Miscellaneous desk
< June 16	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 17

0.44 litre beer cans

I have noticed that beer cans available in Finland come in three sizes: 0.5 l, 0.44 l and 0.33 l. Whereas the biggest and smallest size are used by mainstream breweries, the middle size seems to be used by microbreweries and artisan breweries only. Some microbreweries and artisan breweries also use the small 0.33 l size. What is so special about the 0.44 l can size? JIP | Talk 23:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible hint: 0.44 l equal 15 oz (rounded). Cheers ⌘ 23:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With oz being the fluid ounce (not the identically abbreviated ounce), an obscure unit outside of the US. Fgf10 (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've often wondered about this - standard big beer cans in Britain have been 440 ml for as long as I can remember. It's just over 15 fl oz Imperial, just under 15 fl oz American - but of course Americans don't drink proper beer. Beer in a pub of course comes in pints, which are 20 fl oz (mnemonic: a pint of water weighs a pound and a quarter. American pints are 16 American fl oz, hence the American saying "a pint's a pound the whole world round", where "whole world round" means "in the USA"). So = 440ml is a likely metric version of 15 fl oz, but why the hell would you sell beer in containers of 15 fl oz in the first place? DuncanHill (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

not "proper beer" - you mean, like making love in a canoe? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"whole world round" meant the Empire and America - but then the British change and now we are blamed for keeping the same. This has gotten familiar.

Section Drink can § Capacity in countries tells us that 440 ml is commonly used for lager and cider in the UK, and that the South African "promotional size" is 440 ml, but gives no explanation for any of the varying standard sizes in different countries. --Lambiam 07:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15 fl oz = ¾ pint (UK). No idea why you'd sell drink in that measure though. Mjroots (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably pint-sized cans were found to be impracticably large, but half-pint cans (which were the normal size in my 1970s youth) were too small for drinkers used to pint glasses. BTW, there was a fad for enormous 4 or 7 pint cans intended for parties, started by the Watney's Party Four and Party Seven, introduced in 1964 and 1968 respectively, but these had died out by the 1980s. Alansplodge (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is here; Beer Packaging in Cans (pp. 532-533). It's a bit technical, but the diameter of the can was fixed in 1974 at 2 and 9/16ths inches or "2-09" in the US where the canning machines were made, because of production requirements, and UK average contents and metrication legislation, coupled with a need for "headspace" inside the can caused a change from 16 oz to 440 ml in 1983. Alansplodge (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I still find confusing is that it's not just British or American breweries who are packing their beer in 0.44 l cans. Fat Lizard for example, is a fully Finnish brewery (they are located in Espoo, southern Finland) and packs all their beers in 0.44 l cans. JIP | Talk 12:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anglophilia? Xuxl (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they bought their canning machines from America too? Alansplodge (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a guess, but the former Metal Box Company (the remnants of which are now called Novar plc), a British company that specialised in tin can manufacture, "expanded its business abroad by establishing facilities or subsidiaries in many countries" in the 1970s, so the use of UK can-sizes may date from that period. Alansplodge (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Certainly possible, but even if they didn't, the effect would show up in other ways: from the size and folding of the cases that hold them to the bottling equipment itself. If there's a well-ingrained set of standards, you're going to need a good reason to deviate from that. Matt Deres (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alansplodge, that doesn't explain why Fat Lizard uses cans where the entire top of the can comes off while every single other brewery I've seen cans from have normal lids on the cans. JIP | Talk 15:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, our Fat Lizard article says: "A signature feature of the company's beer cans is that the entire top of the can can be torn off". It's a mystery. Alansplodge (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intentionally or otherwise, that repeats a joke from a 1980s Miller Lite TV commercial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain the joke? I haven't seen any Miller Lite TV commercials. JIP | Talk 21:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From 1977, actually:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It sure brings a smile to see that ad again Bugs. Whoever the ad agency was for Miller beer they produced several years worth of funny commercials. MarnetteD|Talk 22:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So that's how Miller Lite cans are supposed to be opened? =) I'm glad Fat Lizard cans are easier to open. JIP | Talk 01:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]