It was brewed in the year that the Suez Canal opened, Charles Dickens embarked on one of his last literary tours and the Cutty Sark was launched in Scotland.
But the recently-discovered cache of 1869 ale should have been undrinkable, given the conventional brewing wisdom that even the best beers are supposed to last no more than a couple of decades. Beer experts, however, say the 137-year-old brew tastes "absolutely amazing".
The Victorian beer was part of a cache of 250 vintage bottles found in the vaults of Worthington's White Shield brewery in Burton-on-Trent.
I am not suggesting anything about "beer-drinkers" as a whole (being one myself). In fact, I am sure there are one or two beer drinkers who actually know what smoked partridge tastes like. I think you get my point. I have no problem with describing beer as tasting or smelling like apples, chocolate, bacon or even old rope (I have done that myself in this very forum). These comparisons with common well-known flavors help those people who don't know what esters, aldehydes, ketones and diacetyl alcohol are to get an idea of what the beer is like without having taken classes in organic chemistry. It just strikes me that comparing beer to smoked partridge is pretentious and elitist, in that it doesn't help the vast majority of people in this world who do not regularly eat smoked partridge to understand the flavor of the beer. There is the same tendency with creating wine descriptors to try to come up with new and exotic comparisons ( I always wondered about comparing wine to "black leather", does it really smell different from brown leather?). I understand that the "expert" was trying to work in a Victorian reference, but he might as well have described the beer as reminiscent of pickled lark's tongues in jellied aspic.stewed coot wrote:I dunno-is it snobbish to describe what flavor-profiles beer, wine or anything else has? Also to lump all beer-drinkers together and suggest that they don't partake of fancy-ass cuisine may be a bit semi-snobbish in itself. I will grant you that the actual partridge reference may be a stretch-I could see smoky and meaty. But who knows, this guy might have nailed it on the head.
Okay I gotta get back to my can of PBR, which clearly evokes Underwood deviled ham with harmonic notes of possum spittle.
d4v3 wrote:It just strikes me that comparing beer to smoked partridge is pretentious and elitist, in that it doesn't help the vast majority of people in this world who do not regularly eat smoked partridge to understand the flavor of the beer.
I understand that the "expert" was trying to work in a Victorian reference, but he might as well have described the beer as reminiscent of pickled lark's tongues in jellied aspic.
OK, if the author of that analogy was simply trying to be lyrical rather than informative, I will let it slide. I suppose a beer that rare deserves a little poetic license. There is a good probablity that I will never taste the beer anyhow, to find out if the guy was accurate (However, now that I know smoked partridge tastes like 137 year old beer, I would really like to try it). Although, I have read other tasting notes of this particular beer (from a different stash) and cooked fowl was never mentioned. However, when reviewing another beer during the same event, a taster pronounced it as having a nose like the interior of an old leather suitcase.David Hammond wrote:I think the best argument against this descriptor is that it is not helpful to most people. It's also pretentious and elitist, as you say, but those are more or less aesthetic considerations, don't you think?
Does that mean you liked it?David Hammond wrote:I don't know lark's tongue, but after last night's dinner I feel I can speak with some authority about duck's tongue. It was reminiscent of three-year old Sharps that had been left in the sun for a few days prior to drinking.
Point taken. Still, it is an unusual way to describe a beer.Mike G wrote:You know... smoked partridge probably isn't an elitist description in those circles.
Nearly every hit the phrase gets comes from Britain and suggests a foodstuff not out of the price range or experience of the middle class, at least in rural areas
d4v3 wrote:Their home page has scrolling text that says: "Do you have a grey squirrel problem? Once dispatched, try having it smoked. How about serving smoked squirrel canapes at your next party?" Cathy2, are you listening?
I was a big fan of your raccoon hors d'oeuvres served at last summer's picnic. When I told a friend about it, he told me there are some guys from Arkansas living in the neighborhood, that regularly smoke raccoons and squirrels they catch around their apartment building. When my friend asked them if they ever eat possum, they looked aghast, and asked "What do think we are, the Beverly Hillbillies?". Apparently, they have nailed all the pelts to their backporch above their smoker. When their landlord saw the pelts, instead of telling them to take them down, he smiled and told them to keep up the good work. At any rate, I do have a grey squirrel problem, and anybody who wants to "dispatch" it for me, is more than welcome to the bounty (they are chubby ones). I will even loan you my smoker and a box of saltines.Cathy2 wrote:Thanks for thinking of me, I guess!