A Comparison of Budweiser Prohibition and Budweiser

A Brace Of Buds

I bought the Budweiser Prohibition, a six pack of bottles, and a couple of tall cans of regular Bud. To me, the Prohibition is rather distant from Anne Pierce’s impressions of its 1920 counterpart I referred to the other day. She spoke of a high-extract beer, 1026 FG by my count, with a quality comparable to the regular beer which pre-WW I was likely 1015 FG (it was in 1884)*. She placed it in the top rank of the near beers newly on the market in 1920.

The current one seems rather dry with a citric, almost lactic aftertaste – I am still not sure if perhaps it went off in the bottle as a number of taste reports refer to a sweet drink.

We had a very hot summer in Toronto and if the packs were from the first deliveries last May or June, they may have suffered. They were kept room temperature where I bought them, too.

There seemed a slight saline or “mineral” hit and I see that the label states 2% sodium, which seems a lot to me. I don’t off-hand see why this is included.

I didn’t expect it to taste quite like regular beer but was put in mind of Will Rogers’ classic line: whoever dubbed near beer was a poor judge of distance.

Now to regular Bud. It was, a) much better, and b) while the flavours were barely beyond recognition threshold, what there was was good and natural. It seemed better than some years ago when I recall a starchy dry aftertaste, sweeter and more beer-like. It won’t be a personal go-to but I can see why millions drink it who don’t want a stronger taste.

I encourage A-B InBev to recreate the 1884 Budweiser as a special offering. I suspect it would be very well received by the craft world and would reinforce the existing franchise IMO.

For that matter, if “Prohibition” is launched big time, I’d use the original (1920) recipe for that one too.

…………………………………………………………………………..

*Pilsner Urquell today (and then) is 1015 FG…