"Modern, in Groll's days, meant that the malt had to be finished the new-fangled English way, by drying it in an indirect-fired kiln, instead of a traditional, direct-fired, smoky one. This revolutionary method had been patented by Daniel Wheeler in 1817 as "an Improved Method of Drying and Preparing Malt." This was the first industrial kiln that allowed brewers to make clean-tasting malt predictably of any color, including pale."
"Finally, he [Groll] fermented the wort, not as an ale, but with bottom-fermenting yeast that had apparently been smuggled into Bohemia by an itinerant Bavarian monk. This subterfuge was necessary because the Bavarian government had slapped a ban on all yeast shipments beyond its borders in an effort to safeguard Bavaria's growing beer exports."
How many mistakes can you spot in those two paragraphs?
Thanks to Thomas Barnes for passing this on.
Posts
10 comments:
Here goes - bet I don't get all of them -
"Modern, in Groll's days, meant that the malt had to be finished the new-fangled English way" - this is not wrong, but implies that Groll specified the English malting at Pilsen, which he didn't.
"This revolutionary method had been patented by Daniel Wheeler in 1817 as "an Improved Method of Drying and Preparing Malt." This was the first industrial kiln that allowed brewers to make clean-tasting malt predictably of any color, including pale." - this is plain wrong. Wheeler's invention was a drum which enabled maltsters to roast pale malt in a controlled way, like a coffee roaster. Nothing to do with drying malt in a more gentle, indirect way to produce much paler malt.
"Finally, he [Groll] fermented the wort, not as an ale, but with bottom-fermenting yeast that had apparently been smuggled into Bohemia by an itinerant Bavarian monk" - There is no evidence for this at all, and the fact that it's on the PU website doesn't make it any more credible. It's pretty obviously something some PR clown has invented to add a dash of romance to the story.
It's far more likely that Groll already new about cold fermentation from working in his father's brewery. Some Czech websites say that Groll had worked with Sedlmayr.
"the Bavarian government had slapped a ban on all yeast shipments beyond its borders in an effort to safeguard Bavaria's growing beer exports." - never heard this one before. What's the source please Horst?
Sorry but I just don't think there's any point in running the Protz Shield or Paparzian Cup any more Ron - Horst wins every time.
Horst is Brazil
Damn, you already posted my entry for this year's Papazian cup!
Isn't it easier to list the bits that are true?
Never mind picking pedantic holes in ancient scriptures Ron. Get a grip and take us into Eadie's 'Union Room' on Cross Street, Burton with all speed...
"more likely that Groll already new about cold fermentation from working in his father's brewery. Some Czech websites say that Groll had worked with Sedlmayr" and Dreher (sorry for the omission there)
Thinking about it, the new Pilsen brewery was a brand new, purpose-built, state of the art plant, and the citizens presumably wanted a brewer who was bang up to speed with the latest developments, so is it unreasonable to suppose that a knowledge of, and experience in, working with cold fermentation might have been the reason that Groll got the job?
What is particularly worrying is that this clown is one of the contributors to the forthcoming Oxford Companion to Beer. Horst does seem to be one of those people - I've come across them before - who, when presented with a stick, will almost inevitably grasp the wrong end of it. And the "Bavarian monk" story is clearly cock - it wasn't a Bavarian monk gave JC Jacobsen his bottom-fermenting yeast in 1845, he took it back to Denmark from the Spaten brewery itself.
Martyn, it's worse than that. He was an associate editor.
You should take a look at his Ultimate Beer Almanac. It had me in fits of uncontrollable laughter. Every page has at least half a dozen howlers.
Ron, Martyn -
what really pisses me of about this twat is the sheer laziness behind what he writes.
Both of you do really valuable original research in your spare time - you both have day jobs, and you have to fit your beer stuff around them. Dornbusch, on the other hand is a full-time, supposed, professional, so you'd think he would have at least as much time as you two to check things and get them right. But no - he can't be arsed. Far easier to just swallow obvious bullshit like the monk story and regurgitate it unchecked. And then make up horseshit like the Bavarian government banning the export of yeast.
Getting the Wheeler's invention thing so wrong is just inexcusable - it's so easy to check and it's not a grey area.
Part of my job at Meantime is giving talks, staff product training, brewery tours etc, and I recently was asked to give a talk on Tudor ale and beer. I spent weeks reading everythig I could find (and I gratefully acknowledge Martyn's help here)in preparation.
You do it, Martyn does it and I do it - why doesn't Dornbusch?
Because he's a lazy git on easy money. Nice work if you can get it.
Rod, depending upon your point of view, Horst's 'day job' makes his sloppiness either better or worse.
He is a marketing and PR consultant for 'alcoholic beverage' producers (http://www.cerevisiacommunications.com/). Among the services he offers clients are: "Feature writing and placement."
So, when he produces these articles one never knows whether it is sloppy research or shilling for clients that provides the hilarity.
I think Horst has to be excluded from the Papazian Cup.
He just doesn't let anyone else get a look-in.
Post a Comment