Categories

  • All Discussions
  • Hottest Topics
  • My Discussions
  • Specific Beers
  • Specific Brewers
  • General Beer Talk
  • Website
  • Non-Beer Talk
  • Industry News
  • Beer Events
  • Beer and Food
  • BeerPal Polls
  • Unreplied
  • Popular All Time

A defense for the infamous Beast...

General Beer Discussion by SURFSLEEZ

Having noticed that lots of reviewers pan Milwaukee's Best, I believe that someone should come forward and write on it's behalf ! Milwaukee's Best was NEVER intended to compete with crafted microbrews or even mass imports--It's a BMC entry all the way. The folks at Miller captured the essence of what a MASS MARKET American lager should be, as compared to all those BMC-type products, and then CUT the price dramatically ! It appears that they succeeded, since the Beast is available just about everywhere. Take a can of Bud, which I found to be about twice the price of MB, and taste test with a can of Beast. Pour both into clear identical glasses under the same lighting, and you will even SEE that MB is the fuller-bodied brew... Comments, please !!!


19 years ago
# 6
# 6

This must be that $2 sixer.

19 years ago
# 7
# 7

From Cottrell's post: "...but post here and you're going to find opposition..." See what happens when you lose your boobs?

19 years ago
# 8
# 8

This is alright...I'm surfing topics and get replies HERE in the process ! Actually I haven't lost 'em--you can go to my Beer Page, click on Full Size image, and there they be !!!

19 years ago
# 9
# 9

COTTRELL
19268

In Reply To #6 "Take a can of Bud, which I found to be about twice the price of MB, and taste test with a can of Beast. Pour both into clear identical glasses under the same lighting, and you will even SEE that MB is the fuller-bodied brew... " From the way you worded it, it looks like you were looking at the physical appearance of the beer to determine body, as I interpreted it. If you do in fact mean after sipping, then you may be right, but they are both light bodied brews with bodies that probably barely differ from each other. Any homebrewers ever taken gravity readings on any of this crap? I wonder just how close to water it really is, 1.005? Also, I would say that Samuel Adams and BMC are both mass marketed, in the same sense. They both have the same pricey advertising campaigns, with commercials that don't tell you anything about the beer itself. Do these two slogans sound similar? I think so. "Always a good decision" - SA Advertisement "Good call" - Miller Brewing Advertisement. Comparisons between SA and BMC can be made in a marketing sense. And trust that SA is not more costly to make than Budweiser or Milwaukee's Best. Maybe their are pennies being saved, but I highly doubt there is a significant difference there. Milwaukee's Best is not the cheapest beer around here. Pabst Blue Ribbon goes for about $11 per 30 rack, Red Dog goes for about $10, and Schmidt's goes for about $10 per 24 pack. Milwaukee's Best goes for about $15. Now let's look at quality. ...............Beerpal.......RateBeer....BeerAdvocate M's Best........1.58..........1.15........1.88 Bud...............1.89..........1.41........2.36 Red Dog........1.65..........1.49........2.29 PBR..............2.46..........1.77........2.97 Schmidt's.........2.25..........1.75........2.52 Those are the average ratings for each beer at the respective beer rating sites. Obviously the majority of people find it to be the sub-par beer among those mentioned. So does this mean you're wrong? No, it means your opinion differs from the majority of beer lovers. Trust me, Miller has plenty of money for advertising, they don't need you to be telling everyone else that is a superior beer. I think most people in the U.S. have sampled this beer at one time or another, and I'm sure we've all formed our own opinions. No offense to you surf, everyone has their 'cheap beer' of choice. I have mine, but I just refuse to advertise for a multibillion dollar company. I'd rather waste a post talking about a local beer that can't afford an advertisement. Around here, Olde Burnside runs commercials during the dark hours, between 2-4 am in hopes that someone sees them. It probably cost them a hefty chunk of change, and they're probably kicking themselves now for trying that route. Unfortunate, as they make some stellar beers. Man I hope my nifty little chart works once I hit submit... I put way too much time into all of this...

This message was edited by Cottrell at 8/2/2004 11:45:13 PM.

19 years ago
# 10
# 10

COTTRELL
19268

In Reply To #5 Insalubrious: Adj. Detrimental to health, unwholesome. See also: Macroswill.

19 years ago
# 11
# 11

CLASH
49183

CLASH
49183

I put Bud, Miller Lite, Coors, Southpaw, etc in the tolerable swill category. But there are certain crap beers that are not tolerable. Milwaukee's Best Red Label is the worst of that crowd. If you possess $3 and want a 6 pack get some PBR, Regular Schlitz, or even Old Millwater. The Beast is nasty crap in any form and I could pick it out from other macro swill. ACK!

19 years ago
# 12
# 12

If you compare MB to other beers Brooklyn, Saranac, it would of course not hold up. If you compare it to Red white +blue, OM or other like beers It holds up. It has a place in the beer market. It has to be compared in its own category.

19 years ago
# 13
# 13

COTTRELL
19268

In Reply To #13 Even so, it still gets lower reviews in it's own category than BMC. So where does that leave it? The worst of the worst?

19 years ago
# 14
# 14

In Reply To #14 So..... we're right back to where we started. It sucks, but if you want a cheap drunk, be my guest.

19 years ago
# 15
# 15

PKSMITH
7945

In Reply To #15 I'd rather have no buzz at all than a beastly buzz.

19 years ago
Sign up to participate!