There's the big four breweries (Miller, Coors, Pabst, and Anheuser-Busch)
and then micro-breweries. However, are there breweries between these two?
Ones that have national distribution and of a size in between these two? In
other words, "medium" size breweries? Possibly ones that are on the
decline, rise, or reaches a large size but have no desire to become as big
as the big four. If there's many that are viewed this way, is there an
online list of them? Or an online list that includes all sizes of breweries
but is set up in such a way that medium-size ones are identified? Links
would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Scott Jensen
--
Like a cure for A.I.D.S., Alzheimer, Parkinson, & Mad Cow Disease?
Volunteer your computer for folding-protein research for when it's idle.
Go to http://tinyurl.com/6fsdg to sign up your computer.

As a general rule, there are fewer and fewer breweries falling between those
two extremes anymore. This can generally be credited to the enormous
success of Bud/Miller/Coors in the 1970s to the present in capturing an
ever-greater share of the market through advertising, distribution control,
etc.

Typical examples: In Baltimore the last of the large local breweries was a
Heilemann brewery outside the beltway that, as I recall, had an annual
capacity of about 600,000 barrels, and was running FAR below that capacity
when it was closed in the 1990s. As I recall, the major Anheuser-Busch
breweries--twelve of them scattered through America--produce about 1.5 to
2.2 million barrels EACH per year. So the local regional mass-market
breweries (think Stroh's, Wiedemann, National Premium, etc.) are/were way
too big for the product demands of today's lackluster or comatose
small-brand beers, while also being WAY too big for microbreweries.
(Staying in the same region, Frederick Brewing in Frederick, Maryland, a
microbrewery built about the same time as the Baltimore Heilemann plant
closed, has an annual capacity of about 60,000 barrels, and is currently
running at about half that capacity in spite of contract-brewing for several
regional Ohio brands.)

Perhaps the largest "regional" brewery out there might be the newly-built
Yuengling brewery outside Pottstown, Pa.; I think that the annual capacity
of the old and new breweries is somewhere around 1 million barrels.

Several folks wondered why a microbrewery didn't buy that Baltimore brewery;
it would have been like buying a C-130 hangar to park your car.

Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:

As a general rule, there are fewer and fewer breweries falling between those
two extremes anymore. This can generally be credited to the enormous
success of Bud/Miller/Coors in the 1970s to the present in capturing an
ever-greater share of the market through advertising, distribution control,
etc.

Painfully true, and a lot of regionals have gone by the wayside.

[...]

I clipped the part mentioning some of the regionals, but not for lack
of merit. Not just Stroh's, Wiedemann, and National Premium went by
the wayside, but they're as good a set of examples as any. Some of the
brands still live on, though; Blitz-Weinhard's Henry Weinhard's brand
and Rainier's lager are still brewed in one form or another. It doesn't
really matter whether Miller or Pabst owns the brands, since they're
brewed by Miller anyway.

Perhaps the largest "regional" brewery out there might be the newly-built
Yuengling brewery outside Pottstown, Pa.; I think that the annual capacity
of the old and new breweries is somewhere around 1 million barrels.

Could be. Another sizeable medium-sized regional is High Falls, brewing
the Genesee and JW Dundee's brands, along with a few others. F.X. Matt,
with its own Saranac brand and its contract brews (including some for
Brooklyn Brewing and Pete's) would also qualify as a surviving medium-
sized regional. Perhaps the Lion Brewery in Pennsylvania might count
as well, having survived while seeing 28 of its area competitors go by
the wayside. San Francisco's Anchor Brewing could be considered another
regional, and New Orleans's Dixie brewery, still hanging on, qualifies.

Several folks wondered why a microbrewery didn't buy that Baltimore brewery;
it would have been like buying a C-130 hangar to park your car.

Buying a brewery and running it at 10% of capacity would have meant
certain doom, and things are tough enough as it is.

Some of the startups from the early years of the microbrewery boom are
still around, and are getting to the point of being medium-sized
regionals. The most obvious one might be Boston Brewing/Sam Adams,
which took over a former regional brewer's plant in Ohio. Others that
have grown to sizeable production volumes include the likes of Sierra
Nevada and Redhook.

The Pacific Northwest states no longer have any old-line regional
brewers, after the shutdowns of Blitz-Weinhard and Rainier. The "big"
producers in the region now include the likes of Redhook, Widmer, and
Pyramid (including Portland Brewing). All the big-brewery beers come
from elsewhere, mostly California and Colorado, with the exception of a
couple of Henry's beers contract-brewed by Full Sail. It isn't a bad
situation, except perhaps from the employment point of view; the big
brewers had a few more people working there than the microbrewers do.
--
dgs

San Francisco's Anchor Brewing could be considered another
regional, and New Orleans's Dixie brewery, still hanging on,
qualifies.
Buying a brewery and running it at 10% of capacity would have meant
certain doom, and things are tough enough as it is.

I prefer Microbreweries over commercial beer anyway, Anchor Steam is OK
but some are much better. The quality of beer is better compaired to
commercial beers.

Some of the startups from the early years of the microbrewery boom
are
still around, and are getting to the point of being medium-sized
regionals. The most obvious one might be Boston Brewing/Sam Adams,
which took over a former regional brewer's plant in Ohio. Others
that
have grown to sizeable production volumes include the likes of Sierra
Nevada and Redhook.

Sierra Nevada is an option I like, Sam Adams was actually contracted
out to a brewer however they may brew their own now. Redhook has the
nickname, Budhook since evidently Bud made a deal with Redhook to help
them mass produce their product. Locals say that Redhook does not taste
the same and the quality has gone down.

The Pacific Northwest states no longer have any old-line regional
brewers, after the shutdowns of Blitz-Weinhard and Rainier. The
"big"
producers in the region now include the likes of Redhook, Widmer, and
Pyramid (including Portland Brewing). All the big-brewery beers come
from elsewhere, mostly California and Colorado, with the exception of
a
couple of Henry's beers contract-brewed by Full Sail. It isn't a bad
situation, except perhaps from the employment point of view; the big
brewers had a few more people working there than the microbrewers do.

A long time ago I purchased a Weinhard that had a Sam Adams cap, so
there is a lot of regional brewing help going on. Full Sail was one of
my favorites, for some reason does not taste the same since they are
now employee owned. This could be that other Microbrewies are now
better. I think this is a better situation for consumers who want
quality however the cheap beers with no quality have gone under. Some
microbrewies are union, this may benefit new the employees, everyone ia
aware that Bud has a union.

Scott

"Troyone" wrote in message
ups.com...

I prefer Microbreweries over commercial beer anyway, Anchor Steam is OK
but some are much better. The quality of beer is better compaired to
commercial beers.

Nobody's giving their beer away for free. They're all commercial beers.

And micro is not a guarantee of better quality over large. I've had beer
from some microbreweries that was absolutely heinous. I've had beer from
some enormous breweries that was most excellent (they don't happen to be
North American breweries, however).

Size of the brewery has no bearing at all on the quality of the beer.
Period.

Sierra Nevada is an option I like,

And they are now, in fact, quite a large brewery. As big as, maybe even
bigger than, some of the old-line regional breweries.

Sam Adams was actually contracted
out to a brewer however they may brew their own now.

They do own a brewery in Cincinnati, but still do a fair amount of contract
brewing. And there's nothing wrong with that. I've never understood so many
beer geeks' bias against contract brewing. If the beer's good, I don't care
where it comes from.

Redhook has the
nickname, Budhook since evidently Bud made a deal with Redhook to help
them mass produce their product.

Yes and no. It's a distribution deal, strictly.

It's also scheduled to end very soon now.

Locals say that Redhook does not taste
the same and the quality has gone down.

And that's Redhook's own fault. Bud has no involvement at all with the
brewing operations.

(And I can find locals who'll say Redhook was never all the impressive to
begin with.)

A long time ago I purchased a Weinhard that had a Sam Adams cap, so
there is a lot of regional brewing help going on. Full Sail was one of
my favorites, for some reason does not taste the same since they are
now employee owned. This could be that other Microbrewies are now
better. I think this is a better situation for consumers who want
quality however the cheap beers with no quality have gone under. Some
microbrewies are union, this may benefit new the employees, everyone ia
aware that Bud has a union.

I fail to see how ownership structure or union/non-union has any impact on
the quality of the beer. Good beer is determined by two things: the quality
of the recipe and ingredients, and the control over the process to ensure
consistent results. That can be accomplished under any ownership structure
and any employee structure.

The idea that certain types of businesses are incapable of brewing good beer
is a well-entrenched one in beer circles, and it's one that needs to die a
very quick and unmerciful death.

-Steve

"Troyone" wrote in message
ups.com...

I prefer Microbreweries over commercial beer anyway, Anchor Steam is OK
but some are much better. The quality of beer is better compaired to
commercial beers.

Nobody's giving their beer away for free. They're all commercial beers.

And micro is not a guarantee of better quality over large. I've had beer
from some microbreweries that was absolutely heinous. I've had beer from
some enormous breweries that was most excellent (they don't happen to be
North American breweries, however).

Size of the brewery has no bearing at all on the quality of the beer.
Period.

Sierra Nevada is an option I like,

And they are now, in fact, quite a large brewery. As big as, maybe even
bigger than, some of the old-line regional breweries.

Sam Adams was actually contracted
out to a brewer however they may brew their own now.

They do own a brewery in Cincinnati, but still do a fair amount of contract
brewing. And there's nothing wrong with that. I've never understood so many
beer geeks' bias against contract brewing. If the beer's good, I don't care
where it comes from.

Redhook has the
nickname, Budhook since evidently Bud made a deal with Redhook to help
them mass produce their product.

Yes and no. It's a distribution deal, strictly.

It's also scheduled to end very soon now.

Locals say that Redhook does not taste
the same and the quality has gone down.

And that's Redhook's own fault. Bud has no involvement at all with the
brewing operations.

(And I can find locals who'll say Redhook was never all the impressive to
begin with.)

A long time ago I purchased a Weinhard that had a Sam Adams cap, so
there is a lot of regional brewing help going on. Full Sail was one of
my favorites, for some reason does not taste the same since they are
now employee owned. This could be that other Microbrewies are now
better. I think this is a better situation for consumers who want
quality however the cheap beers with no quality have gone under. Some
microbrewies are union, this may benefit new the employees, everyone ia
aware that Bud has a union.

I fail to see how ownership structure or union/non-union has any impact on
the quality of the beer. Good beer is determined by two things: the quality
of the recipe and ingredients, and the control over the process to ensure
consistent results. That can be accomplished under any ownership structure
and any employee structure.

The idea that certain types of businesses are incapable of brewing good beer
is a well-entrenched one in beer circles, and it's one that needs to die a
very quick and unmerciful death.

-Steve

Steve Jackson wrote:

Sam Adams was actually contracted
out to a brewer however they may brew their own now.

They do own a brewery in Cincinnati, but still do a fair amount of contract
brewing. And there's nothing wrong with that. I've never understood so many
beer geeks' bias against contract brewing. If the beer's good, I don't care
where it comes from.

Here's a question I have to anybody who is familiar with contract brewing. Who is responsible for buying (and checking
the quality of) the ingredients. Is it the microbrewery or the contract company? And who oversees the brewing process to
ensure quality and to make sure that the beer is consistent from batch to batch?

I think part of the bias about contract brewing comes from the idea that a microbrewer sends a recipe to the contractor
and the contractor is responsible for the whole process.

The idea that certain types of businesses are incapable of brewing good beer
is a well-entrenched one in beer circles, and it's one that needs to die a
very quick and unmerciful death.

There is a history in brewing of companies looking to buy cheaper supplies as they get larger. If a privately owned
brewer sells stock and becomes publicly owned, it's easier to boost profits by lowering supply costs than it is to boost
demand.

In the brewpub movement, it became easy to distinguish by tasting the beer between who opened a brewpub because he cared
about beer and he wanted to share his passion with the public, and who opened one because he was opening a restaurant
and he saw (in the '90s) that a brewpub was value-added. This perception might be the same one in brewing company size:
a smaller brewing company cares about beer more.

Tom W

Steve Jackson wrote:
Nobody's giving their beer away for free. They're all commercial
beers.

By your opinion, my opinion is that if a brewery commercially
advertises Nationally on TV and Radio, there is commercialization.
Microbrews are successful by word of mouth because of quality.

And micro is not a guarantee of better quality over large. I've had
beer
from some microbreweries that was absolutely heinous. I've had beer
from
some enormous breweries that was most excellent (they don't happen to
be
North American breweries, however).

This is why only the word of mouth microbrews spread through out the
country because they're a better product than commercial beer.

Size of the brewery has no bearing at all on the quality of the beer.

Period.

Have you ever brewed? I prefer small batch brew over large batches the
quality is noticable to me.

Sierra Nevada is an option I like,
And they are now, in fact, quite a large brewery. As big as, maybe
even
bigger than, some of the old-line regional breweries.

Sierra Nevada is popular because of their word of mouth quality, also
they crack their barley grains right before mashing. Unlike commercial
breweries that use rice and corn adjuncts.


They do own a brewery in Cincinnati, but still do a fair amount of
contract
brewing. And there's nothing wrong with that. I've never understood
so many
beer geeks' bias against contract brewing. If the beer's good, I
don't care
where it comes from.


Beer geeks who brew know the difference!


Redhook has the
nickname, Budhook since evidently Bud made a deal with Redhook to
help
them mass produce their product.
Yes and no. It's a distribution deal, strictly.
It's also scheduled to end very soon now.
Locals say that Redhook does not taste
the same and the quality has gone down.
And that's Redhook's own fault. Bud has no involvement at all with
the
brewing operations.


We can agree on this, my difference in opinion may be that Redhook
should have inquired with Anchor Steam or others to see how they kept
up with demand and quality (or with out loosing quality) rather than
helping or giving in to a commercial company. Commercial breweries are
not concerned about real quality only what they can influence one to
think quality is by their psych influenced large scale advertising.



(And I can find locals who'll say Redhook was never all the
impressive to
begin with.)



I have only heard the opposite but this is possible.



I fail to see how ownership structure or union/non-union has any
impact on
the quality of the beer. Good beer is determined by two things: the
quality
of the recipe and ingredients, and the control over the process to
ensure
consistent results. That can be accomplished under any ownership
structure
and any employee structure.
The idea that certain types of businesses are incapable of brewing
good beer
is a well-entrenched one in beer circles, and it's one that needs to
die a
very quick and unmerciful death.


I agree only "change" from one to the other may affect the difference
in quality.

Scott

Steve Jackson wrote:
Nobody's giving their beer away for free. They're all commercial
beers.

By your opinion, my opinion is that if a brewery commercially
advertises Nationally on TV and Radio, there is commercialization.
Microbrews are successful by word of mouth because of quality.

And micro is not a guarantee of better quality over large. I've had
beer
from some microbreweries that was absolutely heinous. I've had beer
from
some enormous breweries that was most excellent (they don't happen to
be
North American breweries, however).

This is why only the word of mouth microbrews spread through out the
country because they're a better product than commercial beer.

Size of the brewery has no bearing at all on the quality of the beer.

Period.

Have you ever brewed? I prefer small batch brew over large batches the
quality is noticable to me.

Sierra Nevada is an option I like,
And they are now, in fact, quite a large brewery. As big as, maybe
even
bigger than, some of the old-line regional breweries.

Sierra Nevada is popular because of their word of mouth quality, also
they crack their barley grains right before mashing. Unlike commercial
breweries that use rice and corn adjuncts.


They do own a brewery in Cincinnati, but still do a fair amount of
contract
brewing. And there's nothing wrong with that. I've never understood
so many
beer geeks' bias against contract brewing. If the beer's good, I
don't care
where it comes from.


Beer geeks who brew know the difference!


Redhook has the
nickname, Budhook since evidently Bud made a deal with Redhook to
help
them mass produce their product.
Yes and no. It's a distribution deal, strictly.
It's also scheduled to end very soon now.
Locals say that Redhook does not taste
the same and the quality has gone down.
And that's Redhook's own fault. Bud has no involvement at all with
the
brewing operations.


We can agree on this, my difference in opinion may be that Redhook
should have inquired with Anchor Steam or others to see how they kept
up with demand and quality (or with out loosing quality) rather than
helping or giving in to a commercial company. Commercial breweries are
not concerned about real quality only what they can influence one to
think quality is by their psych influenced large scale advertising.



(And I can find locals who'll say Redhook was never all the
impressive to
begin with.)



I have only heard the opposite but this is possible.



I fail to see how ownership structure or union/non-union has any
impact on
the quality of the beer. Good beer is determined by two things: the
quality
of the recipe and ingredients, and the control over the process to
ensure
consistent results. That can be accomplished under any ownership
structure
and any employee structure.
The idea that certain types of businesses are incapable of brewing
good beer
is a well-entrenched one in beer circles, and it's one that needs to
die a
very quick and unmerciful death.


I agree only "change" from one to the other may affect the difference
in quality.

Scott

"Scott Jensen" wrote in
:

There's the big four breweries (Miller, Coors, Pabst, and
Anheuser-Busch) and then micro-breweries. However, are there
breweries between these two? Ones that have national distribution and
of a size in between these two? In other words, "medium" size
breweries?

Depends where you live (I'm guessing USA), but Australia has Boag's and
Cooper's, with Grand Ridge on the rise.

K
--
nil illegitimi carborundum

"Tom Wolper" wrote in message
news
Here's a question I have to anybody who is familiar with contract brewing.
Who is responsible for buying (and checking the quality of) the
ingredients. Is it the microbrewery or the contract company? And who
oversees the brewing process to ensure quality and to make sure that the
beer is consistent from batch to batch?

From some of the specifics I've known about various contract brewing
arrangements, the answer is that there is no one answer. I've known some
contract breweries that specify that you use their ingredients, especially
their yeast. I've known some contract breweries that go to great lengths to
work with the parent breweries' specifications and standards. It depends on
the individual contracts.

Of course, the larger a share of business you provide to a contract brewery,
the more clout you're going to wield. Someone the size of BBC is going to
have quite a bit of sway and ability to demand that their product be brewed
the way they wish.

There is a history in brewing of companies looking to buy cheaper supplies
as they get larger. If a privately owned brewer sells stock and becomes
publicly owned, it's easier to boost profits by lowering supply costs than
it is to boost demand.

You'd be surprised to find that the companies who do that aren't necessarily
who you suspect. Anheuser-Busch, for instance, spends a lot on very
high-quality ingredients. This is something that many beer geeks just refuse
to accept. A-B brews Bud the way they do not because they're cheap. They do
it because it's what sells, and what many people enjoy. They brew that
recipe deliberately, and they don't scrimp on it.


In the brewpub movement, it became easy to distinguish by tasting the beer
between who opened a brewpub because he cared about beer and he wanted to
share his passion with the public, and who opened one because he was
opening a restaurant and he saw (in the '90s) that a brewpub was
value-added. This perception might be the same one in brewing company
size: a smaller brewing company cares about beer more.

An assertion I patently disagree with. Small does not mean more concern.
I've encountered enough small breweries where people don't give a shit about
the beer, and it shows. Size is simply not a reliable predictor of a
brewery's quality.

-Steve

"Troyone" wrote in message
oups.com...
Steve Jackson wrote:
Nobody's giving their beer away for free. They're all commercial
beers.

By your opinion, my opinion is that if a brewery commercially
advertises Nationally on TV and Radio, there is commercialization.

There is commercialization if you put your name on a tap handle. There is
commercialization if you sell your beer in any bar or any store outside your
brewery. There is commercialization when you put your name on a label. There
is commercialization when you put your name on a beer mat. There is
commercialization when you have neon signs created with your name.

The defintion of "commercial" in this context means you produce something
and sell it for money. Scale doesn't enter into it. Craft breweries are
every bit as commercial as the big breweries. They just aren't commercial on
the same scale.

You honestly thing Sierra Nevada or Anchor wouldn't do national TV
advertising if they had the income to support it?

Microbrews are successful by word of mouth because of quality.

Craft beers are successful for any number of reasons, many of which have
nothing to do with quality. There are successful craft beers that are of
dubious quality. There are many defunct craft breweries that brewed
outstanding beer. Simply producing a good product is not enough to guarantee
success, in any business.


And micro is not a guarantee of better quality over large. I've had
beer
from some microbreweries that was absolutely heinous. I've had beer
from
some enormous breweries that was most excellent (they don't happen to
be
North American breweries, however).

This is why only the word of mouth microbrews spread through out the
country because they're a better product than commercial beer.

Size of the brewery has no bearing at all on the quality of the beer.

Period.

Have you ever brewed?

Yes, I have. Did for several years.

I prefer small batch brew over large batches the
quality is noticable to me.

By this logic, the best beer is going to be brewed a gallon at a time, and
there are diminishing returns the larger you go. By this logic, the
lousy-to-mediocre brewpub down the street from me should be of better
quality than Sierra Nevada. The premise is absurd on its face.

I'll throw one question that has no bearing on the discussion (whether or
not I've brewed has nothing to do with being able to evaluate the quality of
beer) with one that's only slightly more relevant: Have you ever been the
Europe? Because there are some very large breweries over there that brew
beers that most small American breweries would give their left nut to brew.

Sierra Nevada is an option I like,
And they are now, in fact, quite a large brewery. As big as, maybe
even
bigger than, some of the old-line regional breweries.

Sierra Nevada is popular because of their word of mouth quality, also
they crack their barley grains right before mashing. Unlike commercial
breweries that use rice and corn adjuncts.

Belgian breweries use corn adjuncts. British breweries use corn adjuncts.
And I don't know of many, if any, breweries that don't mill their grain
shortly before brewing.

And SN is indeed successful through a lot of word-of-mouth. They also are
good marketers.



They do own a brewery in Cincinnati, but still do a fair amount of
contract
brewing. And there's nothing wrong with that. I've never understood
so many
beer geeks' bias against contract brewing. If the beer's good, I
don't care
where it comes from.


Beer geeks who brew know the difference!

To be blunt. Bullshit. Some of the best evaluators of beer I've run across
don't brew. And I've known plenty of homebrewers who couldn't identify their
ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to beer quality.

Less perjoratively, I've sat through many blind tastings where people who
were convinced they could tell a difference between beers (based on various
criteria) in fact could not.

And, again, if someone's brewing a good beer, who the hell cares where it's
from?

We can agree on this, my difference in opinion may be that Redhook
should have inquired with Anchor Steam or others to see how they kept
up with demand and quality (or with out loosing quality) rather than
helping or giving in to a commercial company.

********. If you're in business, you try to make money as best you can. If
Redhook's distribution-only agreement with A-B had succeeded in spreading
popular acceptance of craft beer, American beer geeks would be walking
around with giant stiffies every time Redhook's name was mentioned. Because
the agreement didn't end up working out for Redhook, they become an easy
whipping boy.

By the way, Anchor has not kept up with demand and quality. Anchor Steam
deteriorates ridiculously rapidly, and is a vastly different beer in the Bay
Area as opposed to anywhere else. The other Anchor beers fare a bit better,
but not much. I love Anchor, but they are the last brewery I would go to for
advice on how to preserve quality as you widen your distribution.


Commercial breweries are
not concerned about real quality only what they can influence one to
think quality is by their psych influenced large scale advertising.

Large-scale breweries are sure as hell concerned about quality. They would
not be in business if they weren't and they only need to look back at
Schlitz in the mid 1970s to see what happens when you fall asleep at the
quality switch. When have you ever heard of an infected Miller or Bud? When
have you ever heard of an off batch of Coors?

The majors are obsessed with quality. Just becuase you don't like the
product they're making doesn't mean it's not of quality. Their craftsmanship
is outstanding. They're devoting that attention into what I think is a
wholly uninteresting product, but just because I don't like it doesn't mean
it doesn't have quality. I think the new Rolls Royce looks like shit, but
that hardly means it's not a quality car.

-Steve

"Scott Jensen" wrote in message
...

There's the big four breweries (Miller, Coors, Pabst, and Anheuser-Busch)

Technically speaking, Pabst is no longer a brewery (nor is it really in the
company of those other three). Pabst is strictly a marketing company now;
all of its beers are contract-brewed, mostly by SAB Miller.

and then micro-breweries. However, are there breweries between these two?

Of course. If you want to be literal, a microbrewery is defined as one that
brews fewer than 15k barrels a year. Numerous craft breweries outpace that,
like Boston Beer Co., Sierra Nevada, Anchor.

Plus, there are still several old regional breweries that still operate.
Some examples of those have been mentioned in other posts.

Ones that have national distribution and of a size in between these two?

See the more prominent craft breweries. Sam Adams (brewed by Boston Beer
Co.) has nationwide distribution. Sierra Nevada pretty much does as well.
Anchor's close. And even smaller breweries are coast-to-coast, if not in
every state, like Stone from San Diego or Victory from Pennsylvania.

In
other words, "medium" size breweries? Possibly ones that are on the
decline, rise, or reaches a large size but have no desire to become as big
as the big four. If there's many that are viewed this way, is there an
online list of them? Or an online list that includes all sizes of
breweries
but is set up in such a way that medium-size ones are identified? Links
would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Do some googling. If you found a list of the 10 or 20 largest American
breweries, you'd find 6 or 16 other than your four largest that would fit
those criteria.

-Steve

Steve Jackson wrote:
There is commercialization if you put your name on a tap handle.
There is
commercialization if you sell your beer in any bar or any store
outside your
brewery. There is commercialization when you put your name on a
label. There
is commercialization when you put your name on a beer mat. There is
commercialization when you have neon signs created with your name.
The defintion of "commercial" in this context means you produce
something
and sell it for money. Scale doesn't enter into it. Craft breweries
are
every bit as commercial as the big breweries. They just aren't
commercial on
the same scale.


This perception of commercialism is word of mouth and reputation not
high cost advertising during a Super Bowl with cartoon frogs!


You honestly thing Sierra Nevada or Anchor wouldn't do national TV
advertising if they had the income to support it?


No they would not, I'm convinced they would not sell out.



Microbrews are successful by word of mouth because of quality.
Craft beers are successful for any number of reasons, many of which
have
nothing to do with quality. There are successful craft beers that are
of
dubious quality. There are many defunct craft breweries that brewed
outstanding beer. Simply producing a good product is not enough to
guarantee
success, in any business.



I have a bridge on the west coast here near Anchor Steam Brewing, do
you want to buy it?




I prefer small batch brew over large batches the
quality is noticable to me.
By this logic, the best beer is going to be brewed a gallon at a
time, and
there are diminishing returns the larger you go. By this logic, the
lousy-to-mediocre brewpub down the street from me should be of better

quality than Sierra Nevada. The premise is absurd on its face.
I'll throw one question that has no bearing on the discussion
(whether or
not I've brewed has nothing to do with being able to evaluate the
quality of
beer) with one that's only slightly more relevant: Have you ever been
the
Europe? Because there are some very large breweries over there that
brew
beers that most small American breweries would give their left nut to
brew.



I have brewed 15 gallon batches nonetheless I prefer five gallon
batches. I like the Trappist Beers from Europe, they're brewed like
microbrew here and I would even like to go on a tour if possible.


Sierra Nevada is an option I like,
And they are now, in fact, quite a large brewery. As big as, maybe
even
bigger than, some of the old-line regional breweries.
Sierra Nevada is popular because of their word of mouth quality,
also
they crack their barley grains right before mashing. Unlike
commercial
breweries that use rice and corn adjuncts.
Belgian breweries use corn adjuncts. British breweries use corn
adjuncts.
And I don't know of many, if any, breweries that don't mill their
grain
shortly before brewing.


Belgium and the UK have commercial breweries as well as every other
country in the world, all commercial advertising breweries take short
and expense cuts using adjuncts.
I would hope they all crack their grains before mashing but most
commercial brewers do not.


They do own a brewery in Cincinnati, but still do a fair amount of
contract
brewing. And there's nothing wrong with that. I've never
understood
so many
beer geeks' bias against contract brewing. If the beer's good, I
don't care
where it comes from.
Beer geeks who brew know the difference!
To be blunt. Bullshit. Some of the best evaluators of beer I've run
across
don't brew. And I've known plenty of homebrewers who couldn't
identify their
ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to beer quality.
Less perjoratively, I've sat through many blind tastings where people
who
were convinced they could tell a difference between beers (based on
various
criteria) in fact could not.
And, again, if someone's brewing a good beer, who the hell cares
where it's
from?


If you put a good quality word of mouth microbrew next to any Sam
Adams, I guarantee you I would be able to tell the difference. This
could include any commercial advertising Brewery in the USA, they can
not compete with any good word of mouth microbrew.

"Who... cares cares where it's from"... what is in it... etc...? I want
to know where the beer was brewed, what is in it, etc... because I care
about my health.


We can agree on this, my difference in opinion may be that Redhook
should have inquired with Anchor Steam or others to see how they
kept
up with demand and quality (or with out loosing quality) rather
than
helping or giving in to a commercial company.
********. If you're in business, you try to make money as best you
can. If
Redhook's distribution-only agreement with A-B had succeeded in
spreading
popular acceptance of craft beer, American beer geeks would be
walking
around with giant stiffies every time Redhook's name was mentioned.
Because
the agreement didn't end up working out for Redhook, they become an
easy
whipping boy.
By the way, Anchor has not kept up with demand and quality. Anchor
Steam
deteriorates ridiculously rapidly, and is a vastly different beer in
the Bay
Area as opposed to anywhere else. The other Anchor beers fare a bit
better,
but not much. I love Anchor, but they are the last brewery I would go
to for
advice on how to preserve quality as you widen your distribution.


The brewers at Redhook did not need to expand when they did with Bud,
they were doing just fine in fact could not meet the demand. They made
the deal with Bud because of greed not necessity. A lot of other
microbrewies may have considered them a sell out. In fact there are
some microbreweries in the Bay area that turned down offers from Bud
and Miller.
With all the new Microbrews I have not bothered to drink an Anchor
lately... you may be right. Is Mayflower still alive?


Commercial breweries are
not concerned about real quality only what they can influence one
to
think quality is by their psych influenced large scale advertising.

Large-scale breweries are sure as hell concerned about quality. They
would
not be in business if they weren't and they only need to look back at

Schlitz in the mid 1970s to see what happens when you fall asleep at
the
quality switch. When have you ever heard of an infected Miller or
Bud? When
have you ever heard of an off batch of Coors?


The way the commercial brewers brew and sell what they think is quality
is an off batch way of business in my opinion.
I had a vinegar tasting Coors in the eighties and have not drank one
since.


The majors are obsessed with quality. Just becuase you don't like the

product they're making doesn't mean it's not of quality. Their
craftsmanship
is outstanding. They're devoting that attention into what I think is
a
wholly uninteresting product, but just because I don't like it
doesn't mean
it doesn't have quality. I think the new Rolls Royce looks like shit,
but
that hardly means it's not a quality car.


Agree I do not like the way they brew or their finished product, it may
be quality by their definition of quality, obiously not anywhere else
not even the beer review sites on the internet.


Scott

http://www.ardice.com/Sports/Footbal.../A/Adams,_Sam/