Cans v. Bottles

Obviously the difference between UK cask beers and their bottled/canned/kegged counterparts is the most extreme. After that I'd say beers on Bayerische Anstich (from the wooden barrel) and Tankova (unpasteurized from the tank) Czech beers differ very significantly from their bottled/canned/kegged counterparts. Personally I much prefer the cask/wood/tank dispense than any of the other options.

 

You have left out cask, the only dispense method which actually makes a significant and noticeable difference.

 

I think my very first experience with it was newcastle brown in the can versus in the bottle, that's been a few years ago now but my recollection was that it was horrible in the can.

 

well you'll have to forgive me, we don't exactly have the same rich tradition of cask ales here in the states so it slipped my mind

 

Is there a significant difference in the way draft beer used to be served and the way it is now. My dad, a Bud heavy drinker, will not drink it from a tap. Bottle-only. Said, "tap gives me a stomach ache." There are certainly beers I prefer on tap as opposed to a bottle or can (Lunch comes to mind), but to go as far as to not drink from tap screams to me that the way beer was served on tap at one point was markedly different.

 

Interesting, though I was really more asking about specific differences with specific beers, and which people preferred within those differences, having said that, I have no doubt that what you suggested is true

 

Point taken but there are a few oases where cask is available
Regarding cask, there are often actual differences in the beer sold in bottles/cans vs cask , for example Fuller's London Pride in can is 4.7% but on cask it's 4.1% , Adnam's Broadside is 6.4% in bottle but only 4.7% on cask.

 

Improperly cleaned or outright not cleaned lines or taps are about the only reason I could imagine that a beer on tap would be worse than it's canned or bottled counterpart. This would also a stomach ache I'd imagine. Properly clean lines with Bud should only result in a headache....

 

well in some instances I've found that there are beers that I enjoy significantly more on draft and whose flavor is quite different (though i could certainly tell it was the same beer). St. bernardus 12 and 8 (thought mostly the 12) for example has a much more vinous and smooth quality on draught than in the bottle though I suppose this could have a lot to do with how long the keg had been at the bar that was using it

 

Yeah, I guess I figured the same thing. Bad tap lines. I've suggested that he tries again, but it's too ingrained.

 

Probably something to do, too, with forced carbonation versus bottle conditioning. Interesting question. The aforementioned Lunch always seems a little smoother, fresher on tap than in a bottle even when I got bottles that were bottled that day.

 

I don't have any personal experience, but I would assume that Corona and Heineken from the can vs. bottle would be an improvement, with less chance of being light-struck.

Locally- Yard's ESA in the bottle is a decent beer - but it shows up quite a bit on cask and is great that way.

Nitro draft can be good, but I've also had beers that are killed by it. Southern Tier IPA on nitro comes to mind. I found it lifeless and lacking any hop aroma.

 

the skunking comment is an interesting point, on that note, I'm still not quite sure why there are people still using clear bottles

 

The convention in the US was long that bottled/canned beers were pasteurized, and draught beer was not. That began to change when "real draft in a can" became popular in the mid-1960s with the development of the microfilter/sterile fill method, which continues today with beers like Coors Banquet and Miller Genuine Draft.

It later changed further with the adaptation of the Sankey keg design by US brewers that allow kegged beers to be flash-pasteurized (although, it should be noted, not all US brewers choose to F/P their Sankey kegs - for example, AB and MC both still claim their draught beers are unpasteurized).

With the rise of the craft brewer, that "bottle/can = pasteurized vs keg = unpasteurized" standard pretty much went by the wayside.

 

The other beer that comes to mind is Lost Abbey Angel's Share, and the same could be true for other barrel-aged beers that are then bottle conditioned.

Back in 2008/2009 when they had issues with bottles not fully carbonating, there was no way I was going to drop $15 to $20 on a 375 ml bottle that may be flat. So I waited a few years until I had a chance to drink in on draft, that way it was guaranteed to be carbonated. And it was a very good beer.

 

Guinness doesn't get a lot of love here but I must admit I enjoy it. We were in Ireland two months ago and I enjoyed my share of Guinness, Murphys, and Beamish. They were all great but that may have been having it in Ireland.

 

I think you were experiencing the home flavour. It has to be said of Irish Stout it does not travel well. I like all three you mention but the further i go from home the more the flavour degrades but in fairness most of the times I have had it outside of Ireland it was in Europe and it is possible with their own rich beer traditions they have more focus on their home beers... The one time I had an Irish Stout in Asia it was undrinkable!!!

Hope you enjoyed the Murphys though!! Guinness may get the press but I feel Murphys is far and away the better beer!!