For one, I would certainly argue that mass produced beers have become a commodity. But I would also argue that craft beers, in general, are not really a commodity at all because they do retain pricing flexibility that the macros have long ago lost. Unfortunately, that flexibility is really going to be tested in 2008 with rising grain and hop prices putting brewers in a tough spot. Prices are certain to rise, perhaps dramatically.

As to the price comparison with wine, Two Buck Chuck is not a bad example, but it is a pricing “outlier” and does not really represent wine as a category, I think. Beer prices are lower, in general, than wine prices despite that specific example.

I would argue that while I do not view craft beer as a commodity but they are drawn lower in price than they might otherwise be due to the generally lower perception of beer (versus wine) in the marketplace. (While that might sound like a description of a commodity, I think craft beer still retains flexibility in pricing that keeps it from actually being a commodity.)

As to GI and Dundee, some of this is simple preference. I guess I shift into a different mode when tasting blind, a state of “evaluating.” I’m perfectly comfortable to returning to buying and drinking a beer even though I know I evaluated another beer as better quality – and its cheaper.

Sure, it validates my opinion when Jeff Evans of Beers of the World raves about Goose Island IPA, but that’s not why I drink it. On the other hand, if I lived in Rochester . . .

And anybody who says good things about Goose Island is fine in my book! But I do think most folks will be happily surprised by the Dundee products. I don’t like the Honey Brown or the Amber Lager, but my reaction to the rest have ranged to “wow, this is really good” to being floored. So if GI is well above minimum standards for you, you might find Dundee to be fine as well.

You pick a bad example, for me, if we are talking about Goose Island IPA vs. High Falls’ version. Goose is one of my favorites, quite distinctive and certainly well above whatever minimum standards.

That said, I drink Goose when I am in the Midwest and otherwise very rarely, such as when friends bring some directly from Illinois. I drink local IPAs.

I understand the wine-making equivalents to be the quality level of the grapes used in terms of sugar content, acidity, harvesting methods end therefore condition); use of oak chips rather than oak barrels; the use of maximum amounts of grapes other than the one named on the label needed for it to still be called “cabernet Sauvignon,” “Chardonnay,” etc.

As to whether JWDundee meets the accepted minimum… blind tasting! You’ll no doubt conclude the Honey Brown is… pretty awful. But the Pale Ale, Pale Bock, Porter, IPA — they hold up well. The Pale Ale and IPA always make me question why I often pay a few bucks more for Goose Island’s versions (but then I remember Lew Bryson’s frequent exhorting to “drink local”).

Thanks for all the information. Vini, I think the agricultural/land part is significant.

Bill. You really get to the point. Does Charles Shaw reach the acceptable minimum? I don’t think the JW Dunee line does. In fact the closest I can think of other than Mission Street at this crazy price is the reformulated (all-grain) Michelob.

Even though Charles Shaw wines made be made in large vats do they include any ingredient comparable to the adjuncts in mass-produced lagers?

And to the variability of Charles Shaw, first that’s a funny story. The 2004 (the vintage that won) was briefly at our TJ’s. I bought a bottle and thought, “Wow, I don’t remember it being this good.” The 2006 wasn’t.

It’s fun how much conversation this has generated – I’ve learned a fair amount – but I must admit my premise might have been flawed. The whole Bronco thing doesn’t have a perfect beer counterpart.

I probably like my original idea to have Sam and Marnie taste the wine and beer blind and comment. That might have been fun.

–Quality of Charles Shaw varies widely — it’s not made up that folks in California will buy a bottle, open it up in the parking lot to try it, then go back to buy a couple of cases if they like it. There is no guarantee you’re tasting something that tastes like an award winner. And often, it’s gawd-awful.

–There aren’t that many _other_ wines selling at that price point, even at Trader Joe’s, so maybe $4.99 would have been a better benchmark — there’s a chance of getting non-jug wine at that price at most supermarkets outside of California.

–There are non-macro-lagers available at 7.99 or 8.99 for a TWELVE-pack. High Falls has the JW Dundee line at that price point. Saranac hits that price point occasionally. Berghoff does occasionally.

–Macro adjunct lagers win awards, too, and I’m not sure why they’re excluded from the conversation. You noted that the speaker didn’t want Charles Shaw carrying the banner for fine wine — do you have any problems with adjunct lagers speaking for “one serving of beer”? They’re alike in a very important way, because…

–…Bronco Wine is one of the largest wineries in the country, and the making of Charles Shaw is likely much closer to the making of “beer in vats the size of Rhode Island” than it is to small batch brewing.

It’s an interesting question you raise, but really, Charles Shaw is at the price it is because it’s Bronco’s equivalent of Pabst’s brands selling at $3-a-sixer, $11-a-30-can-suitcase — they can make money on it and keep that money from being spent on other brands. Bronco _also_ sells wines at higher price points, though they heed Fred Franzia’s dictates of always selling reasonably — they might have a few at $15, but almost all are under $10. Take Two Buck Chuck (a wine available at one retail chain) out of the equation, and price per serving at the low end of wine and beer becomes a lot closer, even if excluding adjunct lagers.

Wine is generally more expensive for a number of reasons: greater agricultural cost per acre (a single vintage with extensive manual labor), pricy production assets are used for a single “batch” per year, use of barrels costing between $2-3 equiv. per bottle, etc.

I think Stan has it right on margins….For smaller producers, the costs of distribution are the biggest addition to cost, and this is largely the same for small to medium beer producers. Producers sell to wholesalers for 50% of the final retail price! If the three-tier distribution system is eliminated in more states (California being the only major market without it), prices for both beer and wine can come down! That would be glorious……

Vini