So I'm standing in my beer b&m last night eyeballing another sixer of North Coast Old Stock Ale with a little voice in my head whispering......$14.00 is a lot to pay for a six pack of beer.

Operating from the premise that one six pack of beer is the equivalent of one bottle of wine, at least in terms of AB/ABW, etc.

And I'm thinking. Is it? Is it really? If you haven't had the pleasure, Old Stock Ale is 12.5% alcohol ABV , and INCREDIBLY complex. This is one fantastic ale. And at 12.5% alcohol, one beer is the equivalent of 3 regular beers (or regular glasses of wine) , eg. Bud or Miller. And ads notwithstanding, it really does TASTE GREAT:-)

Even if it was a regular alcohol level, I guess I still wouldn't understand. 14.00 bucks for an outstanding beer, one of the best in it's class, vs. 14.00 for wine. what is 14.00 for wine going to get you?

The point I'm trying to make is that you can buy unbelievably fantastic beer for starting around the $9.00 a sixer range and going up, but most people, absent beerophiles, balk at that, yet will willingly spend $25.00 on a low end, middle of the road bottle of wine. I dont' get it. Is it the snobbery? That beer is "low class"? What is it?

I see beer and wine the same as I see cigars. Its all relevant to the taster. There are no low class cigars beer or wine because there are always those who possess the pallet of a goat and actually think these things taste good. Gurkha, Miller, and box wine will always hold a place in this world because of these people.

It all comes down to personal preferences and how you justify the purchase cost to yourself. When looking at beer vs wine, wine will almost always be more expensive than a beer of similar quality level simply because the production costs are typically higher. I think you're right that there's a certain degree of snob factor as well since many people also regard beer as more of a kids drink (high school and frat party's, etc) and wine as more of a grown ups drink which you move into as your self perceived level of sophistication and financial ability increases overtime.

I think it's also because people see some things (ie. beer) as cheap, others as "inexpensive" for their perceived value (ie. wine) and still others as "expensive" when they haven't actually sat down and worked out the relative values. I had a similar discussion a couple weeks back with a couple of boys at work. We'd gone out for Friday lunch and since we were close to one of the Signature BCLC liquor stores I asked them to stop in so I could pick up a bottle of malt (Glenfarclas 17yr: $100).

On the way back they couldn't get over, or let go of, the fact that I'd just paid $100 for a bottle of whisky. These are all guys who enjoy the occasional whisky or rum but tend only to buy cheap blends like Johnny Walker or maybe step up to an entry level malt like Glenfiddich 12yr for special occasions because of the "sticker shock" associated with higher end bottles of malt. However these are also guys who will go out to a bar for a hockey game, or whatever, and order bland tasting beers like Molson Canadian (basically the same as Budweiser or any other generic mass produced cheap beer) for $5 - $6 pint all night and think nothing of that cost.

The way I pointed it out to them was that if I take that $100 bottle and pour measured drinks out of it I'll get 24 or 25 drinks per bottle which means it works out to roughly $4/drink for a hand crafted well aged premium spirit versus their $5 - $6 generic no flavour beer. Plus, since I've no desire to get drunk on scotch, that bottle will last weeks or months whereas a beer or bottle of wine must be consumed in one sitting. By that logic the $100 bottle of scotch is a far better value than even the cheapest pub beer which no one thinks twice about buying.

The funny thing was 2 of the 3 guys I was out for lunch with that day all went back to the liquor store over the weekend and invested in bottles of good malt or rum because they recognized that it wasn't unaffordable as long as they looked pass the initial purchase outlay and realized the true cost of the bottle over it's lifespan.

I like a decent beer, but 14 bucks? The only time I'll drink Bud is when somebody hands me one, but can that ale actually be 3 times better? You'd have to prove it to me.

I'll pay $12 for a bomber with the same logic as mithril uses, i'd spend more than that at the bar drinking beers I don't like.

However, I feel like part of the fun in wine, beers, and cigars is finding the excellent items that aren't necessarily priced as high as they might be worth. You don't have to spend $50 bucks on a bottle of wine to get a great one, you just may get a lot more duds at $14.

:-) As with most things in life it comes down to personal preference. Personally I like beer, and I love brewing my own batch which usually ends up being significantly cheaper and similar quality as "high end" brews go. You can also tailor your own brew to exactly what you like. With that being said, I would never turn down a good Merlot. Which, using circular logic, brings us back to the inevitable point of personal preference.
:-)

This is a bit over-simplified and really hard to compare in terms of cost per percent of alcohol. Drinking a fine beer and a fine bottle of wine are two totally different animals.

But Vic ended his question by comparing high end beer and a low/middle end bottle of wine, not simply cost versus alcohol content. I saw a lot of validity in his post.

You will enjoy the higher end beer more then the low end wine.

100 X better. Bud is made with Adjuncts.

Bud is like a Cremosa and a high end Craft Beer is like a Cuban Cigar...

OK, I agree with the first statement and also posted same thought before. I'd rather drink good beer than cheap wine (although there are some great cheap wines if one knows the market and knows what to buy).

But I do disagree with the second. I cannot imagine any beer to be as bad as Cremosa (is to cigars). Also, once again, taste is subjective, not objective. Some people simply don't like high end Belgian beers/ales, and some people don't like Cohibas no matter the "status" nor high price (exclusivity).

I disagree with this statement, Greg, and offer any Anheuser-Busch product as evidence. :-) :-)

Natty light, Pabst, Genny Cream Ale, Sam Adams Cranberry Lambic, etc. Think i'd rather smoke a Cremosa than drink any of those :-)

:-)

A beer like the OP mentions, NC Old Stock Ale, is made with the best ingredients by people who really care about making fine beer. If the term "handmade" or "artisnal" can be used to describe beer, these types of beers fit that description. Bud, Miller, Coors, etc are the "red wine plonk" of the beer world, factory-made with the cheapest ingredients and by the cheapest production methods. I want the methods by which my beer is made to be determined by a master brewer, not by an accountant.

Beer to many is just a simple beverage, refreshing and common; too filling as the old world saying goes "liquid bread".

Most people I know who are not "serious beer" fans find beer just too filling and get old after 2. Wine can be drunk bottle after bottle.

Can't argue that point....I guess I would put myself in the serious fan category though.

Honestly I think a lot of it is snobbery.

Cheap wine, expensive wine, whatever. I think it's the fact that a bottle of wine is often associated with a higher class beverage, like a nice scotch. If you look at television and movies (I know you're saying to yourself "don't believe everything you see on t.v. dummy Darrell) you will see that wine is always portrayed in the limelight as a beverage for the rich folks, the classy folks, etc.

Beer on the other hand be it Stone, Bear Republic, Rogue, Pabst, Natural Ice, etc. It's portrayed as the blue collar working mans drink. A guy comes home in his grubby clothes and sits down for a beer, to a lot of people beer is just beer, they don't look for the unique flavors that some of us know it has to offer, they just see that dirty guy sitting in his greasy clothes swilling a Budweiser. He's not sitting there in a 3 piece suit with a pocket watch, turning his pinky up.

As I said, a lot of it comes down to snobbery. Society has been led to believe that wine = money and status and beer = dirty working man piss water.

:-)

Exactly.

MOses, I'm not talking cost per percent of alcohol, per se. And why are drinking a fine beer and a fine wine different animals? or from a nice bottle of single malt for that matter? At the end of the day when I sit down with a drink I'm not 15, i'm not doing it to get blasted, i'm doing it to enjoy the flavors, same as with a cigar. Trust me, you wouldn't want to drink more than one Old Stock Ale, because you would be on your ass if you did. It might take a hour to drink that one beer, that's how intense some "Big" beers can be. It's about the experience, not the alcohol.

I won't get into specific beers because Tom and VS have done so so ably.:-)

But high end beers arent' just Belgian beers. Name the style and some craft brewer, probably here in the U.S., is making it. Belgian beers are a very, very small percentage of this.

What I'm trying to get across, pretty feebly, is my confusion at the objection to paying for great beer while people will pay more for crappy wine.

And I just don't get it.

I think Darrell is on the right track, Vic. I think alot people think it's more sophisticated to drink wine, even crap wine, as opposed to beer. It makes them feel superior.

I do feel that beer gets the nose turned up towards it.

Give me two or three well crafted beers and a couple cigars and some great friends and I'll feel like a king.

I enjoy a good beer myself and like Vic said I don't buy it to get blasted. Every now and again I'll grab a six pack or two and add it to my stock. There is a huge difference between the water beers like miller, pbr, coors etc. and high quality micro brew. You will notice a big difference in taste and flavor.


I'm not a hater of miller, pbr or other pilsner beers. They work well in a huge pot with some onions so soak brats in. :-)

my butt itches.
In the usual spots...:-)