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.


  1. Like Asnams Broadside type weaker? ;-)

  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%.

  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.


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

Please register an account to comment. To combat persistent trolling, unregistered comments are liable to be deleted unless I recognise the author. If you intend to make more than the occasional comment using an unregistered ID, you will need to tell me something about yourself.