Unfortunately, this deal has expired 11 July 2018.
*
435°
Posted 12 May 2018
Flying Goose Sriracha Hot Chili Sauce £1.99 @ Lidl
In store: National ·
Shared by
jamhops
Joined in 2007
248
2,106
About this deal
This deal is expired. Here are some options that might interest you:
455ml bottle. Seems like a good price (other stores may match the price).
As part of Asian Week
Also Flying Goose Sriracha Mayo Sauce 200ml for £1.69
As part of Asian Week
Also Flying Goose Sriracha Mayo Sauce 200ml for £1.69
More details at
Community Updates
17 Comments
sorted byWorth paying the extra if you want the Original stuff.
Center one in Pic -
Hardly surprising given the ingredients. Lots of additives.
They also have the Sriracha brand spicy mayo sauce back in stock - it's great also.
Mehhhh. Tried both, prefer the goose brand.
Also, don't quote me on this but I'm pretty sure the Rooster brand got brought out by a US company, while the goose brand is actually still a product of Thailand. (edited)
The rooster brand has always been from California and is still made by the same man who invented it in the 70s. It's never been from Thailand. All other brands have to change the recipe slightly to not be a direct copy, and suffer for it. (edited)
Yup
Not starting a debate or anything but calling it the "original" is a bit misleading.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sriracha_sauce (edited)
A few points:
1. I never said this was the original, so not sure why you put that in quotation marks.
2. Huy Fong - the rooster brand - is the first one to be produced and sold in this way in the US and has led to all of the other copycat brands (the eagle, the goose etc) so in that sense, Huy Fong is the original version of the modern, mass produced, westernized sriracha brands.
3. You've just proven your nonsense claim false that they've been bought out by an American company and are now apparently inferior for it, since your link also says that Huy Fong originates from California and is still produced there by the same man.
1. Cool, but the other poster who I first quoted did. To be honest, I assumed it was them replying and didn't look at the name. Apologies for that.
2. Not really sure what your point is here.
3. I guess I was wrong. Which is why I said "don't quote me on this" implying I wasn't 100% certain.