post by **Josh Oakes** » Thu May 23, 2002 9:54 pm

Well, you answered your own question about the Orval. The history of the monastery is a huge selling point, one which is apparently required by law to be recited whenver the name Orval is uttered, however the "present concern" and its origins are not publicized quite so well.

But you're right about Interbrew. They are in all likelihood the worst offender, from calling Blue a pilsner, Keith's an IPA (and dating it from a time before Allsopps invented the stuff) and the fabricated history of their Belgian lineup...but the brewing world is full of this kind of thing and I just wanted to call Sleemans on it.

Immotius · Post by **Immotius** » Wed May 29, 2002 4:42 pm

Hey, look. If you want to have been in business for 80 years. You just have to buy a pea-fart business with history and then you can make all the claims you want.

The fact is, I couldn't care less how long anyone has been brewing their bad beer. Why does it matter? It's not like they still have the original brewmaster there with his collective Blue brewing experience from 1492.

rabbit · Post by **rabbit** » Wed May 29, 2002 8:58 pm

Hey Immotius, where the hell did you go to school??? I know that forums are supposed to be casual and all but your complete disregard for English grammar and spelling make your postings incredibly irritating. Either brush up on your English or stick to those Portuguese sites where your callous disregard for the language is less noticeable. Having said that, your point is well taken....who cares about claims of longevity...if you've been in business for 10 centuries and today you make you lousy beer, you're a lousy brewery...if you've been in business for 10 weeks and you brew great beer, you're a great brewery...unfortunately, the un-washed masses often believe the tripe they're fed by mass-market advertising campaigns and I'm more pissed off by crappy breweries claiming that their beer is great than by the fact that they distort how long they've been in business.

Cass · Post by **Cass** » Tue Jun 04, 2002 6:53 pm

I've always taken a small amount of satisfaction that this site riled up Sleeman a bit. Specifically, the review I did of Upper Canada. Basically I said that UC had a great history with interesting beers in the 80s and early 90s, but when they mainstreamed themselves in the mid-90s and Sleeman took over, their beers suffered considerably. Sleeman took offense, but everything I said in my review was factual and/or opinionated. I never heard from them again.