Let's Brew - 1903 Binnie 54/- Bitter

Binnie weren’t the most consistent when it came to naming their beers in the brewhouse. This was also called 54/- IPA, IPA and plain old 54/-. How confusing is that?

The recipe is pretty similar to that of Best Bitter. Except that there’s flaked maize instead of flaked rice. Not sure why. It does seem to be fairly random, with some brews using flaked rice. Maybe it was just whatever they had to hand.

The hops are, again, equal quantities of Kent, Bavarian and Californian. And no spent hops. At the same rate – 6 lbs per quarter (336 lbs) of malt – as Bitter Beer.

No ageing for this beer, either. 

1903 Binnie 54/- Bitter
pale malt	9.75 lb	88.64%
flaked maize	1.25 lb	11.36%
Cluster 90 min	0.75 oz
Hallertau 60 min	0.75 oz
Fuggles 30 min	0.75 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.25 oz
OG	1046
FG	1019
ABV	3.57
Apparent attenuation	58.70%
IBU	33
SRM	4
Mash at	152º F
Sparge at	175º F
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	62º F
Yeast	WLP028 Edinburgh Ale

 

 

Background work

I finally bit the bullet yesterday. Adding an extra column to my main beer gravity spreadsheet. 

I'd been planning on doing it for a couple of years. And had started using a new format table for any gravities I harvest. But it was getting out of hand. It was over 2,000 lines. And when I wanted to look up beers from a specific brewery, I had to search in both tables. Time to merge the two.

It itself, that wasn't particularly difficult. Just add the column to the main table and tack the entries from the temporary table on the end. Except, most of the entries now had a blank column. Which I'll have to add. Quite a palaver, in a table of 25,000 entries.

I started the work yesterday. And have completed maybe 25%. It's dull, tedious work. But it will be worth it, when I'm done. In case you're wondering, the column is the town where the brewery is located.

This work doesn't create any direct product. It does, however, extremely fucking handy when I am writing stuff. So is well worth it, in the long run.

While I was fiddling with the tables, I noticed that I had some analyses of Venezuelan beers. Courtesy of Heineken. Enjoy.

Venezuelan beers in 1950
Brewer	town	Beer	package	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	colour
Cerveceria de Caracas	Caracas	Pilsener	bottled	1049.7	1005.9	5.71	88.07%	0.32
Cerveceria de Caracas	Caracas	Pilsener	can	1047.9	1012.5	4.56	74.01%	0.28
Cerveceria de Marquetia		Pilsener	bottled	1052.2	1011.2	5.13	78.56%	0.52
Cerveceria Regional Maracaibo	Maracaibo	Pilsener	draught	1032.0	1008.2	2.99	74.45%	0.32
Cervecerias Unidos		Pilsener	draught	1047.2	1014.5	4.20	69.36%	0.52
Cerveza Union		Pilsener	can	1046.0	1011.6	4.45	74.88%	0.52
Polar		Pilsener	bottled	1053.0	1010.6	5.45	80.05%	0.42
Source:
Rapporten van laboratoriumonderzoeken naar producten van Heinekenbrouwerijen in binnen- en buitenland en naar producten van andere brouwerijen held at the Amsterdamse Stadsarchief, document number 834 - 1794.

W.E. & J. Rigden hops in 1884/85

Finally, it’s the turn of hops.

Quite a lot of different ones, all of them English. Which, I suppose, isn’t that odd for a brewery located in Kent. Though none are specifically identified as being from that county. I suspect that the ones only identified by the name of the grower (English in the table).

Most striking is the presence of some spent hops in every single beer. They were really squeezing every last bit of goodness from them. I’ve come across brewers throwing spent hops into their cheap beers, but never into every single one in their range.

All the hops were pretty fresh, with nothing older than a year or two. That might be on account of them all being English. Which were mostly used without much age. Unlike American hops, which were often used when three or more years old.

As was standard, all the beers contained at least two types of hops. 

W.E. & J. Rigden hops in 1884/85
Beer	Style	hop 1	hop 2	hop 3	hop 4	hop 5
Beer	Mild	Sussex 1884	English 1883	English 1883	spent
AK	Pale Ale	Sussex 1884	English 1884	English 1884	English 1883	spent
AK Stock	Pale Ale	Worcs. 1884	English 1883	spent
Special Ale	Pale Ale	Sussex 1884	English 1884	spent
XXK	Pale Ale	Sussex 1884	Farnham 1884	English 1884	spent
TA	Table Ale	Sussex 1884	English 1884	English 1884	English 1883	spent
XXX	Stock Ale	Farnham 1884	English 1884	spent
P	Porter	English 1883	English 1883	spent
DS	Stout	English 1883	English 1883	spent
Source:
Fremlin brewing record held at the Kent Archives, document number U3555/2/GBR/BX2/1/9.

 

 

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1903 Binnie Bitter Beer

The weakest of Binnie’s Pale Ales looks remarkably like a modern English Ordinary Bitter.  Other than maybe being a little too pale. It’s very weak for a pre-WW I Bitter.

Just two ingredients in the mash tun. Pale malt and flaked rice. The latter was quite popular in the early days of the Free Mash Tun Act. Before eventually losing out to flaked maize in the popularity stakes.

The hopping is much heavier than in the Shilling Ales, as you would expect. Exactly double, to be precise, at 6 lbs per quarter (336 lbs) of malt. Though that’s a good bit less than the 10 lbs per quarter Whitbread used in its Pale Ales. Also, there are no spent hops, as in the Shilling Ales.

Definitely no ageing for this beer. Too weak, too few hops.

1903 Binnie Bitter Beer
pale malt	7.75 lb	91.18%
flaked rice	0.75 lb	8.82%
Cluster 90 min	0.67 oz
Hallertau 60 min	0.67 oz
Fuggles 30 min	0.67 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.25 oz
OG	1036
FG	1013
ABV	3.04
Apparent attenuation	63.89%
IBU	32
SRM	3.5
Mash at	152º F
Sparge at	175º F
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	64º F
Yeast	WLP028 Edinburgh Ale

 

 

 

Alcohol-free beer

Like lots of other things in beer, alcohol-free versions are nothing new. As the letters below will demonstrate. Though producing something both palatable and free of alcohol was as much of a challenge then as it is today.

I came across these letters when checking that I'd downloaded from the Amsterdam archive all the Heineken documents which have been digitised.

The story starts with inventor C. Ingen Housz sending samples of his alcohol-free beer to Heineken. Presumably, in the hope of persuading them to purchase his process.

Arnhem, February 4, 1931.

To the Honorable Mr. H. P. Heineken, Amsterdam.

Honorable Sir,

As you will recall, some time ago I showed you some samples of alcohol-free beer, an invention of mine.

It is safe to say that my product has improved considerably through further testing, and therefore, on January 26th, I submitted four bottles for your inspection. It goes without saying that when my invention is in the hands of a company with all the technical resources at its disposal, a product will be obtained that, by the masses, is indistinguishable from alcoholic beer.

Furthermore, the product has never been offered to anyone, except to you. Should you ever wish to receive further details regarding its potential exploitation, I am always happy to do so, with the assurance that the conditions will be set in the most acceptable manner.

You have undoubtedly read in the trade journals that the Hansa Brewery in Dortmund will also begin producing non-alcoholic beverages this year.

Meanwhile, and awaiting your valuable feedback, I remain,

Sincerely,

C. Ingen Housz.
Source: Document 834-925 held at the Gemeente Amsterdam Stadsarchief.

There was a fairly swift, and somewhat brutally honest, reply from Heineken.

February 14, 1931

The Most Honorable Mr. C. Ingen Housz,
ARNHEM

Honorable Sir,

In response to your letter of February 4, 1931, I can inform you that the four bottles of non-alcoholic beer you sent have arrived at the brewery's possession.

The contents were tasted at our meeting of all Directors held yesterday, and we also had the contents of a bottle analyzed.

I regret to inform you that the product arrived cloudy, nauseatingly sweet, and with a taste that caused strong expressions of disgust from several gentlemen. It gives the impression of carbonated wort and certainly not enough of beer to be of any interest to anyone.

Should you, over time, arrive at a better product and perhaps be willing to discuss your invention, we would be happy to do so.

Meanwhile,

Sincerely,

H. P. Heineken.
Source: Document 834-925 held at the Gemeente Amsterdam Stadsarchief.

I think it's pretty clear that Heineken had absolutely no interest in this product. If this is what the much-improved version was like, I dread to think how the horrific the earlier iterations were.

I can remember tasting alcohol-free beer a couple of decades back. And that impression - carbonated wort - was exactly what I had. Something almost, but not totally, unlike beer. 

Singapore beers 1948 - 1950

I'm a bit late with this one. I wanted to write it just after I got back from Singapore. But, you know what it's like (or maybe not) when you get to my age. Things slip your mind.

In the period these analyses cover, Singapore had two rival brewing companies. The Archipelago Brewery Company (ABC) and Malayan Breweries Limited (MBL), which was a joint venture between Heineken and Fraser & Neave, a local soft drinks company. Both were established in the 1930s. MBL is now wholly owned by Heineken.

The Heineken connection is why I have these analyses and come from a sort of Heineken gravity book. Which lists, in addition to beers from their own breweries, products of rivals. Hence beers from both ABC and MBL.

Typically, for breweries in this part of Asia, there were two products: Pils and Stout. Which is what you still tend to find today. The successor to MBL, Asia Pacific Breweries still brew Anchor Stout, though, at just 6% ABV, it's a good bit weaker than the immediate post-WW II version. 

The Pilseners are about what you would expect, at around 1048º, 5% ABV and 75% apparent attenuation. The Stouts, on the other hand, are extremely dry. With over 95% apparent attenuation. That's drier than modern Guinness, but from a much higher starting gravity. They must have been pretty interesting beers. 

Singapore beers 1948 - 1950
Year	Brewer	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	package	Colour
1948	ABC	Pilsener	Pils	1049.64	1012.22	4.68	75.39%	bottled	0.48
1948	ABC	Pilsener	Pils	1033.68	1009.59	3.10	71.52%	bottled	0.2
1949	ABC	Pilsener	Pils	1049.64	1009.01	5.29	81.86%	bottled	0.35
1950	ABC	Anchor	Pils	1049.90	1010.73	5.07	78.50%	bottled	0.33
1950	ABC	Stout	Stout	1067.94	1002.15	8.67	96.84%	bottled	4 * 13
1949	MBL	Pils	Pils	1047.75	1011.04	4.74	76.88%	bottled	0.30
1950	MBL	Tiger	Pils	1049.69	1010.37	5.10	79.12%	bottled	0.48
1950	MBL	Stout	Stout	1068.20	1000.77	8.89	98.88%	bottled	4 * 14.5
Source:
Rapporten van laboratoriumonderzoeken naar producten van Heinekenbrouwerijen in binnen- en buitenland en naar producten van andere brouwerijen held at the Amsterdamse Stadsarchief, document number 834 - 1794.

 

Marathon

I hope that's what I'm on. If it's a sprint, I'm fucked.

Long view is what I'm all about. That doesn't stop with the present.

Outside of my obsession with Tetley's Mild and St. Bernardus Abt, I am genuinely interested in the wider world of beer. I consume the occasional sludge beer. Admittedly mostly due to inadequate signage. I still drink them. I'm not a monster. Also for research purposes. Know your enemy.

Been good to finish a couple of books this year. And publish them. Another is three-quarters done.. Stuff is getting finished. New books are rolling along.

A long run. I hope that's what I'm on. I'm nowhere near finished with the books I plan on writing.

Unless I drop dead, of course. You can never rule that out at my age.  Here's hoping I have a few more years yet.

Let's Brew - 1905 Binnie 100/- Ale

What style would I call this? Shilling Ale, I guess. As it doesn’t really fit in with any modern style.  And, unlike 80/-, there isn’t a modern beer with the same name. Which, I suppose, at least removes any risk of confusion.

Compared to 80/-, it has an extremely complicated grist. With all of three different ingredients. Two of which are sugar. The brewing record lists one as “sugar” and the other “Sacc.” The latter being an abbreviation of saccharum, another word for sugar. I’ve assumed than Sacc is invert sugar and the other raw cane sugar. Only one type of pale malt this time, though.

Only two types of hops this time. Well, three if you count the spent hops, which make up almost a third of the total. The rest are Kent and Bavarian, with far more of the latter.

I imagine that the FG would have fallen a bit before consumption. Though not enough to stop it being very sweet. Full of malty goodness, I suppose. The hopping is far too low for any ageing longer than a couple of weeks.

1905 Binnie 100/- Ale
pale malt	12.75 lb	87.93%
No. 2 invert sugar	0.875 lb	6.03%
raw cane sugar	0.875 lb	6.03%
Hallertau 90 min	0.67 oz
Hallertau 60 min	0.67 oz
Fuggles 30 min	0.67 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.25 oz
OG	1068
FG	1034
ABV	4.50
Apparent attenuation	50.00%
IBU	21
SRM	7
Mash at	154º F
Sparge at	180º F
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	61º F
Yeast	WLP028 Edinburgh Ale

 

W.E. & J. Rigden sugars in 1884/85

Continuing with the fermentables, it's time for sugar. Several different types of lovely sugar.

In most cases, it’s one of the classic invert sugars, No. 2 or No. 3. With the cheap beers using No. 3, the posher beers No. 2. Though this wasn’t consistent in the case of AK. When brewed single-gyle, No. 2 was used. When it was parti-gyled with Beer or Table Ale, it was No. 3. Which must have had some impact on the colour of the beer. But was anyone looking that closely?

The Black Beers, however, have something completely different. Described simply as “sugar” in the brewing records. What the hell was that? Simply raw cane sugar? That would probably be my guess. But there’s no way to be certain. Rather randomly, this type also appears in the Stock version of AK.

Pretty high, is how I would describe the sugar content. Which for most of Rigden’s range is above 20%. In many cases, above 25%. Note that it’s the highest in three of the most expensive beers, Special Ale, XXK and XXX. And lowest in Beer, the Mild Ale. 

W.E. & J. Rigden sugars in 1884/85
Beer	Style	no. 2 sugar	no. 3 sugar	other sugar	total sugar
Beer	Mild		17.39%		17.39%
AK	Pale Ale		22.47%		22.47%
AK Stock	Pale Ale			22.86%	22.86%
Special Ale	Pale Ale	25.00%			25.00%
XXK	Pale Ale	27.59%			27.59%
TA	Table Ale		22.47%		22.47%
XXX	Stock Ale	26.23%			26.23%
P	Porter			17.39%	17.39%
DS	Stout			15.63%	15.63%
Source:
Fremlin brewing record held at the Kent Archives, document number U3555/2/GBR/BX2/1/9.

 

 

W.E. & J. Rigden grists in 1884/85

And what about the ingredients in Rigden's beers? Well, let’s take a look. Starting with grains.

The base malt in every beer is pale malt. Nothing unusual there. Note, though, that often there was more than one type of pale malt.

Only the Black Beers contain any other type of malt. Namely brown and black malt. Which leaves them with a very London-like grist. With getting on for a 20% roast malt content. I assume that the proximity to capital was why the grist is so similar to those of London brewers.

Only the three cheapest beers, Table Ale, Beer and AK, contain any adjuncts. In the form of flaked maize. Which lowers the malts percentage to around 65%. While the posher beers have around 75%, or, in the case of the Black Beers, 85%. It’s clear that, in the cheap beers, flaked maize is a direct substitute for base malt.

W.E. & J. Rigden grists in 1884/85
Beer	Style	pale malt	brown malt	black malt	total malt	flaked maize
Beer	Mild	69.57%			69.57%	13.04%
AK	Pale Ale	64.04%			64.04%	13.48%
AK Stock	Pale Ale	77.14%			77.14%
Special Ale	Pale Ale	75.00%			75.00%
XXK	Pale Ale	72.41%			72.41%
TA	Table Ale	64.04%			64.04%	13.48%
XXX	Stock Ale	73.77%			73.77%
P	Porter	65.22%	10.87%	6.52%	82.61%
DS	Stout	65.63%	11.72%	7.03%	84.38%
Source:
Fremlin brewing record held at the Kent Archives, document number U3555/2/GBR/BX2/1/9.

 

 

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1903 Binnie 80/- Ale

We're back with Binnie again. As I try to process the results of my Glasgow archive run into recipes for my next book. This is recipe number 366, in case you're interested.

I’ll make this clear from the start: this beer has no connection with modern 80/-. This is a Shilling Ale, the original type of Scottish Ale, more akin to an English Mild. While modern 80/- is a type of Pale Ale.

No complication in the grist, which is just 100% pale malt. Though there are two types of pale malt, 3.5 quarters from Scottish barley, 2 quarters from foreign. Which was a fairly typical mix. As the UK couldn’t grow enough malting barley to meet the needs of the brewing industry.

It was a similar story with hops, where imports were needed to match demand. That’s reflected in the hops used, where two-thirds are imported. There are equal quantities of Kent, Bavarian and Californian. Along with a quantity of spent hops. Even with those, the hopping rate is still a feeble 3 lbs per quarter (336 lbs) of malt. Which is mot much more than half of what you’d find in a London Mild Ale of the period.

No way this would have undergone any ageing. It’s far too lightly hopped. 

1903 Binnie 80/- Ale
pale malt	13.75 lb	100.00%
Cluster 90 min	0.50 oz
Hallertau 60 min	0.50 oz
Fuggles 30 min	0.50 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.25 oz
OG	1059
FG	1020
ABV	5.16
Apparent attenuation	66.10%
IBU	20
SRM	5
Mash at	154º F
Sparge at	175º F
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	62º F
Yeast	WLP028 Edinburgh Ale

 

W.E. & J. Rigden beers in 1884/85

Not quite Beer & Rigden at this point, as they didn’t merge with George Beer until 1922. This beer was brewed in their Faversham brewery, which later became home to Fremlins when under Whitbread control.

According to an advertisement from 1884, Rigden marketed eleven beers.

Which, you may notice, doesn’t quite match the beers that appear in the brewing records.

Well, that’s not totally true, as TB does turn up. But only in a note at the bottom, saying how a brew was racked. For example, a brew of Beer on the 19th September 1884 was racked as 66 barrels Beer, 76 barrels AK, 9 barrels TA, 9 barrels TB. Presumably, the TA and TB were created by adding water post-fermentation.

Single Stout, I imagine, was created by blending Porter and Stout. Or by watering down some of the Double Stout. Similarly, I’d guess that XX was created by either blending X and XXX or by watering down XXX.

That said, let’s get on with looking at the beers in more detail.

Table Ale is a bit unusual for and English brewery this late in the 19th century. For the price, the gravity of 1042º is pretty decent. It seems to have been basically a weaker version of Beer (or X Ale).

Moving up the strengths, Beer has a pretty reasonable gravity for a provincial Mild Ale. Though it is weaker than a London X Ale. I’m guessing that the stronger XX Mild Ale probably had a gravity of around 1060º.

There are three Bitters: in ascending order of strength, AK, Special Ale and XXK. The last looks like a classic Stock Pale Ale, judging by its gravity and hopping rate. And probably had at least nine months ageing. Special Ale was most likely semi-Stock and aged for just three months. While AK was a classic Running Bitter.

The idea of a Stock AK is quite amusing. As it doesn’t really make any sense. The whole point of Light Bitters like AK was that they weren’t aged at all, Despite the K in its name.

The Stock Ale would also have had at least nine months of ageing. Quite possibly more. It was sometimes parti-gyled with XXK

Fuck. I have to finish this for tomorrow’s post. Just draw own conclusions from the data. Classic copout there.
 

Source material

Sometimes people ask me how many brewing records I have. Well, being honest, I usually offer the information unprompted. And my answer is: 15,000 to 20,000.

That was really just a guess. So this week I decided to actually check. And the number I got was 39,242. Though that's probably not completely accurate. Because I think I have a few duplicates in there. On the other hand, some of those documents are PDF files with multiple images. Which would add another 3,000 or so. The real number is probably at least 43,000.

Which is a shitload of material. Luckily, I've been accumlating this material for almost 20 years. And I've had the chance to process a fair proportion of it. Though I've still records that I harvested over ten years ago that I haven't touched yet.

In the early days, I'd immediately extract the information I'm interested in immediately after returning from the archive. I've since had to be more focused. Processing only the records which are relevant to projects I'm currently working on. For example, during my last visit to the Scottish Brewing Archive, I collected Lorimer & Clark records from the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. I've no plans to look at them anytime soon. Records from 1880 to 1914 take precedence.

I've been contemplating recently what I'll do with all this material after my death. Or, rather, what will be done with by others. It would be a real shame if it were to be lost. Martyn Cornell's passing earlier this year has really concentrated my mind. My plan is to make all my images and spreadsheets public before I die. Assuming that I get some warning of that tragic event.

And on that happy note, I'll end. 

Tomson & Wotton hops in 1893

Time now for the other main ingredient: hops. 

The first thing that strikes me is that all but one of the hops are English. Which, at this point, was quite unusual. With the UK importing massive quantities of hops from all over the world. “But the brewery was based in Kent, the hop garden of England” you might say. Except most of the hops used come from Worcestershire, not Kent.

Other than X and AK, none of the beers has more than one type of hop. Which is unusual. Brewers mostly used multiple types of hops – three or four, typically – to smooth out any changes when supplies of one type of hop ran out and needed to be replaced.

Most on the hops employed are relatively fresh, from the most recent season or the one before. The exception being the East Kent hops used in X, which are five years old. It’s by no means unusual for hops several years old to find their way. But five years is a bit excessive. For English hops. Not so odd with American hops, with their higher alpha acid content and unwanted flavour.

All the Pale Ales are dry hopped. Always with Worcester hops. Mostly in quite modest quantities. Other than AKK which has a massive 2 lbs per barrel. Only slightly less than the quantity of copper hops.

Tomson & Wotton hops in 1893
Beer	Style	hop 1	hop 2	dry hops	dry hops (oz / barrel)
X	Mild	EK 1888	Californian 1891		0.00
AK	Pale Ale	EK 1892	Wor 1893	Wor 1892	2.00
AK (Stock)	Pale Ale	Wor 1892		Wor 1892	4.00
AKK	Pale Ale	Wor 1892		Wor 1892	32.00
KK	Pale Ale	Wor 1892		Wor 1892	4.00
P	Porter	MK 1891			0.00
KKK	Stock Ale	EK 1892		Wor 1892	4.00
Source:
Tomson & Wotton brewing record held at the Kent Archives, document number R/U7/B5.