The best beer in the world?

In 2005, American beer writer, Michael Jackson (not that one) announced that Westvleteren 12 was, in his opinion, the best beer in the world.

There beer itself is brewed in limited quantities at the Brouwerij Westvleteren, which is part of the Trappist Abbey of Saint Sixtus in Vleteren, Belgium.

Wat makes it so special is that not only is it brewed in limited quanities, but until fairly recently even getting a bottle or crate involved registering with the monastery for a time to collect and the registration of the vehicle you would be driving, failure to do this or arrive in a different vehicle would mean you would get no beer.

In 1946, the St. Bernardus brewery in nearby Watou was granted a licence to brew beer under the St. Sixtus name. This agreement ended in 1992; St. Bernardus still brews beers of similar styles, but under their own name.

Now, St. Bernardus is a very good beer indeed, possibly a match for Westvleteren 12, and is now available much more easily, even at Tesco in Whitfield for just £2.50 a bottle. I have watched some videos of side-by-side testing, and which is best depends on whether you like the slightly more sweet St. Bernardus or the rarer and more expensive Westvleteren 12.

The reality is because folks have read that one is the best beer in the world, or claimed to be, when they taste it they think it really is that good. I have had both, though Westvleteren 12 just the once and I think in a bar in Leuven it cost something like €14 a bottle, whereas St. Bernardus would be about €3. Even if Westvleteren 12 is the better beer, then is that worth the premium of €11 a bottle. Or is the difference in price worth it for a much better beer.

Or, more likely, are you willing to pay just to say you have tried it, and your brain kids you its better than it really is?

Does any of it matter?

Probably not.

I like port. Or I used to like port, but then I drank a really good bottle and it kinda ruined the enjoyment of cheaper ports with high tannins. A few years back I bought a bottle of 1963 late bottle vintage ruby when going through Billund Airport, this year was the greatest vintage for port in the 20th century, and although expensive, not as much as I would have thought.

And very fine it was too, I shared some with Steve next door, and his son, and they loved it. The port was the colour of burnished brass, and smoother than a Brexiteers lies.

But the reality is that I can get as much enjoyment out of a bottle of £12 Madeira than a £300 bottle of vintage port. Madeira is similar to port, but allowed to oxydise, so is sweeter, less harsh, and much more pleasant to drink. Or so I think so.

I let my tastebuds decide.

Which brings me to Balsamic vinegar.

There is a link.

Trust me.

I watched another video, this time on Balsamic, and what we use daily isn't real balsamic from Modena. That is aged for at least 12 years, and evaporates year on year until what is lft in the small barrel is a thick molasses lke substance. Apparently, it has a unique and complex flavour, but a bottle of the basic red label 12 year old will set you back about £80 for 4oz, and maybe triple that for the 25 year ld gold label.

You can cheat and make something by adding port (or Madeira) and some sugar, then boiling the mixture down, the taste is supposed to be close to the orginal and expensive version. Even doing that, it costs £8 for a bottle of non-vintage balsamic, then you have to buy the port, and sugar, then spend half an hour boiling it down. And the result is good, cost triple the drizzle we buy from Tesco and last just two meals.

The question is: does the one I can make taste better than the cheap drizzle: yes. Is it worth spending the time and money doing it for the better taste? Not really.

The point of this? Trust your tastebuds and don't kid yourself paying £300 for a bottle of port, or £100 for some vinegar makes you smmoth and sophisticated.