>re. your P.P.P.S.:
>Yet you make them out of "Boddingtons, Tetley's and Caffrey's"?

Not sure what you mean. I wrote that sentence not good.

There are two things, to me, about quality, with regard to creating
something that will be part of a home's decor. In this case quality is
two fold: aesthetic and taste.

English pub beer, to me, the artistic nature of their cans as well as
the flavor or their brews, are in a much higher class than
mass-marketed "consumer" beer. This is, of course, my opinion. This is
from someone who drank the most popular of American beers for many
years. What one swills in a bar or barbeque with buddys need not be the
best tasting. Who but the extreme rich drinks Dom Perignon 1996
everyday? One must limit the better for those times when one wants to
reflect and enjoy what one is drinking.

There are several reasons why I would use a term like "the likes of
Budweiser et. al." For everyday drinking in a bar or when coming home
from work and quenching your thirst, "the likes of Budweiser et. al."
are fine. But as far as, in this context, making what I consider
(dubious or not) a piece of art who would want to use a generic
mass-marketed, corporate "logo" that exemplifies cheap production and
poor taste? Bud, Michelob, Heinekin, Zima etc. -- hyped up imagery more
than simple quality.

That is what I meant.

c5 wrote:
>>re. your P.P.P.S.:
>>Yet you make them out of "Boddingtons, Tetley's and Caffrey's"?
>
>
> Not sure what you mean.

That's obvious.

> There are two things, to me, about quality, with regard to creating
> something that will be part of a home's decor. In this case quality is
> two fold: aesthetic and taste.
>
> [...]
> There are several reasons why I would use a term like "the likes of
> Budweiser et. al." For everyday drinking in a bar or when coming home
> from work and quenching your thirst, "the likes of Budweiser et. al."
> are fine. But as far as, in this context, making what I consider
> (dubious or not) a piece of art who would want to use a generic
> mass-marketed, corporate "logo" that exemplifies cheap production and
> poor taste? Bud, Michelob, Heinekin, Zima etc. -- hyped up imagery more
> than simple quality.

Are you suffering from the delusion that the likes of Boddington's,
Tetley's, and Caffrety's are anything but mass-produced industrial
beers, and not so very different from the boring mass-produced lagers
and FMB you mention? Boddington's is nitro-canned flavorless crap,
Tetley's is bland and dull, and Caffrey's is little better than the
other two. They are closer to the likes of "Bud, Michelob, Heinekin,
Zima etc." than you apparently realize.
--
dgs

dgs wrote:

---- snip ----

>
> Are you suffering from the delusion that the likes of Boddington's,
> Tetley's, and Caffrety's are anything but mass-produced industrial
> beers, and not so very different from the boring mass-produced lagers
> and FMB you mention? Boddington's is nitro-canned flavorless crap,
> Tetley's is bland and dull, and Caffrey's is little better than the
> other two. They are closer to the likes of "Bud, Michelob, Heinekin,
> Zima etc." than you apparently realize.


However, in my experience, they are far less gassy than the latter
bunch. This alone may make them considerably more appealing to some folks.

--
Bruce Weaver

www.angelfire.com/wv/bwhomedir

"dgs" > wrote in message
...
> Are you suffering from the delusion that the likes of Boddington's,
> Tetley's, and Caffrety's are anything but mass-produced industrial
> beers, and not so very different from the boring mass-produced lagers
> and FMB you mention? Boddington's is nitro-canned flavorless crap,
> Tetley's is bland and dull, and Caffrey's is little better than the
> other two. They are closer to the likes of "Bud, Michelob, Heinekin,
> Zima etc." than you apparently realize.

Just my opinion, Don, but I'd much rather have a Tetley's than the other
two. I honestly think it's quite a step up from Boddington's.

--
Lew Bryson

"GOOD or SHITE?" -- Michael Jackson, "Thriller", 1982
www.lewbryson.com