W.E. & J. Rigden hops in 1884/85

Finally, it’s the turn of hops.

Quite a lot of different ones, all of them English. Which, I suppose, isn’t that odd for a brewery located in Kent. Though none are specifically identified as being from that county. I suspect that the ones only identified by the name of the grower (English in the table).

Most striking is the presence of some spent hops in every single beer. They were really squeezing every last bit of goodness from them. I’ve come across brewers throwing spent hops into their cheap beers, but never into every single one in their range.

All the hops were pretty fresh, with nothing older than a year or two. That might be on account of them all being English. Which were mostly used without much age. Unlike American hops, which were often used when three or more years old.

As was standard, all the beers contained at least two types of hops. 

W.E. & J. Rigden hops in 1884/85
Beer	Style	hop 1	hop 2	hop 3	hop 4	hop 5
Beer	Mild	Sussex 1884	English 1883	English 1883	spent
AK	Pale Ale	Sussex 1884	English 1884	English 1884	English 1883	spent
AK Stock	Pale Ale	Worcs. 1884	English 1883	spent
Special Ale	Pale Ale	Sussex 1884	English 1884	spent
XXK	Pale Ale	Sussex 1884	Farnham 1884	English 1884	spent
TA	Table Ale	Sussex 1884	English 1884	English 1884	English 1883	spent
XXX	Stock Ale	Farnham 1884	English 1884	spent
P	Porter	English 1883	English 1883	spent
DS	Stout	English 1883	English 1883	spent
Source:
Fremlin brewing record held at the Kent Archives, document number U3555/2/GBR/BX2/1/9.

 

 

W.E. & J. Rigden sugars in 1884/85

Continuing with the fermentables, it's time for sugar. Several different types of lovely sugar.

In most cases, it’s one of the classic invert sugars, No. 2 or No. 3. With the cheap beers using No. 3, the posher beers No. 2. Though this wasn’t consistent in the case of AK. When brewed single-gyle, No. 2 was used. When it was parti-gyled with Beer or Table Ale, it was No. 3. Which must have had some impact on the colour of the beer. But was anyone looking that closely?

The Black Beers, however, have something completely different. Described simply as “sugar” in the brewing records. What the hell was that? Simply raw cane sugar? That would probably be my guess. But there’s no way to be certain. Rather randomly, this type also appears in the Stock version of AK.

Pretty high, is how I would describe the sugar content. Which for most of Rigden’s range is above 20%. In many cases, above 25%. Note that it’s the highest in three of the most expensive beers, Special Ale, XXK and XXX. And lowest in Beer, the Mild Ale. 

W.E. & J. Rigden sugars in 1884/85
Beer	Style	no. 2 sugar	no. 3 sugar	other sugar	total sugar
Beer	Mild		17.39%		17.39%
AK	Pale Ale		22.47%		22.47%
AK Stock	Pale Ale			22.86%	22.86%
Special Ale	Pale Ale	25.00%			25.00%
XXK	Pale Ale	27.59%			27.59%
TA	Table Ale		22.47%		22.47%
XXX	Stock Ale	26.23%			26.23%
P	Porter			17.39%	17.39%
DS	Stout			15.63%	15.63%
Source:
Fremlin brewing record held at the Kent Archives, document number U3555/2/GBR/BX2/1/9.

 

 

W.E. & J. Rigden grists in 1884/85

And what about the ingredients in Rigden's beers? Well, let’s take a look. Starting with grains.

The base malt in every beer is pale malt. Nothing unusual there. Note, though, that often there was more than one type of pale malt.

Only the Black Beers contain any other type of malt. Namely brown and black malt. Which leaves them with a very London-like grist. With getting on for a 20% roast malt content. I assume that the proximity to capital was why the grist is so similar to those of London brewers.

Only the three cheapest beers, Table Ale, Beer and AK, contain any adjuncts. In the form of flaked maize. Which lowers the malts percentage to around 65%. While the posher beers have around 75%, or, in the case of the Black Beers, 85%. It’s clear that, in the cheap beers, flaked maize is a direct substitute for base malt.

W.E. & J. Rigden grists in 1884/85
Beer	Style	pale malt	brown malt	black malt	total malt	flaked maize
Beer	Mild	69.57%			69.57%	13.04%
AK	Pale Ale	64.04%			64.04%	13.48%
AK Stock	Pale Ale	77.14%			77.14%
Special Ale	Pale Ale	75.00%			75.00%
XXK	Pale Ale	72.41%			72.41%
TA	Table Ale	64.04%			64.04%	13.48%
XXX	Stock Ale	73.77%			73.77%
P	Porter	65.22%	10.87%	6.52%	82.61%
DS	Stout	65.63%	11.72%	7.03%	84.38%
Source:
Fremlin brewing record held at the Kent Archives, document number U3555/2/GBR/BX2/1/9.

 

 

Preliminary archive results

When I'm in archives, I don't spend a huge amount of time analysing documents. There's plenty of time for that later. I just snap away, making sure I take as many photos as possible.

I snapped 29 documents described as brewing books. More than enough material, surely? Well, it's not quite as simple as that.

The good news, is that there were records from more than the two breweries, Fremlin and George Beer & Rigden, that were in my original plan. There was a single brewing book each from two breweries owned by Tomson & Wotton. Both from 1893. And much of the two books in the same handwriting. They also contain most everything I'm interested in and are easy to read..

Not such good news with George Beer & Rigden. Of the twelve documents I photographed, only five are really brewing records. The others are gyle books, which only list the ingredients. Nothing about processes. On the other hand, the actual brewing records are very good, containing all the information I usually plug into my spreadsheet. Unfortunately, only one is for the period I'm interested in, 1880 to 1914.

What about Fremlin? I photographed fourteen volumes. On the upside, all but one are really brewing books. Only the last one, from 1970, is a gyle book. They aren't as complete as the Beer & Rigden records. They really are just brewing books, with no details of the fermentation at all. But it gets worse.

Part of a Fremlin brewing record.

The first five brewing books are in code. And not just the mashing temperatures, which I've seen before. All the numbers are in code. Even the boil time and the gravity. Fucking magic. It makes them just about unusable. Fortunately, the other records are all uncoded. Including three covering 1880 to 1914. If I'm lucky, I'll be able to use those to decode the others. But it will take a load of work. 

Overall, less useful stuff than I'd hoped for. But plenty to be getting on with. And probably 40 to 50 recipes for the book. Which was what I was really after.