Brooklyn Lager: Bottle vs Can

Discussion in 'The Beer Forum' started by David Thomas, Mar 17, 2017.

  1. Both are about the same age, the can is a bit younger. My prejudice concerning the outcome followed current received opinion: the can should be better. From the bottle: lovely mix of hop and malt, with a surprising bitter edge that dries the beer out, but prominent malt, especially as it gets warmer. A surprisingly sophisticated beer, with delicate, fresh flavour, and again, a good bit of bitterness. From the can: Initially seems similar, but they are not the same. So what's the difference? This one is bitter, too, but the malt plays a more prominent role, it seems sweeter, less dry, though there is quite a high bitterness. Perhaps less hop flavour (more bitterness? Perhaps, hard to say), but again this is a maltier beer (a fresh malt taste?). Perhaps less delicate, less sophisticated. Better or worse? Difficult...A nice beer. I might prefer the bottle, but I'm not sure (the bottle was a bit less than a month older). Yes, the bottle might be better.
     
    Ian Sutton and Mark Carrington like this.
  2. In conclusion, then, this taste test had a surprise result: the bottled version is a better beer (both are different), perhaps with a greater superiority to the can than I made it out to have above.
     
  3. I am not sure I have seen Brooklyn lager in cans.

    I have long harboured a prejudice against canned beer, although I now accept that the quality is a lot better now than it used to be. I actually wouldn't like to say which is better. I had an Anchor Liberty Ale a while back in a can, which was as good as I have ever tasted it.

    My biggest problem with cans is that if the beer is lively it is easier to pour from the bottle. Also, I don't like the idea of cans with sediment. How do you leave this in the can of you can't see it?
     
    Mark Carrington likes this.
  4. What's changed with canned beer? I've not drunk a canned beer in years, I always found that the can seemed to impart a taint.
     
  5. Yes, another here still with a memory of how awful beer often was in cans. I'm aware of the improvements in materials used, but the mental scars are still there!

    I think I've had one or maybe a maximum of two beers from cans in the modern era.
     
  6. There's plenty of research online explaining the "then and now" evolution of cans. The modern membrane-like inner lining prevents the liquid from touching the metal, thus eliminating that "tinny" taste that plagued canning for years.

    It's worth looking it up. While aesthetically I prefer the good old-fashioned bottle, canning beer is so popular in the U.S. and we drink enough beer from cans to know that there is nothing flawed in canning beer.

    My only concern is the issue Alan raised of sediment/live yeast being in a can. Is this something noted in U.K. brewing? I can't think of one single U.S. brewery that cans beers with sediment/live yeast. To my knowledge, these beers are always bottled and usually in a 22oz or 750ml bottle. I mean, you have to be able to see what you leave in the bottle...using a can doesn't make sense!
     
  7. Yes, I had the Liberty Ale in a can and thought it was fantastic. Yes, cans should be better for many beers than bottles (especially, one would think, lagers), which is why I was so surprised by the difference. I wonder why the bottle seemed better? Any ideas? Anyway, there should be no problem with cans, especially from larger breweries (and especially U.S. breweries). But, as I said above, current received opinion (er, excepting this forum) is that cans are more often than not superior to bottles. Actually, Ian, I think Sierra Nevada Pale Ale is can-conditioned!
     
  8. David - you threw the gauntlet down, so I emailed Sierra Nevada tonight to enquire on can-conditioning. I know their Pale Ale is bottle-conditioned, but I asked for clarification on can-conditioning. I'll let you know what response I get.
     
  9. The first real ale in a can to receive Camra recognition is Moor So'Hop. This was favourably reviewed in Camra Spring 2017 Beer magazine, but there was no mention of any problem pouring the beer. The only other canned-conditioned beer I have seen is a beer produced by Marble. I have had a few canned beers that have advertised themselves a being unfiltered but this is not necessarily the same as can conditioned. I think they take the beer higher from the fermenting tank so they do not pick up sediment. A couple of these have been cloudy, and I know there may be particles of sediment in the beer but this is different from beer that would have a layer of sediment at the bottom of the can.

    As for Sierra Nevada, I have found that the bottles of Pale Ale have a very thin layer of sediment. They could probably get away with this in a can.
     
  10. Brooklyn Lager in 660ml bottles in Tesco, 2 for £4.00. 'Imported and bottled by Carlsberg UK'.
     
  11. It’s available in can as part of a BB mixed pack from Waitrose. I like both versions.
    I’ve not drunk them side by side but might prefer this from a can.
    Particularly enjoyed the Scorcher IPA. All cans are labelled produce of USA.
     
  12. I was in a small Tesco today where they had been selling off single cans for 80p. In a big Tesco they were selling boxes of 6 for £7.00 as well as the big bottles. It will be interesting to compare those canned in the USA with the beer (presumably) bottled in the UK.
     

Share This Page