That Old Michi is Back

[JeffRenner]

The "born on" date on my samples is Jan 4, so it is still pretty fresh, but maybe a little less so than I would prefer. I was hoping for something closer to Feb 4. But it is definitely the new stuff, with the neck ring proclaiming, "A Classic All-Malt Lager".

I picked up two six-packs last evening - one of the old style bottle with a "born on" date of 09 Jan 07 (BF72) and an new style bottle dated 31 Jan 07 (CE04). I was looking forward to comparison tasting them.

But I think that they are identical beers! The exact same color (one would expect all-malt to be a shade darker, although that could easily be adjusted by using paler malt in the all-malt), and identical levels of bitterness and hop flavor and aroma.

In short, I strongly believe that the older bottle was made with the new recipe. It is easy to imagine that during the change over, they didn't try to exactly coordinate both changes. That could easily result in wasted bottles.

So, my impression? An excellent job! I am not, in general, a fan of standard American lagers. Too bland. (Although the new Budweiser is also showing actual hop aroma, flavor, and even some bitterness.)

The new Mick has real, if subtle, hop aroma with some supporting malt aroma as well. The palate follows through, with complex European noble hop flavor and malt sweetness. Less crisp/dry than I recall the old, which would not be surprising, but more hops dryness. Finish is again nicely balanced between a lingering malt sweetness and a beautifully clean, delicate bitter hop finish.

I would be very surprised if the old bottle was, in fact, the old recipe. It seems definitely more malty/less crisp than what I recall, although it's been years since I've had a Mick. I'd like to get a bottle of the old to compare, but, of course, they will be getting less fresh rapidly.

I've often said that no one make beer better than A/B (which is not at all to say that no one makes better beer than they). Now they have made a better beer as well. Still not as much hop character and bitterness as I like, but I say, "Well done, A/B!"

Here is an image of the progression of the shape of the Mick bottles, which always reminded me of a 60's Lava Lamp. As a matter of fact, I hadn't realized that they had changed to the standard long neck before going back to a version of the lava-lamp.

Jeff

[Grain Brain]

Am on my second one now, and I think it's quite good. While it's still a light lager, it has a pretty rich mouthfeel. The foretaste is semi-crisp on the sides of the tongue, midway is a substantial maltiness over the top of the tongue, and the aftertaste is slightly bitter. Hop aroma is certainly substantial, if not exactly aggressive.

I can only applaud A/Bs efforts here (grumble grumble ), and have to say the results are positive.

[Gillman]

Thanks gents, excellent comments.

I prefer the earlier bottle shapes, especially the second one from the left. The new one seems reminiscent of what Kronenbourg 1664 looks like in our market.

But it is what is inside that counts.

By the way recently I had a Staropramen in the can, made within the last 2 months and found it superb: rich, balanced, appetizing yet satisfying. It is much better (IMO) than the one in the green bottle. I am convinced all green bottles let in some light which seems to alter the taste and somehow lighten the body. The can precludes this and modern canning techniques avoid any tinny taste.

Gary

[TBoner]

I am convinced all green bottles let in some light which seems to alter the taste and somehow lighten the body. The can precludes this and modern canning techniques avoid any tinny taste.

Right you are. Green and clear bottles allow in UV light, which plays havoc on hops once they've been boiled in the wort (unfermented beer). The chemical produced is actually identical to that which gives skunk spray its...er...bouquet. Some commercial beers intentionally expose their beer to UV light (e.g. Corona) because people expect it as part of the taste profile.

I only buy green bottles in 12-packs because they haven't been exposed to light. It drives me nuts that every beer case in the world is under fluorescent lights.

BTW, many microbrewers are considering or are already moving to cans. As you say, modern techniques have eliminated flavor problems, and cans are cheaper, lighter, and more portable. They also don't break. The chief problem is with the cost of replacing a bottling line and buying enough cans at once to make the labeling cost-effective.

[Gillman]

Thanks for that, I was struck by the difference between a fresh can of Pilsener Urquel and the same beer in a green bottle (in some markets Urquel comes in brown bottles but here we get it in green ones). Same for Staropramen (another fine Czech beer). German beers canned that are very fresh are generally very good, even mass market beers like Lowenbrau, or DAB. If beer is consumed very soon after production, the container may not matter a lot, but I find after a month or so, it does make a difference. The more time that goes by, the better the quality than comes from cans.

On the other hand, if the beer is indifferent to begin with, the can won't help it much...

Gary

[craigthom]

Green and clear bottles allow in UV light, which plays havoc on hops once they've been boiled in the wort (unfermented beer).

Miller has bred hops that don't get skunky so they can continue to use clear bottles. I was told this when I visited their lab.

They've got all sorts of test equipment, but they check for skunkiness, among other things, using humans. People with sensitive noses can detect the smell in quantities too small for the machines to detect.

The lab visit didn't make me want to start drinking their beer, but it did fill me with equipment envy. I saw a couple of test breweries in there. The first was large brewpub sized, about 50 barrels, I think, but the second was 40 liters, and I couldn't help but think how nice that would be to have at home.

[JeffRenner]

Miller has bred hops that don't get skunky so they can continue to use clear bottles. I was told this when I visited their lab.

I haven't heard that; my understanding is that they use an isomerized hop extract that has been modified to change the spot on the molecule that is sensitive to that particular wavelength of light. This keeps it from changing to the skunky form, but it retains its desirable character.

You can find out more than you probably want to know about skunking of beer in this academic article, Shining Light on the Photodecomposition of Beer (scroll down to p. 18).

Jeff

[OscarV]

And Miller uses persavatives, Miller is not a natural beer.

[bluesbassdad]

I found it at Safeway in Chino Valley, AZ Friday evening. That means it's available just about everywhere, I would think. I haven't opened a bottle yet, but I will over the next couple days.

The new bottle, while reminiscent of the old-time Michelob, has a less chunky, more graceful shape than I remember.

Yours truly,

Dave Morefield

[Gillman]

I finally tried one, packaged February 20.

I was little disappointed. It seemed somewhat citric-tasting, and I found that odd in an all-malt formulation. Also, I couldn't detect much of the trademark Michelob taste (which I find hard to describe but which is quite evident in the Ultra version, for example - a flowery, "eggy" taste).

I wonder if, instead of adding more of the same malt and hops that was in the beer before, the formulation has been changed in some other way.

Not bad, but I have to wonder if the original, 1896 Michelob (then a draft-only beer) was closer in body and hop flavor to, say, a Sam Adams Lager.

Gary

[ratcheer]

Gary, I used to prefer Michelob back in the late 60's and 70's. I can't remember well enough to say whether the new Michelob tastes like that did. However, I can unequivocally say that the new Mich is much better than the last Mich I had a very few years ago.

Tim

[Gillman]

Tim, I agree. The new one has more body and hops than the adjunct version it replaced. But the Michelob from the 60's and 70's, albeit an adjunct beer by then, seemed better to me than the new one. Oh well, it is a step in the right direction, but I am waiting for "Michelob 1896".

Gary

[Joeluka]

If your willing to try something else, Brooklyn Lager is an All-Malt Lager.

[TNbourbon]

Well, I'm not the seasoned beer drinker that many of you are, having only begun enjoying brewed beverages (and not all of them, frankly) a little more than a year ago. Nonetheless, Michelob Amber Bock lager has become as much my 'house' macro as there is. It's the only non-specialty beer I've ever bought more than a single 6-pack of, I think.

So, when this discussion began, I decided to hold on to the last bottle from my then-current 6-pack -- bottled Jan. 8, '07 -- for comparison to the new 'old-style' version when it showed up here. Actually, I began seeing the 'new' ones a couple of weeks ago, but didn't buy any till earlier today, bottled Feb. 21, '07.

I won't attempt to ascribe characteristics (malty or hoppy, for example) that I don't yet understand to them, but rather describe the tastes, which I did find different.

I poured each in identical glasses. Their appearances were not markedly different. The newest one may have been slightly lighter in color, but not much. However, I found the tastes immediately divergent. The just-passed January bottle, I thought, was noticeably sweeter and more palatable across the tongue, but the all-malt February bottling had a cleaner finish and aftertaste. Still, overall, I think I preferred the one that apparently is no more (so, I guess I might look for some recent pre-change bottles -- or find a new favorite). Since I still have five bottles of the newer version, though, I'll give it a fair shot to win me over.

[Gillman]

It is interesting what a formulation change can do. I am not sure that Amber Bock's changed (I know Michelob Ultra did become all-malt), i.e., it may have been all-malt before since it was a specialty product of Michelob to begin with. I'll check into this.

The fact that a beer is all-malt does not ensure a better result automatically although usually (to my taste) all-malt beer is better. E.g., a mass market Canadian brewer, Labatt/InBev, makes Labatt Classic, an all-malt beer. This has a mild palate and is not noticeably different from the mainline brands of that brewery. Heineken is all-malt. About 15 years ago it switched to all-malt from a malt and corn formulation. It is a decent product but does not bear any resemblance to a craft beer such as Sam Adams, say, and its taste did not greatly change after it became all-malt.

Beer also tends to vary from batch to batch. I will try Michelob again since it is possible the recipe is still being tweaked.

In general though the move to all-malt is good. It tends to accenuate quality, but that is not all there is to it. You need to use enough malt, of the right type, and enough hops, of the right type to get a good balance in the taste.

Beer's taste is a composite of sweetish barley malt (roasted to different temperatures, thus almost like the different tastes of toast); the bitter/flowery/citric/other taste of the resinous part of hops (a climbing vine); and the fruity, spicy, earthy or other flavors of yeast. Of course, secondary characteristics (various congeners) also impart their taste. This is exactly so with distiller's beer except it is designed to produce an optimum product when distilled and does not use hops. E.g., the yeasts in distiller's beer are intended to extract as much alcohol as possible from the mash. In beverage beer, while high alcohol versions have become popular in recent years, generally you want a medium "attenuation", to preserve the malty flavor that is the base of any good brew.

Hops originally were added to preserve beer, which otherwise went sour quickly. In time, people became accustomed to the taste hops imparted.

I once read a poll that most people (a majority anyway) do not like the taste of beer. They drink it to be sociable, but don't like it. This surprised me initially, but on reflection I could see how it could be so.

I liken this to an experience I had the other day. I had bought a chocolate bar without looking closely at the label. When I tasted it, again I did not read the label. It had a funny taste. I thought maybe it had gone off in some way. I tried it again later: same result. Then I looked at the label. It was flavored with hazelnuts. Only then did I realise it tasted very good, it was chocolate and hazelnuts in the taste: I know hazelnuts and I like them. But because I had no reference when I tried this initially, I found the taste weird and off. I think this is true with beer (or many other reasonably complex-tasting things); if you know what it is supposed to taste like, it makes the experience more interesting (even if you never acquire the taste). My understanding of beer was greatly assisted by reading the works of Michael Jackson. His books are still widely available and of the recent ones I'd recommend Beer Companion the most, and also his pocket guides.

Gary

[TNbourbon]

...I am not sure that Amber Bock's changed (I know Michelob Ultra did become all-malt), i.e., it may have been all-malt before since it was a specialty product of Michelob to begin with...

http://www.anheuser-busch.com/press_room/michelob_heritage_020807.html

Third paragraph.

[Gillman]

Thanks, Tim. I thought Michelob Ultra (which I like) was included in the all-malt upgrade, maybe not.

However, the point remains that while in theory all-malt should improve the beer, it may not. I found a citric-like "quenching" taste in the new Michelob (the regular one) that was similar to that taste in the earlier beer. Maybe a certain type of malting barley was included to ensure this effect (maybe some 6 row barley?), maybe there is another explanation.

All Michelob needed was more of the key-note taste that was already there: more eggy velvety malt, more body and sweetness, more flowery hop taste. I don't get that in the new product, it tastes similar to what came before or maybe not quite as good although the body seems heavier, yes.

It is interesting how far commercial beers have come from the original, crafted, rich, hop-flowery beers. I guess the divergence was so great over the years that this resurgence of tradition can only be partial. Note the press release speaks of the new beer being "in the tradition" of the 1896 beer, not a replication of its spec.

But again, and based on my experience with new beers or releases, it sometimes takes time to get it right.

I will keep buying the product.

Gary

[bluesbassdad]

I'm now about half-way through my 12-pack, and I still don't know what to say. The current formulation does remind me of the Michelob I knew from my earliest drinking days. However, it seems less robust than I remember.

I'm guessing any difference is more in my taste buds than in the product. Back in those days I didn't like plain yogurt, buttermilk, sauerkraut, hot peppers or bourbon. Now I do. With changes like that in my tasting apparatus, how can I possibly compare the nuances of two slightly different versions of the same beer recipe?

The bottom line is that this could become my go-to beer. However, it somehow lacks the full, rich flavor and the cachet that I attributed to the Michelob of the 1960's.

Now that I see mention of a reformulated AmberBock, as well, I'll be on the look out for it, too. The previous version was my favorite of the A-B line.

Yours truly,

Dave Morefield

[Gillman]

Yes, I think AmberBock may end up being the best of the range ("pace" Tim), and who knows, maybe it is closer to 1896 Michelob than any other in the range.

I think Michelob in the late 60's and 70's really was better than even the reformulated Michelob beers of today, though.

Most people accept that (commercial) beer had more oomph then. In the 60's, there would have been people in the breweries trained in the 30's. And who would have trained them? Old hands from the pre-Pro days. Malting and hop rates have fallen steadily since the 1950's (professional brewers have told me this and studies have shown it), and this is why I think American mass-market beer entered its nadir: it became too bland. The corporate imperative to save costs combined with consumer indifference almost made for the destruction of traditional brewing in America.

One can tell that mass market beer was better in the real old days in many other ways. E.g., take a beer such as Pilsener Urquel, the original pils type still made in the Czech Republic and now exported widely around the world including to the U.S. It has a rich malty and hoppy taste. The best U.S. beers of circa-1914 and even 1950 had to be similar, maybe not (by then) the same in taste but they would have been similar in quality. There could not have been the divergence in quality we see now, immigrants (who made up a large part of the beer market in the late 1800's and early 1900's) would not have stood for it. They knew fine beer because they came from countries where it was a stand-by. Traditional English bitter too has a rich full taste and the old U.S. IPAs and other English-type beers would have been similar. Those died out in mass-market brewing, except for the odd "cream ale" here and there. (Ballantine XXX is still pretty good and a fine value - a price beer that tastes like a micro - you have to live in the North East to find it, though).

The micros have my business these days but I still like trying commecrial beers. I think A/B will ultimately return to its roots and possibly will reformulate Budweiser. True, rice adjunct has been used from early days in American brewing; still, the beers overall were heavier then. To redress the balance today, an all-malt spec is needed and good solid hopping.

In terms of craft lager beer, Sam Adams Lager takes a beating for quality: it is the best widely available beer in the U.S, IMO. But watch the best-by dates.

Gary

[OscarV]

I have never had the Michelob Amber Bock, but I also remember Michelob Dark. That to was only available on drought, until the early '80's then they put it in bottles, I remember the roll-out it was very successful. I had a couple of 6's of it, I liked it but I was very much into porters and stoughts then and it just was not what I was looking for.

And Dave, I agree that it used to taste more robust, I think it had a higher carbonation that prodused a more intoxicating aroma.

[ratcheer]

(Ballantine XXX is still pretty good and a fine value - a price beer that tastes like a micro - you have to live in the North East to find it, though).

Gary

Gary, that was the first beer I ever tasted as an underaged teen. It sure would be nice to have another one, if only for old times sake.

Tim

[Gillman]

Still widely available in New York State and adjoining parts. Oddly perhaps, it is now brewed in the South - in South Carolina I believe (in Eden). SAB Miller has a plant there and the brand ended up being made there under license for Pabst - that's the last I heard. So maybe it is available in the Carolinas or other parts of the south.

Gary

[jesskidden]

re: Ballantine Ale

The Pabst website has a pretty good link for what states their beers are distributed in- http://www.pabst.com/mainpage.html click on "our beers" click on the state in the map at the bottom. (Hint- turn off your speakers first- an annoying soundtrack and sound effects on that site).

Ballantine Ale, IIRC, is pretty much a New England- Northeast-Midwest brand these days (when Ballantine was still open and then for a time with Falstaff, it was a national brand)- they don't even sell it in it's former long time brewing site, Indiana. (Note Pabst can't even get straight whether they're making the ale or the beer on that website. For a time, their website even spelled "Schaefer" wrong.)

The labels on the XXX Ale only list a PO Box and Milwaukee (the Feds in the US no longer require actual brewing site on a label, just a "home office"), I've always assumed that the Miller plant in Ohio, being closest, was the source, but North Carolina seems just as likely, I suppose. (Don't know how to read the Miller codes, but I guess it's there.)

The new young turk that's running Pabst for the "charity" scam that owns it, is looking to possibly revive the brand (altho' he gets some facts wrong): http://tinyurl.com/26yl7j

I, for one, think the Miller brewed version is horrible compared to the old Falstaff (Cranston and Ft. Wayne) and even the Pabst/Heileman versions. I'd like to see them contract it out to some microbrewery- not unheard of- Miller's doing it with some of their Henry Weinhard label styles.

[Gillman]

Thanks for this, and the correction to North from South Carolina - I am quite sure Ballantine XXX is brewed there now. For a time it was made in Lehigh, PA.

I tend to agree it may not be quite as good as 30 years ago - Cascades are used now, and I seem to recall this was not so in the 70's (maybe Northern Brewer, I am not sure).

But it is still a good glass of beer, at a very fair price.

I buy "bombers" when in New York. I find it tastes best in glass but the beer needs to be very fresh to be at its best.

It is due for a revival, draught service and a national re-launch - unlike say the cool (again) PBR, it's got a good strong taste, I think it would do great as an icon from the past re-invented. (Art fans will recall Jasper John's fine rendering of Ballantine Ale cans in the 1960's).

I'm really holding out though for a return of Ballantine India Pale Ale, the legendary pre-micro-era English-style well-hopped pale ale.

I had a bottle in the fridge for years, well after the last brews were made. I figured it would last and I'd consume it with elan in, say, 2007. We had some work down in the house and it disappeared when some refreshment was taken along with the cokes and juice offered. I hope he was a beer geek.

Gary

[jesskidden]

Thanks for this, and the correction to North from South Carolina - I am quite sure Ballantine XXX is brewed there now. For a time it was made in Lehigh, PA.

Gary

Yes, seems I see Miller-NC as the site for Ballantine XXX Ale mentioned a lot- doesn't make sense, but, then nothing with that Pabst-Miller deal does. (ALtho' I pay so little attention to the big 3 in the US, I'm always a bit surprised when I'm reminded that Miller closed several breweries, like the one in NY state and maybe a PNW one (Olympia?) from Stroh/Heileman, even as they continue to be #2 as well as brew most of #4's beers, as well.)

Pabst, best as I can remember, only ran that former Schaefer/Stroh facility in PA for a few years so I don't know that I ever even HAD any of the Ballantine coming from there. (Hey, much as I'm nostalgic for the brand, but there WERE a lot of great beers around at the time and I do hate the philosophy behind the S&P Corp., so I often "boycott" it.) I DO remember saying "WOW, it's back" to the Milwaukee brewed stuff (which, internet rumor has it, MAY have been contracted out to Heileman). OTOH, the McSorley's coming from City (ex-Heileman) is even worse than the current Ballantine, when compared to the old (Rheingold, Ortlieb, Schmidts) versions.

I tend to agree it may not be quite as good as 30 years ago - Cascades are used now, and I seem to recall this was not so in the 70's (maybe Northern Brewer, I am not sure).

Gary

1960-era deposit bottles from P. Ballantine & Sons had a neck label that read:

"Brewed with Brewer's Gold® a strain of choice hops used specially by Ballantine in our own exclusive true ale recipe"

Falstaff era neck labels (eventually dropped, to save money no doubt, an S&P trait) only said "Brewed from Ballantine's own exclusive true ale recipe."

Falstaff, however, DID add several new ales to the Ballantine line-up for a time, one of which was called "Brewer's Gold Ale", higher in ABV and much hoppier than "regular" Ballantine XXX. There was once a regular poster on an internet beer group who claimed an ex-worker in Cranston told him that it was a blend of XXX and IPA, but the hop profile doesn't seem right for that combo (maybe an additional dry hopping- if the blending wasn't done at bottling?). There were also Ballantine Cream Ale and Ballantine Twisted Red Ale, neither of which I remember very well at all.

But it is still a good glass of beer, at a very fair price.

I buy "bombers" when in New York. I find it tastes best in glass but the beer needs to be very fresh to be at its best.

I don't know, I try it occassionally, maybe once every 6 months or so and I'm always disappointed. The glass bottles, of course, can suffer from skunking (gotta say, the "green" is getting lighter and lighter, too), so I usually find a store with cases on the floor and take a six out of one of them, rather than the cooler. I don't see the "bombers" often in NJ, only 12 oz. bottles, cans and 40's. Haven't seen draft (always rare in my era) since, oh, musta been before Cranston closed around 1980?

My favorite package was the deposit bottle- kept dark and didn't go through so much handing or maybe it was just beer psychological, but it just tasted better- hoppier, slightly sweet, no skunk. I swear I recognize some of these as having been in my cellar <g>- http://www.falstaffbrewing.com/_borders/ftw12.jpg

I'm really holding out though for a return of Ballantine India Pale Ale, the legendary pre-micro-era English-style well-hopped pale ale.

I had a bottle in the fridge for years, well after the last brews were made. I figured it would last and I'd consume it with elan in, say, 2007. We had some work down in the house and it disappeared when some refreshment was taken along with the cokes and juice offered. I hope he was a beer geek.

Gary

I have several old bottles of IPA (just tried a Newark-era one several months ago- not so good ) and I *thought* I'd kept one of that last batch (labeled "Ft. Wayne-Milwaukee") but I see it's just a "Ft. Wayne" on the label- even by then, it was so "weakened" over the years, I don't have any hope for it (tons of sediment, etc). I'm pretty sure the last attempt was from 1996- at least, according to the packaging I have.

Interestingly, Pabst supposedly came out with a re-born Old Tankard Ale around the same time, which they compared to BIPA (maybe it was the same stuff, trying to sell it under two labels in two markets to justify the batch size?): http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3469/is_n4_v43/ai_11870348

I never the saw this in my East Coast market, but, the "old" Old Tankard from the 70's was nothing like BIPA or even XXX Ale.

As I said in my first post, I'd hope that any revival of the Ballantine ales are done somewhere other than Miller and I've always thought that Anchor would be ideal since Maytag's mentioned them in several interviews over the years (I remember reading an interview when I lived in Calif. in the mid-70's when he noted how he could "smell the hops from across the room when someone opens a can of Ballantine Ale...") and beer urban legend says that his Old Foghorn is based on Ballantine Burton Ale, Liberty was influenced by BIPA, etc.

Unfortunately, the results of many "reborn" brands isn't too good...