You know, I have heard similar statements made by other people, and I never have understood them. Guinness is not any thicker than any other beer, and actually has fewer calories than a whole herd of them. If it is because of the color, that is merely accomplished by roasting the barley longer when making malts. If it is because of the tightness of the head, that is caused from the dispensing method, which is a nitrous engine that introduces a nitrous oxide blend into the beer giving it a smoother appearance and better mouthfeel. This is frequently done with stouts and porters for the reason I have stated, and I have actually seen it done with other beer as well. The same effect can be had by buying the bottles and cans with the nitrous widget in them.

Hmmm...never expected to post a rant about beer on an umpiring site! :)

Dogfish Head is a local beer (DE). I believe Victory is also local (Downingtown, PA) http://www.victorybeer.com/home.html

You can keep the IPAs. Have never been a fan. I don't believe most brewers understand the recipe.

I drink Guiness when I can find it. It might interest you to know that if you are buying Guiness in the US, you are buying an AB product. I prefer the Guiness Extra Stout. Beemish isn't bad either. I prefer microbrews which stay traditional and NOT try to recreate beer. My "dinner table" beer has been Michelob for over 35 years.

Nahh. . .IT IS Milawakees Best. Best is for Best Hangover and Best Beer Goggles and its Best to forget the night you drank it

You know, my old roommate and I are, by all accounts, beer snobs. We not only admit it, we're proud of it. We went to a bar one night, and we ordered Guinness. The waitress told us that they were all out, and one could probably swear we looked like we had just been told our parents were killed in a firey accident.

Then, she tells us that we might want to try a new brew called "Amber Bock," but never told us the brewery. We shrugged our shoulders, and we ordered two. After taking a sip, we were quite impressed. Smooth, delicious, nice aroma, not bad at all. After ordering our second round, we both glance up at the screen to see an Amber Bock commercial.... By Michelob!

Talk about a comeback, Michelob. Very tasty.

Wanna be a real beer snob? Try some of the beers mentioned in my previous post. You won't ever want to touch a Michelob product again. Their Amber Bock is just a rip off of Shiner's Bock, any way. They are trying to steal the thunder of the smaller brewers.

Don't know where you get your info from on beer, but it is not as concise as your rules knowledge of ASA softball. Guinness (two "n"s), is owned and distributed world wide by the Guinness Bass Company, and the USA distributor for this company is C2 Inc. All kegs of Guinness come straight from the St. James Gate Brewery to the US. The Draught Stout and Extra Stout are contract brewed for North America in InBev's Labatt Breweries. InBev and AB are fierce competitors in trying to control the world's beer market, (2 and 1 respectively), so I hardly doubt there is collusion between these two giants of the beer world.

There is nothing wrong with AB and other large brewers deciding to make a good beer.

"Bock" is a kind of beer. It is German in origin, with the original bocks being drunk by the monks during lent (since they were more, ummm, nutritious...). Modern bocks are quite different and some that carry the name "bock" aren't true bocks. I don't know if Shiner makes a true bock, or merely liked the sound of the name.

Regardless, competition responds, so as the small brewers multiplied, expect AB, Miller, et al to respond with beers targeting that market.

While I agree that all along, the Bud/Miller/Coors contigent should have been making good beer, they were content to brew the rice and corn swill that they were and flood the market with it. Now that craft brewing has taken 26% of the beer market, they have decided to start brewing decent products and competing with the smaller brewers. If these smaller brewers disappear, then so too will the days of BMC brewing decent beer. Yes, competition is the cornerstone of the American market, so is my right to decide with whom I will spend my money. I will not spend a dime of my money with the BMC contigent, for much the same reasons that I will not shop at Wal-Mart.

But Wal-Mart is a great source for cheap ammo. Where else can you get a brick of .22LR for under $10? Or a Winchester white box of 9mm for under $15?

Which I have no problem with. I would point out, however, that both the large brewers and Wal-Mart/K-Mart/Target (WKT contigent?) are merely offering the consumer what they believe the consumer wants. Heck, every coffee seller from Folgers to 7-11 is now responding to Starbucks, while Starbucks has long since made the transition from a local charming business to a cut-throat national chain.

Life, and commerce, marches on.

Talk about a major thread hijack.....

I would disagree with you on the mega giants of commerce "merely offering the consumer what they believe the consumer wants," and tell you that they are in fact trying to shape what the consumer wants by limiting selection and molding American and global tastes to fit what is best for their own commercial interest.

Consider the way that Wal-Mart, as part of their marketing plan, when they first open a store in a given area, offers "regional" choices, until they have eliminated the majority of the competition. They then shift the store's stock to what you will see in 95% of the other Wal-Marts.

Consider the fact that prior to prohibition, Budweiser was allegedly a full bodied, globally sought after pilsner. After prohibition (during the depression may I remind you), AB made the decision to change the recipe to using rice in the process, as rice was, and still is, a much cheaper alternative than using all malted barley. They felt that Americans would simply be glad to be able to legally have a beer, and also felt that brand loyalty would be with them. They were, and are correct. Even though the quality of the product suffered, they soon had greater than a 50% share of the beer market in America, on that one brand alone. So, people went, in a very short span of time, from drinking a quality pilsner to drinking swill, all in the name of brand loyalty. They have used their money and influence to effectively quash all comers in the 70+ years since. Such tactics as introducing Ziegenbock in Texas, and only in Texas, over a decade ago to fight the regional success that Shiner Bock was having. (And let me state, for the record, I am no big fan of Shiner as it is really, at best, a pedestrian, stepping stone style beer.) AB has also sued, with some success, competitors who challenge their market. They even sued the makers of Budvar, who had been brewing since the early 1870's.

Need I go on?

Granted it has been almost 21 years since a malted barley pop has graced my lips (other than "non-alcoholic" brews, but then again, everything has a little alcohol in it, including that Pepsi you just drank the other day).

But if memory serves me, Shiner Bock is nothing more than the bottom of the brew kettle after they have made their regular Shiner Horse Pee. For those of you who have never had Shiner, think Pabst Blue Ribbon in dark bottles.

Back in the day, what with Texas weird weird liquor laws (Texas Stadium, longtime home of God's Team, was "dry" for many years, but you could bring a cooler of beer and get hammered), and before all the microbrews, Shiner was a pretty good choice. Many times after games (football in particular), us official types would gather at Hummer's in Amarillo and have a few buckets of Shiner.

Today, I think the Sharp's (Miller non-alcoholic) is the best n-a beer. Beck's ain't worth the price, the Guiness ain't Guiness, and I don't like Bud products. Coors Cutter is my second choice.

All in all, I'd rather just have a good root beer.

No, and thanks for making my point. If AB had continued to make their expensive recipe, not only would fewer Americans been able to afford the beer, AB would not have prospered either. Fact is, at that time, people WERE wanting a cheaper beer. Now, with a more prosperous economy, people are willing to pay twice as much for a local brew than for the 7-11 can of Bud, and are willing to pay $2 for a 12 oz Starbucks rather than the 7-11 89¢ 24 oz cup.

Unlike some, I don't see any deep dark conspiracy here. Only hitting consumer demand dead-on.

Same with the hated eeeevvvviiiilllll Wal-Mart. Their primary go-to-market strategy is price - offer consumers products they want to buy at a lower price. Many small local businesses have figured out how to complete with Wal-Mart by hitting them where they aren't (service, product selection off Wal-Mart's radar, etc.). Many more try to compete against them on price and merely fail. But whose fault is that?

We no longer buy groceries at the corner store, either - we go to the H-E-B, Cub, or whatever your mega-chain supermarket name is. Is that bad? Food is certainly cheaper as a result. Commerce marches on.

I guess we are now on our third or fourth subject for this thread...

Then I was lied to by a Guinness rep at the St. Jame's Gate (corp. owned) pub & restaurant in Banff, AB.

However, if they are such competitors, why does Guinness (Ireland) and Labatts (Canada) brew and market AB products in their respective market? Part of the deal actually includes an 8% AB buy-in (softball terms) of Labatts.

http://www.anheuser-busch.com/press%...%2D11%2D06.doc

Clear Beer is nasty (includes Coors, any Miller incarnation, Lone Star, Old Milwaukee's Beast, Bud (Ice, Lite, Dry, etc), etc.

Start with Guinness at the top and work your way down in darkness, stopping at around Newcastle... the one exception being that I can stomach is Sam Adams, and that only in moderation if no real beer is around.