My Early Experience With Guinness Stout

Guinness seems to exercise a special fascination on the beer community, despite that Guinness draft, its marquee product for decades, has a rather mainstream flavour. Or non-craft flavour if you will.

I’ve probably got a dozen pieces now here on various aspects of Guinness, the last one discussed the views of a Dubliner who remembered pre-nitrogen-dispense Guinness.

I’ve mentioned a number of times tasting Special Export, Foreign Extra Stout, Extra Stout and Guinness draft. Today I thought I’d mention my earlier impressions of Guinness, serially as I tried the products from about 1971.

The first Guinness I had was the Labatt-brewed one introduced in Canada in 1965. I encountered it first in Quebec, maybe 1971.

Guinness and Labatt (now AB InBev) formed a venture where, according to online sources that sound credible, Labatt brewed a pale ale mash to which was added a hopped wort extract sent from Dublin. Its fermentation became Guinness Extra Stout here, at 5% abv.

It’s still sold, and tastes about the same as way back then.

It had a dry, burnt “chalky” taste, not a bad drink but not one that really seemed, looking back in the light of so much taste experience including historical recreations of stout, all that traditional. But you wouldn’t mistake it for any usual Canadian beer, true.

The next one, again early 1970s, was Guinness Extra Stout (nominally the same beer) as sent to the U.S. from Dublin. That one was much sweeter, richer, and I think higher in abv than the Canadian one. I remember a soy-like quality. There are good period descriptions in U.S. beer books whose authors I’ve often mentioned here.

The next was Guinness draft, the nitro-charged one that resulted from the savvy of Guinness brewing technologists. It was sent out internationally from the 60s if not earlier, and finally supplanted cask stout in the Republic by the mid-60s. How this beer aroused such passions in 1960s and 70s London is a mystery to me.* Its blandness was the main trait I noted, and this when I had had few if any craft beers (that was just starting).

It`s not a question of beer not travelling well either, as I`ve had Guinness draft many times in England, France, and once at Dublin airport and they tasted very similar.

I think my dislike of the nitrogen system started then. It has as much to do with the gas itself as the beer, I don’t like it as applied even to flavourful craft beers.

So net net to that point, the basic exported Extra Stout, filtered and pasteurized as it was, was a good product and worthy of the Guinness name and heritage.

After that, I tasted Foreign Extra Stout including one from Nigeria, one from Hong Kong and one or more from the Caribbean. The Irish one was best and the earliest samples, maybe early 1990s, were better than today’s, IMO. The lactic edge seems reduced, and in general the beer is rather light for what was all-malt and heavily hopped originally.

After that came 8% Special Extra Stout in France and Belgium, also early 90s. Excellent certainly but as tasted five years ago, rather less good IMO. I thought Special Extra Stout was all-malt 20 and 30 years ago. My last tasting seemed to suggest it’s not today. That may be one factor in the change if in fact my recollection of all-malt is right.

And then I found Guinness West Indies Porter a couple of months ago in France: best of the bottled bunch and something I would buy here happily. It is the closest to a 19th century flavour so far and clearly some effort was put into that although as always with large companies the fine points of production can be elusive.

Current Extra Stout, also labeled Original, as sent to the U.S. is good, but once again the second time I had it, it seemed less good. (Up until a few years ago, Labatt-brewed Guinness was sent to the U.S. to serve as Extra Stout, but this has now been replaced by Irish-brewed Extra Stout, a more creditable arrangement).

Guinness has issued other tweaks of its famous drink. There was a 200th anniversary one that seemed little different from the normal one except a tad more roasty. There is the newish Dublin Porter (bottled), I haven’t had it yet but online reviews don’t seem that encouraging.

And I almost forgot: the widget can and widget bottle Guinness, intended to deliver the draft nitro effect. I’m not a fan. While the adjunct element in any Guinness grates to a purist like myself, it seems most prominent in the latter format.

So where does it end up? There’s a couple of good products in there, notably the West Indies Porter and Foreign Extra Stout. Maybe Special Export and the 1944 Antwerp version (seemingly the same beer) too but I reserve judgment until I taste them. And none of the beers just mentioned are available in Ontario or anywhere in Canada.

Considering the gold-plated history of this company, considering that it still has not issued a bottle- or cask-conditioned version of current Guinness much less a 19th century recreation, it’s not that much really. I say it more in sadness than annoyance. I know well how large companies operate. I’ve seen many storied old names become rather ordinary, not just beer but other drinks and many foods. It does seem an almost inevitable pattern.

But there are exceptions, Pilsner Urquell, say, or Heineken to a degree. A number of German beers. Fuller’s beers in London. Etc.

Does it matter? Well, to me, yes. Despite the plethora of craft products, Guinness is special simply because it is Guinness. Its procedures, ingredients, especially the yeast and hop bill, are not quite like any others. Deployed in a craft way, which is another way of saying going back to the roots, should produce something, not just very good, but Guinness-good.

I think Guinness should focus on the new Blonde beer which is very nice, on launching West Indies Porter and a draft version into many more markets, and on making available some naturally-conditioned stout. This will delight fans who know the Guinness history well and admire the many creditable features of the company including its longevity, importance to Irish history and its economy, and adapatiblity to changing market and other conditions.


*If it was all-malt then, or even all-malt but for roasted barley adjunct, that might explain it.

Note re image: The image above was obtained from the  Internet. All intellectual property therein belongs solely to its lawful owner or authorized user, as applicable. Image is used for educational and historical purposes. All feedback welcomed.





6 thoughts on “My Early Experience With Guinness Stout”

  1. Enjoyed your article. I have enjoyed Guinness as well as many other lagers, porters, and stouts through the years and before our trip to Ireland in 2016 everyone told me how different, i.e. better, the Guinness in Ireland was, but this didn’t seem to make much sense to me. How could it be that different? The first day in Dublin, I went to O’Neils Pub, which inside and out looked just how I imagined an Irish pub might look and ordered a Guinness. I immediately noticed the difference between what I had been drinking in the States vs. this beer. At the Guinness factory I drank, ahem, shall I say…”several” Guinness and everyone was amazing. To me the Dublin Guinness is smoother, less bitter, creamier, and the head is very thick (you can draw in it and the drawing stays!). I also had several Guinness in Greystones where we stayed and they too also had these properties. It’s not to say that I dislike the US Guinness and I have no idea why they taste so different to me, but I find myself missing the Dublin variety very much! I don’t believe this is a placebo effect because I went into it thinking there would be no difference. It seemed implausible to me that there would BE any difference, and I was surprised that there was. My wife, son, and daughter (who spent a semester studying in Ireland) all came to the same conclusion.

    Back in the States I’m not especially fond of the Guinness Blonde, but I do like the Extra Stout. I found your article while looking for information on the 200th Anniversary Export which I had for the first time last night. It immediately seemed closer to the Dublin Guinness to me…smoother, creamier, less bitter. Would like to try the West Indies Porter you mentioned…will look for it!

    • Thanks for this input. I only had draft Guinness in Ireland once, at the airport when stopping over in Dublin, and did not notice any difference to ours. Yet many people say what you do, I can’t judge until I have the chance to try it there more rigourously. I do know experienced tasters (North American) though who say it’s no different to here.

      It’s the same 40% cereal adjunct, same nitro dispense … Freshness is probably a factor, but still. I’ve had it many times in England and it’s the same as in North America. Can it be that different just over the Irish sea?

      The 200th Anniversary was not bad, but not that different really to the other standard iterations, and I recall an unpleasant aged note I didn’t like.

      The draft FES and SES do sound promising though, i.e., at Halethorpe’s temporary tap even as this must be nitro, adjunct stout too.

      In the 1800s Guinness was all-barley malt and served naturally conditioned…


      • Yeah, I don’t know? I certainly wouldn’t call myself a beer tasting expert! LOL I thought the Smithwicks tasted better there too…maybe it is all placebo effect? I definitely prefer draft over bottle and I avoid canned beer like the plague!

        • Well, you could be right. The only way to know is to organize a comprehensive, international taste test.

          Canned beer can be very good if not pasteurised, as most craft beer isn’t, and bought fresh. One advantage is, no light gets in, which can damage beer flavour.

  2. The West Indies Porter is readily available here in London, my local pub has it and I can get it in most off-licences. I am not convinced of its quality, myself, but will give it another try.

    When I first arrived in London in 1992, nitro-dispensed Guinness was the ‘cool alternative’ to bland lagers on draught in pubs. I recall people seeking out pubs where it was available, it had a certain left-wing cachet, it was almost a political statement of who you were.

    That may have had something (or a lot) to do with political situation at the time. The IRA/INLA bombs were still going off here. Big bombs.

    I had a few sessions on it, but never enjoyed it past the third pint, so desisted.

    On the other hand there were a few pubs which had ‘Irish Guinness’ – they were revered as ‘everyone’ knew that it would be a ‘better’ pint. I don’t know about that, but the only draught Guinness I have ever really enjoyed was in Dublin in 2003. Man, that was nice! Creamy, with just enough body to satisfy but not enough to have just the one.

    • That’s interesting and perhaps it’s true that Dublin (local) Guinness is really a cut above. Many says so, although I know some beer people who maintain Guinness in Ireland is no different to anywhere.

      The lefty thing is interesting because Guinness/Diageo is a large sophisticated international company with long Anglo-Irish roots of course. But brand preferences are often unrelated to the commercial reality. PBR, the hipster preference for so long here, is produced by a large corporation (Pabst) which does not own a brewery today.

      Guinness has gone though various phases of popularity which attests to its iconic status IMO. But I think for the future it needs to add to the basic marquee stout as that alone may not be enough to sustain the enterprise longterm. It’s a different market today. Blonde should be part of the strategy, is I think, but so should offering more characterful examples of Guinness.

      It doesn’t need to invent them, they are rooted in the company’s history…

      I recommend Hughes’ book for its many insights including information on 19th Guinness mashbills. The book can be confusing, at least it was for me and Special Export is not made 100% clear, but it is better than nothing.

      Google too the John Martin website in Belgium for more info there.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: