What’s the Difference? Share your Side-by-Side (2021)

That's it, good description!

 

Not until now. Although, of course I needed to one-up you

(No, I'm not normally such an asshole, just more often than many people care for)

So, with your preference firmly in mind but having forgot all the details, I dive in...

O'hara's was the most explosive on the opening, and seemed to having the longest waterfall of nitrogen of all of them. Murphy's was the exact opposite - it almost seemed a dud, especially right after opening the O'hara's. Guinness was closer to O'hara's - although the latter held a bigger head a bit longer; Murphy's head was a much thinner cap, but it maintained itself pretty well. I think Guinness was the best pour by a little over the more "explosive" O'hara's.


O'hara's has the strongest aroma, and it comes across as more roasted to maybe even smoky. I even get a little cigar ash in it. Murphy's is second strongest, with a modest roast and a coffee with a hint of chocolate scent. Guinness is similar to Murpy's, but a little weaker. I kinda like the ashy note of O'hara's but I think Murphy's nose is better overall for its relative balance.

Reversing track, the Guinness is slightly astringent in a bitter coffee way. It seems a bit more acidic (I must say in a relative sense considering it isn't at all like the beers from the recent sour tasting) than I've ever noticed before. First sip was also watery. Guinness hasn't ever seemed heavy to me at its fairly low ABV, but the nitro has added a creaminess I am not getting so much this pour.

Murphy's has a similar flavor for half to 2/3 its taste. It also is pretty light, though not quite as watery as Guinness. The back end is where things shift and a medium bold, bitter coffee come in. The burgeoning flavors gives an overall impression of a fuller beer than Guinness to me. The back end is a little more like the nose, and even has a hint of ash that I might expect from the O'hara's.

O'hara's starts off more bitter, almost like it starts off the midway through Murphy's journey and goes from there. It doesn't end up in much of a different place, however. Murphy's is a long, slow build where O'hara's is a fairly steady experience from start to finish.

I will note I though I had chilled these long enough (3 hours), but they still started off warmer than I expected. I was happy to get more roasted notes out of all of them than I expected, and that they all had a fairly firm bitterness. Perhaps I'm too used to sweeter stouts at this point, he said sadly, as these beers are all quite dry,

I think I like O'hara's taste a little better, but not by much. Guinness' feel throws me off more than anything about the other two, although Murphy's pour was easily the second less attractive note from any of these. After sharing some with the GF, maybe I'll blend the last couple ounces of these together and see what that creates.


Ok, revisiting the post of @jonphisher

I definitely had a different experience tonight with Murphy's

I'd generally agree, especially on the strength aspect.

Totally on the lingering roast aftertaste in Murphy's O'hara's lingers a bit as well, but the swell I got from Murphy's made it seem more pronounced for longer, even if it wasn't.

I'd agree Guinness seems a tad watered down compared to the other two, but O'hara's suffered the least from any watered down feeling.

 

Fuck I miss Beamish.

 

Apparently I missed these when I jumped straight into my post. I definitely got it, @TongoRad - I used "relative acidity" as an explanation of what I was getting, which wasn't so bready to me, @jonphisher, but I can see where you are at.


Follow up - the O'hara's head grew large bubbles and faded before either of the others, and Guinness easily had the stamina to win the marathon of head retention.

As the beers neared room temperature, the flavor profiles grew slightly closer together (although that could be my palate fatigue as well).

Lastly, a near equal mix of all three (about 4-5oz total) was actually quite tasty, which is maybe interesting if my palate was, in fact, a tad tired

 

The recent Lagerfest inspired me to do a side-by-side with two local favorites of mine from Live Oak Brewery.

I happened to have a Pilz in my fridge (as I often do) when I received Pre-War Pils for Lagerfest, and I thought it would be fun to directly compare the two. I've tasted these before (along with several other delicious pilsners from Live Oak) side-by-side in a flight at the brewery but I unfortunately didn't take notes at the time, so what better time than now!

Live Oak Pilz vs Like Oak Pre-War Pils

I lucked out because my Pilz can was dated 07/08/2021 while my Pre-War Pils was dated 07/12/2021 so they're about as good as it gets to compare.

Descriptions from the brewery:

Pilz:
OG: 12ºP, ABV: 4.7%, IBU: 36
Live Oak Pilz is a classic Bohemian-style golden lager, decoction-mashed with a single heirloom variety Moravian malt. Premium Saaz hops combine to produce a clean, crisp pilsner with complex malt flavor and spicy hop bitterness and aroma.

Pre-War Pils
OG: 12ºP, ABV: 5.0%, IBU: 32 (The Lagerfest video actually cited 26 IBU. Not sure if this has changed.)
A 1912 recipe, pre-war pils is mashed with 35% corn grits. A fine example of early american lager brewing.
6-Row Barley, Hallertauer Mittelfrüher Hops



Appearance:
Pilz pours what I thought was a nice straw yellow, but by comparison to Pre-War Pils it is notably darker and more amber in color. Pours a nice, white 2-finger head.
Pre-War Pils pours a pale, straw yellow, and is almost striking in its lightness. Also pours a white 2-finger head.

Both had identical head retention along with great lacing with Pilz winning our slightly.


(Pilz again on left, Pre-War on right)

Smell:
Pilz smells of Czech hops first with cracker and some light lemon characteristics.
Pre-War Pils has crackers first on the nose with some lemon undertones. I found the lemon characteristics to be slightly more pronounced in Pre-War compared to Pilz despite both sharing the quality.

Taste:
Pilz comes onto the palate first with its Czech hops just like its nose, but it follows with more lemon and a bit of cracker on the backend. Compared to the nose, the lemon comes on stronger on the taste. There's a malt backbone still present despite the hops stealing the show.
Pre-War Pils is similar to the nose with cracker and lightly hopped lemon characteristics. Compared to Pilz the hops seem muted, but compared to a typical AAL this is quite hoppy.

Feel:
Pilz has a light body and is crisp and refreshing.
Pre-War Pils has an even lighter body and is even crisper on the finish. Extremely refreshing. I thought Pilz was easy to drink...

Overall:
I love both of these beers.
Pilz is my favorite local pilsner and I'm thankful to have it readily available. Compared to Pre-War Pils, this one is only slightly less drinkable, but that being said both of these beers are ridiculously easy to drink. I like a little flavor to my lagers and do not mind the slightly heartier body, but on the other hand...
Pre-War Pils is fantastic and certainly has its place, particularly in the heat and when thirsty. It's insanely easy to drink with its light body and flavor profile; that being said, what flavor is there is quite tasty, and I'd take this 10/10 times over a macro AAL.

This was a fun side-by-side comparison. Thanks for reading, and cheers!

 

One thing I was curious about in my comparison that I didn't mention was the "chill haze" present in both beers.

I know one of the primary reasons for adding corn (in this case corn grits) as an adjunct is to lighten the body and appearance of the beer, and I know this was historically done because American brewers only had access to 6-row barley which caused the chill haze due to the higher protein content compared to 2-row.

I also remembered in the LagerFest video there was a close-up shot showing off the clarity of Pre-War Pils.



The above appearance contrasts with the hazier look that the beer poured last night:






So is the issue that I served this too cold?

The chill haze did eventually drop out after sitting with the beer for a while, but judging by the LagerFest video it doesn't seem like they waited for the beer to warm up before showing off its clear appearance.

I was under the impression that the 35% corn would provide a clear appearance in the beer at standard fridge temperatures which is what this was served at (though in hindsight I should have gotten an exact temperature measurement), so that you shouldn't necessarily experience any chill haze unless you were going below standard fridge temps.

I was hoping a more knowledgeable forum member might be able to help me sort this out, as originally when I did the comparison I was hoping to highlight the differences in their clarity, but the seeming chill haze seemed to "level the playing field" a bit, giving them both hazy appearances.

 

You have a correct understanding here. The reason that brewers in America used adjuncts (corn, rice) in the later 1800s was to dilute the high protein content of the six-row barley that was grown in America. Below is an extract from my Zymurgy article on the topic of Classic American Pilsner:

"It was not just European beer drinkers that wanted to drink golden colored lagers. The challenge for producing a beer like Pilsner Urquell in America was a difference in barley. The predominate type of barley grown in North America was 6-row barley vs. the 2-row barley grown in Europe. The 6-row barley was better suited for growing in the climate of North America. The issue with 6-row barley when it comes to brewing a golden beer is that it is higher in protein as compared to 2-row. Brewing an all malt golden beer in the America would yield a beer that suffers from chill haze – a hazy appearance when the beer is cold. The American beer drinkers of that time preferred to drink their beers cold so this chill haze issue was a real problem. It should be noted that chill haze was not too much of a problem for the others beers being produced in America in the mid-1800s since they were typically darker in color (e.g., amber/dark ales, dark Bavarian Lagers, etc.).

Thankfully there was a brewing scientist who came to the rescue. Anton Schwarz immigrated to America in 1868 from the Austrian Empire. “He was educated at the University of Vienna, where he studied law for two years, and at the Polytechnicum, Prague, where he studied chemistry.” The year after he immigrated to the US he wrote a seminal article entitled “Brewing with Raw Cereals, Especially Rice” in American Brewer magazine (1869). What Anton Schwarz recognized is that by adding some adjuncts (e.g., rice, corn) to the grain bill the overall content of protein was diluted since the adjuncts contained little protein and consequently the resulting beer would not suffer from chill haze. There was also the added benefit that the beer brewed using adjuncts would have improved beer stability. This improved beer stability was a great asset since American beer consumers drank quite a bit of bottled beer. The information that Anton Schwarz provided was quite an innovation for American brewers.

Below is how Anton Schwarz is lauded in the book American Handy-Book of the Brewing, Malting, and Auxiliary Trades by Wahl & Henius, 1902, page 711:

“It was Anton Schwarz who first advised the employment of rice and subsequently of Indian corn, which is so abundant in this country. The stubborn perseverance with which he sought to convert conservative brewers to his ideas and finally succeed in doing and, last, not least, the discovery of suitable methods to scientifically apply them, entitles him to be called the founder of raw cereal brewing in the United States.”

As to why you are noticing a difference in clarity in the beers you poured vs. the beers observed during the Lager Fest perhaps it is exacerbated by the difference in glassware? You will observe that Dusan chose to drink his Pre-War Pils in a small stange glass. Do you have a stange (or similar) glass that you could pour your Live Oak beer in to see if you notice a difference in the appearance (clarity) of the beer?

Cheers!

P.S. You might be interested in knowing in the ASBC Turbidity assay they specify the glassware needed:

 

Thanks Jack! I was hoping you might chime in with your expertise!

I had the same thought regarding glassware and agree that additional testing with different sets of glassware would be a great next step.

For my own curiosity I went back through my personal photo archives and found a few other lagers that provided a crystal clear appearance in the same Teku glass:





So it seems there's more research (i.e. drinking ) that needs to be done!

 

Personally I've noticed a lack of consistency with chill haze and craft breweries.

The imports are nearly always crystal clear, I can't recall ever seeing chill haze in them.

Perhaps pasteurization is the reason for this?

 

Yes, those two beers are indeed clear/bright.

The other topic I should have discussed is filtering. Some breweries choose to filter their beers. And there are choices to be made as to high tightly they choose to filter. Other breweries choose to not filter their beers with one reason being that filtering impacts the flavor profile of the beer. Maybe Live Oak chooses to not filter?

One more way that beer turbidity can be 'managed' is through the use of a centrifuge. For a small(er) brewery a centrifuge may not be economically feasible but I would suspect that Live Oak has the financial wherewithal to purchase a centrifuge if they are so inclined. Just as with filtering choices (e.g., a coarse filter vs. fine filter) there are operational choices that can be made with the centrifuge:

• Select the number of cycles to be performed (per brand?)
• G-force setting
• etc.

Maybe Live Oak uses a centrifuge for these beers but choose to operate it in a 'gentle manner'?

Cheers!

 

Pasteurization is for killing off unwanted microbes.

German breweries have the history/reputation of tightly filtering their beers because for lagers it was considered a mark of quality to have an absolutely brilliantly clear beer. Needless to say but as regards craft brewing of late some consumers 'embrace' the haze.

Cheers!

 

On the topic of filtering below is something I posted in 2012 about my conversation with Florian Kuplent of Urban Chestnut Brewing:

"I had a chance to try Urban Chestnut Zwickel at a local beer bar. I just happened to be there when a wholesale distributor was promoting the Urban Chestnut brewery. I also had a chance to speak to the brewer, Florian Kuplent for quite some time. Florian is very personable guy and he has a very interesting story. He was born and beer trained in Germany. He has brewed at various European and US craft breweries but he ‘ended up’ at Anheuser-Busch (prior to starting up Urban Chestnut). While we were both talking and drinking Zwickel I commented upon how clear his Zwickel was. He mentioned to me that he has filtering equipment at the Urban Chestnut brewery but so far he has not used it yet. He mentioned that he thinks filtering can sometimes ’strip out’ pleasant flavors."

I wonder if Florian since that time (2012) ever chose to use filtering at Urban Chestnut Brewing? Maybe for a batch(es) that for some reason did not settle out properly?

Cheers!

 

Likely Stammtisch is filtered?

 

Cheers to @JackHorzempa and @AlcahueteJ for your insight!

I noticed in @beergoot's photo from NBW his Pre-War Pils was on the clearer side (though served at 54 °F):


Unfortunately I recognize that this doesn't really add any value to the conversation. At this point I was wondering whether all the Pre-War Pils for LagerFest was from the same batch or not, since that would further help us narrow down the variable(s) at play, but both my beer and the beer above were marked with a date of 07/12, which does seem to imply that they should be the same.

Either way I appreciate everyone's thoughts and am enjoying the conversation!

 

It's an interesting question. Clearly (ha ha) crystal clear and stable beers can be made nowadays, whether they be all malt or adjunct, achieved by filtration and clarifying agents most often. So a lack of filtration, or a lighter filtration, and a lack of clarifying agents might account for some of it. For a late 1800s American bottled beer I would expect storage times of around 3 months or more, and for clarifying agents such as isinglass to be very commonly used during the storage period, oftentimes more than once. Then filtered if the brewer had a filtering apparatus. If Live Oak stores their beer for one month or so, i.e less time for depositing, doesn't use clarifying agents (which they might potentially see as taboo as craft brewers), and goes light on the filtering that might make a difference? Of course the age of the product is another aspect worth mentioning, when was it canned?

 

Patrik, in post #426 was posted: "I lucked out because my Pilz can was dated 07/08/2021 while my Pre-War Pils was dated 07/12/2021..."

Cheers!

 

I have a couple of Rye IPA's here, one local, the other 300 miles southe. So what's the difference.
Appearance: SK is more golden in color, DS a foggy yellow. Both had white heads, SK lingered, DS faded away., both left a nicely laced glass. Hops and spice on the nose for both, DS was not as bold. Both were good but the nod goes too SK.

 

Flashback to @jonphisher's first side by side post

I have some cans of Jever Pilsner dated 7/21/20

and by some miracle cans dated 4/28/21

Will I detect any differences in appearance or taste? Kudos to Jever for their exemplary can dating.
I opened and poured the beers without checking the dates. Referring to the photo above, both had the clear golden color. The left beer's head was slightly higher, and was a uniformly fine white color with good lacing.

The right beer's head was slightly thinner, and had greater variation.

So, on to the aroma and taste.
The left beer had a pungent herbal and grassy aroma. The right beer's aroma was similar but muted, with perhaps citrus notes.
Left beer had good crisp grassy and floral flavors with some sweetness. The right beer was spicier, but had the same floral and grassy notes. I thought that they were very close in flavor.
Both beers had good carbonation and no off flavors.
Looking at the bottom of the cans, I found that the left beer, not surprisingly, was four months old, and the right beer was thirteen months old.
In conclusion, to my untrained eye and palate, There was a significant difference in appearance, and a lesser difference in the aroma and flavor. I would certainly not pour out the older cans, and will enjoy them, but the new can was noticeably better.