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.

on

3 comments:

  1. Paul17 July 2011 at 15:54

    Like Asnams Broadside type weaker? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Curmudgeon17 July 2011 at 15:57

    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. Paul17 July 2011 at 16:08

    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 by the blog owner. See here for details of my comment policy.

Please register an account to comment. Unregistered comments will generally be rejected unless I recognise the author. If you want to comment using an unregistered ID, you will need to tell me something about yourself.