Question to the folks old enough to remember the 1960's.

[Dinner]

I've heard that back in the 1960's Schlitz beer used to be at least an acceptably decent domestic beer before turning into industrial grade cow piss in the 1970's. Is that true? I ask because Pabst has bought the Schlitz brand and they're supposedly making a huge push by bring back "the classic 1960's recipe Schlitz beer".

There is a lot of hype about this new "Classic Schlitz" on the beer forums with people claiming it's the best of the mass market domestic beers (slight praise I know) but supposedly they're using more real malt and real hops instead of the malt extract and condensed hop pellets like Bud, Miller, and Coors use. Is this just hype or did Schlitz actually used to be a decent beer?

[Dinner]

I'm also kind of interested in this because with the purchase of AB Pabst became the last American owned old line mass market brewery. It will be interesting to see how they try to play up that all American angle.

[PLATO]

All I know is that by 1980 Schlitz was only drinkable if it was cooled to 30 degrees F and the outside temperature was above 100 degrees F.

[Grandpa Troll]

Re: Question to the folks old enough to remember the 1960's.

Originally posted by Oerdin
I've heard that back in the 1960's Schlitz beer used to be at least an acceptably decent domestic beer before turning into industrial grade cow piss in the 1970's. Is that true? I ask because Pabst has bought the Schlitz brand and they're supposedly making a huge push by bring back "the classic 1960's recipe Schlitz beer".

There is a lot of hype about this new "Classic Schlitz" on the beer forums with people claiming it's the best of the mass market domestic beers (slight praise I know) but supposedly they're using more real malt and real hops instead of the malt extract and condensed hop pellets like Bud, Miller, and Coors use. Is this just hype or did Schlitz actually used to be a decent beer?

Well, consider Schlitz also made Malt Liquor dubbed "BULL" if that helps

I drank lots back in early 70's and we all had a nicname for Schlitz....$h!t$

Now, you know how I remembered that abomination of bottled P!$$


GT

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I wasn't old enough to drink in the 60's, but I grew up in teh heart of Schitz country and I don't recall anybody ever thinking Schlitz was better that your average American swill.

Of course, it may be that, thanks to "advances" in processing, all mass-market beer has gotten worse since the 60s. Maybe 1960s Bud was drinkable, too.

[Dinner]

Re: Re: Question to the folks old enough to remember the 1960's.

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll


Well, consider Schlitz also made Malt Liquor dubbed "BULL" if that helps

I drank lots back in early 70's and we all had a nicname for Schlitz....$h!t$

Now, you know how I remembered that abomination of bottled P!$$


GT

Yeah, the story being told by their marketing guys (if they can be believed which is a big if) was that it used to be a pretty good beer from the 1850's-1960's but then the US beer market changed with all the small guys getting squeezed out by bigger and bigger national breweries. They claim Schlitz gave up on quality and went after the low cost market mass market and as a result sales tanked due to low quality. Schlitz got bought out by Stroh in the early 70's who made it mostly just a malt liquor brand but then in 2003 Pabst bought Stroh and now they want to return Schlitz to the upper part of the domestic market targeting it at Michelob and such.

To do this they've relaunched the 1960's version of Schlitz promising that they're using just malted barley, hops, water, and yeast instead of the additives and processed ingredients most of the other macro breweries use. I'm not expecting a heavenly micro brew but if it's sold for $14 an 18 pack (which is about $2 more then coors, miller, or bud) I'd buy it if it was drinkable especially if you could actually taste the malt and hops without any funky after taste.

[Joseph]

Re: Question to the folks old enough to remember the 1960's.

Originally posted by Oerdin
I've heard that back in the 1960's Schlitz beer used to be at least an acceptably decent domestic beer before turning into industrial grade cow piss in the 1970's. Is that true? I ask because Pabst has bought the Schlitz brand and they're supposedly making a huge push by bring back "the classic 1960's recipe Schlitz beer".

There is a lot of hype about this new "Classic Schlitz" on the beer forums with people claiming it's the best of the mass market domestic beers (slight praise I know) but supposedly they're using more real malt and real hops instead of the malt extract and condensed hop pellets like Bud, Miller, and Coors use. Is this just hype or did Schlitz actually used to be a decent beer?

I turn 21 in March of 65. Don't remember if I ever had a bottle of Schlitz.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Oerdin
on the beer forums

?

Are they anything like the People's Front of Judea's swift action committee meetings?

"This calls for immediate discussion! I now propose that a Budweiser is best served at room temperature, and ingested with one's eyes closed while holding one hand behind one's back. All in favour??"

[Imran Siddiqui]

How is it any wierder than gaming forums?

[Provost Harrison]

Yeah, crap beers. If only the Germans had won WW2 then crap beer would never have been a problem...a global Reinheitsgebot

[Winston]

How is it any wierder than gaming forums?

Weirder.

Strategies, modpacks, tales of glory and optimization of gameplay come to mind as reasonable topics for forum exchange. Whereas having an actual discussion club on beer has a distinct ..Pythonesque feel to it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Having discussions on which are the best beer finds and good microbrews seems to me to be far more interesting that strategies, modpacks, tales of glory to me (optimization of gameplay is equal).

[Winston]

You're a loony!

[-Jrabbit]

Re: Re: Re: Question to the folks old enough to remember the 1960's.

Originally posted by Oerdin

Yeah, the story being told by their marketing guys (if they can be believed which is a big if) was that it used to be a pretty good beer from the 1850's-1960's but then the US beer market changed with all the small guys getting squeezed out by bigger and bigger national breweries. They claim Schlitz gave up on quality and went after the low cost market mass market and as a result sales tanked due to low quality. Schlitz got bought out by Stroh in the early 70's who made it mostly just a malt liquor brand but then in 2003 Pabst bought Stroh and now they want to return Schlitz to the upper part of the domestic market targeting it at Michelob and such.

To do this they've relaunched the 1960's version of Schlitz promising that they're using just malted barley, hops, water, and yeast instead of the additives and processed ingredients most of the other macro breweries use. I'm not expecting a heavenly micro brew but if it's sold for $14 an 18 pack (which is about $2 more then coors, miller, or bud) I'd buy it if it was drinkable especially if you could actually taste the malt and hops without any funky after taste.

I lived through this. My family owned a liquor store through the 60s and 70s.

Regarding the story you're hearing -- well, they are marketing guys after all. So you're right to question them. There's a lot of truth in what they say regarding the history of the domestic mass market beer industry. There is really just a grain of truth in the bits that talk about motivation and quality. That part is mostly marketing BS.

In the 60s, all American-made beer was cheap crap. It existed on three basic levels -- super premium (Michelob, Special Export), premium (Bud, Schlitz, Miller) and rotgut (Pabst). The was no micro-brew market to speak of. Instead, there were a lot of regional brewers, most of whom strived to make premium quality beer at a lower price. G. Heileman (upper Midwest), Coors (Rockies), Lone Star (Texas, duh), Rolling Rock (PA) Strohs (Detroit), Iron City (Pittsburgh), Falstaff (St Louis), and a host of others -- all were essentially regional brewers.

Meister Brau, made in Chicago, was very popular locally, and they actually made the first light beer, despite Miller's claims. There were also a few local brewers, but most had no distribution and struggled to survive. So while Point Beer was quite good and quite cheap, you had to be within 50 miles of Stevens Point, Wisc. in order to get it. But I digress.

Imported beers had a terrible reputation. Generally speaking, they were considered bitter and horribly overpriced. We would sell hundreds of cases per week of the major brands, but maybe only 10 cases out of the entire import list, combined. As a result, those imports tended to be old and skunky by the time anyone actually brought them home. So again, there was a grain of truth to their bad reputation.

So it's really not a quality story. It was about distribution. The majors had multiple breweries and could move product where and when it was needed. The regionals were locked into trucking from their lone brewery, which limited their range. Today's just-in-time distribution models just didn't exist, and long-distance trucking to a warehouse for re-distribution meant that, at retail, out-of-area beer was often months old to the consumer. In those days, returnable bottles (longnecks) were more popular than cans, which were thought to impart a metallic taste to the product.

Now, the whole taste thing:

The "good" national premium brands were Budweiser and Schlitz. Miller had only the Miller High Life brand ('the champagne of beers'), which was distrusted because of the clear bottles and considered a bit of a girly brew. (This perception was heightened when Miller Lite, which was perceived as "diet beer," came out.) Bud was reviled by some as "rice beer" -- but it was the national sales leader. In terms of taste, that just left Schlitz.

So, was Schlitz considered the best of the macro-brews? Well, yes. But it was a "tallest midget" sort of victory.

[Dinner]

Very informative post. Thanks.