Originally posted by italarican
Originally posted by FrumptyDumpty
People keep saying "brewers should just not care about the beer once it is sold" then those same people will come on RB and complain about no dates on bottles. There is no brewer worth his salt that does not care about the quality of his beer when it leaves his place. I try my beer anytime I see it in the market and if I was in a bar and the beer tasted bad I would ask it to be taken off and comp them the money for it. That is simply taking pride in your product and wanting the best. I am not sure I would want to drink beer from a brewer who’s care for the beer stopped as soon as he had the money for it.
Amen.
Shaun Hill asked the bar not to serve the beer. He didn’t go on a campaign. He’s not arguing they legally can’t sell the beer, only that they shouldn’t and he wish they wouldn’t.
If he had stayed silent, I wouldn’t have been shocked to see different backlash: "Shaun Hill doesn’t care what happens to his beer as long as he gets paid. He’s sold out. That quality control stuff was all poseur crap once he got his money."
You make some very good points. |
Im sure everyone wants to hear my 2 cents too. Here it is. Looking at this from a business sense, you want everyone to try your product in the best and intended format. This is a competitive market with many contenders. I don’t care what people say but freshness DOES count. Try a can of heady from Propig or from a trade. Theres is a difference, its not a lot but its there. Then on top of that you have these websites that judge the shit out of breweries and really control the minor geek market. To be at the top you need to care aggressively how the beer is consumed. Russian River does it. Alpine does it. As they should.
You would have the same problem with restaurants. Imagine if someone wanted to "tick" New england clam chowder from Portland Maine Dockside in San Francisco. It would get shipped across the country in one of those Omaha steak coolers and then the consumer would rate it on Yelp. It would be reviewed lower than it wouldve at the source. Business rely heavy on Yelp reviews and that chef would be pissed that his Clam chowder was consumed in subprime conditions. AS he should.
This market is growing fast and very healthy now but that is never always the case. It will eventually die down as supply and demand settle. The brewer having the most success will be the one with the best reputation, and highest reviews. I wouldn’t except anything less from a brewer at the top. Shit, if i were in his shoes I would handle this with a lot less class.
Dont get me wrong, enjoy the growler, but just know that its better than you paid for. |
Originally posted by FrumptyDumpty
Originally posted by b3shine
Originally posted by FrumptyDumpty
People keep saying "brewers should just not care about the beer once it is sold" then those same people will come on RB and complain about no dates on bottles. There is no brewer worth his salt that does not care about the quality of his beer when it leaves his place. I try my beer anytime I see it in the market and if I was in a bar and the beer tasted bad I would ask it to be taken off and comp them the money for it. That is simply taking pride in your product and wanting the best. I am not sure I would want to drink beer from a brewer who’s care for the beer stopped as soon as he had the money for it.
Again, if this was Shaun’s concern, he could have offered to replace it with other HF for the event. That would be more akin to what you do (since HF doesn’t distribute to the bar and the event had already been set).
But he didn’t do that; he just asked them not to serve his beer. The article made no mention of him offering to replace it.
If I was a D.C. bar owner and went through extra trouble (and paid extra money on top of the cost of the beer) to acquire and serve HF beers in what seems by D.C. standards to be completely legal, and Shaun called me to ask me not to serve them without offering me anything to make it right, I’d laugh at him.
He’s the one acting entitled. They don’t owe him shit. End of story.
Are you thick? Why should Shaun be offering to replace it? As Sam just pointed out this guy bought growlers meant for short timeframe consumption drove them down and wanted to serve them at his bar. He didn’t tell Shaun this was his plan. It is not like Shaun set up this event with him. When I say I try my beer in the market place it is because I put it in the marketplace. Shaun did not do that. If you were a consumer and had a bad experience and emailed Shaun I am sure you would find him very willing to work with you to help replace the bad beer. If you were a bar and bought a keg from Shaun you would find the same. Neither of those are the scenario here. I can not understand why you are putting the blame at the brewers feet instead of the guy who is obviously trying to make a buck off the reputation of the brewery and is more then willing to serve subpar beer to do so.
Again, if it’s within the guidelines of the law, then this place is welcome to do what they like. If Shaun doesn’t like that then he can lobby D.C. lawmakers (which wouldn’t surprise me). Or, he can negotiate something with the bar. But asking them not to sell it - while fine to do - is not going to happen without some sort compensation. They had already bought the beer and sold the tickets. And was anyone complaining after the event anyway? It sounds like the beer was fine according to the article. And if it wasn’t, people won’t return next time the bar holds a HF event. The phrase "it’s only beer" isn’t just for consumers. |
|
|
Ah ok so thick. Thanks for settling that. |
By the way, there is a winner in all of this. Kudos whoever Jacob Berg, the author of this article, is. He’s definitely getting some coverage. |
It’s very true that the owners of growlers can do whatever they please with them. It’s actually true that anyone can do whatever they want, as well. I could buy a gun and walk down the street and shoot as many people as I could before I, in turn, am shot.
Is that a ridiculous analogy? Yes. Point being, just because you can do something and make money doing it, dosent mean you should do it. That’s an EXTREMELY scummy move by the owner of the bar. ANY brewer that has any pride in their product would be apalled by that move, and the owner of the bar knows that very well.
Don’t like Sean and his attitude? He dosent care. He makes better beer than you do and has very high standards for it. That’s awesome.
*Disclaimer* I have lived 3.5 hours from Hill Farmstead and have never gone there. I have made 120 trades on this site and never traded for a bottle of HF. Lest I be accused of being a fanboy (not that I would give a damn, but rather for the sake of objectivity). |
Originally posted by miketd
He’s an artist, man...
I keep seeing this. Is this an actual quote? |
|
|
Originally posted by FrumptyDumpty
Ah ok so thick. Thanks for settling that.
This makes you come across as remarkably intelligent. I can only imagine the conversation you must offer in person when you’re actually thinking off the top of your head when you respond to people. |
It would be one thing if the proprietor of Bourbon went ro HF himself to acquire these beers. He didn’t. He bought them from some guy, and that’s when things get sketchy is when you buy things from ’some guy.’ Don’t have the main attraction of the event be some beers that you didn’t even acquire from a retailer. |
Originally posted by pepsican
Originally posted by miketd
He’s an artist, man...
I keep seeing this. Is this an actual quote?
I remember a few years back, probably the first time he got shit from beer nerds, where he went on some rant about art and philosophy and other stuff most people don’t care about when it comes to beer.
I was just posting out of boredom... don’t care about Shawn Hill or his beers. He comes across pretentious, but it isn’t something I will ever have to deal with outside of an internet forum. |
