I've been very good of late of not exploding in reaction to minor slips in bull$h** about "Candi Sugar", and now we have "invert syrup" it seems.
What people put in their beer is entirely up to them, and I'm sure some "Candi Sugar" brews are very nice. But start making false claims that they are
necessary and were created that way historically, and I am going to argue and attempt to shout down those spreading such fallacies!
Note:
@crescent city Mike makes no such claims, but the character he's linking does (possibly an old uneducated article?), making suggestions by referring to the old numbering scheme used for
real Brewers Invert Syrups - even Ragus (the last remaining manufacturer of Brewers Invert Sugars) don't do that anymore, using the terms "L", "M" and "D" (their Invert Sugars are "emulations" of what originally happened).
Newbie homebrewers have enough on their plates without leading them to believe they must boil hot-as-Hades sugar solutions for hours on end to get "authentic" results (or give someone wads of dosh to pretend to do it for them).
Eeee ... haven't had a good rant for ages!