Eric,
I would consider Guinness to be extremely high quality. Consistency and quality control are perhaps the greatest assets of a brewer and Guinness has that in spades. (The same could be said for Budweiser or most of the other macrobrewers)
It is mild in flavour compared to Imperial Stouts and other big bold beers being produced today, but as *the* iconic dark beer it is an easy target, but I think it achieves its goals quite well. Just to be clear, I know what you mean when you say that you consider it to be lacking - I just think it gets knocked unfairly from time to time.
The thickness, IMO, is mostly an illusion due to the nitrogenated head. The beer is quite light despite its creamy consistency - particularly after a few pints!
okrent,
Sorry, I thought you conflated the two. I just wanted to point out that they were different beers.
sothron,
It sounds like we could be good drinking buddies. I love port, bourbon, and a good American IPA like you wouldn't believe.
I would consider Guinness to be extremely high quality. Consistency and quality control are perhaps the greatest assets of a brewer and Guinness has that in spades. (The same could be said for Budweiser or most of the other macrobrewers)
It is mild in flavour compared to Imperial Stouts and other big bold beers being produced today, but as *the* iconic dark beer it is an easy target, but I think it achieves its goals quite well. Just to be clear, I know what you mean when you say that you consider it to be lacking - I just think it gets knocked unfairly from time to time.
The thickness, IMO, is mostly an illusion due to the nitrogenated head. The beer is quite light despite its creamy consistency - particularly after a few pints!
okrent,
Sorry, I thought you conflated the two. I just wanted to point out that they were different beers.
sothron,
It sounds like we could be good drinking buddies. I love port, bourbon, and a good American IPA like you wouldn't believe.