Best Pint in Dublin

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...