1
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 162-year-old Guinness bottle found in shipwreck that could reveal original recipe
Posted on 8/7/26 at 11:21 am to Drydock
Posted on 8/7/26 at 11:21 am to Drydock
quote:
Like to know the depth it was at. Shallow would be less likely to be contaminated
The article said the upside down ones were fine because the cork remained sealed and the air bubble was at the bottom of the bottle. All the right side up ones were contaminated.
Even if it wasn't contaminated, the stuff inside degrades over time. It can't possibly taste good.
Posted on 8/7/26 at 11:24 am to Shexter
That's a panis.
Posted on 8/7/26 at 11:27 am to BitBuster
quote:
Even if it wasn't contaminated, the stuff inside degrades over time. It can't possibly taste good.
My guess would be the cool ocean temperature and lack of UV light may have kept any organics from going sour. Still, any beer 162 years old is going to probably taste more like vinegar.
Posted on 8/7/26 at 11:34 am to BitBuster
quote:
I'm sure the malt bill (recipe) hasn't changed much, if at all. Guiness began brewing in 1759. The bottle was from the 1860s. The brewery had been operating for about 100 years when this bottle was made.
What they probably mean is the DNA of the grains used back then, and how they differ from today's varieties.
Grains today, are highly modified for starch conversion which requires less involved brewing techniques to extract the sugars in the grain. I doubt any beer brewed decades ago would come close to the same as what we can do today. Not to mention, the cleaning and sanitizing practices we employ today did not exist back then. Old beer likely was not what we consider good by today's standards.
However, it is neat and interesting to try and recreate historical beers. Dogfish head did that with a few beers by examining the trace elements left behind in old clay pots from the egptians and even a "spit beer" that the ancient south american tribes used to make.
Posted on 8/7/26 at 11:34 am to Shexter
this is the oldest beer I've ever had.
1902 Bass Kings Ale.
It was in drinkable condition-barely..
Posted on 8/7/26 at 11:42 am to bleeng
Even the sailors were shitlording the good stuff 200 years ago!
Posted on 8/7/26 at 12:51 pm to Shexter
Did they find any Blue Moon?
Posted on 8/7/26 at 12:59 pm to el Gaucho
quote:
They should make car bombs with it
I just threw up in my mouth
Posted on 8/7/26 at 1:02 pm to Shexter
Well, why in the heck did Guinness go and lose their original recipe? Was the Recipe Librarian an inveterate Irish Drunk? Sorry, I mean . . . was the librarian Irish?
Posted on 8/7/26 at 1:58 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
quote:
"If not, most likely the beer would still be drinkable."
Meanwhile Bud Light just rolling out of the factory is undrinkable.
Thanks everyone for coming! Goodnight!
Posted on 8/7/26 at 2:03 pm to Shexter
Maybe the original recipe sucked and that is the reason they quit using it.
Posted on 8/7/26 at 2:05 pm to Champagne
quote:
Extra Stout is supposed to be the original recipe
Guinness Extra Stout is based on a beer first brewed in 1821, Ingredients Water Malted Barley Barley Roasted Barley Hops Yeast
ETA: What's in those bottles may not even be the original recipe. The beer in these bottles was made many years after the first Guinness beer was made.
This post was edited on 8/7/26 at 2:08 pm
Posted on 8/7/26 at 2:11 pm to Shexter
Huge marketing opportunity for Guinness. Roll out an 1864 brew with the "original" recipe.
Posted on 8/7/26 at 2:33 pm to KosmoCramer
They had to use living things to make it, so yeah.
Posted on 8/7/26 at 3:00 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
I didn't know beer had DNA
Yeast has DNA, barley has DNA, hops has DNA. But it seems like you'd need more than just DNA to make the beer.
This post was edited on 8/7/26 at 3:02 pm
Posted on 8/7/26 at 3:10 pm to Shexter
quote:
Panis
quote:
Butts
Soccer Board
Posted on 8/7/26 at 4:33 pm to MountainTiger
quote:
Yeast has DNA, barley has DNA, hops has DNA. But it seems like you'd need more than just DNA to make the beer.
Everything from the materials it sits in and flows through along the process, what they cleaned containers with, temperatures at each step along the process contributes to flavor as well. Having the bottle solves none of that.
Posted on 8/7/26 at 5:10 pm to calcotron
quote:
Everything from the materials it sits in and flows through along the process, what they cleaned containers with, temperatures at each step along the process contributes to flavor as well. Having the bottle solves none of that.
All of that and more. How was the barley roasted? What proportions of barley were used? What was the mash temp? When were hops added? What temperature did it ferment at? How long was it aged and in what? About the only thing they know is the water but even that may have changed since then.
Posted on 8/7/26 at 6:44 pm to Shexter
The prospect of an ancient creamer is tantalizing
Posted on 8/7/26 at 11:27 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
Meanwhile Bud Light just rolling out of the factory is undrinkable.
They can't even determine Bud Light's gender, let alone its DNA
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News