I recently attended a beer tasting, and the general consensus was, that the European beers were smoother than American microbrews, while the range of flavors was probably greater for the American beers. I'm just curious about other people's comparisons of the two types of beers.

Of course, both European beers and microbrews from this country, now include an enormous range of flavors and types, even of basic ingredients. I actually think the wheat beers have properties which are exceptionally good, and which can't be duplicated in barley-only beers. There are also a considerable number of beverages (e.g. lambic fruit beers) that aren't strictly beers. Some of these are really good--framboise (raspberry) lambic is one that I would rather drink than champagne. (Well, I mean I'd rather drink it than the kind of American champagne that people usually buy in bulk for various special events.)

I prefer most of the European lagers to American microbres lagers, although Samuel Adams Boston Lager is comparable to the European beers. Lagers llike Oranjeboom and Stella Artois are notably smooth--maybe Europeran brewers pay attention to smoothness and easy drinking, because they know that half or more of the beer they sold, will be drunk as an accompanient to food. Microbrewers, on the other hand, tend to emphasize putting a lot of flavor in their products, which are often drunk without food. Smoked beers from Stone and Rogue have a lot of flavor, but it's hard to match them with food. Bamberger Rauchbier, which is the main smoked beer from Europe in this country, is also not compatible with a lot of foods, but it's good with barbecued foods.

Some European beers have an advantage which might be considered unfair, because they are original types to which microbrews are compared. This is true for Belgian white beer and also, of course, for Pilseners, which were the original lagers.

One thing about microbrews is, that they are brewed in small quantities by regional or local brewers, and don't get wide distribution. Maybe some archive members know of exceptional local brews, that the rest of us never get to taste.

Years ago when I could drink beer, I prefered the fuller bodied foreign beers to the American beers. Most of the cheap American beers tasted thin and watery. The foreign beers had a better taste. I would guess the reason might be the same as yours -- I drank beer without a meal. Being Italian, I drank wine with a meal.

As a hobbyist beer maker and having attended some local brewing competitions it become apparent to me that some of the microbrewers are making great ales and whatnot that are equivalent to the European counterparts and perhaps better as they are fresher. Some notable ones, IMHO include Sierra Nevada Brewery in Northern California (Their pale ale is a crisp hopped ale with fresh hop notes), Stone Brewery in San Diego CA with a great smoked Porter, a potent and wonderful IPA and others, Full Sail and others.

But in Lambics and Heiffweisens the Europeans seem to have the honors.

If you've got a hankering for a mighty fine champagne like beverage try whipping up a batch of Barkshack Honey Mead, a dry and effervescent mead that puts the mead available in the store to shame, big time! Just my thoughts...

Beau Geste (imported) wrote: Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:40 pm I prefer most of the European lagers to American microbres lagers...

To my mind the flavour of a beer varies considerably according to how much you need a beer.

The one and only time I was in the USA, I'd arrived in Seattle on the ferry boat from Victoria BC. It was a hot day, I was still dressed for the Canadian Arctic and the Rocky Mountains start right at the dockside in Seattle. I walked up this damned great long steep hill carrying a suitcase and was knackered when I got to the top.

The Budweiser I got at the top of that hill didn't touch sides. The second one was nectar from heaven. I don't think I've ever enjoyed a beer so much.

But emergency situations aside, my beer of choice is English bitter, served at cellar temperature ie, too warm for most of you. I lived for a while near Faversham in Kent, England and the local brewery is (or at least was, I don't know if it is still going) called Green King. Their bitter was the best I'd ever tasted.

Stella Artois? The advertising put me off. They had some pompous prick describe it as "reassuringly expensive" when everywhere else in Europe it is just another run of the mill lager.

Kortpeel

When I could drink beer and related beverages I did not say one was better than the other as I liked them all.If I could have a couple of expensive beers first.I always maintained that one would have trouble telling the difference,except for the fruit beers.

Kortpeel (imported) wrote: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:56 am But emergency situations aside, my beer of choice is English bitter, served at cellar temperature ie, too warm for most of you. I lived for a while near Faversham in Kent, England and the local brewery is (or at least was, I don't know if it is still going) called Green King. Their bitter was the best I'd ever tasted.

Surviving and thriving: http://www.greeneking.co.uk/

But Greene King is based in Bury St Edmunds, three counties away: far from "local" in English terms.

I've sample most American brews and consider them too watery and more fit for use as scrub water.

My favorite beers, to date, are Newcastle Brown Ale or Fat Tire.

IEunuch swears by all the brews made by a French Canadian company called Unibroue.