Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Beer Talk' started by Brianhophead, Dec 27, 2012.
I'm gonna go with "they weren't alive and drinking beer in 1916"
Low calorie chick beer. No bad bud not much complexity or anything special.
Well there are plenty who complain that a beer like Greene King IPA is "too weak to be an IPA" because it's weaker than 19th-century IPAs.
Like it or not, for 99.999% of beer drinkers on this planet "Guinness" defines "stout". Trying to convince them that a stout should be a very different thing would be like trying to keep the tide out by swinging a stick at some waves.
And just because you may have lived there for a while doesn't make you the ultimate authority. I had my first Guinness fourteen years before you were born and have spent over a month traveling throughout Ireland. The draught there tasted exactly the same to me as it does here. I also met several Irishmen who weren't blinded by the silly hype and didn't think Guinness was a particularly good stout.
How about drinking a excellent, well kept, cask ale in a great old, historic, Scottish pub in Edinburgh? I'll take that anytime.
just don't compare an Irish dry stout to any strong and flavorful stout.
Some really taste too heavy and syrupy to me that they fail to be easy-to-drink.
Irish dry stout is the best type IMO.
Chou said: ↑
I suppose I misspoke about the U.S. made bottles; I was thinking of the Labatt label, and the fact that neither it, nor an Irish made bottle, nor a draught in the U.S., was as fulfilling for me a draught in Ireland. My guess is part the water, part the freshness, part the ambience. I've enjoyed Harp bottles a bit more, I suppose.
Completely agree. Guildford Arms and Cafe Royal are some of my favorites. I love Prince of Wales in Aberdeen as well. A cask of Dark Island or Bitter & Twisted are wonderful things.
As dry Irish Stout goes here in America, I prefer Murphy's out of a widget can. It's very smooth and more creamy than the big G. Brilliant!
Guinness Draught is the Bud Light of stouts. Watery, bland, and unsatisfying in every way. It's tolerable, which is more than can be said of run-of-the-mill BMC, but that's about it. Extra Stout and Foreign Extra are both solid, though.
It's a beer I drank a lot of before I really got into craft beer. For me, it seems to be a good gateway beer, but once you go down the rabbit hole, it just doesn't taste as good.
I prefer Sly Fox O'Reilly Stout but as far as Irish Stouts go Guinness is solid. I've had it here and around Dublin including the at the brewery. All tastes the same. Fine.
Its just a good sessionable dry stout. I like it, I just wouldn't be comparing the big imperial stouts to this. It's a solid stout in its own right and it's easy to find anywhere.
The first time I had Guinness was a road trip to the U. of GA in 1968, it was the Vietnam Moratorium day. I had only Schlitz and Ole Milwaukee to compare it to so I thought it was gross! Since then I have learned to enjoy and appreciate craft beers. Old Rasputin is my favorite stout now.
Actually it was only after i hit around 30 that i started to think this way. I am more aware of my mortality now and whether it sounds pretentious or not, i truly feel that my life is just too short to waste on pointless experiences that ive already had. Beer is not important it s just cool and fun. So don't want to drink a beer that is neither (like Guinness) and if it was cool (like some other beer) and I've already had the fun, (say twice in the last hour) i want to do (or drink) something else.
so by this metric, i guess you never repeat a sex position with your partner(s)?
I bought a keg of it during the summer and enjoyed it. I usually only buy pony kegs and 1/6th barrel of locals but for some reason wanted Guinness. It has to be tapped correctly and have the right nitrous/c02 mix and faucet for it to be really good. And it is IMO.
Man it gives you bad gas.
But after a full keg of it I haven't had a hankerin' for it since.
Always amused when the subject of Murphy's comes up in these threads as the superior Irish Dry Stout, since the kegs and cans exported to the US are brewed at a Heineken-owned S&N brewery in the UK or a Heineken brewery in The Netherlands. Heineken (the world's #3 brewing company) of course owns both of the other major Irish stouts, Murphy's and the no-longer-exported- to-the-US Beamish, so it's not exactly a case of the "little guys" against big bad Diageo.
You mean there's more than one ?
Or that a 6% mild is "too strong for style"
I keep reading "it doesn't compare to RIS, or the new styled American stouts". Right, isn't Irish stout a different style from RIS? And different from the recipies cooked up by brewers that weren't born when Guinness was designed? It's like trying to convince your dad that skinny jeans are better than his original 501's.
Anyway my two cents, Guinness is a great beer.
You can have sex with a partner?
I celebrated my 60th birthday at the Prince of Wales. In Edinburgh my favorite pub is Leslies Bar on Ratcliffe Terrace, a fantastic old victorian pub on the historic register. Plenty of other great ones there. Dublin and Guinness don't come close
Leftovers (and leftover thinking) from the massive brewery expansions and mergers in the late 20th century maybe, where some ales were so weak they would have been legal during the prohibition in America.
But yeah, Guinness is crap. It's pasteurised and filtered to death so it's not really surprising. It is to stout what Boddingtons and John Smiths are to bitter.
At least it isn't made with corn or some other such bullshit that's mostly available in bars. Water, malt, hops, and yeast all the way.
Go to Jamaica & try their Kingston brewed 7.5% Guinness. Phenomenal!
I don't like Guinness. I respect Guinness, and appreciate what they are, I however find the beer to be too light, too bitter, and not very flavorful. Now, an imperial stout on the other hand...
What about the 20% flaked barley and the 10% roasted barley? Both of those are non-malt adjuncts.
It's nothing to do with mergers. It was WW I and WW II that knocked the stuffing out of British beer strengthwise.
The Volstead Act defined "non-intoxicating" as a beverage under 0.5% ABV during US Prohibition. There are/were really such beverages sold as "ale" in the UK that would meet that?
I don't know the UK's legal definition of beer but it seems impossible to brew and ferment a beverage using normal brewing procedures and wind up with that little alcohol. US "cereal beverages" - aka "near beers" - during that era (and up until today, in fact) were typically brewed as standard strength beers and then had the alcohol removed by several different methods to be under the legal limit.
The weakest WW I beers were 1% ABV.
Apparantly there were. During the era of ales such as Watneys Red. Maybe there was no legal requirement to display the abv and that's why they got away with it for however long they did, or maybe there were one or two and the author phrased that in a way that makes it sound as if they were prevalent. Who knows. Hopefully some day there will be some decent historians looking at the history of brewing.
Watney's Red was described as a "standard pub strength" bitter so presumably was just under 4% ABV. I remember reading that Watney's Starlight (which I never experienced) was reputedly weak enough to have been sold in the Prohibition era. Personally I doubt it , the reference was possibly a misunderstanding of the laws regarding Prohibition.
All beer of course had its gravity (from which ABV can be estimated pretty accurately) measured by HM Customs and Excise.Every single brew was supervised by an officer and it's doubtful whether any beer of extremely low ABV would have remained a secret.
As in "Watney's Red Barrel"? Wasn't that the first notable "keg beer" (pasteurized/forced carbed) in the UK and it's era the 1960's?
I must be missing something here, even after re-reading this thread - which "author" are you referring to?
No, as in Watney's Red. The later version of it.
I remember Watney's Red Barrel, pure crap. Never heard of Starlight.
Yeah, that's a real possibility. There are some inaccurate websites that call the "less than 3.2 ABW" beers that became legal in the US in April, 1933 (before the full Repeal of US Prohibition with the 21st Amendment later that year) "near beer".
Those "3.2" beers still exist in several states in the US, and are by law required to be under 4% ABV. But the US Federal legal definition of "near beer" is still a "Malt beverage containing less than 0.5% alcohol by volume"- the same as it was under the Volstead Act during the Prohibition Era.
Would you say that various kombuchas don't fall in the category of fermented beverage? Or one that uses "normal brewing procedures"?
I would like to enjoy a delicious Guinness. Unfortunately, it sucks.