Carling

Status
Not open for further replies.


Wilfy said:
Erm, I think it does like. If you added it at the end, you would just get a really sweet beer.
Click to expand...

you are more informed than i on these matters marra but as i understand it all beer has sugar added as part of the brewing process? yet the vast majority of beers (excl amstel) will list only water, malted barley and hops on the ingredients. the sugar is a catalyst that converts to alcohol mid process hence not listed. unless its added at the end (maybe not that much tbf) hence needs calling out on the ingredients list. correct or not?
 
HANDSOME_DAN said:
you are more informed than i on these matters marra but as i understand it all beer has sugar added as part of the brewing process? yet the vast majority of beers (excl amstel) will list only water, malted barley and hops on the ingredients. the sugar is a catalyst that converts to alcohol mid process hence not listed. unless its added at the end (maybe not that much tbf) hence needs calling out on the ingredients list. correct or not?
Click to expand...
Mashing the malts produces sugars that can be turned to alcohol without the need to add actual sugars. If you look at a milk stout, it will have lactose (milk sugar) as an ingredient.
 
Wilfy said:
Mashing the malts produces sugars that can be turned to alcohol without the need to add actual sugars. If you look at a milk stout, it will have lactose (milk sugar) as an ingredient.
Click to expand...

conventional beers though, do they all have sugar added as a catalyst or not?
 
Wilfy said:
Don't think so, but I'd have have to do some research tbh.
Click to expand...

you are probably right i don't know much about beer making tbh, i just had it in my head that they used sugar, probably that old jeff goldblum holsten pils advert about turning the sugar into alcohol or something
 
LondonMackem said:
It's absolutely shite and is one of the worst lagers going. Weak, watery, and tastes of metal. As bad as Fosters and Carlsberg.

Surely if you're in a pub or at the shops, you'd go for something superior at a similar price? Kronenberg, Heineken, Grolsch, Amstel, Stella are all similar price and light years ahead in terms of taste.
Click to expand...

I'm not a larger drinker, but if I'd had a choice I'd probably opt for Fosters as its the most drinkable
Kronenborg tastes too metallic, Stella is better since they reduced the %, but it still taste a bit funny on draught, can manage bottle
Wouldn't say 30-40% more expensive is similar price either.
 
Epping said:
just a standard lager. if you put your carlsbergs, fosters, carlings all chilled down in identical galsses people would struggle to identify.

I've worked in pubs where we have accidently connected wrong barrel to a pump and no one has been any the wiser.

drink with your eyes on what comes out the pump or what glass it is served in.


as a side note my local has just ditched Peroni. was way too expensive for them to buy in. on the plus side they have replaced it with Moretti

tbh.. I don't know the last time I saw Carling on Draft down here
Click to expand...
100% agree with this. Virtually all industrially produced lagers will be the same. The only discernable difference is the alcohol content. Happy to drink a Cold fosters or carling on a hot day.

Epping said:
when they are all "super" chilled most the flavouring is masked.

it would be interesting to do some proper blind tests on people who reckon they can tell..

no doubt some will be able to but be plenty whose taste buds are shot that wouldn't have a clue
Click to expand...
It isn't just people with taste buds shot. Most people taste with their eyes as much as their taste buds. Sense of smell also has a massive impact.
 
Last edited:
Harry Angstrom said:
100% agree with this. Virtually all industrially produced lagers will be the same. The only discernable difference is the alcohol content. Happy to drink a Cold fosters or carling on a hot day.
.
Click to expand...

If we're talking cans & bottles from the fridge, then I'd agree
However, draught beers are only as cold as the pub cellar, which isn't as cold as a fridge.
And on draught beer, there is a difference in taste.
Carling is sickly
 
MEEKLANGLEYFTM said:
During a youth from 15year old to 26ish carling was all i could drink lager wise, now though i prefer a german lager or an amstel or pay the extra for a kronenbourg, i do rememeber been carried home from newcastle one night after 10pints of stella though never again
Click to expand...

puff
 
Le Chuck said:
I'm not a larger drinker, but if I'd had a choice I'd probably opt for Fosters as its the most drinkable
Kronenborg tastes too metallic, Stella is better since they reduced the %, but it still taste a bit funny on draught, can manage bottle
Wouldn't say 30-40% more expensive is similar price either.
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
Daydream Believer said:
It was always fizzy piss, you just outgrew it.
Click to expand...
I honestly thing they changed it around 1998. Maybe even tying in with when they dropped the "black label" branding and went with the "carling" on its own.
I went off it while I was still drinking lager almost exclusively, when it became just like Fosters, which destroyed its market share almost overnight.
 
Le Chuck said:
If we're talking cans & bottles from the fridge, then I'd agree
However, draught beers are only as cold as the pub cellar, which isn't as cold as a fridge.
And on draught beer, there is a difference in taste.
Carling is sickly
Click to expand...

lagers go through a chiller, as do cider and keg beers. i don't think stella/1664 is 30-40% more expensive like, 3 quid for a pint of standard, maybe 3.50 for a pint of premium up here in a normal pub? pays for itself with the ABV imo. Most people seem to like 4% stuff cos they wont get completely spannered, if i had 10 pints of wife beater id get carried home but 10 pints of carling id still be drunk but still walking
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top