Forum menu
Nah, there's a fair difference in flavours between different brands. Our run of the mill gin is Gordons, if we have a hendricks, bombay, botanics there's definitely a difference in taste.
And I can hear a difference when using expensive speaker cables.
And I can hear a difference when using expensive speaker cables.
If you cant tell the difference between say Hendricks, Gordons and Carrounn then there's something wrong with your sense of smell/taste.
not much mention of the tonic used in the above posts. I reckon decent tonic, fever tree and others, can make a huge difference to even a run of the mill gin.
That was my point. There are clear differences in flavour between different tonics, as there are in gins when sampled neat. But is the difference in expensive gins really noticeable when diluted at least 2:1? I suggest not, and blind taste tests tend to support my view.
If you cant tell the difference between say Hendricks, Gordons and Carrounn then there's something wrong with your sense of smell/taste.
If you can't tell the difference when using expensive speaker cables then there is something wrong with your hearing.
... and blind taste tests tend to support my view.
really? I've done blind gin tastings (with tonic) before and absolutely everyone in the room could pick out the differences. Without a question.
It's gonna be whatever name/label you think the Mrs will like the look of. Nothing else matters.
probably one of only 2/3 people in the thread with any common sense, threads just turned into a ****y my gins more niche than yours thread
really? I've done blind gin tastings (with tonic) before and absolutely everyone in the room could pick out the differences. Without a question.
Really. As five minutes on google would tell you, and apparently acknowledged by an industry insider.
This may amuse: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/aug/21/artisanal-gin-henry-jeffreys-empire-of-drinks
Really. As five minutes on google would tell you, and apparently acknowledged by an industry insider.
Two things.
One, some guy saying that some guy said that some people can't tell the difference is weaker than a weak thing that's feeling a bit under the weather.
Not being able to identify your favourite is not the same as there being no difference.
One, some guy saying that some guy said that some people can't tell the difference is weaker than a weak thing that's feeling a bit under the weather.Not being able to identify your favourite is not the same as there being no difference.
Where did I say there was no difference?
What I actually said was I couldn't reliably distinguish the different brands, and that I question whether people could reliably tell an expensive gin from a cheap ones. The various blind tastings support my view.
But you carry on believing what you want to believe.
And you carry on believing thatThe various blind tastings support my view.
And you carry on believing that
Bloke off the internet tells me to believe an objective test which refutes the opinion of the bloke off the internet.
Tricky conundrum, that one.
Bloke on internet says controversial thing to sell book, bloke on internet laps it up as SCIENCE!
Professor Cornelius Ampleforths
I can recommend the Rum too - it's incredibly lovely!
As for arguing over Gin, who cares, lets go for a drink 🙂
Absolutely. That's why I wouldn't quote an article from the Guardian as 'proof', especially that one. I've made my own mind up based on my own research. I don't need you to believe me or change your mind. But, as I said, carry on 🙂Tricky conundrum, that one.
Absolutely. That's why I wouldn't quote an article from the Guardian as 'proof', especially that one. I've made my own mind up based on my own research. I don't need you to believe me or change your mind. But, as I said, carry on
I'm not quoting the Guardian article as proof of anything. That's why I said "this may amuse".
Still, if you want to believe that something is better because it cost more, then it's your money, not mine.
Bloke on internet says controversial thing to sell book, bloke on internet laps it up as SCIENCE!
Your determination to misread what was written is instructive.
Same tonic, different Gins, very noticeable difference in some. Depends what you like. Each to their own
To find a middle ground between the above...
There is a difference in taste between gins but when mixed with tonic its pretty subtle. Different tonics make more difference than different gins to the overall quality of the drink. A 'good' gin with a horrible tonic will taste horrible whilst a good tonic with a bog standard gin (or supermarket own brand) will taste pretty reasonable to most. Unless you splash out on expensive tonic, you are wasting your cash on anything other than bog standard gin....unless its all about the label for you.
Personally I'm amazed in the explosion in gins when in reality it's the tonic that makes a more significant difference.
Try Sir Robin of Locksley - it's brewed in Sheffield and it is rather nice
Make your own: http://www.45ginschool.com
The one I made a couple of weeks ago came out pretty good! 8)
The Burleigh's Gin made by those folks isn't half bad either. Although must admit to preferring The Botanist and Caorunn.
This is like the usual 'What's the 'best' whisky' thread.
Listen ****wits. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 'BEST'. There's only 'favourites'
I despair with people on here.
http://www.lakesdistillery.com/shop/category/gin/
Got some for the mrs for her birthday, she seems happy with it.
This is like the usual 'What's the 'best' whisky' thread.
I don't claim to have read every thread ever but I don't recall ever seeing a thread about a 'best' whisky. A lot of 'recommend me's but never a 'best' to get your panties in a twist about.