Monday, 16 May 2016

Traders, Tickers, and Shit-Flickers

I tick - somewhat. That is, I seek out new things to imbibe and review. When I first got into beer, ticking was life: the requirement to drink was only newness. Now, knowing more about what to expect, I am as likely to drink a beer I have had before, though ticks still come but usually only from known breweries, known styles, and trusted sources of hype.

I also trade beer. Rarely by mail (just a handful of times in a few years), but fairly regularly in person in Montreal and Toronto. Like most, these things tend to go down $4$, which is beer trader slang for "dollar-for-dollar," or of equal purchase price exchange (with an occasional bump for rarity).

But I've got this pet peeve, usually but not always with rare beer ticker-traders.

Part of this comes from a few discussions over the past few months.

In one, an American* visiting here told me of bringing back Bellwoods bottles to share with Southern/Mid-Western American beer geeks. Despite assuring me that they loved them, he informed me that nobody would trade for them though because their bottle counts are too high. "Bellwoods," he insisted, "actually hurts themselves by having high bottle counts." This sounds illogical, until one realizes that what he means is, 'Bellwoods hinders my capacity to trade them for equal quality and/or price beer.' I mean, it's clearly illogical to think this brewery suffers by selling out of a higher quantity of pretty high quality product.

But, I'd maintain, it's equally illogical to lament a beer this guy admits to appreciating for its availability such that he - and distant friends - and many others get bottles of high quality beer to enjoy. I know, he means rather that it won't trade as highly as a rarer, say, 400 bottle count release and he'd appreciate the returns from such a bottle.

Yet, if Bellwoods (for instance) had smaller bottle counts increasing their trade value, he (and so many others) would be less likely to get them, AND would then require trading other equally rare bottles (that he'd be equally less likely to procure), all the while necessitating the purchase of extras of such rare bottles (perhaps with 'mules'**), thereby further consolidating the numbers of people who get either bottle to begin with!

It strikes me that such logic is counter-intuitive to everyone's capacity to acquire and drink special beers - which is the goal, is it not? Moreover, scarcity makes the beer taste NO BETTER, but simply drives up the praise to numerous implications. One of these is to somehow diminish the appreciation of great beer that is accessible to us such that even those who love a Bellwoods product find its value not in its consumption but its after-market marketability.

As I write this, Bellwoods still has half of their entire bottle release of this year's Motley Cru, which has previously sold out in hours with a massive lineup and smaller limits per person. Sure, this year it will be tougher to trade any of my extra Motley, but that's a better 'problem' to have than the one where I procure none of a sold out beer I really want to drink! Props to Bellwoods for doing this right!  Breweries that ensure regular accessibility of excellent products (with another requisite nod to Dieu du Ciel! and Le Castor) deserve our praise, not our scorn.

In another conversation, a person I met on the daily Vermont tourist beer circuit lamented the expansion of The Alchemist, saying, "It sucks because it will dilute their trade value."

I get it. I trade too and trading does level things out in that people without access to Vermont, for instance, can get their paws on cans of Heady and SoS for more local products. But if, as this guy does, you love Heady Topper, would you not also appreciate the need not to stand in line once a week at prescribed times for an allocation of it? Would it not be better for the beer afficionado to be able to drink it than to calculate their virtual bond growth?

I imagine these folks giving their favourite regular beer a lower rating for wider availability and saving a 5 out of 5 for an exaggeratedly low 2 bottle count beer of irrelevant quality, considering it the best they've ever had and wishing they could have another, but needing to trade their second bottle at an exorbitant markup.

I am not against trading beer. I am not against rarity factoring into trade values, though I am against gouging.

Bellwoods and Alchemist should be praised for these decisions, not begrudged for allowing their beer to meet wider palates. When we start making after market beer a bigger commodity than the pleasures of its consumption, I feel like we start to lose out on that which makes beer great: the beer itself.

If you disagree, get into whiskey or wine futures, but stop fucking it up for the rest of us.

*Note: I mention his citizenship here only to note that he travels to Toronto from afar and brings Bellwoods bottles back quite a distance, not that this idea belongs to people in any given country.

**"Mule" is beer geek slang for someone who joins the buyer in line, not wanting any bottles for themselves, allowing their friend to purchase double allocation when sales are set at a maximum number of bottles per person.


  1. As someone who is stood in line at Bellwoods too many times, I am very happy they've upped their "bottle count"

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. I don't see the pertinence of the reference to the whisky ?

    Afaik, the Montreal's Whisky fan base (least the few I know...) regularly trade and even give samples to other fans for then to enjoy...

    As of now, I personally have 10 samples that where traded/given that I need to review on my blog and I gave away few of my founds to some Otter whisky friends...

    Please precise your "meaning" ?

    1. I am sure such kindness and community exists in the whiskey world (and wine and beer too). I am not attacking those communities. All I am saying is that for quite some time wine and whiskey have had futures markets where big spenders purchase speculative bottles, depleting stock and distribution, while driving up re-sale price in an after-sale market. Personally, for beer, I don't think this is a great idea as it would minimize the number of people who can actually taste small-release beers.

    2. I am telling speculators that if they wish to speculate to drive up prices, there are already markets for that where it is common and accepted practice (wine and whiskey) and wishing that beer won't do the same thing.