Best Pint in Dublin

bit of a bogey

Where do you think you get the best pint in Dublin?

I really just wanted to complain about the guinness I got in McGowans of Phisboro on Arthurs day. It was without doubt the worst pint I have got in my life! I complained to the bar woman but she just looked at me and shrugged her shoulders. I saw her pour it and it looked ok but it just tasted awful! I was actually offended!

BeerNut

bit of a bogey wrote: »

Where do you think you get the best pint in Dublin?

Guinness is produced in huge batches to a very tight specification. It's pasteurised and delivered to suppliers with strict instructions on how it is to be served. There's a rigorous inspection and correction regime sub-contracted to specialist quality control company.

The idea that some places serve Guinness that's different to Guinness anywhere else (in Phibsboro or the Phillippines) horrifies the people who make it. And, mostly, it doesn't happen. Guinness is Guinness.

johnnyskeleton

BeerNut wrote: »

Guinness is produced in huge batches to a very tight specification. It's pasteurised and delivered to suppliers with strict instructions on how it is to be served. There's a rigorous inspection and correction regime sub-contracted to specialist quality control company.

The idea that some places serve Guinness that's different to Guinness anywhere else (in Phibsboro or the Phillippines) horrifies the people who make it. And, mostly, it doesn't happen. Guinness is Guinness.

The same could be said for a lot of foodstuffs. Bread should be the same everywhere, but some places let it go stale or let it get too moist etc.

Whether guinness should taste different in different places is one thing, but whether it is due to the conditions it is kept in, the flow on the pipes or even just pure psychology, it is noticably different in different places to a lot of people.

bit of a bogey

BeerNut wrote: »

..........And, mostly, it doesn't happen. Guinness is Guinness.

Im sorry but "Guinness is Guinness" is not true and it does vary from pub to pub.

And the pint I did have in McGowans was disgraceful and it most certainly would horrify Guinness.

BeerNut

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The same could be said for a lot of foodstuffs. Bread should be the same everywhere, but some places let it go stale or let it get too moist etc.

I've not seen the "Brennan's Quality Team" van outside many supermarkets. Few businesses put the post-wholesale quality control graft in that Diageo do.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

it is noticably different in different places to a lot of people.

And yet, have you ever seen anything other than anecdotal evidence of this?

bit of a bogey wrote: »

it does vary from pub to pub.

Wonderfully, conveniently, impossible to prove, eh? So the Quality Team vans are wasting their time and an awful lot of Guinness drinkers' beer money?

bit of a bogey wrote: »

And the pint I did have in McGowans was disgraceful and it most certainly would horrify Guinness.

Do you normally drink Guinness?

Corsendonk

BeerNut wrote: »

Guinness is produced in huge batches to a very tight specification. It's pasteurised and delivered to suppliers with strict instructions on how it is to be served. There's a rigorous inspection and correction regime sub-contracted to specialist quality control company.

The idea that some places serve Guinness that's different to Guinness anywhere else (in Phibsboro or the Phillippines) horrifies the people who make it. And, mostly, it doesn't happen. Guinness is Guinness.

Is guinness produced in Ireland for domestic consumption pasteurised now? When did that change?

BeerNut

Corsendonk wrote: »

When did that change?

Some time in the 1990s, I think. Bottle conditioning of bottled Guinness ceased in 2000 and it has been pasteurised ever since. Keg may date from the same time.

johnnyskeleton

BeerNut wrote: »

I've not seen the "Brennan's Quality Team" van outside many supermarkets. Few businesses put the post-wholesale quality control graft in that Diageo do.

Surely then it suggests that it is a less homogenous product than you suggest? There is no need for vodka quality teams because it doesn't really change depending on the conditions you keep it in. Or are you suggesting that the Guinness Quality Team are just another advertising gimick?

BeerNut wrote: »

And yet, have you ever seen anything other than anecdotal evidence of this?

Of different taste? No, but let me ask you this - is your blog anthing other than anecdotal evidence of what you think are good or bad beers or how they taste etc? The whole thing is highly subjective and while, for example, I subscribe to the Dylan Moran 3 types of wine school (mmmh!; yuck; and yuc...mmmh!), I don't for a minute doubt that there are people who can tell subtle differences in taste apart. For me it's all just gone off grape juice.

BeerNut wrote: »

Wonderfully, conveniently, impossible to prove, eh?

Again, if you'd care to prove that a beer you think tastes like X (sweet or whatever) and I think tastes like Y (bitter) actually tastes like X then I'm sure we can prove to you that Guinness tastes different in different pubs.

BeerNut wrote: »

So the Quality Team vans are wasting their time and an awful lot of Guinness drinkers' beer money?

They go around suggesting improvements in storage, pipe cleaning and maintenance etc. IMO these are things that pubs should do as a matter of course but are simply not bothered because people don't care (but I digress).

I don't really get your point though - the HSA don't create a uniform taste in all resteraunts - they just insure a minimum standard of hygene and evne still only check a place once in a blue moon. The same applies to the Guinness Quality Team - they can't ensure uniform standards across the country.

And Guinness is cheaper than most other draught beers (save beamish), so I fail to see how it is costing Guinness drinker's beer money. It would not be cheaper if they didn't do it.

bennyob

When im out, I drink guinness (only because there is no decent beer in pubs in kilkenny) and I can confirm that there often is a difference in the taste of guiness between different pubs.

Its noticable if you move from once put to another and even more so if the one you move to is inferior to the latter.

MrStuffins

I love how some people say "Guinness is Guinness, it always tastes the same to me so it must be"

Then when someone says "No, i drink Guinness and it tastes different in different places" they say:

"No, it's definitely the same everywhere. You must be mistaken or have a retarded mouth".

Ridiculous!

ILA

Sorry for going OT but: Guinness always tastes like slurry to me. Smithwicks all the way!

bad2dabone

Overall I've found that guinness is much much more consistent than it used to be, but there are still a couple of pubs who don't pay as much attention to cleaning their lines, storage methods etc as others. I find you always get a good pint in Nearys off grafton street.

Corsendonk

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't really get your point though - the HSA don't create a uniform taste in all resteraunts - they just insure a minimum standard of hygene and evne still only check a place once in a blue moon. The same applies to the Guinness Quality Team - they can't ensure uniform standards across the country.

Its HSE, the HSA deals with health and safety in the workplace.

The Guinness Quality Team in someways is an extension of the famous Guinness marketing legacy.

CiaranC

BeerNut wrote: »

So the Quality Team vans are wasting their time and an awful lot of Guinness drinkers' beer money?

Surely if Guinness tasted the same everywhere the "Quality Team" wouldnt be needed?

Technocentral

Had some Guinness for the first time in around 2 years only because it was free into Storehouse last night and we were giving tickets for free pints, found it to be very thin tasting and bland to be honest, I think once you taste proper beers from around the world stuff like Guinness begins to lose its appeal. Porterhouse stout for instance is far superior.

bit of a bogey

BeerNut wrote: »

..........So the Quality Team vans are wasting their time and an awful lot of Guinness drinkers' beer money?

Do you normally drink Guinness?

Yes I do normally drink Guinness. I'm guessing that you do not if you believe it tastes the same everywhere?

And I dont believe the quality team vans are not wasting their time. I think the reason they go to so much effort is to try and prevent any discrepancy in pints as it can be a problem for Guinness.

As johnny says, the standard of a Guinness pint seems to depend on how fresh the keg is, the cleanliness and length of the pipes and the flow in the pipes. And I'd prob agree that there there is a bit of psychology:)


I must try Neary's some time. Never been there before!

scotchy

Close to where I live there are two pubs that I drink in, one is well known for the quality of its Guinness, and I cant remember ever having bad pint in it. The other? Well the Guinness is not good.

Now, the bad Guinness pub is closer to my house, and on occasion I have dropped in on the way home after being in the good one. I am a regular Guinness drinker and the difference between the Guinness in these two pubs is huge, especially if I’ve still got the taste of the nice Guinness and then take a sip from the bad one.

Anyway to my point. These two pubs get their deliveries from the same truck on the same day, so as far as I’m concerned any difference in quality is down to something in the pub.

Several of us have mentioned it to the manager who just gets defensive and gets annoyed with us for complaining, its got to the point now that we just complain to wind him up, but still he does nothing.


.

johnnyskeleton

Technocentral wrote: »

Had some Guinness for the first time in around 2 years only because it was free into Storehouse last night and we were giving tickets for free pints, found it to be very thin tasting and bland to be honest, I think once you taste proper beers from around the world stuff like Guinness begins to lose its appeal. Porterhouse stout for instance is far superior.

Which porterhouse stout?

I quite like the Oyster, but couldn't drink more than 3 or 4 of them in one sitting. The Pint of Plain is Guinness' direct competition, and it is not as nice. Celebration Stout is good but fierce pricey (even by porterhouse standards). Chocolate Truffle Stout is nice but again, I couldn't drink more than 1 or 2 of them. They have a few others as well I think, that I can't recall off hand.

In each case, all are very different drinks. I like most of them, but it is very hard to beat a really good pint of guinness.

Maybe I'm misreading your post, but it certainly sounds like beer snobbery to me i.e. liking a drink more because it is less well known rather than due to actual taste, or the more exotic a beer tastes the better it is (even if you prefer the taste of blander beer).

J K

BeerNut wrote: »

The idea that some places serve Guinness that's different to Guinness anywhere else (in Phibsboro or the Phillippines) horrifies the people who make it. And, mostly, it doesn't happen. Guinness is Guinness.

how much slop is put back in the barrel may contribute to variance

Jev/N

If you take the standard taps in a pub, when comparing Guinness to craft or speciality stouts, it does a lot better IMO that if you were to compare Carlsberg or Budweiser to other lagers

I drink a lot of varities of beers and ales and also Guinness regularly enough, and while I'm no expert, I'd think that Guinness ranks better than a lot of the standard tap beers

Technocentral

"Which porterhouse stout?"

Apologies, was thinking of the Wrasslers that they sell, not snobbery just meant it has more flavour, years ago there was nothing much on sale in Ireland to compare Guinness to, now that there is I find it lacking, not the worse by any means but not near the top in my opinion.

judas101

J K wrote: »

how much slop is put back in the barrel may contribute to variance

This does not happen!

thelynchfella

I drink guinness when i'm in places that dont have a good selection of beer. To be honest, i have never had a bad pint and also find it tastes consistantly the same everywhere i've been, whether its been Dublin/Glasgow/NYC/Vegas.
Did anyone else complain about the guinness there? Maybe it could have been your taste buds that day. I used to drink heineken and sometimes i give out about it not tasting right when everyone else would say it tastes fine.

saefraigh

J K wrote: »

how much slop is put back in the barrel may contribute to variance

The 1980's are on the phone looking for ya.

Any inconsistency relates to poor glass care or dodgy cooling regardless of the original product quality, especially stuff from Diageo(I'm not a beer snob but bad beer is bad beer).

IrishWhiskeyCha

Going to have to agree with johnnyskeleton here ... I love my different beers but I drink Guinness when I'm out local as the choice is just not there. So yes when you go from one pub to another there is often a noticable difference between pints. But I also agree that they have gotten away from the scenario that quality wildly fluctuates but you still can get a bad pint .... and even if your taste buds can't tell your other side will the next morning

Jev/N

thelynchfella wrote: »

I drink guinness when i'm in places that dont have a good selection of beer. To be honest, i have never had a bad pint and also find it tastes consistantly the same everywhere i've been, whether its been Dublin/Glasgow/NYC/Vegas.

Whoah, hold on a second! Are you saying you don't notice any difference in the Guinness in other countries?

I haven't drank in the States but can attest to the fact that, even North of the border, the Guinness tastes completely different to down here and I'm far from being a veteran Guinness drinker!

gurramok

Just a word on Guinness. They say you will find the best Guinness in the likes of Mulligans on Poolbeg st but you will find equal if better quality in the local. Moral of the story is, don't believe the hype on any drink.

On saying that, i have more confidence in the likes of Porterhouse/Mssr Maguires giving you a persistent good pint than any other pub as after all all most pubs are bland central when it comes to choices of beer.

thelynchfella

Jev/N wrote: »

Whoah, hold on a second! Are you saying you don't notice any difference in the Guinness in other countries?

I haven't drank in the States but can attest to the fact that, even North of the border, the Guinness tastes completely different to down here and I'm far from being a veteran Guinness drinker!

no...and its the drink i drink when i'm in glasgow which i'm in alot. the cans i used to buy up the north tasted the same to me as the cans i buy down here too even though they are .1% different in alcohol. I'm not long back from Vegas, and i was over there with veteran guinness drinkers and they all thought it tasted the same there too.

BeerNut

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Surely then it suggests that it is a less homogenous product than you suggest? ... Or are you suggesting that the Guinness Quality Team are just another advertising gimick?

I take your point on line cleaning etc, but I think there is a real marketing aspect to the Quality Teams. They are there to deal with customer perception of varying pints. That's why they're painted up in the brand colours as though they were sent out from the brewery. I'm guessing that they're doing maintenance on the Carlsberg, Budweiser and Smithwick's lines too (it'd be daft for them not too) yet they're very much the Guinness quality team, for marketing reasons.

CiaranC wrote: »

Surely if Guinness tasted the same everywhere the "Quality Team" wouldnt be needed?

Or, surely if there's a "Quality Team" going around, no pub can develop a reputation for bad Guinness.

Dark beers and nitrogenated beers are much less susceptible to off flavours than paler blander beers. Yet the notion of a pub which does a good pint of Heineken doesn't carry any of the romance of the good Guinness pub.

mayordenis

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Maybe I'm misreading your post, but it certainly sounds like beer snobbery to me i.e. liking a drink more because it is less well known rather than due to actual taste, or the more exotic a beer tastes the better it is (even if you prefer the taste of blander beer).

I think it's a cheap tactic to get on your high horse just because someone points out something you like is ****.

CiaranC

BeerNut wrote: »

Or, surely if there's a "Quality Team" going around, no pub can develop a reputation for bad Guinness.

Dark beers and nitrogenated beers are much less susceptible to off flavours than paler blander beers. Yet the notion of a pub which does a good pint of Heineken doesn't carry any of the romance of the good Guinness pub.

I had a pint in Ahernes, Tallaght last week, then had a pint in The Maldron, Hotel shortly afterwards. I defy you to tell me these two pubs serve Guinness that taste the same. They taste nothing alike. Im sure every Guinness drinker could come up with an example like this.

jt69er

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Surely then it suggests that it is a less homogenous product than you suggest? There is no need for vodka quality teams because it doesn't really change depending on the conditions you keep it in. Or are you suggesting that the Guinness Quality Team are just another advertising gimick?



Of different taste? No, but let me ask you this - is your blog anthing other than anecdotal evidence of what you think are good or bad beers or how they taste etc? The whole thing is highly subjective and while, for example, I subscribe to the Dylan Moran 3 types of wine school (mmmh!; yuck; and yuc...mmmh!), I don't for a minute doubt that there are people who can tell subtle differences in taste apart. For me it's all just gone off grape juice.



Again, if you'd care to prove that a beer you think tastes like X (sweet or whatever) and I think tastes like Y (bitter) actually tastes like X then I'm sure we can prove to you that Guinness tastes different in different pubs.



They go around suggesting improvements in storage, pipe cleaning and maintenance etc. IMO these are things that pubs should do as a matter of course but are simply not bothered because people don't care (but I digress).

I don't really get your point though - the HSA don't create a uniform taste in all resteraunts - they just insure a minimum standard of hygene and evne still only check a place once in a blue moon. The same applies to the Guinness Quality Team - they can't ensure uniform standards across the country.

And Guinness is cheaper than most other draught beers (save beamish), so I fail to see how it is costing Guinness drinker's beer money. It would not be cheaper if they didn't do it.

A member of the Guinness Quality Team visits every liscensed premises every 20 (working) days to carry out a line clean and any other maintainence required

Jev/N

thelynchfella wrote: »

no...and its the drink i drink when i'm in glasgow which i'm in alot. the cans i used to buy up the north tasted the same to me as the cans i buy down here too even though they are .1% different in alcohol. I'm not long back from Vegas, and i was over there with veteran guinness drinkers and they all thought it tasted the same there too.

Can't really comment on the cans but the pints, even in Fermanagh, had a completely different taste to them - much more of a bitter chocolate taste than what you get down here.

thelynchfella

we need to find a few pubs close together and do a blind test!!!:D

johnnyskeleton

Technocentral wrote: »

"Which porterhouse stout?"

Apologies, was thinking of the Wrasslers that they sell, not snobbery just meant it has more flavour, years ago there was nothing much on sale in Ireland to compare Guinness to, now that there is I find it lacking, not the worse by any means but not near the top in my opinion.

Beamish and Murphys have been here for a long time.

Also, I don't think that more flavour necessarily means better. More interesting sure but not necessarily better.

The complaint you make about Guiness is that it doesn't have a strong flavour, but perhaps that is because it is a creamier stout than you are used to. Sometimes I like a stout with a really strong flavour such as old engine oil, but other times I want a pint that feels like you are drinking a pint of cream without your arteries exploding all over the bar.

johnnyskeleton

BeerNut wrote: »

I take your point on line cleaning etc, but I think there is a real marketing aspect to the Quality Teams. They are there to deal with customer perception of varying pints. That's why they're painted up in the brand colours as though they were sent out from the brewery. I'm guessing that they're doing maintenance on the Carlsberg, Budweiser and Smithwick's lines too (it'd be daft for them not too) yet they're very much the Guinness quality team, for marketing reasons.

Undoubtedly so. Which is why I think the idea that they go around ensuring a consistent quality to guinness is a bit of a myth.

BeerNut wrote: »

Or, surely if there's a "Quality Team" going around, no pub can develop a reputation for bad Guinness.

Dark beers and nitrogenated beers are much less susceptible to off flavours than paler blander beers. Yet the notion of a pub which does a good pint of Heineken doesn't carry any of the romance of the good Guinness pub.

Do they really go everywhere though? I mean even looking at a pint when poured, in a good guinness pub it will be brown when poured with a thin lip of a head and it will be quite fast in settling. Whereas in some pubs you'll see the pint mostly black after being poured and settles with a large head. Part bad pouring but also suggests the guinness has been sitting there too long with no one ordering it.

I think there are two different pints of good guinness you can get. You can get a hard pint with a strong stout flavour a sort of syrupy texture that leaves your mouth dry, and a softer pint that has the texture of milk or cream but which doesn't have a particularly strong or noticeable flavour (bland, if you insist). Of course, the best pints have a smooth texture and a strong taste, and that is where the reputation of a place like Mulligans or the Gravedigger comes from.

I certainly agree though that the flavour has become a lot more consistent in recent years than it was, but it is by no means uniform across the board.

mayordenis wrote: »

I think it's a cheap tactic to get on your high horse just because someone points out something you like is ****.

Because someone else "thinks" something I like is *** you mean, because if they had pointed it out that would suggest that it is universally true and that I have the beer sophistication of a caveman.

It's funny that beer and wine have this attitude about them (spirits less so). In a way it is like food critics - you'd be useless as a critic if you said "This place does a crackin' fish and chips" because you're expected to say "the venison was rather mired in a clique of itself and the parsnips sat on my plate sliently bemoaning the loss of spring." It's a lot of toss really because you like what you like and don't what you don't.

And its not that he said he prefers one to another, he said that when you try "proper beers" that guinness loses its appeal. He basically said that Guinness isn't a proper beer. Which is like saying new world wines aren't proper wine. Which is just wine snobbery because some of the best wines are new world and in any event it is all down to individual taste.

I mean if Brockage or IrishWhiskeyCha said that from all the whiskeys the've tasted their favourite is black bush you might be a little taken aback, but that's their view. My favourite whiskey is the Redbreat 12 at 35e a bottle and I consider it far superior to the Midletons and Jameson 18s that i've tried which retail for over e100 each.

There is little snobbery in whiskey in that if I said I like paddy they might think I'm mad but I don't think they would say it is not a proper whiskey (Southern Comfort is an example of what is not a proper whiskey).

So no, I'm not getting up on my high horse at all, I'm responding to his suggestion that Guinness isn't a "proper beer". If he doesn't like it fine, he can say so. But to deride it as not a proper beer is snobbery:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/snob

snob: 2. a person who believes himself or herself an expert or connoisseur in a given field and is condescending toward or disdainful of those who hold other opinions or have different tastes regarding this field

BeerNut

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

in some pubs you'll see the pint mostly black after being poured and settles with a large head. Part bad pouring but also suggests the guinness has been sitting there too long with no one ordering it.

It does? How so? Reads like a gas regulation issue to me.

the beer revolu

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Maybe I'm misreading your post, but it certainly sounds like beer snobbery to me i.e. liking a drink more because it is less well known rather than due to actual taste, or the more exotic a beer tastes the better it is (even if you prefer the taste of blander beer).

I think that's the part of your post that people have taken issue with.
There was nothing in techno's post that suggested he preferred any beer because it was more exotic or less well known but because he preferred the taste.

By your rote, it is unreasonable for anyone to claim that any thing is better than any other thing although you claimed that some of the best wines come from the new world. Surely that is snobbery, considering that I may have a different opinion.
Remember, snobbery works in two directions.

bog master

"Quality Team"

Was in the local couple months back when the Guinness rep called in. Now I assume he was the Quality Man, but happy to be corrected. He did not do any line cleaning, spent a good few minutes out the back, checking stock and the cold room and gas. Came back in and asked me how was my pint. He then pulled a pint, whipped out a thermometer to check temperature, used a stopwatch to time it settling. Topped up the pint, checked temperature again, then measured the head, and offered me the pint.

So, I would think its a bit more than just a PR exercise.

BeerNut

Perhaps it's not. But if I were running it as a PR exercise, that's exactly what I'd do

boardsy

bog master wrote: »

"Quality Team"
He then pulled a pint, whipped out a thermometer to check temperature, used a stopwatch to time it settling. Topped up the pint, checked temperature again, then measured the head, and offered me the pint.

This does suggest that it's all about temperature - if all Guinness is stored and poured at the same temperature it should always and everywhere taste the same (assuming it's the same product and not "localised" for flavour or strength).

I've always wondered if this whole "good Guinness pub" thing was a fictional/marketing hangover from the cask pre-nitro days, or was there any truth to it. My father swears blind that Guinness is reliably good or bad from pub to pub. But then he also claims to be unable to stomach a mouthful of any other kind of stout, let alone other beers!

Maybe it's just all about temperature. And marketing.

thelynchfella

boardsy wrote: »

I've always wondered if this whole "good Guinness pub" thing was a fictional/marketing hangover from the cask pre-nitro days, or was there any truth to it.

I wonder the same...I remember reading somewhere about it being poured from 2 kegs/casks, and that it was about getting the mix right between the 2 kegs. I always had a feeling that the whole good/bad guinness came from that era!

mayordenis

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Because someone else "thinks" something I like is *** you mean, because if they had pointed it out that would suggest that it is universally true and that I have the beer sophistication of a caveman.

It's funny that beer and wine have this attitude about them (spirits less so). In a way it is like food critics - you'd be useless as a critic if you said "This place does a crackin' fish and chips" because you're expected to say "the venison was rather mired in a clique of itself and the parsnips sat on my plate sliently bemoaning the loss of spring." It's a lot of toss really because you like what you like and don't what you don't.

And its not that he said he prefers one to another, he said that when you try "proper beers" that guinness loses its appeal. He basically said that Guinness isn't a proper beer. Which is like saying new world wines aren't proper wine. Which is just wine snobbery because some of the best wines are new world and in any event it is all down to individual taste.

I mean if Brockage or IrishWhiskeyCha said that from all the whiskeys the've tasted their favourite is black bush you might be a little taken aback, but that's their view. My favourite whiskey is the Redbreat 12 at 35e a bottle and I consider it far superior to the Midletons and Jameson 18s that i've tried which retail for over e100 each.

There is little snobbery in whiskey in that if I said I like paddy they might think I'm mad but I don't think they would say it is not a proper whiskey (Southern Comfort is an example of what is not a proper whiskey).

So no, I'm not getting up on my high horse at all, I'm responding to his suggestion that Guinness isn't a "proper beer". If he doesn't like it fine, he can say so. But to deride it as not a proper beer is snobbery:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/snob

snob: 2. a person who believes himself or herself an expert or connoisseur in a given field and is condescending toward or disdainful of those who hold other opinions or have different tastes regarding this field

I'm sorry but I honestly believe that is mostly nonsense and that the examples you are providing make no sense. Comparing new world wines, to Guinness is completely illogical, the issue he had was that in his opinion it's a bland flavourless example of a genre with plenty of good alternatives.

Saying new world wine isn't "proper wine" wouldn't make any sense.

The only thing you have said that I agree with is that More flavour doesn't mean better flavour, that's bang on. Every drink you have doesn't need to be an exercise in palette toning, likewise with food I think I don't want to have to think everytime I sit down to dinner. However I do want to enjoy it every time, even if it's simple, that's why I'm happy to stand over someone else or myself saying Guinness is not a "proper beer" in the same way easy singles are not "proper cheese" it doesn't have to be some unbelievable amazing Russian Imperial Stout or some Blue Cheese that can only be found in some outlandish cheesemonger, but I just don't want it to be ****. That's all I ask, and I am certainly snobish enough to actually say that Guinness is not a proper beer.

Technocentral

Hi all

When I said " I think once you taste proper beers from around the world stuff like Guinness begins to lose its appeal." Instead I should have said superior or considerably better beers instead of proper. I too drink Guinness in places which only sell ****e like Heineken and Budweiser or Coors etc. its a decent oul brew in general but not a great stout in my opinion. I love Galway Hooker myself feel free to rip it apart if youse like!!

IrishWhiskeyCha

bog master wrote: »

"Quality Team"

Was in the local couple months back when the Guinness rep called in. Now I assume he was the Quality Man, but happy to be corrected. He did not do any line cleaning, spent a good few minutes out the back, checking stock and the cold room and gas. Came back in and asked me how was my pint. He then pulled a pint, whipped out a thermometer to check temperature, used a stopwatch to time it settling. Topped up the pint, checked temperature again, then measured the head, and offered me the pint.

So, I would think its a bit more than just a PR exercise.

I'd be interested if you noted the temp ... that is one thing that I have noticed about Guinness for the worse ... I am nearly sure it is much colder than it used to be ... I loved my Guinness at higher temp than it is served today and since the cold flow gimmik I think they just made regular Guinness colder when the cold flow marketing went by the way side.

BeerNut

The official serving temperature is 6-7°C.

Paparazzo

I remember when I drank guinness it was a lot easier to get a good guinness than heineken. Seems to be a lot more bad lager about.
Does lenght of beer lines make a difference? A room temperture glass is definitely important.

johnnyskeleton

the beer revolu wrote: »

I think that's the part of your post that people have taken issue with.
There was nothing in techno's post that suggested he preferred any beer because it was more exotic or less well known but because he preferred the taste.

By your rote, it is unreasonable for anyone to claim that any thing is better than any other thing although you claimed that some of the best wines come from the new world. Surely that is snobbery, considering that I may have a different opinion.
Remember, snobbery works in two directions.

Read his post again. He suggested that guinness was not a "proper" beer. If he had said that he doesn't like guinness or that he prefers another beer.

Equally it is perfectly fine to say "Beer X is better than Beer Y". However, to say "Beer X is a real beer and Beer Y is not a real beer" is completely different, and that's what he did.

mayordenis wrote:

Saying new world wine isn't "proper wine" wouldn't make any sense.

So you agree with me then that when he implied that guinness was not a proper beer that that doesn't make sense either?

evolving_doors

Ok here's my 2cent anecdote..

A friend of mine did his co-op for industrial biochemistry in Guinness lab.. he was saying that at that time (1998) they were trying to adjust the properties of the pint (the how part of this I didn;t ask!! needless to say this guy was so deadpan he couldn't make up a story to save his life).

Anyway.. plebs 'perceived' that the sign of a good pint (who cares about taste) was the head sticking to the glass as it was drank,, so their task was to make all pints stick to the glass... Just like Mcdonalds or Intel they have a 'copy exactly' philosophy around Ireland.. This whole good pint / bad pint thing is old hat... I reckon the pubs to blame...

Can't remember but did OP ask for another?

gurramok

Thats true Armelodie about it sticking to the glass. Thats what I always look out for when i wander into an unfamiliar pub, I do look at current Guinness drinker glasses and if its sticking after been drunk, its good Guinness!

evolving_doors

gurramok wrote: »

Thats true Armelodie about it sticking to the glass. Thats what I always look out for when i wander into an unfamiliar pub, I do look at current Guinness drinker glasses and if its sticking after been drunk, its good Guinness!

Wellllllllll post 1998 it was a good sign but thanks to the biochemists I think it's all generic shlock now...