Sunday, 17 July 2011

Strong outbreak of apathy


Well, it would seem that the question of whether it was a good idea to produce bottled beers with higher strengths than cask equivalents isn’t really a burning issue, with “not concerned either way” winning out, and the antis slightly pipping the pros.

Personally, the main problem it causes is if you find on cask a beer you have already had in bottled form, and feel short-changed when it ends up being noticeably weaker.

3 comments:

  1. Like Asnams Broadside type weaker? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. A full 1.6% must be the record differential. The one I was thinking of was Ringwood Boondoggle, although that in fact is a better beer on cask at 4.2% than in bottle at 5.0%.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I had Ringwood Boondoggle recently - in bottle, I might add. Didn't think it was a bad beer, but yes, so many beers are better on cask when done properly.

    ReplyDelete

Comments, especially on older posts, may require prior approval. See here for details of my comment policy.