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 be subject to prior approval. Bear with me – I may be in the pub.

Please be polite and remember to play the ball, not the man.

Any obvious trolling, offensive or blatantly off-topic comments will be deleted.

See this post for some thoughts on my approach to blog comments. The comment facility is not provided as a platform for personal attacks on the blog author.