It appears that Great Western Brewing’s new commemorative beer, Original 16, is creating some controversy in the beer world. A week or so ago, the Calgary Herald’s Jason Van Rassel reviewed the beer (find it here), and on his way took a big swipe at beer geeks that has a number of beer bloggers hot under the collar. The offending passage is his opening paragraph, which reads:

“These days, a brew doesn’t impress the beer snobs unless it’s aged in 300-year-old bourbon barrels or is bitter enough to shred your palate. On that basis, Original 16 Canadian Pale Ale likely won’t impress the elitists -but it’s a smooth, refreshing beer for the rest of us.”

I used the supplied glass, both for the photo opportunity and because it seemed fitting, but at 20 ounces it is bigger than the volume of either the can or the bottle. I opted for the 16 ounce can to maximize the glass space. It pours a sparkling bright yellow and has a wispy white head that drops to an even blanket that persists through the sipping. Carbonation is quite high, more lager-like than ale. The aroma gives off a light, crisp malt note that reminds me of pilsner malt. There is also some grassiness and very little hop aroma. It has a light and very clean aroma. If find the beer has a rounded malt sweetness and just a touch of hops in the linger to create a sense of balance. But malt is the lead actor here and it is soft and earthy. A touch of fruit lingers in the background.

It is not a complex beer, but it does have an attractive flavour. It reminds me of a Munich helles or a clean blonde ale. It is light, delicate and satisfying in its own kind of way. It is not a pale ale by any stretch of the imagination, but it offers an interesting flavour approach.

But here is where I take issue both with Great Western and Van Rassel. There is no shame in making an honest, smooth beer that is both well-crafted and accessible. Just don’t try to sell it to me as some kind of never-before-seen miracle of beeriness. To be honest, I think Great Western’s marketing people went overboard on this one, to the detriment of the beer’s reception. The storyline of the 16 workers saving the plant is strong enough to stand on its own. They don’t need to persuade me that this is a revolutionary new beer. The beer is all-barley and uses five hop varieties. That is nice, but not earth-shattering. Don’t sell it like you were the first to ever consider doing that. The “double-aging” is real (they do a standard secondary for seven days, and then hold the beer at -1.5 Celsius for 24 days), but over-stated. That lagering period is why the beer tastes so clean and lager-like. But again it is not new. This beer is not a pale ale, so please don’t call it that. You do yourself a disservice and sell your customers short by doing so.

I suspect that last paragraph might lead Van Rassel to accuse me of being elitist. That is his right. But I believe fervently that pushing our breweries to operate on a higher standard is a good thing for ALL beer drinkers and not just the “beer snobs”. No one would dare use merlot grapes and call their wine a Cabernet Sauvignon. So why should beer people put up with the bastardization of traditional beer styles? Why should we mutely accept .hyperbolic sales pitches crafted by marketing people whose job it is to push beer, not appreciate it?

I think what I take exception to in Van Rassel’s characterization is that the beer world can be easily divided into two camps – the elites and the “rest of us”. I think Van Rassel does a disservice to ALL beer drinkers with his categorizations. While the snobs and elitists are getting upset at him in their blogs, I think the average Joe six pack has more reason to be insulted – as Van Rassel seems to be suggesting they don’t care about what they drink, or how it is presented to them. I think beer drinkers are smarter than that.

I don’t think I am all that different than any other person who likes beer. I enjoyed my glass of Original 16, I really did. Judging it on its own merits, I speak warmly of it. But their marketing people essentially misled me, and I feel mistreated as a result. I think any consumer would feel the same way if the discovered they were misled.

One final note. I respect Great Western in large part due to their honesty. They understand in which part of the market they work, and normally don’t pretend to be doing anything other than what they are doing – making locally-owned, mass consumption beer. And I applaud them for that. I would rather they get market share than the company from whom they had to buy the plant. Which means I think I can gently admonish them when they make a mistake and allow their marketing people to get ahead of their beer people.

I fail to see how any of that would make me an elitist. But I might be wrong. I suggest everyone buy a bottle of Original 16 and make up your own mind on how it is as a beer.