I, too, do not like the taste of alcohol and feel no real desire to seek it out as a tasty food. I’ll admit, though, that I also don’t like to consume things that reduce cognitive function, so it’s possible I don’t like the taste as a side effect, but I rather doubt it.
Now, I do like champagne, but usually only the stuff that costs $150 a bottle. I say this having found out the prices only after I tried the champagne and liked it: since I like it, I want to know what it is. There are probably also expensive champagnes that don’t taste as good, I’ve just never looked for them, but high price does seem to be a necessary condition for good champagne. To be fair to the post’s original request, though, I have to admit that I like these champagnes because they are “smooth”: they have no alcohol burn and don’t smell or taste like they have alcohol in them, so I might as well have sparkling cider.
Finally, note that until the 20th century people drank much larger quantities of alcohol than today because it was needed to make water safer to drink. If you could afford it, adding a little wine or grain alcohol to the water would go a long way towards reducing the chance of infection from water-borne illnesses. So in those times people probably enjoyed the taste because they became accustomed to it early in life, much the way Americans love tomato ketchup and coke although adults from other parts of the world, when introduced to these flavors, often do not.*
*I can’t find a source for this, but I know I’ve heard it several places. Maybe it’s just a modern myth?
A lot of the beer they drank throughout the day was ’small beer”—made from a second run of water through the mash… it was about as alcoholic as modern-day ginger beer. So—yeah, they did spend a lot of their time more intoxicated than us… but not totally smashed all the time.
Small beer goes down quite nicely (even for somebody that doesn’t like beer like me). It’s kind of like cordial—but without being sickly sweet.
I also made “small currant wine”once- which was also nice, but not as good as straight currant wine… but does let you drink a whole lot more of it during a hot day.
I also don’t have sources to hand, but I’m informed by my brewing+chemist friends that the amount of alcohol in beer is not sufficient to sterilise the liquid.
however the people of ancient times weren’t wrong… beer is sterilised (and thus safe to drink) - it’s because to make beer, you have to boil the mash. The boiling sterilises it quite effectively.
Couple of thoughts upon reading this thread.
I, too, do not like the taste of alcohol and feel no real desire to seek it out as a tasty food. I’ll admit, though, that I also don’t like to consume things that reduce cognitive function, so it’s possible I don’t like the taste as a side effect, but I rather doubt it.
Now, I do like champagne, but usually only the stuff that costs $150 a bottle. I say this having found out the prices only after I tried the champagne and liked it: since I like it, I want to know what it is. There are probably also expensive champagnes that don’t taste as good, I’ve just never looked for them, but high price does seem to be a necessary condition for good champagne. To be fair to the post’s original request, though, I have to admit that I like these champagnes because they are “smooth”: they have no alcohol burn and don’t smell or taste like they have alcohol in them, so I might as well have sparkling cider.
Finally, note that until the 20th century people drank much larger quantities of alcohol than today because it was needed to make water safer to drink. If you could afford it, adding a little wine or grain alcohol to the water would go a long way towards reducing the chance of infection from water-borne illnesses. So in those times people probably enjoyed the taste because they became accustomed to it early in life, much the way Americans love tomato ketchup and coke although adults from other parts of the world, when introduced to these flavors, often do not.*
*I can’t find a source for this, but I know I’ve heard it several places. Maybe it’s just a modern myth?
This leads to one inescapable conclusion: for the vast proportion of human history, everyone in the world was completely hammered pretty much all the time. When you think about it in that light, most of history suddenly makes a great deal more sense.
A lot of the beer they drank throughout the day was ’small beer”—made from a second run of water through the mash… it was about as alcoholic as modern-day ginger beer. So—yeah, they did spend a lot of their time more intoxicated than us… but not totally smashed all the time.
I’ve taken lately to the sort of pub that has 2% mild, so I can sop up extravagant quantities of it without getting plastered.
Small beer goes down quite nicely (even for somebody that doesn’t like beer like me). It’s kind of like cordial—but without being sickly sweet.
I also made “small currant wine”once- which was also nice, but not as good as straight currant wine… but does let you drink a whole lot more of it during a hot day.
Relevant.
I also don’t have sources to hand, but I’m informed by my brewing+chemist friends that the amount of alcohol in beer is not sufficient to sterilise the liquid.
however the people of ancient times weren’t wrong… beer is sterilised (and thus safe to drink) - it’s because to make beer, you have to boil the mash. The boiling sterilises it quite effectively.