TOPIC:

"TheBeerNut":3mtoes01 wrote:

"KeeganAles":3mtoes01 wrote: Stone Barrel, Red Hand, and N17 all commercially available and so removed. [/quote:3mtoes01]You sure about Red Hand? While you can buy Stone Barrel and N17 beer, the breweries are still in the planning phase and as such I think they should remain on this list.

"KeeganAles":3mtoes01 wrote: Rye River say on their website that they were due to open their own brewery in February. Does anyone know if this happened?[/quote:3mtoes01]It didn't. They just took delivery of the pilot kit recently, but the main kit has not yet been commissioned.

"KeeganAles":3mtoes01 wrote: it seems like Elbow Lane have been on this list forever - what's their status?[/quote:3mtoes01]They tweet a lot about home brewing.[/quote:3mtoes01]

red hand licensed but not commercially available

"TheBeerNut":105k6pot wrote:

"KeeganAles":105k6pot wrote: Stone Barrel, Red Hand, and N17 all commercially available and so removed. [/quote:105k6pot]You sure about Red Hand? While you can buy Stone Barrel and N17 beer, the breweries are still in the planning phase and as such I think they should remain on this list.
[/quote:105k6pot]

The way I'd understood it, a brewery moved from this list to the "opened" list/thread once they had a beer for sale, contract brewed or otherwise.

A brewery is a business, not the kit - at least, that's how these lists have been run so far.

I know Red Hand has had fits and starts, but Stone Barrel (for example) has licenses, branding, and beer on the shelf and in pubs. In what way are they "still in the planning phase"?

I'm really not trying to stir trouble; I just think that if these two lists are to be of any value, then it seems like we need some clearer definitions.

Otherwise we can (and if the 3 breweries we're talking about stay on this list, we will) have breweries that are both "in planning" and "opened" according to us. And I'm not really sure what that means.

Well, IMO (and the O of other EBCU member organisations), no kit = no brewery. The Dutch use the term "label sticker" for a company which buys beer in from a brewery elsewhere, which I quite like.

"TheBeerNut":3i6i3cu9 wrote: Well, IMO (and the O of other EBCU member organisations), no kit = no brewery. The Dutch use the term "label sticker" for a company which buys beer in from a brewery elsewhere, which I quite like.[/quote:3i6i3cu9]

OK, but that's not how we've been running these lists up until now. By that standard, half of the "recently opened" breweries need to come off that thread.

Or are you suggesting a Kafkaesque world of breweries that are both "opened" and "in planning"?

("no kit = no brewery" also fails to distinguish between contract and alternating proprietorship breweries, but that's a whole other can of worms...)

I don't see the problem with different rules for the two lists. I'm interested in when beer brands first came to market, and I'm interested in which breweries are being planned. If it were a binary system with everything either planning or opened we'd only need one list.

Maybe that's the way to do it: move the names that aren't yet on the market to the other list and keep this one about the kits. What do you think?

One list for beers as soon as it is commercially available to purchase (regardless of where it is made) and one list for beers as soon as they are available to purchase and have been brewed at the brewery's own premises.