Brewnoser wrote:I think that's all a good question. And one that I have discussed in brief with Greg but also one he's thought about more that I.
First it allows a "SMASH" to have nuances other don't.
Second it's the whole thing being altered in a slow organic process. It has a sort of momentum that an addition of a smaller portion of modified malt cannot simulate, perhaps.
And third, and perhaps most importantly in this context, it's his. Happened upon by accident perhaps, but diagnosed and replicated by Nash. And thus a signature of sorts. And for that I say more power to him. I for one am happy to see success relate to intelligence rather than the wealth of one's parents. Like almost everyone in Atlantic Canada who is well off.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Interesting about the malt and the new process. That kind of innovation is what brewing is about.
My parents were very poor. I was bought up in a small cottage made of mud and horsehair (they call that cob) in Cornwall, UK, with no electricity, no car, lived off the land and the sea, subsidised by my mother's part time waitressing job. My parents chose to live that life. I think my childhood was very rich though, and I learnt many practical skills, innovation, confidence that I could achieve etc. There are many forms of wealth other than money, and money could be the least desirable form.
There's an old saying in England ..."from clog to clog in three generations" meaning wealthy parents often produce poor children who then produce successful (wealthy children). Probably not so true these days but it's a saying from the old days. Come to think of it, a lot of modern-day children of the wealthy aren't often that productive though.