nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Big Brand names whose products are way overrated

Capt. Autumn

Can I kick off with Dyson?

A huge launch and massive marketing drive for Dyson products but I've always been underwhelmed by how they actually perform. Maybe the fuss generated is something to do with it being the first UK designed product to make a big splash in many the year but, for me, they are the Apple of products from a marketing perspective but an Acer in terms of performance.

When I finally kicked my under-performing Dyson to the kerb and replaced in with a big ugly Meile, I nearly cried in gratitude when I heard the motor rumble to life and watched as my carpet was sucked to within an inch of it's life.

So, what brands do you think are overrated?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

EmmetSpiceland

Paris Skinny Wallpaper wrote: »

Even Guinness is red rotten at room temperate, has to be chilled like any other beer.

I assume he’s talking about the “old style” bottled stout. The one that, not only, gives you Guinness farts but also manages to taste like Guinness farts.

cj maxx

Paris Skinny Wallpaper wrote: »

Even Guinness is red rotten at room temperate, has to be chilled like any other beer.

Yeah but some pubs take chilling beer too far. Chilled yes but some places it's too cold to drink

[Deleted User]

Ush1 wrote: »

Stout is supposed to be room temperature.

I like Guinness but it's not proper stout, especially when it's chilled. It's a watery mass produced one that is easy to drink. Same as most stuff out there.

Even Guinness is red rotten at room temperate, has to be chilled like any other beer.

cj maxx

Fairy liquid .
They used to have it as a selling point that you didn't need as much as other brands but it's the exact same now

kingtiger

Ush1 wrote: »

Stout is supposed to be room temperature.

I like Guinness but it's not proper stout, especially when it's chilled. It's a watery mass produced one that is easy to drink. Same as most stuff out there.

indeed, I too was a Guinness drinker upto a few years ago, until I tried a homebrew chocolate stout and then my tastebuds completely changed

I would still drink the odd bottle off the shelf but now I just find Guinness watery and bland

its like the Budweiser of Stout

Ush1

Stout is supposed to be room temperature.

I like Guinness but it's not proper stout, especially when it's chilled. It's a watery mass produced one that is easy to drink. Same as most stuff out there.

[Deleted User]

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The *EXACT* same product was available in your local supermarket last weekend for the equivalent of about 1.50 a pint.

Unless your local supermarket had a Guinness tap, gas line and cooler then no it wasn’t and even then would probably be bad pints compared to a pub known for good Guinness. Guinness out of a tap in a pub that does good Guinness is a completely different drink to anything from a bottle or can. It’s so much better it’s not even possible to compare.

Hotblack Desiato

Paris Skinny Wallpaper wrote: »

Stout from a bottle is only suitable for going into a stew.

A far superior drink to draught, but that's just my opinion.

Creamy delicious Guinness draught is the stuff of legend. I’d pay 50 euro a pint for a feed of them at this stage!

The *EXACT* same product was available in your local supermarket last weekend for the equivalent of about 1.50 a pint.

Esel

Large bottle off the shelf - your only man.

kingtiger

Feisar wrote: »

Off the shelf, hard to beat, my drink of choice.

a man after my own heart

Feisar

kingtiger wrote: »

Guinness replaced their traditional wooden casks with nitrogen metal kegs in the 50s therefore ending the need for the two pint pour.

So as part of their advertising campaign at the time the regular Guinness drinkers needed to be reassured that the new stout was just as he same as the cask version, so the two part pour was enshrined into a new myth

Give me a large bottle of stout without nitrogen any day

Off the shelf, hard to beat, my drink of choice.

[Deleted User]

kingtiger wrote: »

Guinness replaced their traditional wooden casks with nitrogen metal kegs in the 50s therefore ending the need for the two pint pour.

So as part of their advertising campaign at the time the regular Guinness drinkers needed to be reassured that the new stout was just as he same as the cask version, so the two part pour was enshrined into a new myth

Give me a large bottle of stout without nitrogen any day

Stout from a bottle is only suitable for going into a stew.

Creamy delicious Guinness draught is the stuff of legend. I’d pay 50 euro a pint for a feed of them at this stage!

kingtiger

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I've heard that the two part pour is bullshit. Is it?

Guinness replaced their traditional wooden casks with nitrogen metal kegs in the 50s therefore ending the need for the two pint pour.

So as part of their advertising campaign at the time the regular Guinness drinkers needed to be reassured that the new stout was just as he same as the cask version, so the two part pour was enshrined into a new myth

Give me a large bottle of stout without nitrogen any day

JohnnyFlash

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's why people like it.

Same goes in the lager market.

You can throw 10 pints of Guinness down the hatch without a bother. If you did that with 10 pints of Brewers Balls Imperial Russian Stout then you’d be in a coma.

Hotblack Desiato

irish_goat wrote: »

Whatever about the two part pour, Diageo's stout has to be the wateriest and blandest on the market.

That's why people like it.

Same goes in the lager market.

Capt'n Midnight

Tiredalways wrote: »

Being bought by mondelez ruined them. But ive discovered german chocolate from lidl/aldi is the business. Delicious and creamy and praline is a joy to behold

Dairyfine is nowhere near as nice as the old Cadbury's chocolate.

Then again neither is the new Cadbury's chocolate. It's no longer a product worth paying a premium for.

EmmetSpiceland

Feisar wrote: »

It was me that used the term "domed head" to explain the head sitting slightly proud of the top of the glass.

Sorry, I know what it means, just didn’t know if one could be achieved in a “one pour” pint.

It’s always sad when you get one with a “concave” top.

A mate of mine always said that if you can tilt the glass slightly and have the head stay on the level it was a sign of a “good” pint.

Feisar

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

It make no difference to the taste whatsoever. It’s akin to someone saying they can taste the difference between a stirred and a shaken martini.

The whole “domed” head is a new one on me, I don’t remember checking on any “one pour” pints I’d pulled for myself, or has pulled for me.

The real “issue” with the “one pour” is that the bar server could be clueless and end up giving you half a pint of “head”. But, in the right hands, the “two part pour” is unnecessary, except for ceremony.

It was me that used the term "domed head" to explain the head sitting slightly proud of the top of the glass.

EmmetSpiceland

odyssey06 wrote: »

Not contradicting any of your post - just mentioning that there is a "je ne sais quoi" aspect to the experience whch should not be written off.

There is that.

If I was at a bar and was handed a “straight pour” it would be viewed with extreme suspicion.

The only time it should ever be pulled in one go is on request.

odyssey06

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

It make no difference to the taste whatsoever. It’s akin to someone saying they can taste the difference between a stirred and a shaken martini.
The whole “domed” head is a new one on me, I don’t remember checking on any “one pour” pints I’d pulled for myself, or has pulled for me.
The real “issue” with the “one pour” is that the bar server could be clueless and end up giving you half a pint of “head”. But, in the right hands, the “two part pour” is unnecessary, except for ceremony.

Not contradicting any of your post - just mentioning that there is a "je ne sais quoi" aspect to the experience whch should not be written off.

Suckit

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

It's worth paying a premium for Apple devices because they are the last major tech company who still give half a damn about personal privacy. It's the tech equivalent of the overton window.

Apple do not give half a damn about personal privacy.

EmmetSpiceland

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I don't drink stout myself so can't make any judgement but I've heard that the two part pour is bullshit. Is it?

It make no difference to the taste whatsoever. It’s akin to someone saying they can taste the difference between a stirred and a shaken martini.

The whole “domed” head is a new one on me, I don’t remember checking on any “one pour” pints I’d pulled for myself, or has pulled for me.

The real “issue” with the “one pour” is that the bar server could be clueless and end up giving you half a pint of “head”. But, in the right hands, the “two part pour” is unnecessary, except for ceremony.

Wompa1

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

It's worth paying a premium for Apple devices because they are the last major tech company who still give half a damn about personal privacy. It's the tech equivalent of the overton window.

I mean, the fappening was via vulnerability in iCloud. They lost a court case in the EU with the original iPods due to restricting access to your own music files. In the last 18 months alone they had bugs in macOS that left the root account wide open and another that exposed the disk encryption key (if the owner encrypted the drive).

Worst of all, their response to these types of issues is slooooooooooooow!

BUT I don't think they should be on the list for one of the most overrated. The iPhone maybe. iPad maybe. Macs, nah. Apple's software, probably.

For me overrated brand: Mercedez, Tommy Hilfiger and Beats,

[Deleted User]

the beer revolu wrote: »

So, are you trying to suggest that the majority Scottish whisky is poor compared to the majority of Irish whiskey?

That's a pretty insane claim to make.

Unless you are talking single malts.
Also, it was the American brands I quoted iirc.

odyssey06

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Whatever about Guinness, a perfectly fine mass-market stout, the amount of big brand names in spirits that are utter manure is shocking.

Think of the go-to drink for many spirits and they're either total muck or entirely bland:
Smirnoff Vodka
Gordons Gin
Bacardi Rum (or god help us Captain Morgans)
Jack Daniels Whiskey (or Jim Bean, or Johnnie Walker, even basic level Jameson isn't as good as Teelings and arguably Bushmills and Powers IMO)

There are usually better alternatives for the same price but they just don't have the marketing behind them.

I think you've lost the run of yourself there!
Teelings is priced much higher than basic Jameson, and Teelings Small Batch versus Jameson Crested would be a close call for me.

Basic level Jameson I would rate over basic Bushmills, and is a fine product.
No way is it bland or manure adjacent or can it be used to make a negative case about brands.

Powers is a quality whiskey but that's more in the category of underrated gem, I don't think it's quality says anything negative about Jameson or can be used to make a case that Jameson is overrated. It's qualities are less obvious shall we say. I would drink a lot more Jameson (straight or mixed) than Powers.
Powers and Jameson are actually the same ultimate brand after all...
It's a combination of marketing and also Jameson as a product has more mass market appeal.

Iscreamkone

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

Scotch whisky is a far more interesting, varied, and rounded drink than Irish whiskey. I realise there are exceptions to that, but most Irish whiskey lacks character. It's the sort of stuff made so people can mix it with coke or ginger ale after they've had enough pints of mass produced beer.

That’s Paddy for you. Only for rubbing on your legs before a match
Jamie 12 or Bushmills is a different class altogether

Aongus Von Bismarck

Scotch whisky is a far more interesting, varied, and rounded drink than Irish whiskey. I realise there are exceptions to that, but most Irish whiskey lacks character. It's the sort of stuff made so people can mix it with coke or ginger ale after they've had enough pints of mass produced beer.

Adyx

Feisar wrote: »

No, that's a pretty sane conclusion.

One caveat: I hate Scotch!

I used to hate Scotch, but then I realised there's such a variety it's impossible to lump them altogether. So now I might not like one type but I certainly can't say I hate all Scotch.

Feisar

the beer revolu wrote: »

So, are you trying to suggest that the majority Scottish whisky is poor compared to the majority of Irish whiskey?

That's a pretty insane claim to make.

No, that's a pretty sane conclusion.

One caveat: I hate Scotch!

the beer revolu

Augeo wrote: »

Any whiskey not triple distilled is going to be poor compared to a TD option..

So, are you trying to suggest that the majority Scottish whisky is poor compared to the majority of Irish whiskey?

That's a pretty insane claim to make.