
The second dip of the toe into the retail sausage market. Richmond’s are a ubiquitous low-price sausage that you’ll find nearly everywhere.
I wasn‘t overly impressed.
Even their website is suspiciously banal and lacking in interest: RICHMONDS

Meat Content:
42%. That’s right, Forty. Two. Percent. Dear sausage fan, please allow me to take you back a couple of weeks in this blog’s history, to a link contained in the review of Sainsburys-Taste-The-Difference . It was a great piece by Felicity Lawrence and if you didn’t read it first time, here’s another chance: Backfat-Article . The absolute relevance of this article to Richmond’s meat tubes struck me like a sledgehammer. 42% - I’ve seen that somewhere else……if you can’t be arsed clicking the link, Felicity wrote “The food standards agency has proposed new rules to require clearer labelling of meat content, so that added fat, offal, gristle and rind would have to be separately identified and shoppers could tell more easily what they are getting. The move has been welcomed by consumer groups but they are also worried. The proposals will lower the legal minimum meat content, so that pork sausages would only have to contain 42% meat as newly defined.” So it appears that the Richmonds are adhering - to the decimal point - to the new rule.
Flavour:
Average. Well, actually, NOT average. These tasted like the kind of thing that Generic Family Gastro Pub Chain offers as part of the Kids’ Sausage, Chips & Beans meal, £1.49. Not actually unpleasant, but not in the same postcode as most of the sausages tested already. Not even on the same continent.

Texture:
A bit mushy. Not that firm. Rather under-chunky. The filling could be cut through using a strand of cooked spaghetti.. The casing however….Ladies And Gentlemen Of The Jury! I refer you once again to the Expert Witness Statement of Felicity Lawrence! Check back yet again to her article if you want to, but here is the telling portion: “sugar in the form of dextrose to make them go brown when cooked”. I think she’s, once again, hit the nail on the head. Check out the photo of the Cooked Richmonds. They are all, uniformly, brown. Now check the photos of all the other sausages. They are NOT uniformly brown. Every sausage has been cooked in the same way, and I believe that “all the others” are a more accurate reflection of…..sausage-ness???….than the Richmonds. Felicity seems to be spot on, they must have dextrose, or something very similar, to make them turn such an obvious over-brown colour, reminiscent of a Wisbech granny on a night out at Doctor Thirsty‘s. Sure, it cooked to a decently semi-tough skin that gave that nice feeling under the knife, but it’s a hollow claim for praise.
Shrinkage:
Average weight uncooked - 57g
Average weight cooked - 39g
Shrinkage - 32%
Value For Money:
£1.97 per pack, weighing 454g - this works out as a price of £4.34 per kg, or 25p per snorker. Cheap. You gets what you pays for.


15 comments:
Interesting to notice that Wilfred's sausages contain more than double the meat but are not double the price. And I'm rather revolted by the thought of the 10% slurry that is composed of added water and fat.
Brilliant stuff! Can I make a suggestion? I like the idea of £/snorker, but I also like the idea of £/lb after cooking. I reckon that, with 30-something% shrinkage, some of these 'cheap' chaps aren't so cheap....
I very much like the smaller sausage. Especially what we call the 'Nurnberger'. very tasty.
Welcome Percy!
Thanks for visiting, and keep on checking the site - the Sausage World Cup 2010 will involve Germany!
good stuff, as a UK national now an expat in mid east (previously also far east) its been a nightmare getting proper sausages at a reasonable price. In the UAE ive now seen Richmonds and Walls but still over twice UK prices, in the meantime i will be drooling over the pics on your site!
I have just had to go to hospital due entirely to these sausages.....I didn't eat anything else and broke out in massive rash, bright red face and had to get medical help. Dr said what did you eat? So had to rush home and get label to bring to hospital.
Could have eaten anything, when you read the label!!
6 hrs in hospital. ....and now ok. No more Richmond sausages for me! Found this site when I went looking to see if anyone else has had a problem?
Absolutely disgusting mush. Sent my 9yr old son to village shop and £2.49 later he came back with a pack of Richmond sausages (pre priced pack), so you get what you pay for argument doesn't exactly work. I really do not see how they can be sold as sausages. Simply revolting, ended up giving them to the dogs, although even they should not have to eat them. Nothing good or cheap about these sausages.
This must be one of the most revolting things I have ever eaten. Not completely surprising when you look at the ingredients. 42% 'pork' is just a ludicously low meat content, especially when the pack was pre priced at £2.49.
Unfortunately these were the only sausages left in the village shop when my 9 yr old went breakfast shopping on Sunday, so these are what he bought back with him. I felt obliged to cook them up because of the cost and effort involved in the purchase. I only managed to eat half of one.
It was spongy, mushy, and very unsausagey. It really was quite vile.
£2.49 should be premium sausage money. I even felt guilty about giving them to my dogs because they were so disgusting. The truth is sausages such as these should be allowed to be sold for consumption by anybody, whether they are human or dog.
Their website says :
Richmond is synonymous with the highest quality bangers — gracing tables up and down the country at teatime. We're as proud of Richmond sausages today as we've ever been — their unmatched quality has stood the test of time and they'll be a family favourite for years to come.
I have never heard such a load of complete and utter rubbish.
The description on the pack is just as misleading: 'Delicious'? - Haha I don't think so!
Would certainly not reccomend.
I had a pack of these last night as they were the only brand in our local shop. Absolutely vile. I'm no food snob but I can still taste that cloying cheap and nasty flavour today. They had a horrible thin and pureed texture too. Avoid at all costs.
My wife and I are in our late seventies and have been enjoying both sizes of Richmond sausages for over 20 years. We have never been rushed to hospital as a result of eating them, nor suffered any side effects apart from the pleasure of their taste and texture. Let others make their derogatory comments, which we shall ignore.
I've seen these "sausages" in shops for years and have never been tempted. However, yesterday I saw these (thick sausages) on sale for £1.80 for 2 packs of eight, and I though "what the hell, that's decent value"...
What a mistake that was! They were truly awful, lacking any texture or decent flavour; so bad in fact of the 3 I cooked one and a bit were left uneaten. As for the others, well it looks like they'll end up in a casserole, if I can bring myself to put them anywhere near my mouth ever again of course...
Hi Simon (great name) and welcome to RMS. And you're spot on with the Richmonds - truly disgusting. But we HAVE found something worse - details coming soon.....
Something worse than Richmond's? Well I did see some "Tulip" sausages that were apparently 33% pork content...
Could these be the ones you mean?
Yes, even worse than the bloody awful Richmonds. Not Tulip, I have seen those too and will review them one day....
Terrible. I bought a pack of these to make sausage sandwiches with, because they were on offer and I'm unemployed. Ironically, they're not cheap. They're massively overpriced since they aren't worth paying money for.
They were not great grilled, but I tried frying a couple....ugh. There's so little meat in there they don't want to cook. I ended up having to slice them lengthways, which obviousl left them hardened.....but it was that or pink meat. Next time I'll spend a bit more on some cumberlands.
Dreadful, do not buy, would not feed to dogs.
Post a Comment