An article in the oenophile section of the New York Times dated August 21, 2007 analyzing the aromatic and gustatory qualities of vintage beers compelled over seventy people to reply in the comment section. Beer fans–and especially fans of vintage (i.e. aged) beers–had all kinds of things to say about this arcane avocation. I never knew some people could distinguish between aged beer and fresh beer and, furthermore, I never knew there were certain ranks of people who judged the merits of aged beer. Many commenters sought to dymistify the anti-intellectualism that is typically associated with beer aficionados. Many people who replied also shared a love for the various Brooklyn beers, especially one called Fat Tire.
A commenter named Greg, however, adroitly pointed out a noteworthy fact relevant to all of the commentors who had nothing but positive things to say about Brooklyn beer. As the 45th commenter, Greg says:
As an Upstater I’ve always been a bit put off by Brooklyn Brewery beers because they are essentially sold as being made in Brooklyn when most are made upstate at the F.X. Matt Brewery in Utica, brewer of Saranac beers. I understand that some of the smaller batch Brooklyn beers are made in Brooklyn, but those aren’t available Upstate. So, and I know this is just a whinny and insecure Upstate perspective, I feel like Utica doesn’t get the credit it deserves for brewing Brooklyn’s most popular beers. And at the same time, Brooklyn Brewery isn’t sharing its more interesting specialty beers with its Northern brethren.
Would love to see Brooklyn talk more about its actual production methods on its Web site. I saw no mention of Utica — you’d get the impression the beer was made in Brooklyn, although the bottles are clearly labeled.
-posted by Greg
Thanks for that Greg. My fact checking drones will get to work and I am sure I will have more to say about this in future posts.
