Mid-strength Guinness

Subject: Mid-strength Guinness
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 19 May 06 - 01:20 PM

Apparently Guinness [is] … testing a version of draught at 2.8% abv. It is said to taste almost exactly similar to draught. This is no mean feat and apparently took two years to develop … They are calling it Mid-Strength. Mid-Strength is on trial in 80 pubs around Limerick.

Anyone in Ireland tried it? What's the verdict?

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 19 May 06 - 01:21 PM

Sorry ... this should be below the line.

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 May 06 - 01:23 PM

Reduce it any further and they won't require a licence to sell it; talk about shades of Watney's Red Barrel!
Giok

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 19 May 06 - 01:33 PM

The current standard for draught Guinness in the UK is 4.2%. According to Richardson, writing in 1784, in his treatise on the use of the saccharometer, porter averaged 7.1% abv. I wonder what stout came in at (stout = stout [i.e. strong] porter).

Who knows, Giok ... maybe they'll invent an alcohol pill to swallow with the PC pint of the future?

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: greg stephens
Date: 19 May 06 - 01:34 PM

Well let's see what it tastes like. I like weak beer(though I'm not used to stuff as weak as 2.8). I cant take as much alcohol as I used to, but I like to drink quite a lot. So 2.8% makes a lot of sense. Interesting the marketing ploy of calling it mid-strength, so you dont feel too wimpy when you're ordering it.

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 19 May 06 - 01:41 PM

I drink cause I like the taste....

If I can get it without the buzz, I likely will, MOST of the time (But not all of the time... cause sometimes I want the buzz! LOL)

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Den
Date: 19 May 06 - 03:03 PM

Hope it isn't anything like that Guinness light (shite) they brought out in the 70's.

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: melodeonboy
Date: 19 May 06 - 04:36 PM

As it stands, Guinness is only mid-strength (4.2%). Couldn't they call it "shandy-strength"?

Or are they making it that weak so they can sell it as a soft drink? By the way, where do they draw the line (in Ireland and Britain) between an "alcoholic" and a "non-alcoholic" drink?

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 20 May 06 - 12:31 AM

We have stronger mild in Yorkshire, 2.8% it must be a joke, or it should cost 25 pence a pint.

eric

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: GUEST,MC Fat
Date: 20 May 06 - 06:40 AM

I bet it won't be 'mid - price' this is pure scam brewers pay the Excise by duty on ABV so they pay less and we will end up paying more for a weaker product

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: GUEST,van lingle
Date: 20 May 06 - 07:02 AM

Sounds like taking a shower with your galoshes on.

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 20 May 06 - 08:35 AM

Tetleys pulled a scam a few years ago which is why I won't drink it [ apart from it tasting like shite ] they lowered the gravity and put the price up at the same time, lower gravity made it cheaper to produce, it also meant less excise duty, a triple whammy.

eric

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 May 06 - 08:52 AM

Will someone please try this stuff and answer the feckin' question posed in the first post??????????

Mick

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Geordie-Peorgie
Date: 20 May 06 - 12:40 PM

Aah cannit see the point in alcohol-free beer

The' wadn't dare bring oot a 'Slimline Nyoocassell Broon'

The'd be ructions!!

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 21 May 06 - 04:48 AM

Why the feck don't you try it then Mick ?

eric

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Big Mick
Date: 21 May 06 - 10:50 AM

Because I am in the States, and haven't seen it yet, eric. And that is what the thread asked for, eric. Any other questions, eric?

Mick

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 06 - 01:10 PM

Is it not the same as taking a half pint of standard black stuff and mixing it with a half pint of water? Provided the water is neutral enough the taste will not change will it?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: GUEST,Desdemona
Date: 21 May 06 - 01:23 PM

I'll be in the UK next month, and will be more than happy to conduct the necessary research (!), try it & report back.

Lord knows I love my beer, but it's true that a couple of pints when you need to get behind the wheel can be a bad idea; if it turns out to be good, my problem may be solved, eh?!

~D

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Folkiedave
Date: 21 May 06 - 02:27 PM

Is it not the same as taking a half pint of standard black stuff and mixing it with a half pint of water? Provided the water is neutral enough the taste will not change will it?

I suspect you are being naive if you think they are making it any other way!!

:-)>

Dave

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Declan
Date: 21 May 06 - 03:01 PM

Guinness are experimenting with a number of different brews at the moment. I had a pint of one of them last week. Full strength Guinness with a slightly hoppier taste. Not bad, but I think I still prefer the standard issue.

The mid Strength one is only on sale in Limerick at present. I'll be passing through there next week on my way to Ennis. If I'm held up for any reason I mighty try a mid strength pint and if I do I'll let you know.

Generally I try to pass through Limerick City as fast as I can, but it would be a good place to be this week-end because of the Munster Rugby celebrations.

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 May 06 - 03:02 PM

Dave - :-D

Course they don't make it like that! It must be an extra special process that costs loads so they can save tax and charge more. Brewers would not be that disreputable would they?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Boab
Date: 22 May 06 - 01:51 AM

---2.8%--5%; no matter, chill it and it is tasteless crap!

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Terry K
Date: 22 May 06 - 04:15 AM

Agreed Boab - I deplore this fad for Extra Cold which simply takes away the taste. My theory is that people who prefer drinking Guinness in Ireland, where they serve it colder than in England, is because they don't like the taste.

I'm all for any move to enable me to "have a drink" yet still be within the driving limit.

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 22 May 06 - 04:37 AM

Apologies for my rudeness Big Mick.

I really cant imagine that anyone would BUY crap like that, whatever it costs, remember alcohol free beer ? it cost more than the real thing for fecks sake, and to what purpose ? to make other people think you were drinking real beer ? I suspect ' weak ' Guiness won't last long.

eric

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: greg stephens
Date: 22 May 06 - 04:53 AM

Well, I think dismissing it as crap before tasting it is a bit premature. And we are not talking about an alcohol free beer, we are talking about 2.8%, which is quite enough to get you in a perfectly relaxed mood while drinking steadily at a several hour long tune session. Obviouwsly it may not get you to the full Shane McGowan point very quickly, but we dont all aspire to that anyway.

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: gnomad
Date: 22 May 06 - 06:17 AM

Just so long as they don't fill it with whatever it is that they put in those alcohol-free beers. I tried those out, and they not only tasted pretty poor, but they gave me a rotten hangover. A far worse one, in fact, than I might have expected after drinking twice as much real beer.

I have nothing against a low-alcohol brew [in fact I can see some advantages] but it needs to taste good, not have the bad effects mentioned, and be priced to reflect the lower taxes being paid on it.

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 22 May 06 - 07:24 AM

Lower gravity = lower production costs
lower gravity = lower duty.

I'll have a bet with anyone that it will cost more than full strength.

eric

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 22 May 06 - 08:09 AM

Bearing in mind that the temperature they serve Guinness at means that it is impossible to actually taste the stuff (and I'm not referring to the Extra Frozen stuff) I doubt that you will be able to tell the difference.
A lot of traditional stouts WERE of a lower gravity than we tend to demand today - they were drunk by Working men often in heavy or hot and often dangerous conditions - they replaced body fluids and it would not have been safe for them to be "drunk" on the job. Strong ales were saved for other times and places.
Quack!
Geof the Duck.

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 22 May 06 - 08:52 AM

Geoff, it was just the opposite, they were stronger years ago, porter was diluted stout and even that was stronger than modern beers.

eric

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Big Mick
Date: 22 May 06 - 09:01 AM

eric, you are a gentleman. I apologize for being snippy also.

I am interested in what it tastes like, but I can't imagine it being an improvement. I don't know why they keep tinkering with it.

Mick

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: greg stephens
Date: 22 May 06 - 10:18 AM

Geoff the Duck: I dont know about the historical strengths of stout and porter; but surely some beers in the old days were infinitely weaker than the current 4+% fashion?

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 May 06 - 10:53 AM

They often made 3 brews from the same batch of dry ingredients. The first pass - with most sugars and body, but least water in the mashing, went to make 'strong ales' at around 6%-8%. Once that was done with they boiled up the inredients again for a mid-strength brew which was usualy around the 4% we find common today. Wasting nothing at all a final mash provided a 'small beer' at 2%-3% which is what this 'new' Guiness could well be!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 22 May 06 - 08:18 PM

That's the sort of swill you Irish deserve by letting Budweiser come in and start muckin around with a National Treasure.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 23 May 06 - 05:26 AM

And the last to come in was a thinker,
He was no small beer drinker.


From ' Jones's Ale '

eric

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: melodeonboy
Date: 23 May 06 - 10:18 AM

Well, yes, small beer does have its place (or at least it did when it was used as refreshment/nourishment for agricultural (and other) labourers. I don't quite think that's what Guinness has in mind.

By the way, if you live in the Maidstone area and you like stout, you can avoid the chilled, gassy and nitrogenated (is that the correct word; and it is nitrogen that Guinness uses, isn't it?) stuff that's foisted on us everywhere else and try Goacher's stout. The pub where I drink it serves it gravity-drawn direct from the cask at cellar temperature. Big G isn't even in the same league!

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 May 06 - 10:35 AM

One of our local brews had a 'Guiltless' stout which is much the same, MB. I frightened the big lads that much that they took the brewers (Dobbins) to court and stopped them using the name 'Guiltless'. Shame realy.

Another good alternative, apart from Sam Smiths are opposed to live music, is their Oatmeal stout - Lovely brew:-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 24 May 06 - 04:20 AM

I spotted tinned Mackeson Stout yesterday - 3%ABV.
Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 May 06 - 04:48 AM

And oddly enough I had a couple of bottles of Manns brown ale at 2.8%. Very nice it was too:-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 24 May 06 - 05:10 AM

Hambletons Nightmare porter 6% abv grand.

eric

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 24 May 06 - 01:03 PM

There's no reason a beer can't be excellent just because it has low alcoholic strength. The key is balance, which is why there's no way I can see Guinness watering down the regular black stuff. There are some beers brewed to a high gravity and blended with lower gravity beers to produce remarkably good hybrids. Guinness, in fact, is made by a simlar production process to ensure consistency.

Still no one tried this stuff in Limerick? Do we have Catters in Limerick?

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: GUEST
Date: 24 May 06 - 07:33 PM

bollocks

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 25 May 06 - 04:33 PM

Wonderful vocabulary.

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Folkiedave
Date: 26 May 06 - 12:05 PM

Now let me see: There are some beers brewed to a high gravity and blended with lower gravity beers

This is so close to be a definition of "watering down" as to be indistinguishable.

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Leadfingers
Date: 26 May 06 - 12:35 PM

As Greg stated earlier , if you are playing for a fairly long session , the last thing you want is a really srong beer ! What is required is a beer that tastes good , but doesnt get you falling over after the second pint . I dont call 'current strength' Guiness a session beer , any more than Fullers ESB is a session beer ! I will be looking out to try the new brew if it ever gets to West London area !

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 26 May 06 - 02:00 PM

This is so close to be a definition of "watering down" as to be indistinguishable.

Not so FolkieDave!

Adding a litre of water to a litre of beer will not only reduce the alcohol by 50%, but will also reduce the other constituents; so you'll lose body, mouthfeel, the hop profile, etc. When you brew one high and the other low you anticipate these changes and incorporate them into the equation.

Do you remember Newcastle Amber Ale? It was the lower gravity mixer that went with the high-gravity brew (never sold) to become Newcastle Brown.

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 26 May 06 - 02:23 PM

If I recall correctly - can't be bothered checking - a porter was defined as a lighter beer mixed with a stout.
Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Seán Báite
Date: 26 May 06 - 02:41 PM

Still no-one's actually tasted the damn stuff (and survived long enough to type their reaction)!!
I suspect it will suffer the same fate as Guinness Lite - which,
I believe, was actually low calorie but the punters believed it was low alcohol and avoided it like the plague.
Why don't they try selling on draught that Guinness they sell on the continent in bottles that's around 8% and can be used to repair potholes ??

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 26 May 06 - 02:42 PM

According to legend, porter was so named because it was popular with the porters of Covent Garden in London. It was made by mixing brews of three different strengths (three threads) and originally called 'entire.' The name stout came about (little poetry thrown in there) when porter was given even more bollocks: stout porter. Arthur Guinness went further and named his porter 'Extra Stout.'

Wasted youth? I think not. I wasn't there, mind.

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 26 May 06 - 07:11 PM

Sounds a good idea. I don't like stouts, so I won't be going near the stuff, but lowish alcohol beers, that actually taste of beer are great.

Knowing you can have a proper drink with lunch, and being able to drive is good. When I'm down south, I find Youngs light ale- (2.4 %?) does very nicely.

Subject: RE: Mid-strength Guinness
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 May 06 - 11:02 AM

Were the three stengths that were were mixed the first, second and third mashings I refered to earlier? If so is that why it was originaly called entire? Amazing stuff going on here! Etymolgy and beer - two of my favourite pastimes:-)

Cheers

DtG