| |
Main
Date: 09 Aug 2006 12:44:53
From: Don Levey
Subject: Brewpot opinions (13 gal)
|
Does anyone have any thoughts/opinions on the following 13 gal pot:
http://www.williamsbrewing.com/52_QUART_STAINLESS_TANK_WITH_V_P1731C50.cfm
It looks interesting, and $109 for 13 gallons (with spigot) stainless
is better than I can find anywhere.
--
Don Levey $ cd /pub
Framingham, MA $ more beer
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to salearn@the-leveys.us
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Aug 2006 19:20:24
From: stencil
Subject: Re: Brewpot opinions (13 gal)
|
On 09 Aug 2006 12:44:53 -0400, Don Levey wrote:
>Does anyone have any thoughts/opinions on the following 13 gal pot:
>
>http://www.williamsbrewing.com/52_QUART_STAINLESS_TANK_WITH_V_P1731C50.cfm
>
>It looks interesting, and $109 for 13 gallons (with spigot) stainless
>is better than I can find anywhere.
I prefer aluminum to 1810, and the lack of lug handles is a bummer.
These guys
http://www.acitydiscount.com/60-Qt-Aluminum-Stock-Pot-Update-International-APT-60.0.51625.1.4.htm
have a $75 minimum but doubtless one could flesh out the order with a
10qt chili pot or the like. That and a Weld-B-Gone and I'm happy.
stencil sends
|
| | |
Date: 09 Aug 2006 16:43:54
From: Don Levey
Subject: Re: Brewpot opinions (13 gal)
|
stencil <etcs.ret@verizon.net > writes:
> On 09 Aug 2006 12:44:53 -0400, Don Levey wrote:
>
> >Does anyone have any thoughts/opinions on the following 13 gal pot:
> >
> >http://www.williamsbrewing.com/52_QUART_STAINLESS_TANK_WITH_V_P1731C50.cfm
> >
> >It looks interesting, and $109 for 13 gallons (with spigot) stainless
> >is better than I can find anywhere.
>
> I prefer aluminum to 1810, and the lack of lug handles is a bummer.
> These guys
>
> http://www.acitydiscount.com/60-Qt-Aluminum-Stock-Pot-Update-International-APT-60.0.51625.1.4.htm
>
> have a $75 minimum but doubtless one could flesh out the order with a
> 10qt chili pot or the like. That and a Weld-B-Gone and I'm happy.
>
> stencil sends
From acity I can get a 15 and a 20 gal pot for the price of the 15
gallon alone from Williams. Thanks for that pointer!
--
Don Levey $ cd /pub
Framingham, MA $ more beer
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to salearn@the-leveys.us
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2006 01:00:47
From: stencil
Subject: Re: Brewpot opinions (13 gal)
|
On 09 Aug 2006 16:43:54 -0400, Don Levey wrote:
>From acity I can get a 15 and a 20 gal pot for the price of the 15
>gallon alone from Williams. Thanks for that pointer!
....a second thought here - don't lose sight of the fact that you're
not get getting Vollrath or Polarware at these prices. As John K
implies, there's less expensive and there's cheaper. Further, be
scrupulous in giving the rivets on the lug handles a very close
preflight each and every time you you use the pot.
I got my 60-qt marvel from AgriSupply
http://www.agrisupplyco.com/cgi-bin/cgipagls?l=72&g=5030
for a few dollars more. And of course the Weld-B-Gone and a $5 1/2-in
ball valve from the hardware store get factored in.
It replaces an old 40-qt Vollrath and I clean-and-jerk this puppy from
the floor burner up onto the sink counter much more circumspectly. As
I progress deeper into geezerhood I more frequently think of pumps and
suchlike prostheses.
stencil sends
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2006 20:55:13
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Brewpot opinions (13 gal)
|
On 09 Aug 2006 16:43:54 -0400, <Don_RCB@the-leveys.us > wrote:
> stencil <etcs.ret@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> On 09 Aug 2006 12:44:53 -0400, Don Levey wrote:
>>
>> >Does anyone have any thoughts/opinions on the following 13 gal pot:
>> >
>> >http://www.williamsbrewing.com/52_QUART_STAINLESS_TANK_WITH_V_P1731C50.cfm
>> >
>> >It looks interesting, and $109 for 13 gallons (with spigot) stainless
>> >is better than I can find anywhere.
>>
>> I prefer aluminum to 1810, and the lack of lug handles is a bummer.
>> These guys
>>
>> http://www.acitydiscount.com/60-Qt-Aluminum-Stock-Pot-Update-International-APT-60.0.51625.1.4.htm
>>
>> have a $75 minimum but doubtless one could flesh out the order with a
>> 10qt chili pot or the like. That and a Weld-B-Gone and I'm happy.
>>
>> stencil sends
>
> From acity I can get a 15 and a 20 gal pot for the price of the 15
> gallon alone from Williams. Thanks for that pointer!
AL is usually cheaper than SS. It looks like they've even got a 40 gallon
AL pot for less than the 15 gallon SS one. That'd come in real handy if
you wanted to make 30 gallons of homebrew at a time. ;)
John.
|
| |
Date: 09 Aug 2006 18:18:36
From: Joel
Subject: Re: Brewpot opinions (13 gal)
|
Don Levey <Don_RCB@the-leveys.us > wrote:
>Does anyone have any thoughts/opinions on the following 13 gal pot:
>
>http://www.williamsbrewing.com/52_QUART_STAINLESS_TANK_WITH_V_P1731C50.cfm
>
>It looks interesting, and $109 for 13 gallons (with spigot) stainless
>is better than I can find anywhere.
I have a smaller equivalent to this:
http://www.williamsbrewing.com/60_QT_PROFESSIONAL_POT_P1488C50.cfm
Unless you need the spigot, I'd seriously think about spending
the extra few dollars for the thicker, seamless stainless and
the handles. Regardless of their comment about not needed
handles if you have a spigot, I find they come in handy while
cleaning, lugging, etc. (My mash tun is handle-less, and I
find it annoying.)
--
Joel Plutchak "Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and
plutchak@[...] sometimes I think we're not. In either case the idea
is quite staggering." - Arthur C. Clarke
|
| | |
Date: 09 Aug 2006 19:54:38
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Brewpot opinions (13 gal)
|
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 18:18:36 +0000 (UTC), <plutchak@see.headers > wrote:
> http://www.williamsbrewing.com/60_QT_PROFESSIONAL_POT_P1488C50.cfm
>
> Unless you need the spigot, I'd seriously think about spending
> the extra few dollars for the thicker, seamless stainless and
> the handles. Regardless of their comment about not needed
> handles if you have a spigot, I find they come in handy while
> cleaning, lugging, etc. (My mash tun is handle-less, and I
> find it annoying.)
IMO, I think this one would make a better choice. Beyond the handles
thing, I just think the size would work better. You can always add a
weldless spigot to it in the future.
John.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Aug 2006 14:31:47
From: Don Levey
Subject: Re: Brewpot opinions (13 gal)
|
plutchak@see.headers (Joel) writes:
> Don Levey <Don_RCB@the-leveys.us> wrote:
> >Does anyone have any thoughts/opinions on the following 13 gal pot:
> >
> >http://www.williamsbrewing.com/52_QUART_STAINLESS_TANK_WITH_V_P1731C50.cfm
> >
> >It looks interesting, and $109 for 13 gallons (with spigot) stainless
> >is better than I can find anywhere.
>
> I have a smaller equivalent to this:
>
> http://www.williamsbrewing.com/60_QT_PROFESSIONAL_POT_P1488C50.cfm
>
> Unless you need the spigot, I'd seriously think about spending
> the extra few dollars for the thicker, seamless stainless and
> the handles. Regardless of their comment about not needed
> handles if you have a spigot, I find they come in handy while
> cleaning, lugging, etc. (My mash tun is handle-less, and I
> find it annoying.)
Understandable. But what do you mean by "the few extra dollars"?
Other examples of the same size seem to go for $70 more, or 64%.
Eventually I may get there but for now I don't think I can pass it
by the boss.
--
Don Levey $ cd /pub
Framingham, MA $ more beer
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to salearn@the-leveys.us
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2006 14:38:29
From: Don Levey
Subject: Re: Brewpot opinions (13 gal)
|
Don Levey <Don_RCB@the-leveys.us > writes:
> plutchak@see.headers (Joel) writes:
>
> > Don Levey <Don_RCB@the-leveys.us> wrote:
> > >Does anyone have any thoughts/opinions on the following 13 gal pot:
> > >
> > >http://www.williamsbrewing.com/52_QUART_STAINLESS_TANK_WITH_V_P1731C50.cfm
> > >
> > >It looks interesting, and $109 for 13 gallons (with spigot) stainless
> > >is better than I can find anywhere.
> >
> > I have a smaller equivalent to this:
> >
> > http://www.williamsbrewing.com/60_QT_PROFESSIONAL_POT_P1488C50.cfm
> >
> > Unless you need the spigot, I'd seriously think about spending
> > the extra few dollars for the thicker, seamless stainless and
> > the handles. Regardless of their comment about not needed
> > handles if you have a spigot, I find they come in handy while
> > cleaning, lugging, etc. (My mash tun is handle-less, and I
> > find it annoying.)
>
> Understandable. But what do you mean by "the few extra dollars"?
> Other examples of the same size seem to go for $70 more, or 64%.
> Eventually I may get there but for now I don't think I can pass it
> by the boss.
>
Argh, never mind. I see the 15gal for $139, which is not as bad a hit.
--
Don Levey $ cd /pub
Framingham, MA $ more beer
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to salearn@the-leveys.us
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
|
| |
Date: 09 Aug 2006 17:23:20
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Brewpot opinions (13 gal)
|
On 09 Aug 2006 12:44:53 -0400, <Don_RCB@the-leveys.us > wrote:
> Does anyone have any thoughts/opinions on the following 13 gal pot:
>
> http://www.williamsbrewing.com/52_QUART_STAINLESS_TANK_WITH_V_P1731C50.cfm
>
> It looks interesting, and $109 for 13 gallons (with spigot) stainless
> is better than I can find anywhere.
It should work fine. 13 gallons may be a little tight if you want to make
10 gallon batches though. I'd feel more comfortable with a 15 gallon pot
for a 10 gallon batch size. You may end up having to top off after the
boil in order to hit 10 gallons in the fermenters, so your efficiency is
going to suffer some if you're doing all-grain batches.
John.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Aug 2006 13:49:54
From: Don Levey
Subject: Re: Brewpot opinions (13 gal)
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net > writes:
> On 09 Aug 2006 12:44:53 -0400, <Don_RCB@the-leveys.us> wrote:
> > Does anyone have any thoughts/opinions on the following 13 gal pot:
> >
> > http://www.williamsbrewing.com/52_QUART_STAINLESS_TANK_WITH_V_P1731C50.cfm
> >
> > It looks interesting, and $109 for 13 gallons (with spigot) stainless
> > is better than I can find anywhere.
>
> It should work fine. 13 gallons may be a little tight if you want to make
> 10 gallon batches though. I'd feel more comfortable with a 15 gallon pot
> for a 10 gallon batch size. You may end up having to top off after the
> boil in order to hit 10 gallons in the fermenters, so your efficiency is
> going to suffer some if you're doing all-grain batches.
>
Right now I'm working with a 7 gallon (it says 7.5, but I don't believe
it) for what are supposed to be 5.5-6 gallons out of the kettle, so
it may not be much of an adjustment. I lose about 1 gallon an hour
for the boil.
--
Don Levey $ cd /pub
Framingham, MA $ more beer
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to salearn@the-leveys.us
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
|
|
