[trapae]

Anyone have an opinion? 

[dmtaylor]

Yes.  Great Western for the win.  Even though Briess is local to me, I have not been impressed by their malts compared to GW.  I need to taste more Rahr to know for sure but I think it's in between.

[oginme]

I don't have a local supply of the GW, but much prefer Rahr over the Briess for base malt.

[tommymorris]

Has Brülosophy.com ever done anything with this? This question comes up several times a year.

I use Briess and Rahr interchangeably. I have made 100% 2-row pale beers with both and found them both to be good. No side by side comparisons though.

PS. I have never used GW.

[coolman26]

I will not use Briess. I feel it is so far behind the other 2, that it isn't comparable. I've used nearly a thousand pounds of Rahr. I don't have anyone local selling GW. I just bought 2 sacks of GW and I'll figure out what I like best. I'm going to make some light color beers w low I IBU to try. That would be a nice test to see what people like side by side.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[coolman26]

I will also add that, in my experience, Rahr tends to drop the ph a few points. I think Martin or Kai discussed it years back. I've always inputted it in Bru'n water at 5L. That has been pretty accurate IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hopfenundmalz]

I have never used GW. I like Rahr over Briess. My LHBS started carrying Malteurope 2-row, and that is pretty good and the price is low, so that is what I use for domestic 2-row base malt.

Briess has started to source Malt from one of the western states in the last few years, has that changed the product?

[reverseapachemaster]

Basically anything but Briess.

[stpug]

GW/Briess/Rahr, they're all good malts in my book and each with a forte.  GW is the most husky tasting (not a bad thing, just a thing); Briess is the most flavorless (again, a great choice when you want the malt to sit quietly in the back of the room); Rahr is neither husky, nor flavorless, but maybe sweet and plain.  Malteurop is pretty variable in terms of quality - I've had good quality bags and terrible quality bags (small kernels, super-husky).  Just my opinion of course.

[bayareabrewer]

I assume you're asking about their pale malt, I've used all three, admittedly not a ton of rahr though. The kernel size and smell test makes GW stand out against briess. GW has larger kernels and is more aromatic. Hand in hand its tough for me to tell the Rahr and GW apart.

[HoosierBrew]

I don't have a local supply of the GW, but much prefer Rahr over the Briess for base malt.

Same here. We don't get GW around here, but I've used plenty of Briess 2 row and Rahr 2 row, and Rahr is vastly better IMO. Rahr is much more flavorful where Briess, while not objectionable in any way, is bland by comparison. Having said that, I use Briess on occasion in American styles.

[troybinso]

I like GW, but as an alternative, look into local, small batch maltsters. I live in a grain growing area and there are craft maltsters popping up everywhere. Depending on where you live, this might be an option.

[majorvices]

I have never used GW. I like Rahr over Briess. My LHBS started carrying Malteurope 2-row, and that is pretty good and the price is low, so that is what I use for domestic 2-row base malt.

Briess has started to source Malt from one of the western states in the last few years, has that changed the product?

Haven't tried the two row but have done taste test beween Canadian, Best and Maltoeurope pils malt and the German and Canadian were preferred over the Maltoeurope 100% by everyone who tasted it.

[denny]

Has Brülosophy.com ever done anything with this? This question comes up several times a year.

I use Briess and Rahr interchangeably. I have made 100% 2-row pale beers with both and found them both to be good. No side by side comparisons though.

PS. I have never used GW.

It wouldn't matter of they did because it's so subjective.

[denny]

I have a slight pref for Rahr over GW, but both are very good.  Briess is a distant 3rd.