"Warren Place" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Expletive Deleted wrote:
Apparently the 23% had Vim and Vigor crossed out in black marker. The
18%
had some with Vim and Vigor not crossed out, and some that *were*
crossed
out. So that by itself is not a good means to tell the difference.
The newest 18.8% apparently doesn't mention vim and vigor at all, so
that's how to ID that one.
anybody know why they marked out "vim and vigor" in the previous
years?
Warren Place


Your Tax Dollars At Work.

As I understand it, the BATF required those words to be stricken, because
they don't like for beer labels to connote "strength". You *can* have the
alcohol percentage, but you can't say it's "strong".

"John" wrote:
"Warren Place" wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Expletive Deleted wrote:
Apparently the 23% had Vim and Vigor crossed out in black marker.

anybody know why they marked out "vim and vigor" in the previous
years?

As I understand it, the BATF required those words to be stricken, because
they don't like for beer labels to connote "strength". You *can* have the
alcohol percentage, but you can't say it's "strong".

Actually, I'd heard that it was because the phrase "vim & vigor"
implies that alcohol (this beer at least) promotes good health,
and remember, the BATF won't even (unless they've changed their
minds recently) allow calorie counts to be given.
--
//*================================================= ===============++
|| Russ Perry Jr 2175 S Tonne Dr #114 Arlington Hts IL 60005 ||
|| 847-952-9729 [NEW!] VIDEOGAME COLLECTOR! ||
++================================================ ================*//

"Russ Perry Jr" wrote in message
...

Actually, I'd heard that it was because the phrase "vim & vigor"
implies that alcohol (this beer at least) promotes good health,
and remember, the BATF won't even (unless they've changed their
minds recently) allow calorie counts to be given.

Calorie counts have been allowed for ages. Note the various light beer
advertising over the years.

What you're probably thinking of is that nutrition information, including
calories IIRC, is not allowed on the label.

-STeve

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, John wrote:

"Warren Place" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Expletive Deleted wrote:
Apparently the 23% had Vim and Vigor crossed out in black marker. The
18%
had some with Vim and Vigor not crossed out, and some that *were*
crossed
out. So that by itself is not a good means to tell the difference.
The newest 18.8% apparently doesn't mention vim and vigor at all, so
that's how to ID that one.
anybody know why they marked out "vim and vigor" in the previous
years?
Warren Place


Your Tax Dollars At Work.

As I understand it, the BATF required those words to be stricken, because
they don't like for beer labels to connote "strength". You *can* have the
alcohol percentage, but you can't say it's "strong".


Or perhaps more directly, the slogan may seem to suggest the beer imparts
vim and vigor to the drinker, and that comes much too close to advertising
a health benefit associated with beer, a huge no-no.

Joris Pattyn ) wrote:
: It's not that easy following my info. Cornelia C. wrote this on Ratebeer
: lately:
: "I emailed DFH today and got this back from brewer John Gillooly:
:
: "Here's the story on the World Wide Stout-we did 2 batches this year, one at
: 21%, most of which we sold in the UK, and the primary batch, which came in @
: 18.8%. Since we released some of the 21% batch domestically, there has been
: some confusion about the abv. Unfortunately, I can't think of any way to
: tell which batch is which by looking at the bottle. Taste-wise, the 18.8% is
: much less sweet."
:
: As to the labels, someone noted elsewhere that the 2003 bottles do not have
: "vim and vigor" visible or marked through. So, it seems at least there won't
: be any confusion about 2003 versus all the previous years. I haven't seen it
: myself, though."

I've now acquired it from two different sources -- some from Oregon
(liquidsolutions.biz) and some from California (High Times in Costa Mesa).
There is a noticeable difference in the labels -- the Oregon beer shows
years beginning 2004 and is nicked slightly ahead of the 2004 -- the
California bottles show months 01 through 12 and they're nicked, as you
might expect, just past the 11.

So we have these different labels but I don't know for sure if they can be
associated to the different batches. I emailed John and asked -- will let
you know if he writes back.

My own palate did not distiguish a difference between the two examples --
but I had tasted some IPA earlier in the day so residual palate fatigue is
a possibility -- a short vertical with a rested mouth and a couple of
friends might tell a different story.


--
Bill

reply to sirwill1 AT same domain as above

"Steve Jackson" wrote:
"Russ Perry Jr" wrote:
Actually, I'd heard that it was because the phrase "vim & vigor"
implies that alcohol (this beer at least) promotes good health,
and remember, the BATF won't even (unless they've changed their
minds recently) allow calorie counts to be given.

Calorie counts have been allowed for ages. Note the various light beer
advertising over the years.

What you're probably thinking of is that nutrition information, including
calories IIRC, is not allowed on the label.

Ah yes, that's it. Sorry about that!
--
//*================================================= ===============++
|| Russ Perry Jr 2175 S Tonne Dr #114 Arlington Hts IL 60005 ||
|| 847-952-9729 [NEW!] VIDEOGAME COLLECTOR! ||
++================================================ ================*//

"Russ Perry Jr" wrote in message
...
"Steve Jackson" wrote:

What you're probably thinking of is that nutrition information,
including
calories IIRC, is not allowed on the label.

Ah yes, that's it. Sorry about that!

No problem.

I do have to say, not allowing nutritional information on beer labels is one
of the more asinine regs I've seen. What possible harm is there in letting
people know how many calories, carbs, etc. are present? I can understand not
allowing brewers to make any sorts of health claims, but simple nutritional
facts are not claims of health benefits in any fashion.

-Steve

(SNIP)

Does anyone know if this beer is available outside USA - especially if
it is here in Australia????

"The Alternative Guy" wrote in message
om...
(SNIP)

Does anyone know if this beer is available outside USA - especially if
it is here in Australia????

I'll trade some dogfish for some Little Creatures. I am back in the states
after 5 short years in the lucky country. My wife would love some LC pale
ale.
I can get any Dogfish beer as the brewerey is minutes from our beach house.
Cheers, Jack

Why regular-brewed beers don't have calorie and carb counts on them:
http://www.drinkbeergetthindiet.com/..._carb_info.htm

"Steve Jackson" wrote in message
news:PGeub.10596$6G3.7631@fed1read06...
"Russ Perry Jr" wrote in message
...
"Steve Jackson" wrote:

What you're probably thinking of is that nutrition information,
including
calories IIRC, is not allowed on the label.

Ah yes, that's it. Sorry about that!

No problem.

I do have to say, not allowing nutritional information on beer labels is
one
of the more asinine regs I've seen. What possible harm is there in letting
people know how many calories, carbs, etc. are present? I can understand
not
allowing brewers to make any sorts of health claims, but simple
nutritional
facts are not claims of health benefits in any fashion.

-Steve

(The Alternative Guy) wrote on 20 Nov
2003:

(SNIP)

Does anyone know if this beer is available outside USA -
especially if it is here in Australia????

Sorry, internationally the WW Stout makes it to England (as a 21%
beer), but nowhere else. Maybe Canada, but that doesn't help you
either. Dogfish Head just doesn't make enough beer to expand to a
place like Australia and expect to recoup.

Witzel

Bob wrote:

Why regular-brewed beers don't have calorie and carb counts on them:
http://www.drinkbeergetthindiet.com/..._carb_info.htm


So, what's with "REPEAL" in the title of many of the beers on the
partial list? F'r'instance-

Coors Repeal 11.79
Coors 3.2 9.54
Coors Export

And, if you guess it's got something to do with what the beer was after
Prohibition, this one'll disprove that-

Blue Moon Honey Blond Repeal


Also, from the site, this is incorrect-

"...Bert Grant, better known by some as the man who opened the Yakima
Brewing Company, the first microbrewery in the U.S.,..."

There were a number of micro's that came before Yakima. I think Grant's
sometimes credited with the first "brewpub", tho'...

It's Coors way of differentiating between 3.2 % for some western states and
their regular-strength beers. Their designation, not mine.

Bob

wrote in message
. ..
Bob wrote:

Why regular-brewed beers don't have calorie and carb counts on them:
http://www.drinkbeergetthindiet.com/..._carb_info.htm


So, what's with "REPEAL" in the title of many of the beers on the
partial list? F'r'instance-

Coors Repeal
11.79
Coors 3.2
9.54
Coors Export

And, if you guess it's got something to do with what the beer was after
Prohibition, this one'll disprove that-

Blue Moon Honey Blond Repeal


Also, from the site, this is incorrect-

"...Bert Grant, better known by some as the man who opened the Yakima
Brewing Company, the first microbrewery in the U.S.,..."

There were a number of micro's that came before Yakima. I think Grant's
sometimes credited with the first "brewpub", tho'...

The microbrewery info comes from a Roger Protz story
http://celebrator.com/9408/Feds.html but you're right---it should read
brewpub.

Bob
wrote in message
. ..
Bob wrote:

Why regular-brewed beers don't have calorie and carb counts on them:
http://www.drinkbeergetthindiet.com/..._carb_info.htm


So, what's with "REPEAL" in the title of many of the beers on the
partial list? F'r'instance-

Coors Repeal
11.79
Coors 3.2
9.54
Coors Export

And, if you guess it's got something to do with what the beer was after
Prohibition, this one'll disprove that-

Blue Moon Honey Blond Repeal


Also, from the site, this is incorrect-

"...Bert Grant, better known by some as the man who opened the Yakima
Brewing Company, the first microbrewery in the U.S.,..."

There were a number of micro's that came before Yakima. I think Grant's
sometimes credited with the first "brewpub", tho'...

"Baltimore Jack" wrote in message ...
"The Alternative Guy" wrote in message
om...
(SNIP)

Does anyone know if this beer is available outside USA - especially if
it is here in Australia????

I'll trade some dogfish for some Little Creatures. I am back in the states
after 5 short years in the lucky country. My wife would love some LC pale
ale.
I can get any Dogfish beer as the brewerey is minutes from our beach house.
Cheers, Jack

Jack...I'll see what can be done...they are in Fremantle, about 38
hours drive from me, in Melbourne, lol