Kronenberg 1664 [beer]

Am I really suppose to believe if I buy this beer it’s going to taste like it did in 1664?
If not how close would the taste be?
I call bullshit on this. But really how close is it to being like it was in 1664?

I have no idea, but it’s great beer!

Is anyone really claiming the recipe dates back to 1664? That’s the year the company was founded. The beer only dates from 1952.

Moved to Cafe Society, and title edited to better indicate subject.

Brand in Holland claims to have a beer (Brand UP, short for Urtyp) that they claim tastes like the original from 1341… I doubt it, good beer though!

Shitty macrolager. It probably does taste like beer kept from 1664.

According to ratebeer, the ingredients are Water, barley malt, maize, wheat malt, colour:caramel, hop extract. Even for a mass-brewed lager, it’s poor.

Yes, the recipe is identical. However, it’s generally served at a lower temperature these days, due to advances in refrigeration technology, which can alter the taste substantially. If you wish to perform your own taste test, it’s possible to add an after-market straw attachment to the Rotoplex 4000 time machine. The procedure is a little fiddly, but feel free to PM me if you have any difficulties. A deft hand on the controls is required, to avoid any embarrassing incidents.

It might be a bit stronger, though. In those days beer was the only purified water to be had and the food was very salty, so people drank enormous quantities of it, which couldn’t be done if is wasn’t very weak.

There’s no way the recipe could be identical since light pilsner malt wasn’t developed until the 1840’s.

I’ve often wondered what, if any, similarity in taste Smithwicks (1710) and Bushmills (1608) currently have with their original drinks. The link back to the 18th and 17th centuries isn’t entirely unbroken in both instances so I’m going to guess the original drinks may have been completely different to the current ones.

Well they wouldn’t be *completely *different - they’d at least be alcoholic!

If anything I’d think the old whiskies would be more likely to be recognisable than the beers, albeit with a lot more variation than the modern drinker is used to.

Oh and Virgil Tibbs, you can say what you like about the brewers of ‘shitty macrolagers’ - but you’ve got to admit they produce vast quantities of their brews, year in and year out with virtually no discernable variation for us legions of swill drinkers.

Here’s a interesting article about beer archaeology: