I'll liven things up with a random newspaper article mentioning Meux from the 1890's. "Liven" obviously being a relative term in terms of this blog. It still amazes me anyone reads this stuff. There's so much I'm not sure even I could be bothered.
It's a court case (as so many brewery mentions in newspapers are) about the nuisance of a power station:
"CHANCERY DIVISION.My guess is that it was the pub just blow and to the right of the letter N in BANKSIDE. It is pretty close to the power plant. None of what's shown on the back, this being the later site of Bankside power station. Now known as Tate Modern
(Before Mr. Justice Kekewich.)
DAMAGE FROM ELECTRIC WORKS.
Meux Brewery Company (Limited) v. City of London Electric Lighting Company (Limited). — Shelfer v. the Same. — This was an action by the Plaintiffs, the owners of the freehold, and the tenant of a public-house, for an injunction to refrain the Defendants from the use of any dynamo, or other engine or machinery, so as by vibration or otherwise to injure the Plaintiffs' premises, The Plaintiffs, licensed victuallers, complained of subsidence, vibration, and noise, and asked for an injunction and damages. The Plaintiffs' premises were the Waterman's Arms, Bankside, situate on the Surrey side of the river Thames, between Blackfriars and Southwark Bridges. — Mr. Warmington. Q.C., and Mr. Badcock appeared for the Meux Brewery Company (Limited) ; Mr. Warmington, Q.C., and Mr. Waggett for Mr. Shelfer: Mr. Moulton, Q.C., Mr. Renshaw, Q.C., and Mr. W. C. Braithwaite for the Defendants.
Mr. Justice Kekewich said that the Plaintiffs, the Brewery Company, were not entitled to an injunction in respect of noise and vibration, and that part of the action must be dismissed with costs, but they were entitled to an inquiry as to damage to the structure. As to the Plaintiff Shelfer, there was no doubt that there was an interference with the ordinary comfort of the house, and there must be an inquiry as to damages caused by noise and vibration, and also injury to the structure, together with costs of the action."
London Standard - Friday 20 April 1894, page 2.
Let's look back at Meux's earlier scores. Amongst the Burton Ales, Meux came a respectable fourth from eleven with an average score of 1.11. Its Milds did rather worse, the 5d Ale coming 13th (average score -0.57) and the 7d/6d Mild 11th (average score 0). So a bit patchy in terms of beer quality.
Now their Pale Ale. As you can see, an 8d/7d Ordinary Bitter. The gravity is a tad lower than the average across all breweries of 1046, but a slightly higher degree of attenuation leaves it a touch over average ABV.
|Meux Pale Ale quality 1922 - 1925|
|1923||PA||1007.6||1043.6||4.69||82.57%||brilliant||thin & nasty||-3||8d|
|1923||PA||1008.8||1046.8||4.95||81.20%||not bright||going off||-2||7d|
|Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001|
Clarity is once again poor with fewer than half - five from twelve - of the examples bright. An impressive 75% (nine from ten)have a positive score for flavour. Unfortunately for the average score, the bad ones were pretty bad and none of the good ones really great. The result, a small positive score of 0.33.
My conclusion? Meux's Bitter seems a fairly safe, if unexciting, bet. Unless you're in one of the pubs where it's crap.