Wednesday, 23 March 2022

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1901 Boddington IPA

I’m not sure where this beer fits in with modern concepts of “English IPA”. Though I’ve always considered the American definitions of that style as what they thought it should be rather than reflecting IPAs actually brewed in the UK. BeerSmith tells me that this beer is too hoppy for the style. There you go then.

To me, this is too weak to be classed with a contemporary Burton IPA. They had gravities around 1065º, a good ten points stronger. And were far more heavily hopped. So, what makes this an IPA? That’s what the brewer called it. Simple as that. Another brewery might well have called it just Pale Ale. There’s absolutely no logic to this stuff.

There’s a slight variation in the recipe here, in that the type of sugar is different. While in the Mild Ales the sugar is described as “Garton”, here it’s simply called “invert”. As this is consistent, I have to conclude that it’s a different type of sugar. I’ve plumped for No. 2. It could just as easily have been No. 1, which was mostly employed in classier Pale Ales.

Unlike in the Mild Ales, there’s no Ouchac malt, just English and Californian.

Hops came mostly from England, there types, backed up my one Californian. All undated, sadly.

1901 Boddington IPA
pale malt 11.25 lb 91.84%
No. 2 invert sugar 1.00 lb 8.16%
Cluster 130 mins 1.00 oz
Fuggles 90 mins 2.00 oz
Goldings 30 mins 2.00 oz
Goldings dry hops 0.50 oz
OG 1054.5
FG 1017
ABV 4.96
Apparent attenuation 68.81%
IBU 68
Mash at 154º F
Sparge at 165º F
Boil time 130 minutes
pitching temp 60.5º F
Yeast Wyeast 1318 London ale III (Boddingtons)


Pierce said...

I think officially this is a hazy New England IPA because it uses London Ale III. Seems odd, but I don't write the rules...

PeeBee said...

I'll be trying this after seeing off the similar "1896 Rose AK" recipe in your "AK!" book (no rice in this Boddington one but tons more hops). BUT ... sugar! Garston sugar seems reasonable (their refineries were just up the road/ship-canal). After making that 1896 Rose AK (home-made invert syrup No.2) I investigated Invert Sugar: In 1901 (and 1896!) "No.2" ("No.3, etc.) referred to "quality" of sugar (before inverting), not "colour" (mainly from caramelising fructose after inverting) like today. Is "plumped for No. 2" such a good idea?

PeeBee said...

You write "I have to conclude that it’s a different type of sugar". No you don't? Many breweries inverted their own "invert sugar" so they could still be using sugar from Garston's refineries. E.g.

I get most of my information from ... hang-on, I'll find his name ... ah, this guy "Ron Pattinson". You could ask him?

PeeBee said...

I take back my earlier posts. Seems Garston (sugar refiners in Liverpool) was a very coincidental typo by me. Ron records "Garton" (sugar refiners in London). Even Lancastrian Edd (Beer-History-Bloke) didn't think Boddington's (in Manchester) got sugar from Garston (which I think got swallowed up by the T&L bunch).

Nice idea but leaping to conclusions based on a spelling mistake isn't very clever.