I've only two years. I'm lucky to have even those. The proper brewing records only go back to 1914. This information has been culled from another source. The private notebook of a brewer. Diary I should say. The details of each day's brews have been written in a pocket diary. You know what's weird? If it didn't have 1858 printed at the top, it could be this year's. Funny how little some things change.
(You can see a pair of its pages to your right.)
Courage K Ales 1858-1867 | ||||||||
Date | Year | Beer | Style | OG | lbs hops/ qtr | hops lb/brl | pale malt | PA malt |
4th Jan | 1858 | K Ale XX | Stock Ale | 1078.95 | 12.00 | 4.57 | 100.00% | |
18th Jan | 1858 | K Ale XX | Stock Ale | 1078.95 | 12.00 | 4.62 | 100.00% | |
1st Feb | 1858 | K Ale XX | Stock Ale | 1080.33 | 12.00 | 4.78 | 100.00% | |
8th Feb | 1858 | K Ale XX | Stock Ale | 1078.95 | 12.00 | 4.77 | 100.00% | |
15th Feb | 1858 | K Ale XX | Stock Ale | 1080.33 | 12.00 | 5.04 | 100.00% | |
28th Dec | 1858 | K Ale XX | Stock Ale | 1078.39 | 12.00 | 4.78 | 100.00% | |
15th Apr | 1867 | K Ale XX | Stock Ale | 1079.22 | 14.00 | 4.98 | 100.00% | |
12th Jan | 1858 | K Ale XXX | Stock Ale | 1086.70 | 11.00 | 5.24 | 100.00% | |
25th Jan | 1858 | K Ale XXX | Stock Ale | 1087.26 | 14.00 | 6.75 | 100.00% | |
Source: Courage brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives | ||||||||
You know what else is odd? In the early 19th century, London brewers used a couple of different ways of designating K Ales. Truman used a K suffix: XXK, XXXK, XXXXK. Whitbread did the exact opposite and used a prefix: KXX, KXXX, KXXXX. Courage managed to find yet another way: K Ale XX, K Ale XXX. But by 1900 they'd all switched to KK, KKK and KKKK. I wonder why that was? Perhaps it was a recognition of the fact that X Ales and K Ales had diverged to such an extent that they were truly separate families.
These are the ancestors of 20th-century Burton. I'm not sure if they were already called that by thuis period. (There's something else to investigate: when drinkers started calling Stock Ales Burton in London. Maybe Martyn Cornell has some idea.)
I'm not sure why I bothered including the grists as they're so dull. Just one type of malt. Interestingly, Courage's X Ales were not this simple. But more of that later. I'm saving the discovery for later. Let's just say this: it complicates the story of Mild's development.
Posts
7 comments:
What is more amazing is the time taken to draw those letters. Take a look back at some of your brew logs. The Ks and Xs are really quite elegant. As a designer I'm impressed. How many brewers, today, would take the time to include serifs or compose delicate open face figures?
Craig, I know. And they made all that effort in documents that almost no-one would ever see.
Maybe Martyn Cornell has some idea
Judging by old adverts, London brewers were calling some of their stock ales "Burton" by at least the 1890s: I'm going to have to try to track when the name comes in for ales not brewed in Burton itself …
Honestly, I have brew logs and I'm a graphic designer. I deal with fonts and typefaces everyday. I would never think to do anything so elaborate as that. It must have taken hours to fill one of those things out. At the expense of my profession I ask "Why?" Rhetorically, of course.
In the various parliamentary committees that preceded the 1875 trademark act, Bass's representative, and the Burton brewers in general, complained of other beers being passed off as Burton Ale.
In particular they (the committee in general) mentioned that Scotch Ale was often passed off as Burton Ale, and Burton Ale was often passed off as Scotch Ale. They wanted the trademark act to also function as a sort of 'appellation' thing.
Obviously the trademark act never went that far, but they obviously thought that there was a problem there. The report that I was reading was from the late 1860's I think.
Three points I want to make about the elegant lettering:
1. It's not actually all that much more effort to draw an elegant letter than an ugly one. Especially if you've had copperplate handwriting beaten into you at school like these guys had.
2. If the Customs & Excise guys couldn't read your writing, you were in trouble (a retired brewer told me this).
3. For every nice brewing log, there are another dozen which are nearly illegible. Which contradicts points 1 and 2, but never mind.
Ever since I have been interested in this stuff, I have been intrigued as to why a load of breweries, from London and elsewhere, scuttled off to Burton in the early 1870s. There can only be two reasons: the water or marketing. Water is given as the classic excuse, but water treatment seems to have been well-enough established by 1870 for that to have been unnecessary. It also does not explain the sudden, almost overnight, en-mass movement.
That leaves marketing. By 1870 it was inevitable that a trademark act of some sort was going to happen, the only question was the form that it was going to take. It had been dicussed and argued about for at least ten years prior to act coming about.
There were two or three forms of act, or at least types of protection, being discussed. The Burton brewers and the Edinburgh brewers were very active these discussions because Burton Ale and Scotch Ale were just about the only two 'geographically named' beers still in existence; although by that time Burton Ale and Scotch Ale were virtually indistinguishable. Both were pushing for an appellation type of protection in addition to trade mark protection, and it looked as if that was going to happen.
So I wonder if it could have been something as simple as the forthcoming trademark act that panicked brewers that already had a good trade in selling fake Burton Ale, into setting up shop in Burton so that they could continue using the label.
I like that idea because it explains the sudden exodus and it reinforces my idea that legislation has had more to do with brewing history than anything else.
It is surprising what the subconscious mind will unexpectedly flag up, obviously triggered by my previous post.
Post a Comment