Last week there was a bit of a burst of blog posts about innovation and value. Mr. B. even expanded on his views with a follow up post. All good. People are thinking about what is in the glass.

One small point I would like to add. It's not really up to a brewer to call a special brew an "innovation" as that is defined by the greater marketplace and the greater context. It is also defined within the theatre of the mouth, the play that is beer put on for the audience of one. As a result, I am much happier with the label "experimental" beer as it more accurately describes a range of short run brews which range from the finest to flops. We should embrace these flops as they show brewers are taking a risk. And, as Mr. B noted, if they are not moving into the new, they are not really producing an "innovation." That's taking the safe route instead - even if that safe route is another 10% bourbon barreled stout. That sort of beer isn't really experimenting. They may be following, not willing to risk the flop. But it may be an example of the brewer learning. Which also needs respect. However, if you are not experimenting or only learning... what makes your release that "special"? Isn't that just called a short run brew?

We have had four more entrants send in photos over the last 24 hours or so. Gregg Wiggins of Arlington, Virginia (the reader with the highest "g" to alphabet ratio in his name) delivered these five photos:

Eric Schrag somewhere in Wilmington, Delaware sent this one:

Jennifer Lawson of Port Moody, British Columbia sent along this one:

Lars Marius Garshol of Oslo, Norway forwarded these three:

Great stuff. Keep them coming. But lay off the 3,000 KB files, alright? One of the photos up there made my computer whimper and cry like a cheese eating school boy.