Big Brand names whose products are way overrated

Feisar wrote: »

Absolutely no problem!

I know Protestant does not mean not Irish. The second generation landed gentry were hardly salt of the earth Irish though.

An awful lot of people seem to think Guinness is intrinsically Irish which it's not.

I'll take yer point that I've over egged it a bit though.

But it is and I don't see how it isn't.

Feisar wrote: »

Ireland didn't invent stout
It's like making a Peking Duck in Dublin and calling it Irish.

If I drink a wine made in California with Chardonnay (a french grape) I'm drinking a Californian wine. Nobody says it's a French wine.
They might even talk about a Californian style of Chardonnay.

I think what you are saying is that Stout isn't Irish.
And so Guinness isn't an intrinsically Irish style of beer.
And some people think it is.

But ... even taking that into account - Guinness is still an Irish beer.

odyssey06 wrote: »

If I drink a wine made in California with Chardonnay (a french grape) I'm drinking a Californian wine. Nobody says it's a French wine.
They might even talk about a Californian style of Chardonnay.

I think what you are saying is that Stout isn't Irish.
And so Guinness isn't an intrinsically Irish style of beer.
And some people think it is.

But ... even taking that into account - Guinness is still an Irish beer.

Point accepted, Guinness is Irish. Someone call 'em up I'm sure they'll be delighted to know!

murpho999 wrote: »

Nobody , including Guinness is claiming they invented stout.

But Guinness is its own recipe and it's originated as a product in Ireland and made here since 1759 so it's Irish.

Brennan's didn't invent bread but their bread is Irish.

Ryanair did not event airlines but it's irish.

Tayto didn't invent crisps but they're Irish.

Need I go on?

Guinness Stout is not made since 1759. Mid 19th century for stout.

Tayto actually DID invent flavoured crisps.

Feisar wrote: »

OK

Loads of people think Guinness invented stout.

So now you're changing your point and I've genuinely never heard anybody say they thought that Guinness invented stout.

Agree with you on own brand sauces v big brand names.

Pretty much any own brand product if made in Italy eg sauce pasta even vermouth - is at least as good if not better than the big brand name at half the price.

Feisar wrote: »

Have you never heard the one that it was invented due to a mistake in brewing beer?

The story was that a shed of grain got burnt in a fire but they decided to use it anyway.

TA da!

Stout Porter as invented in Dublin by Guinness.

Great story!

Paris Skinny Wallpaper wrote: »

To be honest I would tell you by looking at them and by smelling them before ever tasting.

Ah for jaysus' sake.

First off you wouldn't be looking at it. Blind taste test. Because your eyes overrule your taste buds a lot of the time. Not that it's going to look very different a minute or two after it's settled anyway...

Smell, are you for real? It's the exact same product in the can or in the keg. It can't possibly smell any different.

This post is the epitome of Guinness bolloxology. Their marketing department must be laughing up their sleeves that their customers can be so deluded.

Paris Skinny Wallpaper wrote: »

Saying a can of Guinness can't be easily told apart from a pint of draught Guinness is bolloxology, they taste totally different.

Willing to prove this when meetings are actually allowed again?

Because its the same liquid. There's no magic involved.

You may actually be some form of super-taster able to taste the can lining; but more realistically you've convinced yourself of the 'great pint' hoodoo and nothing else.

snoopboggybog wrote: »

I can easily tell the difference between a pint of Guinness and a can or any pint for that matter.

Its like saying you can't taste the difference between a pint of Heineken and a can of Heineken.

Any pint for that matter.

Pints of Heineken and cans of Heineken in Ireland are two different products made in two different breweries in two different countries. Pints are made in Cork, cans are made in Amsterdam.

For situations where its the same liquid - no, you can't. You just can't. You've convinced yourself otherwise and you have the sight crutch of the can to tell you to think so.

Do an actual double-blind test (this needs three people) and report back.

Anything done on sight allows your brain to convince itself of something that simply isn't there.


If you double-blind tested the three major Irish stouts it would be rather challenging to actually identify all three correctly. One is usually got right more than the others.

edit: actually found a taste testing, done by Irish people who would drink rather a lot of these beers so you can drop any 'they wouldn't know...' arguments immediately. It had a cat thrown amongst the pigeons by adding O'Haras

https://www.beoir.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=108:put-your-stout-where-your-mouth-is&catid=33:beoir-meets&Itemid=95

3 out of 9 got the stout right each time. Only slightly better than guesswork. Adding O'Haras could easily alter the results as its usually Murphys that you can get accurately.

snoopboggybog wrote: »

One thing is that the pint of Guinness has a much better head than a can of Guinness and that is a fact due to the CO2 and Nitrogen used. Hence a better pint.

You are aware of what's in the widget, right?

You've fallen for the hoodoo. The draught has a better head if you don't pour the can right.

snoopboggybog wrote: »

Yes Nitrogen, still find pints better and heavier to drink.

There just not the same.

Its like Smithwicks, but a large bottle/can and a pint in front of me. I will tell the difference 100% of the time.

Bet you can't if you can't see which was which - because basically nobody can.

Poured by someone competent and handed to you by someone who hasn't a clue which is which so can't give you any subliminal suggestions - that is very important as single blinded trials always show more bias than double blinded.

snoopboggybog wrote: »

Are you now telling me now that Large bottles of Smitwicks and pints of it taste exactly the same?

If at an equal temperature and poured competently, yes. Its the same liquid. And I'd drink quite a bit of Smithwicks when pubs are open.

You seeing which is which is going to impact what you think.

That the draught will usually be colder in a pub gives you a very easy way to 'tell'

snoopboggybog wrote: »

You keep going on about it been the same liquid.

If you gave me a cup of tap water and a bottle of Ballygowan I suppose I wouldn't be able to taste the difference?

Next time your in a pub have a large bottle and then have a pint and let me know if you can taste the difference. The large bottle is more watery than the pint and that is a fact.

Is your tap connected to the Ballygowan spring? They're not the same liquid if it isn't

Both the draught and the bottle are made at the same time on the same plant. You are imagining any other difference.

Go get the two people required to double blind it. You won't tell any difference, cause there isn't one.

snoopboggybog wrote: »

So you couldn't taste or notice the difference between say a bottle of coors poured into a pint glass or a pint of Coors from the tap?


Riiiiggghttt

For any beer - once they're the same product, at the same temperature, to the same height in the glass - no. Because its the same beer. If I'm given a half filled pint glass with a giant headed, warm beer in it I'll be able to tell it was from a bottle; but that's not taste based.

I'm not sure if bottle and draught Coors come from the same brewery here, btw; but that isn't a very common split.

You have convinced yourself based on visual or other cues - that a bottle of most beers is under a pint; that they are unlikely to be the same temperature (pint bottles are often room temperature and regularly opened fridges aren't as cold as chilled lines), that bottles are often poured badly.

Visual elements have a huge impact on food. People were convinced that Heinz's green ketchup was a different product. It was exactly the same with a taste inert food dye - but everyone expects ketchup to be red, not green.

Everyone does this, to some extent. When you make an effort not to be swayed by it you will stop believing things are different when they are actually just presented differently.

jj880 wrote: »

Five Guys.

Absolute nonsense.

If you think they're dear here; look at the prices in England (NI is the same franchiser as here) :eek:

snoopboggybog wrote: »

We have to agree to disagree as I know we can't change each others opinions so this will be my last post on it but I know for a fact points are better probably because of the gas used. I would be able to tell the difference every time. Maybe your not a big drinker but would be able to tell right away.

The liquid indeed might be 100% the same but there is no way that cans can equal the way a pub pours the pint and the head it gets due to the gas used. No possible way.

That's the end of it now from me

I write about pubs and pub history, "not a big drinker" would not be what anyone would use to describe me!

The line gas is the propellants, the dissolved gas is the majority of what you drink