Talk:Boston Beer Company/Archive 2

Popular Culture
Not sure if this is worth mentioning or not, but Peter Griffin, the fictional main character of the animated series Family Guy, often drinks a beer called "Pawtucket Patriot Ale" with a revolutionary war soldier on the can. It's clearly an obviously a homage to Samuel Adams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.192.5 (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Name
I was bold and moved the page to Samuel Adams (beer), as the company is much better known as Samuel Adams than "Boston Beer Company".--Cúchullain t/ c 15:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted this a little over a year and a half later. The article is primarily about the company, not one of their lines of beers.  Samuel Adams (beer) now redirects.  jheiv  talk  contribs 03:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't this a case of WP:COMMONNAME? And I would argue that the article appears to be as much or more about the beer line as the company itself. --Fru1tbat (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so -- articles about companies are, for the most part, titled using name of the company itself, even if it has one product that stands out as flagship (e.g. H. J. Heinz Company, The J.M. Smucker Co.). In all honesty, I haven't read the article in a few months so I may be hazy on the focus -- but as a craft-beer enthusiast (including beers formerly known as craft), I'll work on adding content, rounding out the article about the company.  jheiv  talk  contribs 05:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and reverted it back (the move also caused some mess with the talk page archives). I think this is pretty clearly a case of common name. "Samuel Adams" is the best known name for the company and the brand, not to mention the beer itself (have they ever made a beer without the Sam Adams name?), even by the company itself. The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Beer confirms, "[Jim Koch's] beers are better known by the Samuel Adams name" (p. 143).--Cúchullain t/ c 21:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please use the history
Please, people, use the history when reverting vandalism to make sure that you know what it is you're supposed to be fixing. 24.128.180.171 vandalised White Ale to [ Noble Piles]; some would-be do-gooder came along and blithely "fixed" it to [  Noble Pils]. Still not a link, still with an unnecessary leading space, still not correct. To top it off, the Boston Beer Company does not yet offer a "Noble Pils" (it won't debut until Winter 2010), and the section in question is about beers that are already available. If you aren't going to bother to verify the original pre-vandalised text, any change you make is no better than the vandalism you're failing to correct. 98.211.124.111 (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Descriptions
Many of the beer descriptions are direct quotations off the bottles. For instance, the description of "Coastal Wheat" is found on the neck of Coastal Wheat bottles, and is a direct quotation of the cited publicity materials. Is this proper? I'm not very clear on citation guidelines, but I feel like direct quotation of a company's promotional material is not exactly what Wikipedia is about. If nothing else, it is not clearly marked as a quotation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.5.137.223 (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Lambic criticism
Unfortunately for the criticism section, the Lambic article itself admits that most of the yeast is located within the fermenting vessels. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 16:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether it comes from the air or from the vessels, the yeast that ferments Belgian lambic is "wild", that is, it is not added in regulated doses, nor is a specific strain chosen. In contrast, the Boston Brewing Company adds a specific strain of yeast in controlled doses in order to start fermentation at a prescribed time and for a prescribed interval. This would be the opposite of the intent of Belgian lambic brewers. The Boston Beer Company admits the product is not a Belgian lambic. (See Grant Woods quotation in article.) Guinness323 (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Possibly, but did you actually read what the Lambic article says? It actually cites the primary yeast strains. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 20:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point. Just because we know the primary yeast strains doing the work and where they reside does not mean that Belgian brewers can count upon the same proportion of each, or indeed any of them at all. Depending on how much yeast from each strain decides to work, and what type of airborne yeast falls into the wort, there is a goodly amount of uncertainty about how each batch will taste. In contrast, the Boston Brewing Company brewer knows exactly how each batch of Cranberry "Lambic" will taste: exactly the same as the previous batch. Guinness323 (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Utopias: "The Worlds Strongest Beer"
I take issue with the freeze distillation used by many of the brewers claiming "strongest beer in the world." I tracked down a reference and cleaned up the section. In principle, anybody could freeze and refreeze Bud Light until it's in excess of 27% alcohol. It's my understanding that Sam Adams actually bred yeast to withstand that higher alcohol content. Stardude82 (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the argument on whether freeze distillation is or is not exceptable the beer listed as 57% is not longer the worlds strongest, can someone find out who is at 60% and find an article to verifyDwarvenbierschneeman (talk) 05:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Triple Bock Date
I have not edited this article but I think the commentary could be slightly improved in accuracy.

I do not believe that the Triple Bock was *originally* released in 1994. I had the beer in the spring of 1993 in College Station when a promotional sales person in Dudley's Draw offered them for sale in 12 oz bottles for two dollars each. The price later dropped to $1 each and a couple free by the end of the evening. The bottle was labeled as "malt liquor", oddly enough, but I had no idea of the alcohol content as I had several and woke a few hours later in my apartment with only a hazy memory of having left the bar under my own power. I never found the Triple Bock in 12 oz bottles but suspect the same or very similar beer was what I drank as what is now sold as the Triple Bock in the smaller bottles. I don't seem to recall that the beer was not carbonated but it had the feel of light carbonation. It was extremely potent, to say the least so I wasn't surprised when I saw it sold in smaller bottles as an apertif rather than as a regular beer. The Sam Adams website confirms the 1993 brew date, as the inauguration of their extreme beer brewing.

Can anyone shed some light on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.12.205.82 (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Missing beers
Don't they have more beers than this? I can think of a few off of the top of my head: Bonfire Ale (or something similar); Chocolate Bock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.159.183 (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What about Angry Orchard also? Didn't they acquire Angry Orchard in like 2012 or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.218.206.127 (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Craft beer?
Can they be considered a craft beer? this somewhat reliable source says they are the #1 craft brewer in the us.(mercurywoodrose)99.31.165.157 (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Marketing material removed from article
The article contained a section called Current family of beers consisting of marketing prose lifted from Sam Adams (e.g "The dark roasty, and slightly sweet flavors of a stout are blended with the unique, spicy and sour character of our Kosmic Mother Funk (KMF), an ale that's been aged in oak tuns for up to a year") and elsewhere (e.g. "Intense and full bodied with a deep roasted flavor, subtle sweetness, and earthy smokiness from the peat smoked malt.") from a marketing document.

{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;font-size:88%;text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #cfc;" | Marketing material removed from article
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Barrel Room Collection beers

 * }

I have moved all of this egregious commercial material into the green collapsible box above in case anyone who is interested can find a way of listing the products without including the brown-nosing bullshit. I am not interested in going to the trouble of re-coding the tables as text or lists. None of the material should be restored to the article unless reliable third party sources can be provided to support its inclusion in the article – the entire section was unreferenced. — O'Dea (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Several Costcos in Washington have a small quantity of this brew as of December 5, 2013. This likely because of the passage of I-1183 which allows spirits -- considered drinks above 15% ABV -- to be sold in certain retail establishments in the state. Removed Washington from the list of states where this drink is banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.2.80 (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Jim Koch and his lone founding partner Rhonda Kallman
Please be aware that your history of founders at Boston Beer is complete fabrication. Jim Koch started Boston Beer with his partner Rhonda Kallman ( my wife)who headed up sales and marketting until 2000 when she retired after the company went public. Both Mr Rubin and Mr. lamadrid were some of the early investors who had zero input on day to day operations or input of product names ect,that they are mentioned at all is a complete outrage. Should you like to confirm I would be happy to put you in touch with Jim Koch. Regards, Matt Shanley


 * I'm not insensitive to your claim, however, I don't think you need to be outraged either. Wikipedia requires valid independent sources of information.  While I have no doubt you are telling the truth about being related and have an inside view of events, the fact is that 1) you are by definition not a neutral source of information and 2) there are independent sources which indicate Lamadrid and Rubin were co-founders (I've added one from CBS).  On this basis, it seems fair to leave Rubin and Lamadrid in the article.  If you feel that strongly about it, I suppose we could have a subtopic in the article which addresses this controversy surrounding the founding of the company, but that seems to give undue weight to an otherwise reasonably well sourced fact. ButtonwoodTree (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason for controversy; Boston Beer Company's own website clearly states who founded the company. Early small investors are not mentioned as founders. . 65.96.42.245 (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted the edits again. The website doesn't say that Kallman was a founder. It says that in the first few years "Jim Koch and his partner, Rhonda Kallman, were the only employees." There's no mention of her as a founder. Is there an independent source that claims she is a "founder" of the company? Prof. Mc (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you a friend of Mr. Rubin or his PR agent??, I see you defending him in some of your other posts. Your attempts at altering Boston Beer history by including 2 individuals who had nothing to do with running or founding the company is pathetic. Would you like to join me in a conference call with Jim Koch so HE can tell you who HIS founding partner was?? Stop spreading mis information and compromising Wikipidia.Beachisland (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi! I've reverted your edits again. This time your edits resulted in code being displayed in the text of the main body. You might want to take some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's editing policy, the links to which I see have been posted to your talk page already. (For example, when replying to someone, put your paragraph directly under the one to which you're replying, and indent using a : to indent.) With regard to the conference call, that's generous (and more on that in a few lines), but you might want to review WP:CITEHOW first. Given how important this obviously is to you [this page is the only one you've edited using this account, and you continue to repeat the same edits despite the reverts and the advice you've been given], I would think that you'd take a step back and figure out how to achieve your goals within the given parameters.


 * For example, a quick Internet search turns up an interview at Business Insider in which Koch says:


 * "Though Koch himself has a prestigious background — including an MBA and a JD from Harvard and six years spent at the mega-competitive Boston Consulting Group — Boston Beer was brewed by salt of the earth. His founding partner was Rhonda Kallman, a 23-year-old secretary at BCG. 'Had I picked as my partner one of those high-powered MBAs, I would never have gotten the energy, the drive, the creativity that Rhonda brought,' Koch says. 'She had a different experience set than I did. She knew people, she knew bars, she knew what it was like to be at the bottom of the totem pole.' To this day, Koch says his first hire was his best hire."


 * That interview leads to another page where the claim is more or less repeated. Given that other sources cite other founders, we now have a few different sources that make some different claims, using different language, about the "founders" and early "employees."


 * . Don't just try to alter the article in a way that calls into question your neutrality (WP:COI, WP:NPOV). Take some time to actually make the Sam Adams article better. Write a bit more. As suggested, start a subtopic. Put it on this talk page under a new sub-header and get some advice on how to write it in a way that keeps the prose POV-neutral.  I know that's more work than you probably want to do, but it will be a very good contribution to this article, and will make it better. And after all, that's what you want, right? This is about improving the article, and not just ensuring that your wife's name is on the front page, right?


 * Now, as to the conference call with Koch. I'll be happy to participate. I usually get to talk to him at the GABF, and have had the pleasure of him serving Utopias from a keg for me, but any chance to talk with him would be fun. It wouldn't have any bearing on this topic. But still.


 * For now, can you please take a break from introducing the same edits in the same manner? If they're unsourced and violate WP:NPOV and WP:COI they're going to get reverted, and at some point it becomes disruptive. You've been given some pretty good advice--more than most people get who are doing what you're doing--on how to improve the page and include the information that you have. So, there's a path for you here. Please consider taking it. I think you'll be surprised at how much people are willing to welcome you, and to help you improve the Sam Adams article. Prof. Mc (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * When I saw the edit reversions this morning, I didn't know anything about who founded Boston Beer Co. However, by coincidence, an hour later I watched Beer Wars, a 2009 documentary in which Rhonda Kallman plays a prominent role. Jim Koch is also interviewed, and states that at the beginning, it was only him and Rhonda Kallman. That made me curious about this whole issue, so I started to look around for sources backing up either the "Rhonda Kallman" version or the "Rubin/Lamadrid" version.


 * Rubin/Lamadrid: I have only been able to find two sources mentioning either Rubin or Lamadrid being a part of Boston Beer Co.:
 * a) the CBS Boston article used as the only source of this info for this wiki (http://boston.cbslocal.com/top-lists/5-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-history-of-bostons-craft-beer-revolution/) states "He [Koch] teamed up with Harry Rubin and Lorenzo Lamadrid to found Samuel Adams Boston Lager..." It does not say anything about the role of Rubin and Lamadrid;
 * b) Rubin's profile at Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/profile/harry-rubin/) mentions that he was a founding partner of Boston Beer Co. (Interestingly, Lorenzo Lamadrid's Forbes profile does not mention any involvement with Boston Beer Co.)


 * Kallman: I have found a number of very recent sources that indicate the company originally was only Koch and Kallman:
 * a) The Craft Beer Revolution (Steve Hindy, 2014, Palgrave MacMillan, New York, p.48): "In the beginning, the Boston Beer Company consisted of two people, Koch and Rhonda Kallman, a smart executive secretary from BCG. She left the security of BCG to join Koch in a humble office in Boston. To entice Kallman to join him, Koch told her, 'I've never failed at anything that was really important to me and this is really important to me.'"
 * b) Q&A: Jim Koch on story behind the rise of Samuel Adams beer (Washington Post, 29 June 2014, http://www.concordmonitor.com/news/work/business/12577515-95/qa-jim-koch-on-story-behind-the-rise-of-samuel-adams-beer): "Q: Did you go it alone? A: Originally, the team was me and a woman named Rhonda Kallman who had been my secretary at Boston Management Consulting. She loved bars, that was really her natural habitat, and she would bartend at night. I knew how to make beer, and she knew bars. We made a great team."
 * c) History of Samuel Adams (http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/the-boston-beer-company-inc-history/):
 * "1983: C. James Koch starts The Boston Beer Company with Rhonda L. Kallman.
 * 1985: Koch and Kallman sell the first cases of Samuel Adams Boston Lager."


 * It is clear from the sources that Kallman played a central role in the company, albeit as its first employee, and I would suggest that a sentence be inserted into the article to indicate this.


 * However, I can find no sources that indicate that Rubin and Lamadrid were anything other than two of the original investors. No sources have been provided for the statements that Rubin handled the "financial and business management role", that Rubin and Lamadrid helped with recipe optimization, or that they helped choose the name "Samuel Adams" for the first beer. Indeed, in several of the sources quoted above, Koch indicates that choosing the name "Samuel Adams" was his decision alone. In light of the lack of supporting sources, I would suggest that references to Rubin and Lamadrid as anything other than investors be removed unless anyone can bring forward sources supporting a more central role in the early company. Guinness323 (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think a number of us have probably seen the Kallman information. As I noted earlier, if people feel this issue is that controversial, then let's start a subtopic.  As for the sources, the fact is that there are sources for both versions and I see no reason to give greater credence to the Kallman sources versus the others. ButtonwoodTree (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Although the original post of this subsection made the issue "Kallman vs Rubin/Lamadrid", I don't believe this is a "either/or" issue. The involvement of these parties in the early company are two separate issues, and should each be resolved on their own merits. As suggested by ButtonwoodTree (talk), I have broken the two issues out into separate subtopics.Guinness323 (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Rhonda Kallman as first employee
The issue has arisen as to whether Rhonda Kallman should be mentioned in this article. As I mentioned above, several credible secondary sources have taken the time to earmark her as central to the early successes of the company. Was she an original investor? The sources do not confirm this. Was she the first -- and for some time, the only -- employee? Yes, several of the sources note that Koch lured her from her job at BMC. A sentence indicating her central role in the early company should be added to the article, using the sources I have mentioned or any others that are germane. Guinness323 (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Rubin and Lamadrid: Early investors or early company management?
The article currently states that Rubin and Lamadrid helped with company management, branding decisions and product development. However, the only source used simply indicates that they were original investors. Statements about their further involvement have no references. I have not been able to find any other sources to support these statements. Unless someone else is able to provide corroborating sources, those statements about their close involvement in the early days of the company should be removed. Guinness323 (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)