 What isn't true of Sam Adams?
The members of the team, as noted in the original article, all hold day jobs at Microsoft, mainly as designers, managers, and coders for Microsoft Word. The point of the second test was not to find the difference between cheap and expensive beers but instead to compare a variety of top-of-the-line beers. Could they detect any of the subtleties of brewing style and provenance that microbrew customers pay such attention to when choosing some Doppelbock over a cream ale? Since the tasting panel had left the first round grumbling that cheap lagers were not a fair test of their abilities, this second round of testing was advertised to the panel as a reward. One aspect of the reward was that they would presumably enjoy the actual testing more--fewer rueful beer descriptions along the lines of "urine" or "get it away!" were expected than in the first round. The other aspect of anticipated reward was the panelists' unspoken but obvious assumption that this time they would "do better" on the test. Intellectual vanity being what it is, people who had fought for and won jobs at Microsoft and who still must fight every six months for primacy on the employee-ranking scale (which determines--gasp!--how many new stock options they receive) would assume that their skill as tasters was on trial, just as much as the beer was. Here is what happened and what it meant: 1. Procedure. The missing three dropped out with excuses of "my wife is sick" (one person) and "meeting is running long" (two). The A-to-J labeling scheme was the same for all testers. As they began, the tasters were given these and only these clues: that the flight included one "holdover" beer from the previous round (Sam Adams); that it included at least one import (Bass); that it included at least one macrobrew , specifically, a member of the vast Anheuser-Busch family (Michelob Hefeweizen). After sampling all beers, the tasters rated them as follows: Overall quality points, from zero to 100, reflecting their personal, subjective fondness for the beer. Descriptions of and comments about each beer's taste--"smooth and nutty," "too strong," etc. If the first ranking was a measure of how good each beer was, this was an attempt to explain what made it good. The idea here was to test the veteran beer drinkers' claim to recognize the distinctive tastes of famous brands.
 it was still considered one of the Bests
 it is a lager the testers liked  it scored the highest on the previous test  people scored it differently on the second test  it was still considered one of the Bests