Comments on: Monday morning musing: Is mainstream beer back?

By: Stan Hieronymus

Stan Hieronymus — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:39:38 +0000

That's OK, Lew. It would also have been alright to point to your Porfolio article on the subject. The conversation obviously is going on lots of place, including today in the Wall Street Journal. And any moratorium ends tomorrow, since I'll have to mention the price of Firestone 11 when I write about the drinking experience.

By: Lew Bryson

Lew Bryson — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:58:41 +0000

It starts with the beer. “Wow, this should cost more.” Not with the price tag. “Wow, this cost $30, it must be good.”

Well-put, Stan. But…we’re not supposed to be talking about prices. Sorry.

By: Stan Hieronymus

Stan Hieronymus — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:59:53 +0000

Definitely. Great beers, and in part because some of the barrels come from a very good home – they are retired from the Firestone Walker Union.

By: Alan

Alan — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:19:38 +0000

That is fine Stan. I will think about what you have written some more. But when you do write can you confirm with Swordboarder that Jolly Pumpkin is a 6 to 9 dollar beer for 750 ml despite its excellence and not another thirty dollar one?

By: Swordboarder

Swordboarder — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:30:33 +0000

You’ve gone back to my point. Due to the high labor cost of Jolly Pumpkin to be an artisan beer they must charge a higher price. When someone else comes along and can make the same product for less, they will be in trouble.

But nobody is willing to make said product, then they can charge whatever price demand will give them. Ultimately the demand is high enough for even more than that. Firestone 10 was sold in Vegas for $150 per bottle.

By: Stan Hieronymus

Stan Hieronymus — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:01:55 +0000

Jeff – One of the “here” links is to the Oregonian story. Quite obviously, just as we should be paying (a little) more for beer we probably should be paying the farmers who grow the ingredients more. And we will.

But I’m not writing about price related things this week (see the 10th comment). Maybe next week.

So, Alan, I’ll address your point next week.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:19:03 +0000

An article in the Oregonian over the weekend (front page, evidence of how seriously we take hops and beer) pointed out that it’s not just Cascade. In fact, while they’re going for $12.35 a pound, Liberty are at $10 and Columbus are going for $20 a pound. And therein lies a hidden truth: the real squeeze is on high-alpha hops, which industrial brewers use to bitter–but not flavor–their tin-can brew. Cascades are a niche hop that only microbreweries use. (Of course, since that’s all many of us drink, and since Cascade hops are ubiquitous, at least on the West Coast, these facts may be of cold comfort.)

Also in the article: BridgePort uses 55 tons of hops a year (!). Holy crap, that’s a whole lotta bitter.

By: Alan

Alan — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:41:15 +0000

I do not agree, Stan. I am part of the team that buys an entire gambit of things in my job from pencils to roads. If someone plays the Jolly Pumkin role and undercuts while providing top quality, the rest get asked why their price is different. And yes, Jolly Pumpkin is $7.99 at Bello Vino in Ann Arbor but the question still remains and that question is “is this worth the price asked compared to similar products.” Every vendor would love to remove the comparison but no buyer is well served by skipping that step in analysis.

By: Stan Hieronymus

Stan Hieronymus — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:23:25 +0000

Good point. Time to move on to who to drink with and what to drink. No more posts about prices the rest of the week ;>)

By: Stephen Beaumont

Stephen Beaumont — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:24:09 +0000

Quick question: Why does there seem to be a debate going on here about the price, and therefore value, of a beer that hasn’t even been released yet?