Is Guinness the real loser of the drink-at-home trend?

BeerNut

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is clearly and demonstrably untrue.

Great! How do we demonstrate its untruth?

The claim is that the quality of a pint is identical from pub to pub. The poster also acknowledged that this is partly due to the quality control team making sure that the pints are consistent. They obviously cannot visit every pub, every day. So the quality slips between visits of the QC team. If one pub has had a visit yesterday and another hasn't been visited in a year, are they going to be identical?

And that's before we get into anecdotal evidence. Are you saying you've never had a good / bad pint? Or is it just all in our heads? Really?

BeerNut

Deleted User wrote: »

The claim is that the quality of a pint is identical from pub to pub. The poster also acknowledged that this is partly due to the quality control team making sure that the pints are consistent. They obviously cannot visit every pub, every day. So the quality slips between visits of the QC team. If one pub has had a visit yesterday and another hasn't been visited in a year, are they going to be identical?

That's theoretical reasoning. You said it was demonstrable.

Deleted User wrote: »

And that's before we get into anecdotal evidence

The anecdotal evidence is really poor. I've yet to see any actual details of the taste of a "bad pint". Phenols? Oxidation? Wild yeast? Bacterial infection? These are all standard things that go wrong in beers all the time, or at least in beers that aren't rigorously quality controlled from grain to glass: if they went wrong in Guinness with anything like the regularity suggested, they would have been identified by someone. Bluntly, people complaining about bad pints do not seem to know very much about beer. What anecdotal evidence there is seems to be more textural: "creamy" = good; "watery" = bad. So is a bad pint one that just hasn't been hooked up to the gas properly?

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you saying you've never had a good / bad pint? Or is it just all in our heads? Really?

Plenty of bad pints, but not of Guinness. For one thing, Guinness is a dark beer, and nitrogenated, and therefore much less susceptible to off-flavours than something paler and carbonated. Yet the mythos around good and pints of Carlsberg doesn't exist. Why is that? Because of the romance of Guinness, and because Guinness was once a bespoke aged and blended product, and more recently than that was less rigorously quality controlled than it is now. That has stuck in folk memory.

I've done enough blind tasting to know that what's "just in your head" is incredibly powerful when it comes to assessing beer. Astounding things happen when you taste blind. So yes, it's all in your heads, but that is not a dismissive statement: it's entirely normal to project qualities onto beers that aren't actually in them. A pint is much more likely to be bad if you're drinking it in a place where you expect pints to be bad, and vice versa. It's a tough one to prove without taking a pint from a good Guinness pub and a pint from a bad Guinness pub and tasting them blind in a triangle test.

BeerNut

BeerNut wrote: »

That's theoretical reasoning. You said it was demonstrable.

Okay, live practical demonstration it is then. We need volunteers.....

BeerNut wrote: »

The anecdotal evidence is really poor. I've yet to see any actual details of the taste of a "bad pint". Phenols? Oxidation? Wild yeast? Bacterial infection? These are all standard things that go wrong in beers all the time, or at least in beers that aren't rigorously quality controlled from grain to glass: if they went wrong in Guinness with anything like the regularity suggested, they would have been identified by someone. Bluntly, people complaining about bad pints do not seem to know very much about beer. What anecdotal evidence there is seems to be more textural: "creamy" = good; "watery" = bad. So is a bad pint one that just hasn't been hooked up to the gas properly?

Plenty of bad pints, but not of Guinness. For one thing, Guinness is a dark beer, and nitrogenated, and therefore much less susceptible to off-flavours than something paler and carbonated. Yet the mythos around good and pints of Carlsberg doesn't exist. Why is that? Because of the romance of Guinness, and because Guinness was once a bespoke aged and blended product, and more recently than that was less rigorously quality controlled than it is now. That has stuck in folk memory.

You and I appear to be talking at cross purposes here as to the definition of a bad pint. I'm not talking about a product that has been spoiled or was inferior to begin with. I'm talking purely about taste, maybe I should use 'don't taste as nice' instead of bad. I don't doubt for a second that every keg that leaves St James Gate is identical,or as close as makes no difference. Pints in different pubs aren't. Sometimes pints in the same pub can vary.

BeerNut wrote: »

I've done enough blind tasting to know that what's "just in your head" is incredibly powerful when it comes to assessing beer. Astounding things happen when you taste blind. So yes, it's all in your heads, but that is not a dismissive statement: it's entirely normal to project qualities onto beers that aren't actually in them. A pint is much more likely to be bad if you're drinking it in a place where you expect pints to be bad, and vice versa. It's a tough one to prove without taking a pint from a good Guinness pub and a pint from a bad Guinness pub and tasting them blind in a triangle test.

I take your point about the blind tasting and pre-conceived notions. But, When I'm in a new place, with nobody else who's drank there before, sometimes the pints are nicer than others. To suggest otherwise smacks of elitism.

Edit to add: every pint of Carlsberg I've ever had has been a "bad" pint.

BeerNut

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm talking purely about taste, maybe I should use 'don't taste as nice' instead of bad.

That's what I thought we were talking about, but how does it not taste as nice? What's there that shouldn't be, or what's missing that should? Guinness as-the-brewer-intended is mildly roasty with a slight sour tang in the middle and minimal aftertaste. Is that a fair assessment of how good Guinness tastes, and if so, in what way does a sub-optimal pint taste different?

Does it matter if Joe Punter is unable to qualify why he sometimes doesn't like the taste of the Foggy Dew pints? Does it invalidate his usual preference of the ones served in the Dame Tavern? If he isn't able to explain the difference, does it mean that they really aren't different at all?

Of course not.

For me personally, it's all about aftertaste. Some leave a much more bitter aftertaste than others

the beer revolu

I find the notion that it takes a "skilled" server to pour a pint of Guinness very, very funny.

Anyone could be taught in a few minute to pull a pint of Guinness, perfectly. Takes far, far more knowledge, skill and training to make a decent espresso.

(and, yes, I have pulled many, many pints of Guinness

odyssey06

Do different pubs serve Guinness at different temperatures, some more chilled than others?
There are earlier comments on the thread from can drinkers about how the temperature impacts on the taste.

I notice a difference in taste from coffee machines if cleaning product residue hasn't been flushed out, can also be from the glass used.
Could different pubs be using different cleaning products which could be a factor?

BeerNut

odyssey06 wrote: »

Could different pubs be using different cleaning products which could be a factor?

If so it would be much more noticeable in beers other than Guinness. Yet only Guinness gets this singular treatment, as though it were a creature of great fragility.

RasTa

Guinness over here is terrible. Super chilled rubbish coming out the same temp as carling. Only real reason irish stuff tastes nicer

Big Nasty

Diageo manage the quality of the product right up until it leaves the tap. Glass hygiene is the only remaining factor to affect taste.

BeerNut

Big Nasty wrote: »

Glass hygiene is the only remaining factor to affect taste.

And that will have less of an effect on the quality of Guinness than on most other mainstream beers.

listermint

Well what I took from last night's taste test.

2 cans 40 mins in the fridge each.

First can poured straight upside down into cleaned pint glass.

Very light smooth and went down easy. It was exactly like any bar I've had them in. Tested good.

Second one poured 45 degree slow as per side of can instructions. Alot more of the flavour coming through. Slight burnt taste tiny bit bitterness more to my palette.

I'd assume the first one the nitro rushed right through every facet of the glass and thus killed much off the tastes . Something that most would call a decent pint ala a bar.

The second one nitro obviously fed differently allowing more of the flavour to come through.


Either way the cans are quality haven't had one in two years or more.

franglan

25 mins in the freezer.. Slow two part pour = good pint for less than a euro if bought in a slab. Simples.

clio_16v

Big Nasty wrote: »

Diageo manage the quality of the product right up until it leaves the tap. Glass hygiene is the only remaining factor to affect taste.

Cooling is also out of Diageos control and influences taste hugely

andekwarhola

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The bolded bit above is the most crucial part. This is the first time you've put forward your statement as your opinion (which you quite clearly are more than entitled to do). Previously, you basically were saying "Every pint, in every tap, in every pub is identical and all that stuff about good/bad pints is rubbish".

This is clearly and demonstrably untrue.

I've had different quality pints in the bar/lounge of pubs, from different barmen from the same tap, and even from different taps behind the same bar. I take your point (pint?) about the quality control etc, and nobody is doubting that certain pubs are getting better kegs from the brewery, or anything like that. But there's more to a decent pint than attaching it to the tap and away you go. Storage, temperature, cleanliness of the pipes, the pint glass itself, the skill of the barman, the run on the taps, the distance between keg and glass etc. all come into play.

I used to drink in Fairview quite a bit and one day I had a pint in Cole's (which was called Smyth's at the time but is now the Brú House) and it was served in an Amstel glass. You could make out the imperfections in the glass as there were mini pockets of head collecting around and under them on the interior of the glass. When I asked about getting a pint in a Guinness glass he told me they had none. It was a brutal pint, never really settled properly and was quite bitter. To compare something like that to what you'd get handed in the Gravediggers is laughable.

One of the lads told me to report it to the quality control team but I just voted with my wallet and never went back.

It's amusing that you so throughly 'debunk' my posts as opinion, then proceed with, if anything, an even more energetically expressed supposition than me.

Like others, and I'm sure others would know more than me, I was always under the impression that Diageo set up and inspected the whole draught Guinness setup from keg to glass in pubs.

I can't agree more with the poster that said I very much doubt Diageo would countenance the notion that huge numbers of pubs are regularly serving up pints of Guinness that 'demonstrably' don't taste like they should. That's not an opinion of mine that needs to be 'proved'. It's just inconceivable that the largest selling - and highly homogenous drink - (let alone stout) in the country with a highly regulated setup would be allowed to have such large fluctuations in 'quality' around the country.

Guinness always tastes as it should to me wherever I drink it.

I'm not trying to 'debunk' anything. You stated, as fact, that they were all the same. When pressed, you then said that they're all the same 'in your opinion'. There's a world of difference in the two statements.

The Guinness is nicer in some pubs than it is in others. Hell, it's nicer in certain parts of the same pub. Telling people it's all in their head is condescending, elitist nonsense.

Can you honestly say, hand on heart, that every pint you've ever had is identical? Every pint? Anyone who answers yes to that question is a liar. The very fact that there's a quality control team going from pub to pub, ensuring the pints are as close to perfect as possible shows that their are variations in the quality to begin with.

andekwarhola

Maybe just demonstrate how exactly it's different apart from impressionistic Guinness marketing guff and we can go back to discussing cans

Seriously, though, we're going round in circles here. I'm off to the pub watch the football. I'll be drinking Guinness as well!

As for 'my opinion', Everywhere I drink Guinness, it tastes the same. And I like and drink a lot of different beers. Guinness is the best selling drink in the country and highly regulated. In the absence of other demonstrable evidence, that to me, is as close to this being fact as we're likely to get.

I'm betting if people made a list of places where pints were 'good' it'd invariably be where we expect pints to be 'good' .

I honestly don't know how to demonstrate it other than by saying "this pint tastes worse than this one". I don't know what else you expect.

andekwarhola

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I honestly don't know how to demonstrate it other than by saying "this pint tastes worse than this one". I don't know what else you expect.

That's fair enough. But when people say it tastes the same to them everywhere, you say it's demonstrably untrue.

The other factor, discussed ad nasseum, is that we're not talking about a craft beer bottle or one off kegs, but quality controlled mainstream stout where the chances of the product tasting the same is essentially odds on.

Indulge me here for a second..... What's the point of having the QC Team visiting various pubs if the product is identical anyway?

andekwarhola

Who knows. Could be to inspect that nothing is broken or stored incorrectly or that the marketing side and presentation is up to scratch like The Pour.

Maybe somebody that works there can elucidate.

I drink Guinness a lot in pubs, will be drinking it today and I don't know what these 'bad pints' are. I wouldn't be a drink expert but I drink a lot of beers, including so called craft stouts. I honestly think if I got a weird or different pint of something that I drink as much as I drink- and have drank - Guinness, I'd notice right away.

That's not elitist or any of those other names. How would that be the case when I buy Guinness?

jasper100

andekwarhola wrote: »

, but quality controlled mainstream stout where the chances of the product tasting the same is essentially odds on.

Glass washing method is important.

Turnover of product is important, go into a lounge that hasnt been used since the previous saturday night and the first few pints mighnt be great. The samre keg could be on the line months.

Some places have beer lines that are fierce long. Others have the keg under the counter.

Sometimes a keg may be left outside in warm weather or the kegs could be out of date etc.,

Some pubs have cellars, which are always a steady temperature, others use under counter cooling.

There are plenty of variables that will lead to variation in product quality.

Ginger83

Set up a keg of guinness at home a while back... as good as any pub pint

Effects

clio_16v wrote: »

Cooling is also out of Diageos control and influences taste hugely

Not really. It's Diageo that set up the coolers, and set the temp. Bar staff can fiddle with that if they want, but it's still set by Diageo initially.

andekwarhola

jasper100 wrote: »

Glass washing method is important.

Turnover of product is important, go into a lounge that hasnt been used since the previous saturday night and the first few pints mighnt be great. The samre keg could be on the line months.

Some places have beer lines that are fierce long. Others have the keg under the counter.

Sometimes a keg may be left outside in warm weather or the kegs could be out of date etc.,

Some pubs have cellars, which are always a steady temperature, others use under counter cooling.

There are plenty of variables that will lead to variation in product quality.

I guess its just luck that all the varied pubs I've went and go to seem OK while other people seem to end up with 'bad' ones.

decky1

Love the Guinness cans myself, have found in resent times getting a sore throat from cans of Lager [anyone else]?

Creamy Goodness

decky1 wrote: »

Love the Guinness cans myself, have found in resent times getting a sore throat from cans of Lager [anyone else]?

Any chance were these cans from the €24 slabs? I threw a party over Christmas and my brother and I both got sore throats from them. I polished them off not thinking much of it and during the next two weeks got a sore throat every time I drank them.

decky1

Creamy Goodness wrote: »

Any chance were these cans from the €24 slabs? I threw a party over Christmas and my brother and I both got sore throats from them. I polished them off not thinking much of it and during the next two weeks got a sore throat every time I drank them.

yea your right, thought it was just me.[ got mine for 20 in Aldi] have found this with other can's of lager also?

Creamy Goodness

decky1 wrote: »

yea your right, thought it was just me.[ got mine for 20 in Aldi] have found this with other can's of lager also?

Haven’t had any since, got paid and moved back to craft cans :pac:

Gonna steer away from Irish brewed Amsterdam lager for a while.