RateBeer Forums

Naming of collaborative beers and limits to who should count

Brewer visits brewer and on the day they make a beer with a recipe they’ve worked on together. Easy. But I’ve added a few beers recently where I’ve wondered whether adding them as collaborations is the right way to go.


  1. Hawkers / Carwyn Distress Call Carwyn - a bar and bottle shop - were having trouble filling their advent box of cans and Hawkers blended this one to help them out. Doesn’t seem like a real collaboration to me.

  2. Moon Dog / Run the Jewels No Save Point. Run the Jewels is a rap duo and there are apparently several versions of this beer which seems to partially be about promoting a new album. Whilst they didn’t visit any of the breweries, the beers are all slight variations on a recipe devised by the rappers. This seems like it is a collaboration, albeit an unusual one.

  3. Pirate Life / Knobby Ants in Ya Pants. It seems Knobby is a brand of underwear. Even if they suggested putting the ants in the beer it’s hard to see this as a collaboration rather than a promotional exercise.

Is there an existing guideline here? If not, should it be that all parties have to be brewers? That would miss 2. which would seem a shame. Or should it be anything they call a collaboration is one?


I’ve always thought the rule was that only breweries should be included in the name, but after a quick search of the site I can’t find where this “rule” is written. But the same thing has been said in numerous older forum posts. This means all 3 of your examples shouldn’t have the collaborators in the name as none of them are breweries, even the second one which sounds legit.

Bars, restaurants, coffee shops, chocolatiers and any other such businesses should be mentioned in the description.

Remember to tag with ‘collaboration’ in any case.


Yes, this is correct. Only brewers should receive the collab treatment in name. Other brands should be in description unless it is part of the beer name (i.e., something like 2SP Wawa Holiday Reserve Stout).


I think the correct tag would be guest brewed: " Not a collaboration (with another brewer) but brewed with guest who is not brewer by profession (e.g. a chocolate or coffee maker, a local sport club, a local homebrewer’s club, an artist …)".


I have only ever taken it that only Brewers should be considered, however I see that this isn’t fully followed and pubs seem to be allowed in some quarters.

Interesting, I had no idea this tag existed. Will use it from now on.

Must be a very recent tag because up until last year it was always suggested to use collaboration. I even checked on the wayback machine just now to make sure I wasn’t going crazy imagining this, the description definitely used to suggest it. There must be thousands of wrongly tagged beers there now :confused:

I think the real thing we should do here is add a feature that makes guest breweries clickable. As in, if it’s Stone / New Belgium you would have it mainly on the stone brewery page, but instead of doing the / New Belgium, you have a section after title where it says Collaboration with New Belgium, where New Belgium is clickable. Could work for multiple breweries. I started a thread about this a year or two back, and @joet even agreed but I think it’s been forgotten.

Then if Run the Jewels or whoever’s underwear or coffee is part of it, only include it in name, if it’s there, or in description if not. While it’s cool to know, (or not, depending on the case) I don’t really think it matters in terms of the beer.

It’s been brought up numerous times. Myself and others have pointed out that the functionality to do this kind of already exists, the part we currently use for setting Brewed At/By on contract/client beers. It just needs to be copied and made so we can add multiple breweries as collaborators.

Given how ridiculously commonplace collabs are these days I’d have thought more consideration would be given to this. Why are we ok with not being able to see collaboration brews at respective breweries and why do we have to write them in the beer name?

1 Like

I agree being able to see collaboration brews at different breweries would be nice, but that would require movement beyond the control of admins. Given where we are now, what can be done to limit the problems I brought up?

Some mention of what the rule is when adding beers would be good. Now I’ve had more of a look, I can see Viper666’s post on this, but it really needs to be on the page where you add beers.

What to do about existing beers that don’t satisfy the rule? Do you want a list of suggested corrections in this thread? Just a search for Carwyn (the shop in my first example) yields >25 examples.

Ya, I guess it’s something that @services would have to deal with if they wanted to implement this feature. It would definitely be cool, especially for fanboys of a particular brewery, allowing them to see all the collabs out there if there were looking to collect ratings.

I’m just going to leave this link here :rofl: :rofl:

True Respite / Waredaca / Saints Row / Homaide / Manor Hill / Pub Dog / Brookeville / Crooked Crab / 1623 / Calvert / Denizens / Milkhouse / Idiom / Hysteria / Monocacy / 7 Locks / Mully’s / Brawling Bear / Silver Branch / Waverly / Slate Farm / Ten Eyck / Astro Lab / Red Shedman / Mad Science / Heavy Seas / Antietam / Oliver What Maryland Does


Add To RateBeer

Add A Beer
Add A Brewer
Add A Place
Add An Event

Manage Your Account

Add Premium
Edit Profile
Sign out

RateBeer Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter, RateBeer Weekly, a must for understanding new people, places and beers in worldwide craft culture.

Stay Connected

2000- 2017 © RateBeer, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service