The Guinness Pour and the Price of Beer
A little while back, I was considering the necessity of the famous (or infamous if you’ve ever had to wait at a bar for one) two-part pour. It supposedly takes ’119.5 seconds’, but it sure feels a lot longer. Now in the old days, when Guinness and Porter were sold, conventions were different to say the least. The equipment used from the pipes to the tap were completely different. Porter was an old English drink so Guinness wasn’t original by any means. The old ‘plain porter’ – as in ‘pint of plain’ – was discontinued in 1974. In the old days, Guinness was served in wooden casks. Many years later, the same ‘technique’ is used to pour the pints. However, this practice has dubious benefits, according to the European Beer Guide:
This tradition comes from when Guinness was served from the cask, and initially older beer was poured into a glass until it was 3/4 full, then left to stand. When ordered by the customer, the glass was topped up from younger, gassier beer, producing the traditional head. As the beer is no longer blended from different ages of beer, the double pour is no longer required for the mixing of beers but is still maintained as it produces a better pint as the head does not over fill the glass and need to be discarded.
According to the above quote, the sole reason for the tedious wait is solely that, if one were not to do it, the pint would ‘over fill’ the glass. In my opinion, as a sometime bartender myself, the prevention of this eventuality can be achieved by stopping the pour fractionally early.
The reason I’m confused about the whole debacle is as follows. Everyone has specific tastes when it comes to Guinness. Almost every ‘seasoned’ drinker will give you their opinion on where the best pint is served, and what the ideal ‘head size’ is. Some think 1 inch is perfect, others say closer to 2 inches is ideal. Similarly, the question of serving temperature is another debatable issue. According to Guinness, ‘Draught’ should be served at 6 °C, whereas ‘Extra Cold’ should be 3.5ºC. However, I’ve spoken with a few grizzled old men who’ve been drinking the black stuff for 60 years and they claim that it is/was best served warm/at room temperature and that ‘the new stuff isn’t the same’
Now then, this brings us to the science bit. Each Guinness tap is equipped with a five-hole disc restrictor plate – which basically compresses the liquid like putting your finger over a hose and increasing the pressure. This forces the nitrogen and liquid through at very close quarters, causing intense friction and so a thick, creamy head forms atop the pint. Happy days, tuck in and enjoy your pint. No, you must wait patiently as ‘good things come to those who wait’. So you’re in a nightclub or bar and it’s your round; the order is 3 pints of beer and a Guinness. You will be served your beers instantly (relatively) and the bartender will typically take for the order and then serve a few others until the 3/4 full pint settles to a black colour (supposedly ‘dark ruby’, according to Guinness). It’s happened to me, and I’ve done it to customers before. The Guinness is temporarily forgotten and when you eventually get the pint you have to wait another minute or so before you can drink it, as it re-settles!
Well, this is what I thought until I was sitting with a few friends having a couple of pints. As usual, I began a rant about something, this time it happened to be on the subject of the black stuff. So, after a disagreement in principle, we decided we’d order 2 pints – one with a single-pour and one with a double-pour. We passed around the pints and universally agreed that the 2-part pour tasted superior, owing to the thicker head (the heads were the same apparent size, it was the consistency of the nitorgen bubbles though, they seem thicker). After sitting open-mouthed with the finger pointing accusingly in silence for a while, as I tried to conjure an excuse, I admitted defeat. Maybe it is worth it. Then again, I thought, what is the difference in marginal utility in the two samples when weighed against the opportunity cost or disutility incurred by waiting for the extra 2 minutes?
I really have no idea, never heard of that before
