Hello,
the subject of the CAMRA campaign to, in essence, endorse a bottle conditioned beer as being just that is widely recognised to be a well meant disaster that is unhelpful and counterproductive. A slightly negative outlook perhaps, but as someone who has drunk and sold Bottle Conditioned Beers (BCA's) for years, I've had first hand experience of the toxic stock of affirming that something you can't hope to know the taste of is how you define real ale.
Not being a member of the CAMRA (you've seen the CAMRA) I decided to look at their website regarding the above subject here. To be fair, assuming you can get over the sloppiness that leads to them writing "bottle beers" instead of bottled beers, there is a lot more information and useful clarification than I was expecting.
It all sounds very positive and there are good reasons listed for supping a BCA. Disappointingly though, there is no mention of how a brewer gets their product stamped with the logo, and therefore no suggestion of a quality processes. And more damning is reason number 10 for drinking real ale in a bottle - that it tastes better.
To avoid going over old ground lets just remember that a lot of BCA, or, if you must, RAIB, tastes like drek. Sour, soupy, frothing, blobbing, earthy, tart murkiness that usually ends up making its final journey down your sink.
Against that backdrop its notable just how many breweries stick the logo on their bottle labels. What I hadn't thought about was, quite a lot don't. Why?
As you know, on Sunday I held a beer tasting at Beefy Towers (not sure about this moniker...) and we drank some stupendously good beer. What struck me today putting the empty bottles in the recycle bin (ooh get me!) was that only 2 of them carried the CAMRA logo. That, despite the fact that 9 of the 16 beers we drunk were bottle conditioned. Worse, but almost predictably so, the 2 that carried the logo were the least enjoyable of the night.
Admittedly I don't know when the logo started to be used so perhaps the 2006,2007 and 2008 Thornbridge and Fullers beers did not have it to use but Kernel's beers were all BCA as was Ilkley's. Fullers continue to produce their Vintage ale and I don't think I've spotted the CAMRA logo on it.
All sorts of contributory factors can lead to a BCA being a disappointment but in this line up the BCA's sporting the logo were the poor cousins of some impeccable bottled royalty.
Given the huge number of dire producers and products proudly informing the consumer that this is what CAMRA thinks beer should taste like (because its not immediately obvious that its an indicator of secondary fermentation) is it possible perhaps that Ilkley, Kernel and Thornbridge don't think the logo is necessary?
Or do they just not want to be associated with a white elephant concept synonymous with hobby bottlers and undrinkable beer?
Wee Beefy
If the "CAMRA says this is real ale" logo is to mean anything, it needs to be a positive mark of quality, not just a statement that this is a bottle of beer with gunge in the bottom.
ReplyDeleteSpot on. If you could make that a few words shorter, and introduce a rigid quality regime on the back of it, there could be a logo worth its ink. I trust you will propose this new slogan at some sort of AGM....
DeleteLast bottle I had with the sticker on had to go down the sink, definitely had that real ale flavour, but real ale that had been sat in a cellar too long. In date and kept at cellar temperature. Not a good advert.
ReplyDeleteHere's the other angle of course - I reckon you know what beer should taste like - but not everyone does. In not quality checking beers displaying the logo the wording makes a mess of the message. Counterproductive, end of.
DeleteI think the "CAMRA says this is reale ale" logo has been on the go for quite some time. Early noughties at the very least.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the best bottle conditioned beers (Kernel, Buxton, Marble and so forth) I think the breweries in question have a good enough reputation not to need the CAMRA label.
Last night I had an Eastern Nights "exotic Indian pale ale" (5.6% ABV) from Bollington Brewery, which I had won in a CAMRA raffle. I had assumed this was bottle-conditioned, and was fearing the worst, but was pleasantly surprised to find it had decent condition and poured clear without too much difficulty. However, on looking at the bottle it doesn't have the CAMRA logo and makes no mention of bottle-conditioning, so presumably isn't.
ReplyDeleteIts a bit confusing because there are a few other types of bottled beer that CAMRA probably don't consider to be BCA. I was hoping Mike McGuigan would expand upon his Twitter comment, because he was talking about different types of filtering used by Thornbridge. Still time!
DeleteDerventio on the other hand don't claim to bottle condition their beers but they all carry a sediment (but no logo). And bottled Bernard lager is cloudy but due to being unfiltered (if I remember rightly).
All of which shows that the CAMRA website should be a bit more detailed in its definition, and the logo should be awarded based on rigorous quality testing. It seems silly to still be finding the logo on, for example Corverdale Brewery beers - I don't suggest you try one to find out what I mean....
Hi everyone, I posted quite extensively on the subject of BCA's just under 3 years ago, see link http://baileysbeerblog.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/bottle-conditioned-beers.html.
ReplyDeleteMy views haven't changed since then, and if anything they've hardened! CAMRA really has boxed itself into a corner on this issue (and others).
Its such a shame because treating every bottle conditioned beer as being of the same consitency/quality, as the logo seems to do, just means that excellent BCA's suffer from the associated bad press.
DeleteDespite one hiccup, there have been times that I have been absolutely bowled over by beers such as Durham Temptation and Fullers Vintage. I'd hate to think someone would pass up the chance to excperience the magnifcence of those beers beacuse they'd tried a pile of crap amateurish offering bearing CAMRA's mark of approval.