Public discussion: potential Pilsner Urquell Nefiltrovaný vs. Pilsner Urquell Nefiltrovaný from the Wood split

Okay, so we’ve had this discussion several times at the RBESG in Plzeň and it should’ve been made 10 years ago ffs (and maybe was). Basically like this.

You have two different kinds of unfiltered PU.

a) The version at Na Parkanu, which is also released for their anniversary as a Volba Sladků product - basically unfiltered regular Urkel.
b) The version in the cellars. Apart from being wood aged, which is very obvious in the taste profile, I’m relatively sure it’s fermented separately, in open vats near the barrels, though I may have misunderstood something. The base, the wort is the same, but the process splits at that point. And, hell, it’s wood aged. It IS available outside of the tour at some fest occasionally (confirmed by the head brewer), so commercial availability is unquestionable.

The difference in the taste profile is very obvious, and, honestly, while the regular unfiltered is certainly an above average beer, the wood version is the one that keeps this close to a 4 on the site, and I’ve finally experienced why and how.

Apart from the sheer inconvenience of splitting ratings, does anyone have a case against this? :slight_smile:

1 Like

Not at all! You are completely right. All versions of PU are made from the same wort, some are filtered, some not, one version is pasteurized. The one You can get at “U Parkanu” is fermented in cylindro-conical fermentation vessels, the one from the deep cellars fermented in open wooden “bathtubs” and later lagered in these giant wooden barrels, which are still made by the Pilsner Urquell coopers…:czech_republic::beers:

Seems to have some discussion, and from that discussion:

Unfortunately that discussion goes off rails and proper answers are never given. IMHO both the nepasterizovaný/tank and wooden casks versions should be separate entries…


Ah, the good old days when Günther wrote in red. :smiley:

And when Urkel was reasonably priced at Kolkovna. o.o

1 Like

I kinda reckoned those open bathtubs we saw were only for tourist purposes. I wonder how they manage to not get more infections if that is really still how they do it :smiley:

I, for one, do agree the flavour is way different in the “Foeder” version.

afaik, the Brits separate beers on the base of pasteurization. Germans split beers on the base of filtration. There are reasons for both.

1 Like

Having visited the tour given by the brewmaster himself, having heard his explanation (in quite decent English), having seen the wooden barrels and tasted the content, having noticed the difference between the Na Parkanu version and the Straight from the wooden barrel version from the brewery, I can only agree.


Just a bump. So, the majority opinion so far is in favor of a split?

  • Unfiltered Pilsner Urquell and Wood aged unfiltered Pilsner Urquell from the cellars should be separate versions.
  • They should remain in the same entry and I will elaborate why in the thread.

0 voters

1 Like

Split, it’s a total different story - the cellar one is nectar from heaven…

The difference between the foeder one and the other 3 is far greater than the differences between those other three, so that’s the most important split for me.

I think I’ve had the other 3, and they were much of a muchness, to be honest, the differences are as easily explained by logistics as anything else. (e.g. comparing the crappiest one really fresh vs. the live one in the wrong part of the world.) Others can fight over those splits, I have no skin in the game.

Tasted both of them today, relatively straight after each other. There was quite a difference.

15 days have passed, this was pinned. Who had anything against this could’ve made their case.


The unfiltered ones served elsewhere, should they all go into regular unfiltered, even at festivals when they bring the huge wooden cask?

1 Like

I’m pretty sure the ones where they bring the huge wooden cask are the “from the wood” version.

1 Like