Stamp Out (my) Ignorance, Please....
 

In my continuing efforts to teach myself how to catch fish with some
semblance of regularity, a few questions have arisen. Any help that the
denizens of ROFF could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Please don't laugh -- well, OK, laugh, but laugh with me, not at me.
Remember, I'm a self-taught semi-newb backpacker. And, just for fun, they're
in completely random order.

1) "Knotless" leaders... huh??? I buy these things, nip the loop off, and
tie up. WTF is the loop for?

2) Stream ettiquette -- I was working a pool this morning, and a guy just
waded right the hell thru it. I didn't say anything, but wanted to drown the
sumbitch. Am I wrong?

3) Should the fly land first, or should the line? Why? I've caught fish when
either has happened, but that's just an idiot's luck, I'm sure. I can
usually make either happen, but I have no idea which I should be trying for.

4) Tossing a nymph -- I try to toss it well beyond the fish/area I'm
targeting (with varying degrees of success), but doesn't that "plop" spook
the fish?

5) I really wanted to drown that sumbitch -- I had two decent strikes in
that pool before he destroyed it.

6)I've been using an Albright to connect the leader to tippet. Seems good to
me, small knot, fairly strong, easy to tie. Good? Bad? I know knot choice is
a personal thing, but is there any reason "not" to use it?

More questions will certainly come as I realize just how stupid I am.

Awaiting the berating,

Thanks...
Dan

On 6/7/05 6:03 PM, in article
, "Daniel-San"
wrote:

In my continuing efforts to teach myself how to catch fish with some
semblance of regularity, a few questions have arisen. Any help that the
denizens of ROFF could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Please don't laugh -- well, OK, laugh, but laugh with me, not at me.
Remember, I'm a self-taught semi-newb backpacker. And, just for fun, they're
in completely random order.

1) "Knotless" leaders... huh??? I buy these things, nip the loop off, and
tie up. WTF is the loop for?

Nipping off.


2) Stream ettiquette -- I was working a pool this morning, and a guy just
waded right the hell thru it. I didn't say anything, but wanted to drown the
sumbitch. Am I wrong?

You are so right, it's wrong.


3) Should the fly land first, or should the line? Why? I've caught fish when
either has happened, but that's just an idiot's luck, I'm sure. I can
usually make either happen, but I have no idea which I should be trying for.

Hm. Looking forward to reading the answer to this myself. With the recent
tippit size thread, you might get some interesting answers. My thought is
that the leader should roll the fly out so that the fly lands (softly) last.
That said, you might throw a different kind of cast (pile cast?) in which
the fly wafts down first with the leader and line following.


4) Tossing a nymph -- I try to toss it well beyond the fish/area I'm
targeting (with varying degrees of success), but doesn't that "plop" spook
the fish?

In some cases, it might attract him. But yes, in most cases, get it
upstream so that the plop and sink can occur well before the feeding
monster.


5) I really wanted to drown that sumbitch -- I had two decent strikes in
that pool before he destroyed it.

I always deploy the dagger looks from beneath the brim of my hat. But then,
I'm a small, timid librarian. Were I fishing with Thor (Roger Ohlund), I'd
be a bit more brash. Might even sling middle English poetry at the bastid.


6)I've been using an Albright to connect the leader to tippet. Seems good to
me, small knot, fairly strong, easy to tie. Good? Bad? I know knot choice is
a personal thing, but is there any reason "not" to use it?

I don't know Madeline personally, but it seems like a good idea.

(I'm not familiar with this knot. I use a surgeon's knot for that
connection.)


More questions will certainly come as I realize just how stupid I am.

Awaiting the berating,

NEXT!

Bill

Daniel-San wrote:
...
1) "Knotless" leaders... huh??? I buy these things, nip the loop off, and
tie up. WTF is the loop for?

Some folks like to use loop-to-loop connections to make
switching leaders easier. The loop on a knotless leader
is a perfection loop and if you've ever tried to tie one
that small you'd appreciate that someone else had done it
for you. The "knotless" in knotless leader refers to its
continuous taper from .021" or .019" at the butt down to
3X, 4X or whatever at the tip. This is relatively recent,
used to be you had to tie different size pieces of mono
together with blood knots to achieve the same taper as
what modern extrusion techniques can produce. But when
you tied all that mono together you had ... knots.

2) Stream ettiquette -- I was working a pool this morning, and a guy just
waded right the hell thru it. I didn't say anything, but wanted to drown the
sumbitch. Am I wrong?

Pricks happen. Don't let them ruin your day.

3) Should the fly land first, or should the line? Why? I've caught fish when
either has happened, but that's just an idiot's luck, I'm sure. I can
usually make either happen, but I have no idea which I should be trying for.

If you cast just right your fly will be the last thing to
gently settle to the surface of the water.

4) Tossing a nymph --

Blech.

5) I really wanted to drown that sumbitch -- I had two decent strikes in
that pool before he destroyed it.

Pricks happen. Don't let them ruin your day.

6)I've been using an Albright to connect the leader to tippet. Seems good to
me, small knot, fairly strong, easy to tie. Good? Bad? I know knot choice is
a personal thing, but is there any reason "not" to use it?

No reason not to use it. I use nail knots on both ends of
my fly line.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Daniel-San wrote:

5) I really wanted to drown that sumbitch -- I had two decent strikes in
that pool before he destroyed it.

:-)

6)I've been using an Albright to connect the leader to tippet. Seems good to
me, small knot, fairly strong, easy to tie. Good? Bad? I know knot choice is
a personal thing, but is there any reason "not" to use it?

I've never heard of an Albright knot used for that purpose, except with
wire or heavy mono bite tippet. Use a surgeon's knot.

More questions will certainly come as I realize just how stupid I am.

Awaiting the berating,

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Daniel-San wrote:

6)I've been using an Albright to connect the leader to tippet. Seems good to
me, small knot, fairly strong, easy to tie. Good? Bad? I know knot choice is
a personal thing, but is there any reason "not" to use it?

After many years of fly fishing I just learned the Albright a couple
years ago when I first went fishing in the Salt. I like the knot and now
use it for a number of connections including tying on tippet sections
when I'm tying together two pieces of nylon that differ widely in diameter.


Willi

Daniel-San wrote:
In my continuing efforts to teach myself how to catch fish with some
semblance of regularity, a few questions have arisen. Any help that the
denizens of ROFF could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Please don't laugh -- well, OK, laugh, but laugh with me, not at me.
Remember, I'm a self-taught semi-newb backpacker. And, just for fun, they're
in completely random order.

1) "Knotless" leaders... huh??? I buy these things, nip the loop off, and
tie up. WTF is the loop for?

Nip it off and use a nail knot, needle knot, Eagle Claw connector
thingy, or Zap-a-Gap connection to attatch your leader to your line.


2) Stream ettiquette -- I was working a pool this morning, and a guy just
waded right the hell thru it. I didn't say anything, but wanted to drown the
sumbitch. Am I wrong?

When this happens to me, I usually ask the offending party if I am
invisible. In reality, the damage done depends on where you are
fishing. If it is for wild trout in a small stream, it's a disaster, if
you're on a crowded stream fishing for stockies, wait a few minutes,
and they'll normally resume feeding. In any case, don't let it spoil
your day....you'll meet assholes everywhere, not just on a trout
stream.


3) Should the fly land first, or should the line? Why? I've caught fish when
either has happened, but that's just an idiot's luck, I'm sure. I can
usually make either happen, but I have no idea which I should be trying for.

The line and leader should lay down gently, followed by the fly.


4) Tossing a nymph -- I try to toss it well beyond the fish/area I'm
targeting (with varying degrees of success), but doesn't that "plop" spook
the fish?

Probably not, but try to get the fly well upstream of your target fish
so it has time to sink.



5) I really wanted to drown that sumbitch -- I had two decent strikes in
that pool before he destroyed it.

Perfectly normal reaction. Once again, don't let it spoil your day.

6)I've been using an Albright to connect the leader to tippet. Seems good to
me, small knot, fairly strong, easy to tie. Good? Bad? I know knot choice is
a personal thing, but is there any reason "not" to use it?

No reason not to use it. I prefer a blood knot, but it's simply a
matter of preference.

More questions will certainly come as I realize just how stupid I am.

Awaiting the berating,

It will come....eventually. Here's a hint - ask lots of questions about
nymphs and strike indicators, and occasionally refer to Budwieser as
"horse****". {;-)


Thanks...
Dan

Daniel-San wrote:
In my continuing efforts to teach myself how to catch fish with some
semblance of regularity, a few questions have arisen. Any help that the
denizens of ROFF could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Please don't laugh -- well, OK, laugh, but laugh with me, not at me.
Remember, I'm a self-taught semi-newb backpacker. And, just for fun, they're
in completely random order.

1) "Knotless" leaders... huh??? I buy these things, nip the loop off, and
tie up. WTF is the loop for?

Nip it off and use a nail knot, needle knot, Eagle Claw connector
thingy, or Zap-a-Gap connection to attatch your leader to your line.


2) Stream ettiquette -- I was working a pool this morning, and a guy just
waded right the hell thru it. I didn't say anything, but wanted to drown the
sumbitch. Am I wrong?

When this happens to me, I usually ask the offending party if I am
invisible. In reality, the damage done depends on where you are
fishing. If it is for wild trout in a small stream, it's a disaster, if
you're on a crowded stream fishing for stockies, wait a few minutes,
and they'll normally resume feeding. In any case, don't let it spoil
your day....you'll meet assholes everywhere, not just on a trout
stream.


3) Should the fly land first, or should the line? Why? I've caught fish when
either has happened, but that's just an idiot's luck, I'm sure. I can
usually make either happen, but I have no idea which I should be trying for.

The line and leader should lay down gently, followed by the fly.


4) Tossing a nymph -- I try to toss it well beyond the fish/area I'm
targeting (with varying degrees of success), but doesn't that "plop" spook
the fish?

Probably not, but try to get the fly well upstream of your target fish
so it has time to sink.



5) I really wanted to drown that sumbitch -- I had two decent strikes in
that pool before he destroyed it.

Perfectly normal reaction. Once again, don't let it spoil your day.

6)I've been using an Albright to connect the leader to tippet. Seems good to
me, small knot, fairly strong, easy to tie. Good? Bad? I know knot choice is
a personal thing, but is there any reason "not" to use it?

No reason not to use it. I prefer a blood knot, but it's simply a
matter of preference.

More questions will certainly come as I realize just how stupid I am.

Awaiting the berating,

It will come....eventually. Here's a hint - ask lots of questions about
nymphs and strike indicators, and occasionally refer to Budwieser as
"horse****". {;-)


Thanks...
Dan

George Adams wrote:
Daniel-San wrote:
snip
Awaiting the berating,

It will come....eventually. Here's a hint - ask lots of questions
about nymphs and strike indicators, and occasionally refer to
Budwieser as "horse****". {;-)

.. . . and say lots of nice things about Ronald Reagan, like "Ronald
Reagan exemplifies the essence of fly fishing."
--
TL,
Tim
---------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

"George Adams" wrote

The line and leader should lay down gently, followed by the fly.

in heaven, all the time, and once about every 25 casts or so on earth,
they all three arrive on the water's surface simultaneously.

and you could learn far more than you would ever want to know about the
mistake you make by fishing directly in front of someone, if you were to
ever walk through a run or hole being fished by james macdonald roberts,
late of pitt county, north carolina.

yfitons
wayno

"Daniel-San"

1) "Knotless" leaders... huh??? I buy these things, nip the loop off, and
tie up. WTF is the loop for?

I use a nail know with a perfection loop, about 6 inches long with a
diameter of 60 percent of my fly line to allow me a quick change of leaders
(when necessary - by tying on a fresh piece of tippet a leader can last a
very long time) The leader should attache to the llop to loop connection
with a perfect clove knot.

2) Stream ettiquette -- I was working a pool this morning, and a guy just
waded right the hell thru it. I didn't say anything, but wanted to drown
the
sumbitch. Am I wrong?

No. but beausdad and I were coming up a stream, fishing to the next pool
(typical mountain stream wading) and we plowed into a pool that a gent was
working from the bank. He was invisible, well hidden. He immediately got
huffy and left before we could gather our wits to apologize. typically in
theose mountain streams you are fishing the next pool up , not the one you
are wading in.

3) Should the fly land first, or should the line? Why? I've caught fish
when
either has happened, but that's just an idiot's luck, I'm sure. I can
usually make either happen, but I have no idea which I should be trying
for.

I prefer the fly landing first, many times the fly gets busted as soon as it
hits the water and not after the line has collapsed.

4) Tossing a nymph -- I try to toss it well beyond the fish/area I'm
targeting (with varying degrees of success), but doesn't that "plop" spook
the fish?

spook/attract, nymph needs time to sink - go figure....

5) I really wanted to drown that sumbitch -- I had two decent strikes in
that pool before he destroyed it.

Yes, it is a real ****er . . . I usually try to say hello before the other
gent disrupts my fishing...and should I be the gent, well I didn't see you,
allow me time to apologize...

6)I've been using an Albright to connect the leader to tippet. Seems good
to
me, small knot, fairly strong, easy to tie. Good? Bad? I know knot choice
is
a personal thing, but is there any reason "not" to use it?

I prefer a nail knot with a loop to loop connection

More questions will certainly come as I realize just how stupid I am.


"A man who knows he knows, knows nothing. A man who knows he knows nothing
really knows, " Mott the Hopple......but I think he was paraphrasing
Socrates....'I' dont' know.

Awaiting the berating,

Careful, it gets to be a habit and you will spend the rest of your life
delving into the useless knowledge at the bottom of a bottle...

Thanks...
Dan

.....I'll drink to that.....

john

6)I've been using an Albright to connect the leader to tippet. Seems
good to
me, small knot, fairly strong, easy to tie. Good? Bad? I know knot
choice is
a personal thing, but is there any reason "not" to use it?

I don't know Madeline personally, but it seems like a good idea.

AAA+! Great line.... Somehow, I think she'd be rather difficult to cast.

Thanks for the info.

Dan

1) "Knotless" leaders... huh??? I buy these things, nip the loop off,
and
tie up. WTF is the loop for?

Some folks like to use loop-to-loop connections to make
switching leaders easier. The loop on a knotless leader
is a perfection loop and if you've ever tried to tie one
that small you'd appreciate that someone else had done it
for you. The "knotless" in knotless leader refers to its
continuous taper from .021" or .019" at the butt down to
3X, 4X or whatever at the tip. This is relatively recent,
used to be you had to tie different size pieces of mono
together with blood knots to achieve the same taper as
what modern extrusion techniques can produce. But when
you tied all that mono together you had ... knots.

Color me informed...

When you think about it, that just makes sense. The loop is what really
threw off ant sort of logical approach to this.


2) Stream ettiquette -- I was working a pool this morning, and a guy
just
waded right the hell thru it. I didn't say anything, but wanted to drown
the
sumbitch. Am I wrong?

Pricks happen. Don't let them ruin your day.

I was only ****ed for a minute or so. Having spent 12 years running
restaurants, I know all about pricks. Just wondering if I was "right" to be
****ed.

3) Should the fly land first, or should the line? Why? I've caught fish
when
either has happened, but that's just an idiot's luck, I'm sure. I can
usually make either happen, but I have no idea which I should be trying
for.

If you cast just right your fly will be the last thing to
gently settle to the surface of the water.

Sounds good.

4) Tossing a nymph --

Blech.

Agreed, but, well... there is no "but" -- agreed.

5) I really wanted to drown that sumbitch -- I had two decent strikes in
that pool before he destroyed it.

Pricks happen. Don't let them ruin your day.

6)I've been using an Albright to connect the leader to tippet. Seems
good to
me, small knot, fairly strong, easy to tie. Good? Bad? I know knot
choice is
a personal thing, but is there any reason "not" to use it?

No reason not to use it. I use nail knots on both ends of
my fly line.

Thanky very mucho for the info.

Dan

6)I've been using an Albright to connect the leader to tippet. Seems
good to
me, small knot, fairly strong, easy to tie. Good? Bad? I know knot
choice is
a personal thing, but is there any reason "not" to use it?

I've never heard of an Albright knot used for that purpose, except with
wire or heavy mono bite tippet. Use a surgeon's knot.



Is there a particularly bad thing about the Albright knot? I learned that
years ago, and have it down better than a Boy Scout has a square knot.

Thanks for the info.
Dan

"Willi" wrote ..
Daniel-San wrote:

6)I've been using an Albright to connect the leader to tippet. Seems
good to
me, small knot, fairly strong, easy to tie. Good? Bad? I know knot
choice is
a personal thing, but is there any reason "not" to use it?

After many years of fly fishing I just learned the Albright a couple
years ago when I first went fishing in the Salt. I like the knot and now
use it for a number of connections including tying on tippet sections
when I'm tying together two pieces of nylon that differ widely in
diameter.

I used it years ago when trolling for salmon (blech...) on Lake Michigan
with my dad. He liked it for linking leaders to flashers and whatnot. Just
stuck, I guess.

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 13:11:23 GMT, "Daniel-San"
wrote:

Is there a particularly bad thing about the Albright knot? I learned that
years ago, and have it down better than a Boy Scout has a square knot.

It doesn't make a straight line connection and is a little bulky. I mostly use
it to connect backing to fly line. I used to use it to connect class tippet to
bite tippet for sal****er, but switched to the Huffnagle knot for that. For
trout leaders I just use a double surgeons knot.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

"George Adams" wrote

Daniel-San wrote:
In my continuing efforts to teach myself how to catch fish with some
semblance of regularity, a few questions have arisen. Any help that the
denizens of ROFF could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Please don't laugh -- well, OK, laugh, but laugh with me, not at me.
Remember, I'm a self-taught semi-newb backpacker. And, just for fun,
they're
in completely random order.

1) "Knotless" leaders... huh??? I buy these things, nip the loop off,
and
tie up. WTF is the loop for?

Nip it off and use a nail knot, needle knot, Eagle Claw connector
thingy, or Zap-a-Gap connection to attatch your leader to your line.


2) Stream ettiquette -- I was working a pool this morning, and a guy
just
waded right the hell thru it. I didn't say anything, but wanted to drown
the
sumbitch. Am I wrong?

When this happens to me, I usually ask the offending party if I am
invisible. In reality, the damage done depends on where you are
fishing. If it is for wild trout in a small stream, it's a disaster, if
you're on a crowded stream fishing for stockies, wait a few minutes,
and they'll normally resume feeding. In any case, don't let it spoil
your day....you'll meet assholes everywhere, not just on a trout
stream.

I was on the Black Earth, about to get the skunk off me (or so I like to
think) when the SOB waltzed right on in.

3) Should the fly land first, or should the line? Why? I've caught fish
when
either has happened, but that's just an idiot's luck, I'm sure. I can
usually make either happen, but I have no idea which I should be trying
for.

The line and leader should lay down gently, followed by the fly.

Thanks..

4) Tossing a nymph -- I try to toss it well beyond the fish/area I'm
targeting (with varying degrees of success), but doesn't that "plop"
spook
the fish?

Probably not, but try to get the fly well upstream of your target fish
so it has time to sink.


Makes sense.

5) I really wanted to drown that sumbitch -- I had two decent strikes in
that pool before he destroyed it.

Perfectly normal reaction. Once again, don't let it spoil your day.

6)I've been using an Albright to connect the leader to tippet. Seems
good to
me, small knot, fairly strong, easy to tie. Good? Bad? I know knot
choice is
a personal thing, but is there any reason "not" to use it?

No reason not to use it. I prefer a blood knot, but it's simply a
matter of preference.

More questions will certainly come as I realize just how stupid I am.

Awaiting the berating,

It will come....eventually. Here's a hint - ask lots of questions about
nymphs and strike indicators, and occasionally refer to Budwieser as
"horse****". {;-)

Long ago, I had quite possibly the best job imaginable for a 22-year old
kid. The restaurant where I worked was rolling out a program where they
would be selling a lot of different beers. I got to be a trainer for this.
Prior to my travelling around to teach servers about beer, I got sent to
about 50 different breweries to talk to brew-masters, sample products, and
generally learn about beer. They actually paid me for this. Bottom line: the
only good beer out there is the one(s) you like. The rest are all horse****.

In defense of the huge breweries (A-B, Miller, etc.) -- They really do take
the making of their beer seriously. Yeah, they're mass-produced, but it's
the same beer all the time. Quality-control is a religion, and not in the
closet-Catholic sense.

Thanks for the response.
Dan

"Tim J." wrote ...
George Adams wrote:
Daniel-San wrote:
snip
Awaiting the berating,

It will come....eventually. Here's a hint - ask lots of questions
about nymphs and strike indicators, and occasionally refer to
Budwieser as "horse****". {;-)

. . . and say lots of nice things about Ronald Reagan, like "Ronald
Reagan exemplifies the essence of fly fishing."
--


Saying that would hurt worse than having a monster fish break off two feet
away.

Dan

"Daniel-San" wrote in message
. com...

...In defense of the huge breweries (A-B, Miller, etc.) -- They really do
take
the making of their beer seriously. Yeah, they're mass-produced, but it's
the same beer all the time. Quality-control is a religion, and not in the
closet-Catholic sense.

Yeah, but it's probably good to keep in mind that "quality control" is an
inherently misleading term.....it's all about being consistent, and making
bad products consistently and to rigid standards is far from unusual. Nor
is there anything noteworthy about selling them successfully in large
quantities. Where the output of the major American breweries is concerned,
it's only truly quality control if you happen to value the qualities of the
product. And that, as you noted, is highly subjective.....purely a matter
of taste.

As to the manufacturers in question, I'd counter that they take the making
of their "product" seriously. But they take the marketing thereof even more
seriously. I say "product" rather than "beer" because I don't believe it
makes any difference to the upper echelons of the corporate structure what
the product is. It happens to be beer in this instance, but it could be
anything......say, cigarettes for instance.

What's interesting about Miller and Anheuser Busch is less their products
than the extent to which they go to establish the tastes and loyalty of
their target market by appealing to underage drinkers.......with phenomenal
success, one might add. It isn't so much Kennie's insistence on extolling
the dubious virtues of his favorite horse-**** that's amusing......it's the
fact that his taste was dictated to him when he was sixteen, that he takes
such pains to justify it and, most of all, that he proffers being a willing
dupe as a sign of some sort of cultural superiority.

Wolfgang

"Wolfgang" wrote ...

Yeah, but it's probably good to keep in mind that "quality control" is an
inherently misleading term.....it's all about being consistent, and making
bad products consistently and to rigid standards is far from unusual. Nor
is there anything noteworthy about selling them successfully in large
quantities. Where the output of the major American breweries is
concerned,
it's only truly quality control if you happen to value the qualities of
the
product. And that, as you noted, is highly subjective.....purely a matter
of taste.

Very true. In the bizzarro-world that is corporate-restaurants, the most
common thing heard is "consistency". Most training programs at least mention
McDonald's during this part. Get a cheesepuck in Beloit, WI and it will
taste really similar to a cheesepuck gotten in Cherokee, NC. Same product
everywhere, every time. Crap product or not.


But they take the marketing thereof even more
seriously. I say "product" rather than "beer" because I don't believe it
makes any difference to the upper echelons of the corporate structure what
the product is. It happens to be beer in this instance, but it could be
anything......say, cigarettes for instance.

Couldn't agree more. It's all about brand image. Just about any product
imaginable has some kind of marketing campaign. No marketing is, in fact
marketing to a certain degree. They want to have certain types of people
(with a certain disposable income level) think of their product when a
"need" comes around. Your example of cigarettes is a particularly good one.
Look at the way certain brands were marketed. The Marlboro man is considered
by some folks as Madison Ave.'s best accomplishment. He's a macho-man type.
A Cowboy. No need for help from anything, except maybe a smoke. Then have a
look at Virginia Slims. Trying to identify with the feminists of the 70s and
80s. "You've come a long way, baby." Then switch to Kool. Very much targeted
at black folks. The old "Kool Jazz festival"...

Personally, I hate marketing. I know it's a fact of life. I know I've
succumbed to it. I know it's a science. I just hate the fact that it's
almost inescapable. My buddy and I were camped on the Manistee a month or so
ago. Dinner time rolls along and I'm gonna make one of those dehydrated
noodle/sauce things that cost a buck and have a shelf-life measured in
millenia. Lipton brand, me thinks. While waiting for the water to boil, I
looked at the package. It has the brand-name, the parent-company's logo, the
brand of butter you're supposed to use, and one or two other products that
they're sure you'll like, complete with logo.

Drives me nuts.


What's interesting about Miller and Anheuser Busch is less their products
than the extent to which they go to establish the tastes and loyalty of
their target market by appealing to underage drinkers.......with
phenomenal
success, one might add. It isn't so much Kennie's insistence on extolling
the dubious virtues of his favorite horse-**** that's amusing......it's
the
fact that his taste was dictated to him when he was sixteen, that he takes
such pains to justify it and, most of all, that he proffers being a
willing
dupe as a sign of some sort of cultural superiority.

While I haven't been around here nearly long enough to comment on whether or
not Ken's loyalty to whatever makes sense, in a general sense, you're
absolutely correct. Again, go to the cigarette industry. Remember the
cartoon camel? I don't know for sure if they were targeting the young here
(I'd bet they were), but let's assume so. What better way to generate a
long-term profit than by hooking the young and having them identify with
your brand? I guess in the tobacco-world the profits may fall off after a
while **cough, cough**, but it sure helps in the mean-time.

Marketing -- ugh!

Dan

Daniel-San wrote:
"Tim J." wrote ...
George Adams wrote:
Daniel-San wrote:
snip
Awaiting the berating,

It will come....eventually. Here's a hint - ask lots of questions
about nymphs and strike indicators, and occasionally refer to
Budwieser as "horse****". {;-)

. . . and say lots of nice things about Ronald Reagan, like "Ronald
Reagan exemplifies the essence of fly fishing."

Saying that would hurt worse than having a monster fish break off two
feet away.

You don't have to *believe* it, you just have to type it. Although it
may be painful for you, these things must be done in order to keep
balance in the universe.
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

. . . and say lots of nice things about Ronald Reagan, like "Ronald Reagan
exemplifies the essence of fly fishing."

Actually, its true. Ronald Rayguns and most of my casts are very similiar.
Very big on presentation, just lacking in payoff. When all the probilities
come into alignment, even a sock puppet can hook something.

--
Frank Reid
Euthenize to respond

"Wolfgang" wrote in message

"Daniel-San" wrote in message

...In defense of the huge breweries (A-B, Miller, etc.) -- They really
do
take
the making of their beer seriously. Yeah, they're mass-produced, but
it's
the same beer all the time. Quality-control is a religion, and not in
the
closet-Catholic sense.

Yeah, but it's probably good to keep in mind that "quality control" is an
inherently misleading term.....it's all about being consistent, and making
bad products consistently and to rigid standards is far from unusual. Nor
is there anything noteworthy about selling them successfully in large
quantities. Where the output of the major American breweries is
concerned,
it's only truly quality control if you happen to value the qualities of
the
product. And that, as you noted, is highly subjective.....purely a matter
of taste.

As to the manufacturers in question, I'd counter that they take the making
of their "product" seriously. But they take the marketing thereof even
more
seriously. I say "product" rather than "beer" because I don't believe it
makes any difference to the upper echelons of the corporate structure what
the product is. It happens to be beer in this instance, but it could be
anything......say, cigarettes for instance.

Agree. But a major change in taste WILL result in a loss of sales =$
I point to "New Coke" as an example. To help with this is why the makers of
"horse ****" make more than one beer and pretty much leave the original
alone. This is to keep the loyal fans happy and try to win over those who
don't like horse ****. (not really a fan of horse **** myself FWIW)

What's interesting about Miller and Anheuser Busch is less their products
than the extent to which they go to establish the tastes and loyalty of
their target market by appealing to underage drinkers.......with
phenomenal
success, one might add. It isn't so much Kennie's insistence on extolling
the dubious virtues of his favorite horse-**** that's amusing......it's
the
fact that his taste was dictated to him when he was sixteen, that he takes
such pains to justify it and, most of all, that he proffers being a
willing
dupe as a sign of some sort of cultural superiority.

Wolfgang

In part I think the success of horse **** is that it IS widely available,
any bar, any store, any place that sells beer (U.S.) WILL have horse ****
you can count on it and don't have to think about it. It is also cheaper
than most "good" beers. As far as taste at an early age... at the ripe old
age of 15 my favorite beer was Little Kings. Why? It was easy to steal.
Simple as that. Favorite beer now...Guinness. I don't see at all how Little
Kings trained me to like Guinness. Or wait maybe I do. I get it... one
tastes like **** one tastes goooooood.

But really how many of us drink now what we did then? Be it stolen or snuck
out of dad's fridge, or friend's dad's fridge.

"This ain't your fathers beer"
Natural Lite {:-? Yuck!

"Goat" wrote in message
news:bjEpe.6931$xI2.1025@trnddc09...

Agree. But a major change in taste WILL result in a loss of sales =$

No doubt about it. Whatever informs or dictates individual tastes, the
result is very real.

I point to "New Coke" as an example.

I recall the outrage (purely a matter of hearsay on my part, as I don't
drink much soda and have no brand preferences) but I don't remember whether
it caused many outright defections to the opposition. I suppose diehard
Coke fans were stymied by the fact that, for all practical purposes, there
were no options but to swallow the new product (and their pride) or switch
over to the loathed Pepsi. It seems to me that AB and Miller never quite so
dominated the beer market in the U.S. as to leave the hapless consumer in
such dire straits. There have always been at least a few other smaller
national and some fairly successful regional brands available. Even today
there are enough of the established generic American beers left to give fans
of the style a number of viable options.....Olympia, Coors, Pearl, PBR, etc.

To help with this is why the makers of
"horse ****" make more than one beer and pretty much leave the original
alone. This is to keep the loyal fans happy and try to win over those who
don't like horse ****. (not really a fan of horse **** myself FWIW)

Aside from the "Lite" beers (an extraordinary phenomenon) most of their
experiments with other styles haven't been all that successful. In large
part, this results from their own efforts at establishing and maintaining a
widespread preference for a certain style. Anything that departs very far
from what their customer base expects will not only leave them cold, but
also make them nervous about the future. Anything that doesn't won't
attract anyone who doesn't care for their flagship brews.

Miller experimented rather heavily with a number of "micros" back about ten
years ago. Some of them actually made it to the marketplace, where they
promptly failed. Their customer base wasn't interested because they were
too different, others weren't interested because they weren't different
enough. Both camps were highly suspicious. They also tried some things
that never made it to market. I got to try some of them by way of a friend
who was in management at Miller. Some of each group were actually pretty
decent. Miller dropped all of them because it was deemed that they just
weren't worth the trouble. They preferred to continue to go after market
share by tried and true methods.....marketing, price cutting, buying up the
competition, advertising, etc. rather than extending the product line.

In part I think the success of horse **** is that it IS widely available,
any bar, any store, any place that sells beer (U.S.) WILL have horse ****
you can count on it and don't have to think about it. It is also cheaper
than most "good" beers. As far as taste at an early age... at the ripe old
age of 15 my favorite beer was Little Kings. Why? It was easy to steal.
Simple as that. Favorite beer now...Guinness. I don't see at all how
Little
Kings trained me to like Guinness. Or wait maybe I do. I get it... one
tastes like **** one tastes goooooood.

Personally, I think Guinness is grossly overrated......but, to each his own.
:)

But really how many of us drink now what we did then? Be it stolen or
snuck
out of dad's fridge, or friend's dad's fridge.

"This ain't your fathers beer"
Natural Lite {:-? Yuck!

What makes the whole thing even more interesting is the impossibility of
determining for certain that ANY of them is your father's beer. Aside from
deliberate changes in formulas (or recipes, if you prefer), something we
know happened a lot throughout the history of brewing in America, there is
also undetectable incremental change in basic ingredients. Even today it is
expensive and extremely difficult to ensure that the barley going into one
batch is identical to what went into the last.....the fact that a brewer has
identified certain parameters does not, can not, guarantee that others, as
yet unidentified, won't make a difference over time.

Then too, individual perceptions change over time. I don't know whether any
of the beers I drank when I was in my teens are the same products (in any
meaningful sense) today as they were in the 60s, but they sure taste
different to me.

Wolfgang

But really how many of us drink now what we did then? Be it stolen or
snuck
out of dad's fridge, or friend's dad's fridge.

"This ain't your fathers beer"
Natural Lite {:-? Yuck!

Yes, very true. If we all drank what our parents drank, I would still be
drinking PBR. Ewwwhuuhhu!

--
Frank Reid
Euthenize to respond

Wolfgang wrote:
What makes the whole thing even more interesting is the impossibility
of determining for certain that ANY of them is your father's beer.

Putting on his nerd hat, he hauls out the (slightly modified for this
conversation) *Matrix Quotation*:
Mouse: "How do the machines know what Bud tasted like? Maybe they got it
wrong. Maybe what I think Bud tasted like actually tasted like oatmeal, or
horse urine. That makes you wonder about a lot of things. You take chicken,
for example: Maybe they couldn't figure out what to make chicken taste like,
which is why chicken tastes like everything!"
--
Stan Gula
http://gula.org/roffswaps

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Daniel-San wrote:

1) "Knotless" leaders... huh??? I buy these things, nip the loop off, and
tie up. WTF is the loop for?

Some people find it convenient to have a short piece of mono that is
nail-knotted to the fly line on one end and has a loop on the other. Use
of loop-to-loop then allows easy change of leaders. Unless I know that I
will frequently change leaders I prefer the seamlessness of directly tying
the leader butt to my fly line via nail knot. I carry a nail knot tool
with me on most of my trips.

6)I've been using an Albright to connect the leader to tippet. Seems good to
me, small knot, fairly strong, easy to tie. Good? Bad? I know knot choice is
a personal thing, but is there any reason "not" to use it?

I think the albright works better with disimilar materials or greatly
different line diameter.

Learn the surgeon's knot.

Mu

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:39:51 GMT, "Goat" wrote:

(snipped)

Agree. But a major change in taste WILL result in a loss of sales =$
I point to "New Coke" as an example.

Yes, but the whole New Coke, Old Coke, back to, supposedly the
original Coke was, when seen in total, a very good way to change the
taste of the supposed original Coke by substituting cheaper corn syrup
for sugar. If they'd gone straight to it, they'd have lost more than
they did with the fool around marketing that seemed to be so
unsuccessful. One step back, two forward for the eventual bottom
line. And I've a hunch the bottom line was in the eyes of the very
top bosses the whole time. Very clever.

I no longer drink Coke. Not because of that, but because of the
change in taste. The only cola I can stand any more, unless it's ice
cold (and then they all seem to taste alike) is Dr Pepper, which also
has corn syrup, but I can deal with it. Some day someone's going to
market something a couple of cents a can more expensive than the
present colas and make it with real sugar and have a word of mouth hit
on their hands.

Most of my friends seem to think that Diet Pepsi is an adequate
beverage. Gah. The rest seem to like Mountain Dew. I take my own Dr
Pepper to gatherings. Well, and a small bottle of Jack Daniels.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)

If you live anywhere in the neighborhood, the Dr. Pepper bottler at Dublin,
Texas was still using pure cane sugar as per the original recipe as opposed
to of corn syrup.


"Cyli" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:39:51 GMT, "Goat" wrote:

(snipped)

Agree. But a major change in taste WILL result in a loss of sales =$
I point to "New Coke" as an example.

Yes, but the whole New Coke, Old Coke, back to, supposedly the
original Coke was, when seen in total, a very good way to change the
taste of the supposed original Coke by substituting cheaper corn syrup
for sugar. If they'd gone straight to it, they'd have lost more than
they did with the fool around marketing that seemed to be so
unsuccessful. One step back, two forward for the eventual bottom
line. And I've a hunch the bottom line was in the eyes of the very
top bosses the whole time. Very clever.

I no longer drink Coke. Not because of that, but because of the
change in taste. The only cola I can stand any more, unless it's ice
cold (and then they all seem to taste alike) is Dr Pepper, which also
has corn syrup, but I can deal with it. Some day someone's going to
market something a couple of cents a can more expensive than the
present colas and make it with real sugar and have a word of mouth hit
on their hands.

Most of my friends seem to think that Diet Pepsi is an adequate
beverage. Gah. The rest seem to like Mountain Dew. I take my own Dr
Pepper to gatherings. Well, and a small bottle of Jack Daniels.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)

"Wolfgang" wrote:

"Goat" wrote:

Agree. But a......

No doubt about it. Whatever ........

....[snipped]...

Personally, I think Guinness is grossly overrated......but, to each his
own.
:)

I can understand the taste is not for everybody. And really, who wants us
all thinking alike anyway. Sure as hell not me. I agree whole heartedly with
the statement "to each his own" [adding} "as long as nobody gets hurt".
However... Do you think it is overrated based on what it is or based on the
increase in popularity over the past couple of years. Your not bohemian
beatnik snobbing it are you.( I am NOT saying you are ) We all know
people... "hottest new, you've never heard of". If and when it gains in
popularity they bitch about how uncool it is now and how the mainstream
killed a good thing.
True there are lots of people who will drink a beer just becase the 'cool
guy' on the corner drinks it.(Yeah I live on the corner. What can I say...
It's a bitch being meG) but this doesn't make the beer good or bad it just
makes the person looking at the cool guy silly.(but let us not forget...most
'cool guys' are silly too, or down right asses)

So... What beer do you like? And no beer snob. I mean something I could
have, maybe, possibly have heard of, and a person can buy it with looking at
no more than 2 stores.
This means it can't be "Uncle Hairy's Garage Closet Basemet Wicked Amber
Honey Cider Hopscotch Snozberry Semi-Stout Leg of The Cat Brew"

Just curious...ya know... so I know what to buy you when we BBQ. ;-)

We should all drink (do) what we like. And think for ourselves.

-------------------------------------
Do not believe in anything (simply)
because you have heard it.
Do not believe in traditions because they
have been handed down for many generations.
Do not believe in anything because it is
spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything (simply) because
it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority
of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis
when you find that anything agrees with reason
and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all
then accept it and live up to it.
-Buddha
-------------------------------------
That's right. I did it. I busted out a Buddha quote on ROFF.
I wish we were allowed to discuss fly fishing.
;-)
~Chad

So... What beer do you like?

I'm very pedestrian. I'll have a Yuengling.
--
Frank Reid
Euthenize to respond

"Frank Reid" wrote in message
...
But really how many of us drink now what we did then? Be it stolen or
snuck
out of dad's fridge, or friend's dad's fridge.

"This ain't your fathers beer"
Natural Lite {:-? Yuck!

Yes, very true. If we all drank what our parents drank, I would still be
drinking PBR. Ewwwhuuhhu!

Strange... I almost wrote PBR. But as I got older Dad switched to Natrual
Lite so I went with that. At the time I thought he made the change to combat
the beer belly but now I realize he made the change because he knew I would
not drink that ****.

That's right kiddies. It is all part of the master plan! Your father drinks
sh*tty beer to keep YOU out of it. Not because we like it.
We all make sacrafices. It's for your own good.

By the way... What's the blue ribbon for? Because it sure didn't win a
flavor contest, although I think that was the claim if I recall correctly.
Must have been 'best can with a blue ribbon on it' contest. It has that. No
doubt.

~Chad

"Frank Reid" wrote in message
...

So... What beer do you like?

I'm very pedestrian. I'll have a Yuengling.

At least you didn't say Ridgeling.

ridge·ling also ridg·ling
A male animal with one or two undescended testicles.

"Goat" wrote in message
news:ktZpe.19325$KQ2.2676@trnddc08...

"Wolfgang" wrote:

"Goat" wrote:

Agree. But a......

No doubt about it. Whatever ........

...[snipped]...

Personally, I think Guinness is grossly overrated......but, to each his
own.
:)

I can understand the taste is not for everybody....So... What beer do you
like? And no beer snob. I mean something I could
have, maybe, possibly have heard of, and a person can buy it with looking
at
no more than 2 stores.
This means it can't be "Uncle Hairy's Garage Closet Basemet Wicked Amber
Honey Cider Hopscotch Snozberry Semi-Stout Leg of The Cat Brew"

Well, if it can't be Uncle Hairy's, there's hardly any use in responding.
:(

Nevertheless......

If we're talking about stouts, my favorite from among those I know are
readily available throughout the U.S. is Samuel Smith Oatmeal Stout. The
significant difference for me is that Smith's has a bit of sweetness that
balances what is otherwise just a burnt flavor from the chocolate malt.
However, despite some nice enough offerings from local microbreweries and
one very good small regional brewery here in Curdistan, stouts aren't my
favorite anyway. If I'm going to go for something very dark and robust
it'll more likely be a porter. Nothing of national prominence comes
immediately to mind but there are certain breweries which consistently make
superior products; you can hardly go wrong with anything from Anchor, Sierra
Nevada, Red Hook, Oregon Brewing (under their "Rogue" brand name), and a
variety of others you probably already know. The previously alluded to
small regional brewery is New Glarus Brewing in New Glarus, WI:
http://www.newglarusbrewing.com/ , a particular favorite of mine. There
are a number of other good small breweries in the region......I'll be happy
to send you a more complete list, if you like.

As far as individual beers......well, the list is long.....but I'll give you
a sampling. Anchor steam is one of the best beers I've ever tasted. Not
that it makes any difference, but it also happens to be highly regarded by
many others. Back when I was doing a bit of homebrewing a few years ago and
hanging out with other brewers, Anchor steam was THE most copied
beer......usually with only fair to horse**** results. In a recent spot on
NPR, no less an authority than Micahel Jackson called it one of the world's
great beers. Red Hook ESB is killer. Rogue's Dead Guy is much more complex
and malty than either of these....a different style altogether....and also
one of the world's great beers. Schmaltz's Alt from August Schell in
Minnesota is very reminiscent of the Dead Guy.....absolutely delicious.

One thing I've never had from any American brewer is a really superior
Weisse beer. Stick with the Germans for this. The perrenial favorite,
Hacker Pschorr, deserves its fame.....but I like Erlanger better.

Experience has taught me to avoid anything with the word "honey" on the
lable.

Bocks......I love bocks. Once again, you can't go wrong with the Germans.
Point bock from the Stevens Point brewing company is a favorite.....the rest
of their stuff is pretty much crap. Point beers are widely available in the
midwest these days....I don't know about other regions.

Goose Island Beer Company's flagship pale ale, Honker's Ale, is as good as
it gets. Pete's Wicked Ale is also very good. Both of these companies
offer a wide line of good products.....Pete's Winter was awesome, but I
haven't seen it in a few years....don't know if it's still available. Both
companies also make very good IPAs.....for those who like that sort of
thing.....not one of my favorites; hops should be kept on a leash....a long
leash, perhaps, but a leash nonetheless. If you REALLY like hops, Sierra
Nevada's IPA is where you should make your home.

One could go on for days......

That's right. I did it. I busted out a Buddha quote on ROFF.

Stick around; you'll see stranger.

I wish we were allowed to discuss fly fishing.

The proper forum for that is streamside......with a cool beer in hand.

Wolfgang

"Goat" wrote in message
news:aWZpe.23354$J73.18552@trnddc05...

"Frank Reid" wrote in message
...
But really how many of us drink now what we did then? Be it stolen or
snuck
out of dad's fridge, or friend's dad's fridge.

"This ain't your fathers beer"
Natural Lite {:-? Yuck!

Yes, very true. If we all drank what our parents drank, I would still be
drinking PBR. Ewwwhuuhhu!

Strange... I almost wrote PBR. But as I got older Dad switched to Natrual
Lite so I went with that. At the time I thought he made the change to
combat
the beer belly but now I realize he made the change because he knew I
would
not drink that ****.

That's right kiddies. It is all part of the master plan! Your father
drinks
sh*tty beer to keep YOU out of it. Not because we like it.
We all make sacrafices. It's for your own good.

By the way... What's the blue ribbon for? Because it sure didn't win a
flavor contest, although I think that was the claim if I recall correctly.
Must have been 'best can with a blue ribbon on it' contest. It has that.
No
doubt.

Pabst won the blue ribbon at the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition* (it was
supposed to be 1892....in commemoration of Columbus and all that....but they
got behind schedule in the construction), better known as the Chicago
World's Fair......and yes, it was for flavor. Presumably, the recipe was
altered some in the intervening years.

Wolfgang
* see: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MA96/WCE/title.html for an excellent
overview of the fair, or Erik Larson's "The Devil in the White City" for a
fuller treatment of the fair's development (coupled, for God knows what
reason, with the story of a mass murderer working the south side of Chicago
at the same time).

On 6/9/05 1:00 PM, in article , "Wolfgang"
wrote:

One thing I've never had from any American brewer is a really superior
Weisse beer. Stick with the Germans for this. The perrenial favorite,
Hacker Pschorr, deserves its fame.....but I like Erlanger better.

Search out a bottle of Schneider, my friend (
http://www.schneider-weisse.de/). It is what most Muncheners prefer and you
will not be disappointed.

Your already-long list didn't mention any offering from Belgium. Among the
many Belgian and Belgian style beers available, there are several of the
"Wit" variety, also brewed with malted wheat (like Weissbier [Weiss or
Weissen being Bavarian mumble-mouth for Weizen or wheat]), generally with
the accompaniment of aromatic flavorings. Our local excellent micro Great
Lakes Brewing does a seasonal "Holy Moses" in this style. One of my
favorite hot-summer-afternoon beers.

From hot-summer-afternoon Cleveland,
Bill

"William Claspy" wrote in message
...

Search out a bottle of Schneider, my friend (
http://www.schneider-weisse.de/). It is what most Muncheners prefer and
you
will not be disappointed.

Clicked the link. The label looks familiar but......well, brain cells and
all that......you know. :(

Your already-long list didn't mention any offering from Belgium. Among
the
many Belgian and Belgian style beers available, there are several of the
"Wit" variety, also brewed with malted wheat (like Weissbier [Weiss or
Weissen being Bavarian mumble-mouth for Weizen or wheat]), generally with
the accompaniment of aromatic flavorings. Our local excellent micro Great
Lakes Brewing does a seasonal "Holy Moses" in this style. One of my
favorite hot-summer-afternoon beers.

Heresy, I know, but the majority of the Belgian products I've tried didn't
do anything for me. Chimay is another product line that local homebrewers
here used to try to copy. Using the miracles of modern technology available
to me here in the lab, I managed to get a nice clean culture of the yeast
left over in one of their bottles. Using recipes whose sources I no longer
remember, we made a couple of batches that were pretty decent copies of the
original. I didn't like them.....and it was definitely the yeast that made
it right, and that bothered me about it. Very distinctive flavor and aroma.

Whenever it transpires that I finally get out your way I'll let you buy me a
Holy Moses.....I'd like to find a really good American wheat beer.

From hot-summer-afternoon Cleveland,

It's been very warm here for the last few days too.......almost makes a boy
want to take up fishing or something.

Wolfgang

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

Pabst won the blue ribbon at the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition* (it
was
supposed to be 1892....in commemoration of Columbus and all that....but
they
got behind schedule in the construction), better known as the Chicago
World's Fair......

Good lord man... please tell me you looked that up.

and yes, it was for flavor. Presumably, the recipe was
altered some in the intervening years.

That's what I thought / figured.

~Chad

Wolfgang wrote:

[snip of lots of good info on *real* beer]

One thing I've never had from any American brewer is a really superior
Weisse beer. Stick with the Germans for this. The perrenial favorite,
Hacker Pschorr, deserves its fame.....but I like Erlanger better.

Celis Brewing out of Austin makes a pretty nice Belgian-style wheat
(called Celis White). Or is Belgian-style a different beast altogether
than a German Weisse? I know the Celis has a hint of orange and spices
including coriander. Not exactly my cup o' grog, but I could see it
might be nice on a hot day.

They also do a pale bock that's pretty tasty and they even brew some
abbey style ales. Powerful stuff, that.

[another little snip]

One could go on for days......

You're making me thirsty. But you're also reminding me how much
easier it is these days to find a decent variety of micro-brews and
craft brews put out by people who really care about the product rather
than the marketing. (And with that we come full circle.)

Hell, even the little town of Blanco Texas has a company that puts
out a decent brown ale (the Real Ale Brewing Company:
http://www.realalebrewing.com/beer_styles.php)


Chuck Vance (DYBS)

On 6/9/05 1:54 PM, in article , "Conan The
Librarian" wrote:

Wolfgang wrote:

[snip of lots of good info on *real* beer]

One thing I've never had from any American brewer is a really superior
Weisse beer. Stick with the Germans for this. The perrenial favorite,
Hacker Pschorr, deserves its fame.....but I like Erlanger better.

Celis Brewing out of Austin makes a pretty nice Belgian-style wheat
(called Celis White). Or is Belgian-style a different beast altogether
than a German Weisse?

It is. Belgians are much more liberal with additives to the brewing process
than Germans. Bavarian Hefeweiss has a unique flavor, but it is caused
simply by the cellular dance of the peculiar strain of yeast used and the
malted wheat, and tends to be described as similar to banana. This style is
very lightly hopped and is easily recognizable by the shapely vessel from
which it is drunk, and by the massive meringue like head. (Head on the
beer, not on your shoulders- if your head gets meringue like, you've had too
many.)

I know the Celis has a hint of orange and spices
including coriander. Not exactly my cup o' grog, but I could see it
might be nice on a hot day.

The Celis White is similar to my local's Holy Moses and yes, it is quite the
thirst quencher. Corriander and bitter orange peel are common additives-
the Holy Moses includes chamomile as well.

Oddly enough, I find pale ales (heavily hopped) thirst quenching also.
Hmmm...

Bill

William Claspy wrote:

On 6/9/05 1:54 PM, in article , "Conan The
Librarian" wrote:

Celis Brewing out of Austin makes a pretty nice Belgian-style wheat
(called Celis White). Or is Belgian-style a different beast altogether
than a German Weisse?

It is. Belgians are much more liberal with additives to the brewing process
than Germans. Bavarian Hefeweiss has a unique flavor, but it is caused
simply by the cellular dance of the peculiar strain of yeast used and the
malted wheat, and tends to be described as similar to banana. This style is
very lightly hopped and is easily recognizable by the shapely vessel from
which it is drunk, and by the massive meringue like head. (Head on the
beer, not on your shoulders- if your head gets meringue like, you've had too
many.)

Thanks for the explanation. It sounds like you've had some
firsthand experience with this. :-)

I know the Celis has a hint of orange and spices
including coriander. Not exactly my cup o' grog, but I could see it
might be nice on a hot day.

The Celis White is similar to my local's Holy Moses and yes, it is quite the
thirst quencher. Corriander and bitter orange peel are common additives-
the Holy Moses includes chamomile as well.

I am trying to picture chamomile as an additive to beer. Frankly, I
just can't. :-}

FWIW, the whole Celis story is a fine example of what happens when a
major "beer" company gets involved with a small operation. Miller had
acquired a majority of Celis sometime in the 90's and later (2000?)
closed it down and sold the trademark because of its desire to focus on
"core brands" (read compete with Coorsweiser). IIRC, the Michigan
Brewing Company revived the company.

Oddly enough, I find pale ales (heavily hopped) thirst quenching also.
Hmmm...

Getting a little thirsty eh, bookbreath? :-)


Chuck Vance