Monday, 18 August 2014

Whitbread Porter quality 1922

The day has finally arrived. I'm at the end of the Porter analyses. When did I start this? Was it 1984 or 1985?

I'm going to structure things slightly differently this time. Because I have the relevant brewing records of Whitbread Porter from 1922. Funnily enough, they make things more rather than less confusing. A quick comparison of the gravities in the two tables will explain what I mean.

Clearly Whitbread's Porter wasn't being sold as brewed. The gravity of the pub sample is six points higher than when it went into the fermenter. There are two possible explanations. Either it was primed like hell at racking time, or it was blended with another beer. The jump in gravity seems far too high for primings to be the explanation. I'd be inclined to go for the blending option. And there is an obvious candidate: CS, Country Stout, which had a gravity of 1046. A 50 - 50 blend of the two would get you around the gravity of the pub sample.

There's just one slight problem with that theory. As the Porter was already being parti-gyled with CS, why not just get the gravity right before fermentation? The only reason I can think of not to do this is if the weaker version was being sold straight somewhere. I'm really a bit stumped with this one.

As you can see, this is an Oatmeal Porter. Though with the laughably small amount of oats typical of London brewers. At less than 1% of the grist, its flavour contribution must have been nil. Not that it was marketed as Oatmeal Porter. The oats are in there for COS, Country Oatmeal Stout, one of the beers in the parti-gyle. It was, in fact, exactly the same as Country Stout.

Whitbread Porter 1922
Date Year OG FG ABV App. Atten-uation lbs hops/ qtr hops lb/brl boil time (hours) boil time (hours) Pitch temp colour
18th May 1922 1027.9 1007.0 2.77 74.95% 6.99 0.85 1.5 1.83 64º 14.5 brown 1 red
7th Apr 1922 1028.1 1008.0 2.66 71.52% 6.93 0.84 1.5 1.75 64º 14 brown 1 red
7th Jul 1922 1027.8 1007.0 2.75 74.78% 7.39 0.88 ? 1.75 64º 14 brown 1 red
17th Jul 1922 1028.0 1007.0 2.78 75.00% 7.42 0.93 1.5 1.75 64º 13 brown 1 red
Sources:
Whitbread brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document numbers LMA/4453/D/09/115 and LMA/4453/D/09/116.


Whitbread Porter 1922
Date Year OG FG pale malt brown malt black malt no. 3 sugar oats
18th May 1922 1027.9 1007.0 63.96% 13.58% 13.58% 8.30% 0.57%
7th Apr 1922 1028.1 1008.0 63.12% 14.11% 14.11% 7.92% 0.74%
7th Jul 1922 1027.8 1007.0 63.96% 14.15% 13.02% 8.30% 0.57%
17th Jul 1922 1028.0 1007.0 63.96% 14.15% 13.02% 8.30% 0.57%
Sources:
Whitbread brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document numbers LMA/4453/D/09/115 and LMA/4453/D/09/116.

The grist is pretty simple and quite like a late 19th-century one: pale, brown and black malt plus No. 3 invert sugar. About the only unusual feature is the high percentage of black malt. It's odd to see as much black as brown malt. Typically, the quantity of brown malt would be considerably greater than that of black malt. That was certainly the case at Whitbread before WW I.

Time to review Whitbread's performance so far. Whitbread had two Milds in the ring, full-strength X Ale and watery MA. Surprisingly their MA scored quite well, finishing fourth of seventeen with an average of 0.67. While X Ale was a disappointing twelfth, averaging -0.2. Their Burton performed very well finishing first of fourteen and averaging 1.33. Their Pale Ale did even better, coming first of fifteen with an average of 2.25. Though it should be noted that the sample sizes were much smaller for Whitbread's beers.

Let's take a look at how their Porter did:

Whitbread Porter quality 1922
Year Beer FG OG ABV App. Atten-uation Flavour score Price
1922 Porter 1012.2 1034.7 2.91 64.84% exceptionally good 3 6d
1922 Porter 1010.2 1033.7 3.04 69.73% thin, sound -1 6d
1922 Porter 1013.2 1035.7 2.91 63.03% v . fair 2 6d
Average  1011.9 1034.7 2.95 65.87% 1.33
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001


They got the only perfect three score of any of the Porters. Only one of the samples was a bit duff and got a negative score, leaving a good average of 1.33. But there were only three samples, leaving plenty of room for distortion.

Next time I'll be rounding up Porter with a look at the full league table. That'll be fun. Well, probably not, but I have to remain upbeat, no matter how achingly dull my posts are.

1 comment:

J. Karanka said...

Regarding the black malt. As gravity dropped after the war more dark malt would be needed to keep the flavour and body acceptable. If you just scaled down a pre-war recipe you'd end up with light brown watery stuff.