Schlafly Pilsner

Product Reviewed: Schlafly Pilsner
Brewed by: St. Louis Brewery, Inc.
Date Reviewed: December 11, 1994
Reviewed By: David Brockington
Original Posted to Usenet: February 23, 1995

The St. Louis Brewery
corner of 21st and Olive
St. Louis, MO
314-241-2337

Initial Impressions:

This review should be somewhat shorter than the prior submission on the Schlafly product, for two reasons. First, I said quite a bit about the establishment itself in the review on the cask ale, and second, the pilsner is decidedly less interesting than the cask ale.

Once again, this is the brewpub where Dave Miller was brewmaster, until September, I believe. In response to my review of the cask ale, I received some mixed opinions regarding the state of the beer prior and following Miller's departure. Some argued that the beer had decidedly changed. Of those, some thought the beer had improved (Miller is known to sparge the hell out of his product) while some had thought it had evolved to the worse. On the other hand, there were those who believed that the beer hadn't changed a bit. I cannot comment to any temporal alteration in the product, as December 11 was the first, and so far only, time that I had the opportunity to taste this beer. However, considering the, well, confused response I have received regarding the state of Schlafly beers in the post-Miller era, I think we must approach my opinions with a modicum of salt. (Of course, that is what most folks already do anyhow). While Miller may not be absolved of responsibility for the product presently being served, I have to assume the position that I really do not know.

That being so stated, the pilsner itself hit the glass as most do, with a light-golden hue. Not as deeply gold as a Bohemian, yet certainly darker than 'straw'. A white head formed, and left the requisite trail behind itself down the side of the glass. There was nothing exciting about the head, either to the good or bad.

Nose:

A light, light hop nose was noted. Basically, the bouquet of this beer was neutral.

Flavor:

In a word -- bland. I noticed a slight malty note, and a small amount of hop flavor, but I had to go on a determined tasting mission to locate these flavors. I guess this beer could be summed up as "refreshing." "Menagerie of flavor sensations" would not qualify in this case, nor would "sophisticated" or any of its derivatives.

Final Analysis:

Not knowing exactly what sort of Pilsner Miller (or friends) was trying to brew in this case, I can't be too harsh. Judging from Miller's extensive writing on the subject, I can only surmise that he was attempting to brew a bland pils, because that is what is self-reported favorite beer is. It _is_ St. Louis, after all. This would be a fine, technically proficient lawnmower beer. My position has always been that these beers have a place in the craft-brewing community, so they shouldn't be rejected out-of-hand. However, we don't necessarily have to enjoy drinking them. My suggestion-- when at the St. Louis Brewery, have the cask ale if you can.

Rating:

**1/2 (out of 5)

Next Up:

Baltimore Brewing Pilsner
Rubicon IPA

Archives:

Past reviews can be found on the World Wide Web at the following site:
The Brewery http://hbd.org/brewery

David Brockington

Seattle, USA
bronyaur@u.washington.edu