PDA

View Full Version : Guinness Red?



steveh
01-24-2007, 12:59 PM
Anyone of our UK members want to take one for the team and enlighten and inform us?

Red Guinness (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2007-01-24T154818Z_01_L24302010_RTRUKOC_0_UK-DIAGEO-GUINNESS-RED.xml&WTmodLoc=HP-C2-Business-5)

S.

Derekt2
01-24-2007, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by steveh
Anyone of our UK members want to take one for the team and enlighten and inform us?

Red Guinness (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2007-01-24T154818Z_01_L24302010_RTRUKOC_0_UK-DIAGEO-GUINNESS-RED.xml&WTmodLoc=HP-C2-Business-5)

S.

I had Guiness Bitter sometime back. Wasn't too bad, reminded a bit of a Boddingtons which (duck, is Richard around?) is a widget prodcut I kind of like. Think I'll pass on the Red, tho.

steveh
01-24-2007, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Derekt2
Think I'll pass on the Red, tho.

Not even for a quick review for us?

S.

Mill Rat
01-24-2007, 08:35 PM
If I trip across it during our summer travels, I'll amke the effort and report back.

Dextolen
01-25-2007, 08:51 AM
I would like to try this one.

Stonch
01-26-2007, 11:11 AM
If I see it, I will definitely try it - but I doubt I'll like it.

Mitchells & Butlers - a huge pubco - owns such a variety of pubs it is difficult to see where exactly it will turn up. On one hand they own the cheesy O'Neills theme pubs and the miserable, sterile All Bar One chain, but on the other hand they own some great, "unbranded" pubs in Central London, such as my local the Crown Tavern, where I spend new year's eve - see here for a review - http://stonch.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-years-eve.html

If the Crown gets it in, I will definitely try it. They get a lot of beers that M&B are trialling so I chances are high it'll get Guinness Red. I don't expect much, but you never know.

__________________
Visit my beer blog - http://stonch.blogspot.com

Insidious Rex
01-26-2007, 01:25 PM
Anyone had the Guinness 39 brew they made recently? I heard it was released in Ireland only. It was basically Guinness Stout with lots of hops added at the very end of the brew cycle. Wish I could see what that tasted like...

MeridianFC
01-26-2007, 02:24 PM
Anybody remember the Guinness Gold experiment?

stronk
01-26-2007, 07:49 PM
Well, I might duck my head into a couple of O'Neills pubs, but don't bet on it, they're pretty nasty places. If I come across it, I'll write a review.

dparsons
01-27-2007, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by Derekt2
I had Guiness Bitter sometime back. Wasn't too bad, reminded a bit of a Boddingtons which (duck, is Richard around?) is a widget prodcut I kind of like. Think I'll pass on the Red, tho.

I'd be more interested in the Red than the Bitter. Especially if the Bitter tasted like Boddingtons. :D


Its interesting how much the article and Guiness statements sound like one coming from a US macrobrewery and not much like a microbrewery description of a new brew.

Stonch
01-27-2007, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by dparsons
I'd be more interested in the Red than the Bitter. Especially if the Bitter tasted like Boddingtons. :D


Its interesting how much the article and Guiness statements sound like one coming from a US macrobrewery and not much like a microbrewery description of a new brew.

...not really surprising, because Guinness is the archetypal macrobrewer!

I've said this before but its worth saying again - Guinness IS a macrobrewery! It is not by any stretch of the imagination a micro! There seems to be a genuine misunderstanding of this point in the States. Please let's clear it up!

By the way, I don't intensely dislike Guinness, I do once in a while have a pint if there's really nothing better (which is mercifully rare), but I really think it sits firmly in the "dull macrobrews" class of beers. It isn't utterly tasteless like American Budweiser or Fosters and such, and it looks nice, but it really isn't a beer for the beer lover.

__________________
Visit my beer blog - http://stonch.blogspot.com

steveh
01-27-2007, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Stonch
I've said this before but its worth saying again - Guinness IS a macrobrewery! It is not by any stretch of the imagination a micro! There seems to be a genuine misunderstanding of this point in the States. Please let's clear it up!

I'm not sure where you've found this misunderstanding, there have been many posts entitled: "What's Your Favorite Macro" trying to prompt members to chose between BMC. Chaz and I have often responded with Guinness and Spaten.

Don't sell us goofy Yanks short, many of us have visited Ireland and toured the Guinness brewery - we know what we're dealing with and what we're getting. For some of us, Guinness was our springboard into different and more flavorful beer - unfortunately, Guinness is slipping under the control of Diago (SP?) these days, but I still hold a soft spot for the beer of my ancestors.

S.

stronk
01-27-2007, 03:34 PM
He got the misunderstanding from the above post, Steveh. I know plenty of people on these boards will know Guinness well enough, but I think from the status Guinness has in the States a lot of the general public are fooled into thinking it is a micro (after all, there are a lot of nostalgic several-generation expats who see Ireland as some sort of tiny quaint misty isle where every pub has a folk band, huge dog and open fire; I've met them all over the world).

Then again, I don't know the US well enough, so this may be a misconception.

Still, Guinness is not a lost cause. Their Foreign Extra Stout is really a very nice beer. And the Original isn't half bad, either, IMO.

Stonch
01-28-2007, 01:09 PM
Stronk, thanks for clarifying what I meant!

I agree Foreign Extra is a good beer - indeed I picked up three bottles of the Nigerian variety from Tesco today...

Cheers!

__________________
Visit my beer blog - http://stonch.blogspot.com

steveh
01-28-2007, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by stronk
but I think from the status Guinness has in the States a lot of the general public are fooled into thinking it is a micro

I don't think this is at all true with those who know beer. Those that don't wouldn't look twice at Guinness anyway - every swill drinker I know thinks Guinness is thick, oily stuff and wouldn't care about the size (or long history) of the brewery.

Maybe I just have too many friends who are well-versed in beer, I don't know.

S.

steveh
01-28-2007, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by dparsons
Its interesting how much the article and Guiness statements sound like one coming from a US macrobrewery and not much like a microbrewery description of a new brew.

If this is the "above post" in question, I see this as DP giving Guinness credit as being a little above the typical macro in quality -- and possibly worried about Guinness starting to turn into that typical macro (thank you Diago). Then again, I don't know DP at all, but he's been around for a while.

S.

stronk
01-28-2007, 08:22 PM
Ambiguity is not our friend.

dparsons
01-29-2007, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by Stonch
I've said this before but its worth saying again - Guinness IS a macrobrewery! It is not by any stretch of the imagination a micro! There seems to be a genuine misunderstanding of this point in the States. Please let's clear it up!


I think its becasue it gets lumped in with the "special" beers over here. If you walk in the grocery store you have half your beer space (or more) devoted to BMC. The other half is Micros and Imports. Guiness is also a good deal better than BMC as are the micros. The groupl of them get associated as similar beers.

I agree about Guiness being so-so. Frequently enough its the best thing available, so ...

HarkJohnny
01-29-2007, 12:10 PM
hhmmm...... I supposed Guinness to be one of the less likely to brew a 'gimmick' beer. i'd give it a fair shot if I saw it available though.

chazwicke
01-29-2007, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by steveh
I don't think this is at all true with those who know beer. Those that don't wouldn't look twice at Guinness anyway - every swill drinker I know thinks Guinness is thick, oily stuff and wouldn't care about the size (or long history) of the brewery.

Maybe I just have too many friends who are well-versed in beer, I don't know.

S.

I see it exactly the same way. I've had many people over the years say that they thought Guinness was thick and oily. But those who think it is that way are primarily BMC drinkers and would not know anyway. I think most Americans would consider Guinness a premium beer simply because it is an import and is mostly served on nitrogen taps. It is definately better than any BMC product.

MeridianFC
01-29-2007, 01:21 PM
There's no doubt that Guinness is a macro but they do make decent beer. Well the stout anyway. As Chaz alludes to above they're viewed a bit differently over here because they're a "Premium Import". That said the amount of swill that's been passed off as a "Premium Import" would drown a small nation (yes that's you I'm talking to Heineken, Tetleys, Stella Artois, Watneys, Carona, Molson, Fosters, etc.)

Insidious Rex
01-30-2007, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by steveh
I don't think this is at all true with those who know beer. Those that don't wouldn't look twice at Guinness anyway - every swill drinker I know thinks Guinness is thick, oily stuff and wouldn't care about the size (or long history) of the brewery.


I dont know about that. I think Guinness is a separate animal entirely. An exception to either rule. When I was in college it was very much considered a very "cool" choice to drink but not as regularly as the god awful stuff more because of expense then taste and texture. Sure the girls wouldnt touch it but the frat boys worshipped it. But thats the only half decent beer they would drink. Their marketing has been highly successful in this regard. It WAS a very popular beer on school campuses up until the malt beverage invasion. Now who knows...

steveh
01-30-2007, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Insidious Rex
When I was in college it was very much considered a very "cool" choice to drink ... It WAS a very popular beer on school campuses up until the malt beverage invasion. Now who knows...

Two words to pull out there, "cool" and "invasion" (implying 'the new kid in town'). Everything you're talking about is a sign of a fad. I remember when it was ultra-cool to be drinking Guinness, but I think that in itself is a separate animal too. In with the In crowd, then came Stella. I don't know how many times I see guys trying to look all cool by steppin' up to order a Stella. Now it's malternatives. Whatever.

Serious beer geeks don't drink fads, they're into the history and culture of the beers they're enjoying. I can't tell you how many times I've read through the pages of my Jackson tomes just to try to find another little tidbit I may have missed about Guinness or Spaten or Sierra Nevada.

S.