Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Albs610 t1_j6a1ge8 wrote

Reply to comment by hikeonpast in eli5: Why does cheap alcohol taste worse than nicer alcohol? by Chase_The_Dream

Good explanation. Is this true with like beer beer to? Like why budwiser and bush are basicallu identical but one clearly is better tasting(usually) and cheaper?

I've always heard the better case of bush would taste better than a worse case of budwiser but never understood why.

−4

hikeonpast t1_j6a6ihr wrote

Beer has much more to do with ingredient quality and process steps. I can’t speak to Bud vs. Busch, since they are both lagers and have a similar flavor profile (to me). Compare the flavor of, say, Anchor Porter to Budweiser. Worlds apart.

14

Ralfarius t1_j6am1h4 wrote

All macro brews are pretty much interchangeable, imo. Not bad, necessarily, but the difference between a domestic 'premium' and 'value' brand is not significant enough to warrant the price difference. Craft beers, however, run the gamut from eye opening to terrible mistakes.

9

jrhooo t1_j6aopu2 wrote

add to that, a significant number of medium-macro brews may have their own recipe, but pay some bigger macro to brew their stuff.

Example, Baltimore's "Natty Boh" being owned by PBR and Brewed on contract in Coors facilities

1

blkhatwhtdog t1_j6app96 wrote

Well you can tell Michelob from bud n Busch and they all come from the same vats.

Pete's Wicked Ale...I believe the first craft beer or maybe that's Anchor Steam...was hired out to a small mass market brewer...as was Boston Lager

0

im_the_real_dad t1_j6dstow wrote

A few years ago I toured the Anchor brewery in San Francisco. At that time they made Anchor beer in SF.

1

blkhatwhtdog t1_j6ap8en wrote

American beer is mostly barley flavor rice sake. Literally the cheapest beers have the most rice. That's why people are surprised by their first taste of a European beer.

In the old days before I could drink, breweries usually only had one product and the flavor varies with the price of commodity barley, hops etc...and the marketing price they were aiming for. I read about the implosion of Schlitz when the brewers decided to go cheaper but the marketing department decided to go upscale, and nobody knew what the others were doing. In the 50s n 60s you had to plan 6 months ahead. Your advertising was locked in 3 months in advance (my dad used to tell me about shooting summer fashion in the winter)

−4

lewisj75 t1_j6asvwp wrote

This is not true.

6

blkhatwhtdog t1_j6ba72i wrote

Easy just look at the ingredients on the nutritional label. Case closed, thanks for playing.

−2

nutsotic t1_j6bey8e wrote

Lol beer doesn't have nutritional labels

3

TremulousHand t1_j6buhqh wrote

I almost never drink the American macrobrews, but I was curious about looking into this. While rice is common, corn is actually more common (especially in the form of corn syrup). Hilariously, many companies pass both ingredients off as variations of "fine cereal grains" without actually specifying what they mean exactly.

Of the 13 most popular beers in the US (rankings based on what I found in a USA Today article), three have rice, nine have corn (usually syrup), and there's only one with no rice or corn.

Rice: Bud Light, Budweiser, Michelob Ultra

Corn: Coors Light, Miller Lite, Corona Extra, Modelo Especial, Natural Light, Busch Light, Busch, Keystone Light, Miller High Life

No rice or corn: Heineken

I do think calling them barley flavor rice sake is a bit unfair to sake, which has a much more complicated fermenting process than beer. In any event, I had no idea how much corn syrup goes into cheap American beers.

5