Possibly a thread elsewhere already but
Temple Bar has always been overpriced but €9 for a pint is pretty insane.
Roughly 90 pints per keg × 9 = 1800 per keg they must be making a pretty penny. I know rents, insurance, staff etc
Locally i paid €4.90 for a pint of Birra Moretti
So would or do you pay €9 a pint..
It's not "proving" your point at all.
What part of "you have to LIKE THE TASTE of the drink" do you you not understand?
You continue to prove my point.
I predict an even angrier response WITH EVEN MORE CAPITALS
I can guarantee you that you would not be able to identify Guinness in a double blind taste test of multiple stouts.
It is a well produced yet exceptionally generic mass market stout. It has no magic properties, despite people believing decades of marketing, and the recipe has been repeatedly changed over those decades - it is not the same product as sold under the same name even ten years ago let alone longer ago.
But due to marketing and mythos, Guinness drinkers think they're drinking something magic, and they will continue to let the makers of the product rob them. Which was my point to begin with.
But please do GET VERY ANGRY about this. It just proves me right.
Nobody is "proving" your point and you're talking nonsense.
I can tell the difference between a Guinness, a Beamish, a Murphys, an Oyster and a Guinness 0.0. I can say that because I have tried them all…and other stouts too. Even my own homebrew.
That you say I would not be able to identify the difference just shows that you're talking nonsense.
Into the bargain, nobody said that it wasn't a "generic mass marketed stout" and nobody has said that it had "magic properties" either.
However it does have a particular taste, and it's one that instantly recognisable to people that like that taste, whether you like it or not.
I challenge you to actually determining them in a double blind taste test.
You won't be able to.
In tests I've seen with 4 or 5 stouts, getting more than 2 right is basically unheard of.
Name a location and a time. I'll supply the stouts, but we'll have to find someone else to actually do the supply to ensure its double blind. And you'll be found out to be spoofing.
If somehow you are a super-taster (you aren't, though); that would make you absolutely not a normal consumer.
I've done it with Beamish and 0.0's.
Beamish tastes sweeter. It's not an unpleasant taste, but it's definitely different to Guinness. The same goes for a 0.0. which I will drink if I'm out during the week because of work. Murphys definitely has a taste of it's own. In fairness I haven't had a pint of Murphys in a while because it's so damned hard to get up here.
Trust me, as an alternative to Guinness I've tried others. They are not the same.
So when and where then?
Some people would drive you to drink…..
The cheapest pint preferably…..
LOL
Cahersiveen, 6 o'clock. Be there or be square. 😋
Name an actual premises an a proper headroom of time to do it.
If they don't sell multiple - 4+ options - on draft, you're getting canned everything (and the premises has to agree to allowing outside cans in, unless they sell them themselves)
You can LOL all you want - you are going to fail in an actual double blind test, because everyone does. You'll only have one chance at saying something is Guinness, and realistically a 25% chance, in four products, of getting it right. But you also need to say what all the other products are too, because you've stated you can tell.
…..
I've not got a great palate but I easily identified between draught Guinness and Beamish in a blind challenge - the coffee note in the latter was instantly recognisable. I might have struggled more between Murphys and Guinness and they've messed with the Beamish ABV since then but at the time it was chalk and cheese.
So you're another easily angered Guinness drinking spoofer then. Just as I thought.
Please continue to prove my point with angry spoofing.
Picking between two where you know what the two are is not particularly hard.
Picking from 4 or 5 becomes extremely difficult, and is very funny when someone is insistent that Guinness is something uniquely identifiable, because they nearly always pick O'Haras…
Hey, ya know what…you win champ. Ya got me. I'm "angered Guinness drinking spoofer ", whatever the hell that is.
You obviously know my palette better than I do.
I'll carry on swigging my Beammurphiness* here and enjoying it. 😁
*Actually it's Tuborg
I know full well that you would fail to identify the variety of stouts that you claim to be able to identify if offered them in a double blind tasting.
And you have proven beyond a doubt my point about intransigent Guinness drinkers.
Thanks.
Go to bed. You're drunk.
Finally a new Boards Beers 🎆🎉🎇.
I would love to have a place to do it and invite the two Macros and the craft brewers to supply their products as well.
Same with lagers and ales etc.
Maybe somewhere with a proper venue might accept the challenge to prove the bullshíting from Diageo/Heineken with their expensive advertising wrong. A couple of the Craft places have the space and I can think of one in particular who might take the risk.
However I'm 99% sure that Diageo would immediately decline if such a challenge was put to them. Heineken might be slightly tempted because of their better quality offerings but they would probably be afraid they would lose out to one of the Craft breweries as well.
Dig up.
I can't dig air.
Anyway, goodnight L. Go to bed lad.
o7
….
Cork Beamish drinker here. I think somebody had been tampering with your Beamish if you think it’s sweeter :D
Yes Murphy's is a bit sweeter, or less bitter to be precise, but Beamish no not sweeter than Guinness.
But yes Guinness is a master of marketing. Even the two part pour stuff (that they do now with other nitro stouts) is nonsense. The brand loyalty is insane.
Yes, exactly. Murphy’s is very like Guinness but distinguishable (just about) by the sweeter taste. Neither Guinness or Beamish could be described as sweet, but Beamish with IMO the much stronger taste. Also, the taste of Beamish is much further from Guinness than Murphy’s.
My larger of choice is Carlsberg, then it’d be Heineken, we did this very blind taste test that you’re talking about.
There was Coors (not a fan), Rockshore (despise), Carlsberg, Heineken and Corona, I was blondfolded, all were from cans and in generic glasses.
I guessed Carlsberg, correctly, immediately.
Heineken and Corona were also fairly easy to work out. Struggled with Coors and Rockshore as they both tasted like shíte.
You may as well say that there’s no difference in Pepsi/Coke/Generic Cola, it’s nonsensical. People have preferences and can identify their favourite.
Hadn't been out since before Christmas but a pint of Guinness in my local GAA club was 5.70 last night and very nice it was too.
Do Murphy's and Beamish do the two part pour also?
But it's the Irish competition authority and / EU competition authority that bring an investigation and enforcement not the companies disadvantaged by such an abuse of a dominant competitor.
The competition authority is not interested - they believe it isn't illegal, albeit they and their predecessors have acknowledged it is anticompetitive for going on 7 decades now - meaning the individual companies would need to take and fund the action themselves.
Anywhere I've bought it
But if you look at car insurance, the EU commission opened investigations and all out raids of the big insurers albeit for allegations of operating a cartel. This was not because some small company or group of individuals took some action to fund such an action. Aside from this being abuse of a dominant position rather than operating a cartel, I'm not seeing the difference, in respect that it is the competition authority legal responsibility to enforce these EU legislated laws. That is the case regardless if any other companies have the funds to try being a civil case of some kind.
