That's the document number of the Barclay Perkins brewing record I'd mislaid my photos of.
It was driving me nuts, because I knew I had them. I'm very careful with my photos of brewing records. I've so many - I think around 15,000 - if I didn't arrange them logically in folders I'd never be able to find anything. I just checked the number of photos. It's over 24,000.
This was the reason I couldn't find the photos:
When I started each new book, I'd first take a photo of the document number so I'd know exactly where the photos were from. You'll note in this case I got it wrong, writing 612 instead of 620. I realised something was wrong when I noticed I'd two sets for 612. As I wasn't sure what the real document number was, I wasn't able to name the folder properly. As this was all several years ago, I'd forgotten about the confusion.
I'm glad I did find it, even though I'd transcribed all the information I needed. because I assumed the No. 2 invert in my transcript was a mistake on my part and that it was really No. 3. That's what they always used in their Mild. But I was wrong. It really did specify No. 2 invert in the record. See if you can spot it:
Someone suggested recently that I should include a picture of the brewing record with my recipes. Not sure if I'll do it. But that's the one for yesterday's recipe.
News, Nuggets & Longreads 19 May 2018: Boozers, Brussels, Benin - It’s Saturday morning and time for us to round up links to all the writing about beer and pubs we’ve found stimulating, entertaining or engaging in the p...
1 day ago