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.
Like Asnams Broadside type weaker? ;-)
ReplyDeleteA 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%.
ReplyDeleteI 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