OUR SECOND BIENNIAL BEER-TASTING

There are some who say “All beers taste alike.” Wrong. A much much more accurate axiom is this: “All beers taste
different to everybody.” There are two kinds of beer tastings: scientific and sociological. A scientific beer
tasting would entail a distinguished panel of brewmeis-ters, brewery chemists, and brewery taste analysts. They
would sample a limited selection and number of beers of a specific genre; for example, only European dark beers.
They would taste carefully, quietly. (Some, God forbid, might even expectorate each sample.) The tasting would be
somewhat conclusive ; it would be somewhat interesting : it would be somewhat dull. This was a sociological tasting.
The intent? To take a cross section of Dallas citizenry and a wide assortment of beers and record the random
response to determine Dallas consumer taste appeal in beers. And, to have a party. The results? Surprising. The
conclusions? Draw your own. (Mine is this: Beer is a wondrous substance of provocative taste and diverse effect.
Most beers taste good. All beers are effective,)

The tasting was not without scientific procedure. All beers were chilled to the same temperature, carefully poured
in identical 3-ounce portions, served in identical “beer clean” glasses.Water and unsalted crackers were available
at all times to clear the palate: smoking was discouraged. All beers were bottled (except two, unavailable
otherwise, which were canned). Beers were served unnamed, only numbered.

The judging panel chosen was a varied collection of Dallas people, some prominent, some obscure. Among the 21 judges
were six women, five Europeans, and five tavern proprietors. The only common denominator was a true appreciation for
beer.

Thirty different beers were sampled. Score ratings (1 to 100) and commentary were requested on each. Some commentary
was straightforward (“bitter aftertaste”). Some commentary was vehement, i.e., obscene.

Here are the judges’unscientific, but nonetheless distinguished findings. And it was a good party.

1. CARLSBERG DARK. What a difference.At our first beer tasting two years ago,Carlsberg Dark (of Denmark)
finished 13thamong the 21 beers tasted (though it didrank best among dark beers even at that).Its first place finish
here is a surprise -not because it isn’t a fine beer (it is), butbecause it’s a dark beer and a majority ofthe
judges expressed a preference for light.Its high score is probably best reflectedby the comment of one judge
whoremarked: “For a dark, it’s relatively light.And that’s a damn nice thing to say abouta dark.” Its acclaim wasn’t
unanimous -more than one judge complained of sweetness. Said one, who scored it a 2. “If Iwanted candy, I’d buy
some.”

2.CORONA. A shocker from Mexico. Itdidn’t draw many rave reviews, but fewjudges vehemently disliked it either
– themost consistently-scored beer of the tasting.It was praised for its lightness and drinka-bility (“I could drink
this all night”). Onejudge guessed it to be Coors.

3. ANDEKER. The top-of-the-line brewfrom the Pabst people ( Andeker is toPabst Blue Ribbon as Michelob is
toBudweiser). A very good American beerdeserving of its ranking. Surprising, though,that its kin, Pabst Blue Ribbon,
finishedso far down (#25). Andeker’s highestrating was only an 88, but it had very fewpoor scores. Interestingly,
several judgesguessed it to be “an import” and threeguessed it specifically to be a Mexicanbrew.

4. MICHELOB. Maybe there’s something tothe bigp.r. push behind this beer after all.And, like Andeker.it
finished much higher than its lower-priced step-brotherBudweiser (one judge guessed that it wasBud). There
was diversity of opinion onthis one: scores from 0 to I00. Commentsranged from “Compelling” to “Not veryclever. A
beer for Nebraskans.”5.TENNENTS.AScottishbrew.Despite itsposition near the end of the tasting, it
stillmanaged to make a strong impression,and a positive one. At least in scoring. The commentary was, for the most
part, something less than inspired by this point: “Tastes like 3 ounces of beer,” said one. “Tastes cold,” said
another.

6. SCHLITZ MALT LIQUOR. Most malignthis brew as just a faster way to get drunk.But without the label, its
robustness impressed most judges as being the sign ofan import. Three judges guessed it to beregular Schlitz. One
deluded fellow calledit a “primo light beer.”

7. COORS. Everybody tried to pick outCoors. (“This is Coors” they said abouteverything from Budweiser to
Lowenbrau);but only two named it correctly. Mosteverybody liked it though, except the judgewho rated it .0001.
“Light,” of course,was the byword here. Several judges notedthat it tasted very similar to the beer tastedjust
before it – which happened to beMiller Lite.

8. HEINEKEN. The scores on this popularimport from Holland lived up to its salesfigures. It caused some
confusion, however. Two judges guessed it was Bud, oneguessed Schlitz Light, and another guessedLone Star (?). Two
judges described itstaste as “nutty,” another as “spicy,” another as “paper,” and another as “Yahoo.”

9. SCHLITZ. Schlitz was the first beertasted. “I have never cared for Schlitz,”wrote one perceptive judge
immediately.Two others also identified it correctly.Commentary was not too lively right outof the starting gate,
mostly of the “mellow”or “nice aftertaste” variety. However,one judge was reminded of “sinus congestion.”

10.”HALFANDHALF” (GuinnessStout mixed with Coors). A favorite concoction of the bar at Andrew’s and a subject
of much commentary at the tasting. Because of its dark, dark color and distinctive flavor,Guinness (of Ireland) was
the most widely recognized beer of the tasting (but only one judge noted that it had been mixed). “Guinness is good
for you.” wrote one judge. “Syrup.” said another. “A religious experience,” said another – who rated it a 10.

11. HARP. Another Irish brew. Nobody gotwildly excited about it (“better than #9,””not as good as #11”), but
nobody saidanything highly derogatory (which washighly unusual on this day). It did fool acouple of judges as to its
origin: “Americanmediocrity.” said one. “Mainline WASP-tasting beer,” wrote another.

12. ELEPHANT MALT LIQUOR. A sturdybrew from the Carlsberg people. A widerange of opinion on this one: from -2
to95, from “putrid” to “bloody good.” Acommon complaint was that it tasted “bitter.” One judge, impressed by its
kick,said. “Makes my cheeks feel funny.”

13. HEILEMAN’S SPECIAL EXPORT. Aproduct of LaCrosse, Wisconsin. And,unfortunately, a beer which, at least
temporarily, is no longer being distributed inDallas. “A fair complexion,” remarked one judge. But, from the
other.side of the beauty bar. “Tastes like Wella Balsam.”

14. DOS EQUIS. The champion of our firsttasting didn’t fare quite so well this time.Its highest rating was 87
and most rankedit in the moderate (50-60) range. Threejudges did identify it correctly, though.Several judges
admitted being put off byits “cloudy” color. Others objected to itssweetness. “It tastes like a pear,” saidone judge
who scored it 80. “But I likepears.”

15. BUDWEISER. This was the keep-them-honest beer, tasted twice (as #5 and as#26). It was appreciated a bit
more (by 50points) the second time, but the judgesproved admirably consistent in their o-pinions (the score of 1047
is the averageof the two). Budweiser was chosen as thecontrol beer for its middle-of-the-road styleand, sure enough,
it ranked #15, right inthe middle of the pack. In fact, it scoredan inordinate number of 50’s. Commentswere “not
bad,” “fair,” “so-so.” And,insightfully, “a beer for the masses.”

MILLER LITE. Speaking of beer for themasses. It seems appropriate that the commercially ultra-successful Lite
finished backto back with Bud, straddling the middle.Scores ranged from 0 to 100; in fact, unlike Budweiser, judges
seemed to strongly like or strongly dislike Lite. Commentaryranged from “clean” to “urine.” Twofemale judges called
it “one of the best”and identified it correctly. But anotherfemale judge called it “shleezy.”

KIRIN. The sole representative fromJapan at the tasting. Didn’t make too muchof an impression on the judges
except as”bitter” – half the judges used the term.

ANCHOR STEAM. An interesting beerfrom a tiny little brewery in San Francisco,with an established cult
following in Dallas.It was a cult following on this day too.The English judges were uniformly ecstatic about the
stuff: “Must be fromhome,” said one. “Good heavy Englishtaste.” Another immediately declared it”The Winner.” But
others found it”strange” – from “fruity” to “sweet andsour pork” to “a bit like carbonatedSouthern Comfort.”

19. WATNEY’S RED BARREL. The

English judges didn’t fail their homeland here, though, all scoring the British-brewed Watney’s very highly. It was
not so appreciated by some of the other judges. One called it “the worst of the day.” Another scored it .3 and wrote
profoundly, “Ugh! Ech! Blech! Wretch!”

20. FOSTER LAGER. Australia’s widely admired creation. Not so widely admiredby this crowd, though it should
be mentioned that Foster was the very last beertasted and a certain amount of bleary apathy had apparently set in.
The most common comment was “Who cares’?”

21. ANHEUSER-BUSCH NATURALLIGHT. The newest entry in the light (diet)beer sweepstakes, this one from the
makersof Budweiser. It finished five notches shortof its chief competitor, Miller Lite. Manyfound it “tasteless.”
But one of the womenwho termed Miller Lite “one of the best”termed this one “the best.”

22. LONE STAR. The best ranking of anyTexas beer, but certainly nothing to hootabout. It had a few fans – one
called it”elegant and sexy.” And at least it drewinspired reaction from its detractors:”Smells like oysters.” “Sea
water.” “Brewed by Exxon.” “PureTexas

cow-.” Two judges guessed it to be Pearl. One judge wrote: “I forgot how it tasted.”

23. MILLER HIGH LIFE. “Tasteless” wasagain the charge here. “Another damnwoman’s beer,” wrote one
chauvinist.”Water” was the term used by four judges. One judge went a step further: “Mouth-wash.” Two judges, oddly
enough, guessedthat it was “Japanese.”

24. PEARL. Another Texas bomb. One judge scored it -0. Pearl drew perhaps the least commentary of any beer in
the tasting. One judge was moved only to write, “Lord forgive the brewery.” One judge guessed it was Lone Star.

25. PABST BLUE RIBBON. This was quitea surprise – one of the heartiest ofAmerican beers, Pabst figured to
make astrong impression and a better showing(it finished #2 in the first tasting). But noton this day. Apologies to
Billy Carter.

26. BRAHMA CHOPP. A Brazilian beer,our only representative from the SouthAmerican continent. If the scores
are anyindication, it’s just as well. Its “cloudy”aspect bothered a few. “Tastes like licorice.” “Made me shiver.”

27. CARTA BLANCA. Mexico’s biggie finished at the other end of the spectrumfrom its lesser-known countryman
Corona.There were more comments regarding thearoma of this beer than on any other. Afew were positive (“woodsy”);
most werenot (“fertilizer,” “essence of skunk,””Trinity River Breweries”). One judgesaid, “Another import – from Oak
Cliff.”

28. WURZBURGER DARK. Odd, or perhaps telling, that Carlsberg dark shouldfinish so high and this so low. No
scoreabove 85 was part of its problem. Severalsaid it seemed to be “colored with caramel,” and a few simply called
it “pretentious.” Most just didn’t care for the flavor.

29. SHINER. Another troubled Texan.Shiner drew a 1, two 0’s, and a -2. Commentary was mostly unprintable.
We’lllet “bedpan extract” suffice.

30. LOWENBRAU. The local version ofLowenbrau is now brewed in Fort Worth,wrapping up a woeful day for Texas
beer.The nicest thing said about Lowenbrauwas that “it tastes like beer.”