I’m sure the reason is historical. Scotland never experienced a Porter boom the same way London did, where it was totally dominant for nigh on 100 years. Porter and Stout were popular in Scotland, but never pre-eminent. And the appeal of Brown Beer started to fade after 1850.
Usher’s Export Stout is a funny beer. It doesn’t look like an Export Stout to me. Not even a Stout, really. At just 5% ABV this would have been considered a Porter in London. And it has a classic mid-19th-century London Porter grist: a combination of pale, brown and black malt. Though a London Porter would have contained more pale malt and less brown. One of the weird things is that while Scottish brewers rarely used dark malts in other styles, their percentage was often very high in Stouts.
Here’s a London Porter for comparison purposes:
|1894 Whitbread P|
|Whitbread brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/09/089.|
The boil is quite long at 3.5 hours. Long boils weren’t unusual for London Porters in the early part of the 19th century. Especially for the later, weaker worts. But by the end of the century shorter boils were the order of the day – 1.5 to 2 hours – except for the strongest Stouts. I would wonder if the long boil here was designed to add colour, but with 30% dark malts in the grist, I don’t think that would have been necessary.
It looks like a very pleasant drinking Porter to me. A beer I’d rather like to try.
|1894 Thomas Usher Export Stout|
|pale malt||9.50 lb||70.37%|
|brown malt||2.25 lb||16.67%|
|black malt||1.75 lb||12.96%|
|Cluster 210 min||1.25 oz|
|Cluster 120 min||1.25 oz|
|Cluster 90 min||1.25 oz|
|Cluster 30 min||1.25 oz|
|Mash at||148º F|
|Sparge at||170º F|
|Boil time||210 minutes|
|pitching temp||58º F|