The new old Schlitz is out.

Cafe Society
1

At one time Schlitz was the largest brewer on the planet. Bigger than Bud, Miller, Coors, etc…

But things changed, especially in the 70’s and 80’s. One of the biggest mistakes they did was change the way their beer was brewed, trying to do it cheaper. This changed it’s flavor. Drinkers noticed it and bailed.

They continued to put out the cheaper version in cans. I always said it wasn’t bad for a cheap beer (even now it’s only about 5 bucks or so for a 12 pack)

Recently they re-released the original recipe version in glass BOTTLES. For now it’s only in limited areas.

My wife and I were in Chicago on Friday night. Had a pizza at PATS and did some other things.

I was able to pick up a 6 pack of the “new old” Schlitz at a Cardinal liquor store.

I’m trying a bottle right now.

Well, this is definately not the same beer as what comes in cans, so I guess they’re being honest about using the old recipe.

This looks the same as any other macrobrew (pale yellow, white head). But it isn’t sweet like it’s canned version. Not at all. This tells me they’re using far less corn (if any). Good. Corn never belonged in beer in the first place. This has a flatter, dryer taste than it’s canned counterpart (REMEMBER: the bottled and canned versions are different RECIPES). Not as hoppy as I expected. A very quick finish with no bitter aftertaste, which is dissapointing.

But the lack of sticky sweet corn juice that most other beers have now days makes this very drinkable. Not great, but good.

When they say this is how Schlitz tasted before they fucked it up in the 70’s I’ll have to believe them. I never had Schlitz until I tried the cheaper version in the very early 80’s. Even though my parents would give me a slug of ther beer when I was a kid in the 60’s/70’s, they never drank Schlitz. It was always Pabst, Weber, or Fox Deluxe.

This, by the way, was pricey. $6.99 for 6 glass bottles. It’s worth a try, but if they want to sell more of it they’ll have to bring the price down. I can get much better beer for that amount.

2

I have never tasted Schlitz. When I grew up the late 70’s, early 80’s in the Midwest, Schlitz had somehow become the byword for terrible beer – nobody drank it, and it was routinely marked down to just about nothing at the stores. $7 for a six of Schlitz? Jeez, $7 where I grew up got you a case of the stuff.

It is nice that they’re trying to salvage the brand, though, if they’re really going back to the root recipes. I’d guess some areas (like where I grew up) might be resistant to the appeal of that name, but here’s hoping they’re newfound (and unbelievably tardy) reverence for their roots pays off.

3

What I find absurd is, they’re not test marketing this in Wisconsin. Only in Chicago.

The label says “The beer that made Milwaukee famous” for Khrist sake. At least market it here. We still have the old version in cans, though. This is better but 7 bucks is ridiculous.

4

I’m on my secod bottle. I’m still taken by how light the carbonation is. It’s nowhere near as fizzy like soda as most modern beer is. It’s also nowhere near as sweet.

I can see how drinkers in the 70’s rejected the version that they now sell in cans, especially if this is what they had for years before. This is not great mind you, but is far superior to the canned version.

5

Little side track regarding your corn as adjunct comment.If you get a chance, try Yuengling’s Chesterfield ale. Not an ale, but “corn beer” lager that has a predominant hop balance and will give the aftertaste you seem to like.

6

Moved from IMHO to CS.

7

Life is too short to drink bad beer. I was reading about Schlitz in the new Michael Pollard book, of all places. I think. I’m pretty sure.

I’ve never had a Schlitz; its reputation preceded it. In a negative way.

8

Obligatory YouTube links.

(and a couple for Colt 45 Malt Liquor just for nostalgia’s sake.)

9

Isn’t “Schlitz” pretty much a dirty word in Milwaukee since the same corporate brain trust that tampered with its original formula also abandoned the city for union-free territory? If that’s still the case, I’m guessing that’s the reason why they’re not test marketing it in Wisconsin.

Incidentally, I’ve never had a Schlitz. By the time I reached drinking age, it had pretty much disappeared from supermarket beer sections or was inconspicuously hidden among the “animal” and generic beers.

10

It’s very possible, nay, highly probable, that you are correct. I really didn’t think about it that way. But now that I have I’m thinking this is the reason.

The company that now owns the brand and recipe (Pabst) also closed it’s breweries and only exists on paper. ALL of it’s brands are made under contract by Miller.

11

Oh, yeah, “gusto”. It’s absolutely meaningless, esp. in comparison with other beers, but I’ll bet they sold a lot with that “gusto” bullshit.

And those Colt 45 ads–hilarious. Droll sophistication is not the first motif that comes to mind when you think of Colt 45 malt liquor.

12

Yeah, that’s what I figured. There hasn’t been any real connection with the original brand of beer, but the name still as a little bit of marketing value, so someone owns it applies it some cheap, generic beer.

My question is, are different brand names applied to the exact same beer, or do they vary the recipe so that they’re at least unique if never any good.

13

Pabst Blue Ribbon tastes pretty much the same as always. Got a taste of it in the 60’s and 70’s when I was a kid during my parents card parties, it was the beer to drink in the early 80’s when I was in college, I’ve had it since and it still tastes the same. Many of these recipes rely on yeast strains that are actually kept in vaults and such. What can fuck them up is when the grain content is changed, like adding corn or rice.

A recent example of this is Augsburger. A good brew that bounced around from brewer to brewer. Point brewing was the last to make it. By their own, published admission, they changed the formula "a bit’ (meaning more fucking corn. Might as well just piss in the vat). The new version didn’t sell well (DUH! I wonder why!). While the yeast strain was the same, when they tamper with the grain content the beer changes flavor. You cannot convince me that the beer Fredrick Miller made in the 1800’s tasted anything like Miller High Life or Miller Genuine Draft does! Corn and rice do not belong in beer! PERIOD!!!

14

'Round about that time, urban legend had it that PBR that was labeled as 3.2% alc. was in fact regular Pabst, and that the company elected to pay an annual fine to those states that require only 3.2 beer be sold in grocery stores, etc, rather that go to the expense of brewing a separate batch for that market. Can anyone debunk that?

Is there a website somewhere that lists which popular brands do and do not?

15

I am old enough to remember the Great Recipe Change. I hope the beer gets a try-out in other places. I’d like to see if it tastes the way I remember.

As for the adjunct question, I generally agree with the Rheinheitsgebot people. Most of the time. But there is always the rare day when my body cries out for a Hamm’s or an Oly or, Ghu help us, a Busch. There is something about that corny taste that brings back fond memories.

Then I sober up and go back to real beer. :smiley:

16

When I was in jr. high and high school we used to buy 40s of Schlitz for $0.80. We called it ‘blue bull’. I just saw a 40oz of something or other in the store the other day for $3.99.