London Mild Ale during WW I

Courage’s X Ale went through quite a few changes during the war.

There was quite a change in the rate of attenuation. My guess is that they were trying to compensate for the fall in gravity. In 1918, with gravities under 1025º, they were really pushing the limits of what you could call beer. Because of the rules about average gravity, every barrel they brewed at 1021º meant they could brew one at 1039º, or a half barrel at 1047º. It was very tempting to slash the gravity of a big seller like Mild to maximise the amount of stronger, more profitable beer you could brew.

It’s interesting to note that the hopping rate per barrel remaining fairly constant at around 1 pound per barrel when the gravity was more than halved. That’s reflected by the increase in the hopping rate per quarter, which rose from 4-5 lbs to over 10 lbs. Again, I assume that to compensate for the fall in gravity and boost flavour.

The grist was tweaked several times during the war years:

The big increase in the proportion of crystal malt from 1917 on is intriguing. As it seems to correlate with the fall in gravity. It looks like another attempt to compensate for the falling strength of X Ale. While the appearance of black malt corresponds to a fall in the percentage of No. 3 invert sugar. So it’s surely a colour correction.

The 1920 recipe is quite different from the 1914 one: far less base malt, slightly more No. 3 invert, almost three times as much crystal malt.

Courage X Ale 1914 - 1920
Date	Year	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl
17th Oct	1914	1054.6	1019.4	4.65	64.47%	4.96	1.05
8th Mar	1915	1049.9	1018.3	4.18	63.33%	4.00	0.78
23rd Sep	1915	1048.2	1011.1	4.91	77.01%	4.96	0.96
11th Oct	1916	1048.2	1007.2	5.42	85.06%	5.00	0.97
9th May	1916	1044.9	1006.9	5.02	84.57%	6.51	1.18
2nd Jan	1917	1045.7	1010.0	4.73	78.18%	3.88	0.76
8th Jun	1917	1041.6	1007.2	4.54	82.67%	8.72	1.16
19th Oct	1917	1034.6	1006.4	3.74	81.60%	7.57	1.13
18th Jan	1918	1034.6	1006.9	3.66	80.00%	7.38	1.13
20th Apr	1918	1023.8	1004.4	2.57	81.40%	9.41	1.01
19th Nov	1918	1021.1	1003.9	2.27	81.58%	10.89	1.01
30th Jun	1919	1023.5	1003.6	2.64	84.71%	6.78	0.75
7th Jul	1919	1027.4	1004.4	3.04	83.84%	8.17	0.99
29th Dec	1919	1037.7	1007.2	4.03	80.88%	5.98	1.00
22nd Apr	1920	1037.7	1007.5	3.99	80.15%	5.91	0.98
Sources:
Courage brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document numbers ACC/2305/08/247, ACC/2305/08/248, ACC/2305/08/249, ACC/2305/08/250 and ACC/2305/08/251.

Courage X Ale grists 1914 - 1920
Date	Year	OG	pale malt	black malt	crystal malt	no. 3 sugar	caramel	glucose	black invert
17th Oct	1914	1054.6	82.1%	0.8%	6.1%	11.0%
8th Mar	1915	1049.9	82.8%		6.1%	11.1%
23rd Sep	1915	1048.2	82.4%		6.3%	11.3%
11th Oct	1915	1048.2	82.8%		6.1%	11.1%
9th May	1916	1044.9	80.5%		6.0%	13.4%
2nd Jan	1917	1045.7	75.0%		9.1%	15.9%
8th Jun	1917	1041.6	73.6%		11.3%	15.1%
19th Oct	1917	1034.6	76.2%	1.7%	13.3%	6.6%			2.2%
18th Jan	1918	1034.6	76.1%	1.7%	13.0%	9.2%
20th Apr	1918	1023.8	70.9%	2.9%	18.4%	7.8%
19th Nov	1918	1021.1	64.5%	5.4%	19.4%			10.8%
30th Jun	1919	1023.5	66.3%	2.0%	15.3%	13.6%	2.7%
7th Jul	1919	1027.4	67.6%	2.0%	15.4%	13.7%	1.4%
29th Dec	1919	1037.7	64.4%		19.8%	15.8%
22nd Apr	1920	1037.7	69.1%		16.7%	13.2%	1.0%
Sources:
Courage brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document numbers ACC/2305/08/247, ACC/2305/08/248, ACC/2305/08/249, ACC/2305/08/250 and ACC/2305/08/251.

The above is an excerpt from Armistice!, which takes a detailed look at the exciting world of WW I brewing. Including some of the most watery beer recipes ever.

 Buy this wonderful book.

Old Ale after WW II

After WW II, the term Old Ale rarely referred to a beer that had been aged for any length of time. Mostly, it was just something stronger than usual. And how much stronger that was varied from region to region and brewery to brewery. There was one feature they all had in common: a dark colour.

In the Southeast, Old Ale was effectively a stronger version of Dark Mild. And was often parti-gyled with it.

In the North, it was often something stronger. Old Tom, for example. Or Old Something. Strong, dark beers often had an Old prefix. Often the difference between these stronger types and Barley Wine is blurred.

Bottled Old Ale 1950 - 1965
Year	Brewer	Beer	Price per pint d	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	colour
1950	Barclay Perkins	No. 1 Southwarke Ale	32	1052.4	1021.1	4.04	59.73%	80
1953	Bentley's Yorkshire Brewery	Old Timothy	45	1075.6	1014.7	7.98	80.56%	100
1953	Bullard	Old Ale	48	1080.5	1026.2	7.06	67.45%	68
1952	Courage	Double Courage	43.5	1068.4	1010.8	7.55	84.21%	150
1953	Duttons	O.B.J.	32	1060.9	1013.7	6.15	77.50%	83
1959	George Gale	Prize Old Ale		1089.3	1006.9	10.95	92.27%	60
1953	Greene King	Suffolk Ale	36	1062.8	1020.7	5.46	67.04%	56
1953	John Smith	Magnet Old Ale	42	1072.5	1022.9	6.44	68.41%	83
1953	JW Green	Dragon's Blood	45	1073.6	1028.1	5.88	61.82%	56
1953	McMullen	Old Time Ale	45	1062.1	1015.1	6.12	75.68%	105
1958	Mitchell & Butler	Amba Pale Old Ale	45	1056.3	1012.4	5.49	77.98%	18
1953	Steward & Patteson	Old Ale	48	1080.3	1011	9.13	86.30%	80
1959	Websters	Old Tom	26	1045.1	1012.5	4.23	72.28%	150
1965	Wrekin	Old Ale	31	1039.8	1012.7	3.39	68.09%	90
1953	Youngs, Crawshay & Youngs	Old John	54	1075.2	1025.3	6.47	66.36%	80
	Average		40.9	1066.3	1016.9	6.4	73.71%	83.9
Sources:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/002.

The above is an extract from my book on UK brewing after WW II, Austerity!.

http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/austerity/23181344

Harvey's beers in 1889

I've already extracted the details from the Harvey's brewing records which fell into my hands.

How this Harvey's brewing book ended up in the Beards archive is also becoming clearer. Mr. Miles Jenner, head brewers at Harvey's, tells me that Henry John Barrett served an apprenticeship at Harvery's and then later went on to be head brewer at Beards. This looks like it was his personal brewing book.

Moving onto the beeers themsleves, it's quite a small range. Two Milds, a Stock Ale a Pale Ale and a Stout. Even for a small-town brewery, that's pretty minimal. By this late, most breweries would have brewed multiple Stouts and probably a Light Pale Ale (1045-1050º).

All the beers are around the same strength as London equivalents, which slightly surprised me. I'm accustomed to provincial beers being weaker. You can see from the two tables below that there's a very close sorrelatioon between the graities of Harvey and Barclay Perkins.

A couple of the Harvey's beers - SB and Stout - have slightly lower hopping rates. But PA and X have roughly similar rates to the Barclay Perkins beers of the same class.

Interestingly, the rate of attenuation is generally a bit higher in the Harvey's beers.

Harvey's beers in 1889
Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl
X	Mild	1057.6	1013.9	5.79	75.96%	5.70	1.47
XXX	Mild	1075.3	1020.8	7.22	72.43%	6.66	2.39
SB	Stock Ale	1078.9	1018.8	7.95	76.14%	9.02	3.21
PA	Pale Ale	1066.5	1020.2	6.12	69.58%	12.90	3.96
Stout	Stout	1078.7	1026.3	6.93	66.55%	6.65	2.43
Source:
Harvey brewing record held at the East Sussex Record Office, document number BBR 2/1/3.

Barclay Perkins beers 1891 - 1892
Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl
X	Mild	1057.0	1016.6	5.34	70.84%	5.95	1.47
KK	Stock Ale	1074.0	1021.1	7.00	71.55%	14.22	4.61
PA	Pale Ale	1063.0	1021.1	5.55	66.58%	12.46	3.03
BS	Stout	1077.0	1027.0	6.61	64.94%	8.56	2.98
Source:
Barclay Perkins brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document numbers ACC/2305/1/587 and ACC/2305/1/588.

Let's Brew - 1889 Harvey X

Here’s a recipe I never thought I’d write. A Harvey’s beer from before WW I. As it was thought none of their brewing records from this period had survived. It appears that at least one brewing book has survived, just miscataloged as being from another Lewes brewery, Beard.

It doesn’t contain a huge number of different beers. Two Milds, a Stock Ale, a Pale Ale and a Stout. Quite a small range for a Victorian brewer. Then again, they weren’t that large an operation. The maximum brew length was around 50 barrels. They couldn’t have been brewing more than around 10,000 barrels a year.

If you had asked me to guess the gravity of this beer, I’d have said 1050º at the absolute maximum, and more likely 1045º. Why? Because beers tended to be weaker outside London. In 1889, both Barclay Perkins and Whitbread X Ale were 1058º. Or about the same strength as Harvey X.

There’s nothing very complicated about the recipe. It’s just pale malt and invert sugar. Interestingly, it’s No. 2 rather than the No. 3 invert you might expect. Even so, No. 2 is enough to change the colour of the finished beer to what I would call semi-dark. About 20% of the base malt is described as “Smyrna”, that is from the Middle East.

Unusually for the late Victorian period, when huge quantities were being imported, all the hops are English. A combination of Kent from the 1888 harvest and East Kent from 1887 and 1888.

At the bottom of the fermentation chart it says “Run into Puns”. Puns, I assume, standing for puncheons. At 84 gallons, those are pretty large casks. Not usually the sort of size you’d be delivering to pubs.

1889 Harvey X
pale malt	10.00 lb	83.33%
No. 2 invert sugar	2.00 lb	16.67%
Fuggles 85 mins	1.00 oz
Goldings 60 mins	0.75 oz
Goldings 30 mins	0.75 oz
OG	1057.5
FG	1014
ABV	5.75
Apparent attenuation	75.65%
IBU	29
SRM	10
Mash at	150º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	85 minutes
pitching temp	57.5º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1332 Northwest ale

Miscatalogued records

Archives aren't perfect. Especially when it comes to cataloguing specialised material, such as brewing records.

Which makes searching for brewing records a sometimes frustrating task. What has this particular archive called them? Brewing books? Brewing journals? Something else entirely? It necessitates a good bit of rumbling around in the catalogue, making sure you've covered all the possibilities.

Then there's the example of the Whitbread brewing records. Where the catalogue has the wrong years for several of the brewing books. I think I'm the only person who has a correct catalogue of them. I suppose I should really have told the archivists.

A third problem is when records are attributed to the wrong company. For years I believed that the earliest IPA brewing log I had was 1837 from Reid. Until I saw some records from the 1820s which were in a completely different format. Which was identical to the format of Reid's 1840s logs. Clearly the 1837 records were from a different brewery. Which, I don't really know. I'm guessing Combe, as the material originated from Watney, Combe, Reid.

Today I came across another example of incorrect attribution. Though I'm scratching my head as to how it could have occurred. It's a brewing book which supposedly comes from Beard's of Lewes.  Yet it has this in the inside cover:

Not only does it say "Harvey & Son" at the top of the page, it also says "Bridge Wharf Brewery", which is the name of the Harvey's brewery.

Has anyone ever looked at this record properly before? You have to wonder.

Southern Brown Ale after WW II

Despite covering a large area of Southeast England, there’s a reasonable amount of consistency in this set of Brown Ales.

The gravities are mostly on the low side, with only two examples over 1035º, and averaging a tad below 1032º. Surprisingly, there are a couple below the magic 1027º. It made little sense to brew a beer weaker than that, because you had to pay tax as if were 1027º. That was the minimum rate of tax.

With middling attenuation – there are a couple of beers with over 80%, but also four below 70%. Which means that the average ABV only just pokes its head above 3%.

There are some pretty watery beers, especially from Simonds. Most examples are well below 3% ABV. It’s odd because Simonds Berry Brown Ale was a reasonably big brand.

As in London, the colours are mostly pretty dark. Though the Portsmouth United and Wethered beers fall into the semi-dark region. In general, these Southern Brown Ales look quite similar to those from London. Which isn’t so surprising as there breweries were mostly not that far from the capital.

Southern Brown Ale after WW II
Year	Brewer	Beer	Price per pint (d)	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	colour
1951	Benskin	Nut Brown Ale	16	1032.9	1008.1	3.22	75.38%	83
1952	Brickwoods	Brown Brew	18	1032.2	1008.9	3.02	72.36%	80
1952	Cobb & Co	Brown Ale	18	1034.3	1007.5	3.48	78.13%	80
1950	Ind Coope	Nut Brown Ale	18	1032.3	1008.6	3.07	73.37%	75
1951	Ind Coope	Nut Brown Ale	19	1031.9	1008.3	3.06	73.98%	110
1952	Ind Coope	Nut Brown Ale	19	1030.9	1011.7	2.48	62.14%	83
1952	McMullen	Nut Brown Ale	18	1035.5	1012.6	2.96	64.51%	110
1948	Portsmouth United	Brown Ale	17	1038.2	1005.4	4.27	85.86%	55
1948	Simonds	Brown Ale	18	1025.7	1006.4	2.50	75.10%	105
1949	Simonds	Brown Ale	15	1026.1	1008	2.34	69.35%	140
1952	Simonds	Brown Ale	18	1029.9	1009.7	2.61	67.56%	110
1952	Simonds	Berry Brown Ale	19	1032	1005.5	3.44	82.81%	60
1948	Tamplin	No. 1 Brown Ale	19	1033.6	1008.5	3.25	74.70%	87
1952	Tamplin	No.1 Ale	20	1034.1	1009.7	3.16	71.55%	80
1947	Wethered	Golden Brown Ale	12	1025.6	1004	2.81	84.37%	48
	Average		17.6	1031.7	1008.2	3.04	74.08%	87.1
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/002.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1850 Truman Imperial Stout

Barclay Perkins and Courage weren’t alone in producing an Imperial Stout. Fellow London brewer Truman had one, too.

It doesn’t quite reach my Imperial Stout baseline of 1110º. I’ll forgive them the one gravity point.

A high percentage of brown malt seems to be a characteristic of the posher Porters and Stouts. It’s certainly the case here. Which, I suppose, made it logical to drop the black malt percentage.

Then there is just a whole load of hops. An almost unimaginable quantity: three quarters of a ton. For just 185 barrels. No surprise, then, that the calculated IBUs are in the impossible zone.

Two years in wood is what it deserves. Don’t let it down.

1850 Truman Imperial Stout
pale malt	19.00 lb	80.85%
brown malt	4.00 lb	17.02%
black malt	0.50 lb	2.13%
Goldings 120 mins	5.50 oz
Goldings 60 mins	5.50 oz
Goldings 30 mins	5.50 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.75 oz
OG	1099
FG	1029
ABV	9.26
Apparent attenuation	70.71%
IBU	158
SRM	30
Mash at	158º F
Sparge at	175º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	61º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread Ale

The above is one of the many recipes in this book:

What's in it? This:

Sugar during WW I

After the Free Mash Tun Act of 1880, sugar became an important ingredient. The use of sugar had been legal since 1847, but a special duty had to be paid on it which seems to have put brewers off.

After 1880, the use of sugar became increasingly sophisticated. First, through the use of different grades of invert sugar, Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, with 1 being the palest and 4 the darkest. Nos. 1 and 2 were mostly used in Pales, no. 3 in Mild Ales and Nos. 3 and 4 in Porter and Stout.

Later, proprietary sugars gained in popularity. These were mixtures of invert sugars and caramel, often formulated for specific styles of beer, such as Mild Ale or Oatmeal Stout.

In 1914, on average 13% of a beer grist consisted of sugar. That included both sugar added during the boil and priming sugars added at racking time.

The biggest problem with sugar, was that it was readily usable in food products. Whereas barley had limited use as a human food and hops none at all. Which meant that brewers were competing with other food industries for the limited supplies of sugar.

Brewers became obsessed with prices during the war, which is handy because it means that the price of every ingredient is listed in the brewing logs. People often assume that sugar was only used in brewing because it was cheaper than malt. During the war, this wasn’t necessarily true. And, of course, there were other reasons for brewers to employ sugar. For colour and flavour in Mild, for example.

Here's are examples where the sugar was more expensive than the malt. This is a PA brewed by Whitbread on February 2nd 1917:

72 quarters malt total cost 4,574/-, cost per quarter 65.34/-
20 quarters No. 1 invert sugar cost 1,496/-, cost per quarter  68/-

This Mild brewed June 7th 1918 is more extreme:

140 quarters malt total cost 12,250/-, cost per quarter 87.5/-
33 quarters No. 3 invert sugar cost 4,059/-, cost per quarter 123/-

As with malt, there were large increases in the price of sugar during the war. In fact, they were even more extreme than in the case of malt, rising from 25s a quarter in 1914 to around 130s, in 1920.

Price of sugar used by Barclay Perkins 1914 - 1917 (in shillings per quarter)
	1914		1915		1916			1917
	Mar	Oct	Jun	Oct	Jan	Apr	Oct	Jan	Apr
Garton No.2	26.5	26	28	42	49	55	67	67	82
Garton No.3	24.5	24	26	40	40	50	65	65	80
Martineau No.3	23.5	23.5			46.5	52.5			65
Glucose	25						58	64
Source:
Barclay Perkins brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives

Price of sugar used by Barclay Perkins 1917 - 1920 (in shillings per quarter)
	1917	1918			1919			1920
	Oct	Jan	Apr	Oct	Jan	Apr	Oct	Jan	Apr
Garton No.2	86						125	130	140
Garton No.3	84	94	98	151	151	113	123	128
Martineau No.3				151	151	120	123	128	138
Glucose					151	151
Source:
Barclay Perkins brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives

Inside a 1920s bar (part seven)

Nope, still far from finished with this shit.

Some things, it seems, never change. Like customers nicking glasses.

"The expert bar-hand sees that the glasses are clean and dry on the outside, before handing to a customer, and also that the counter top is kept dry and clean, as well as everything upon it. The beer service counter should be kept as clean as possible.

In a busy house it should be the sole duty of one or more persons to collect glasses, which are apt to be left anywhere and everywhere. Customers are frequently so absent-minded as to take them outside and put them in their pockets. I have known one hundred dozen to disappear in the course of a single week, from one house, in this way. Yet glass thieves are most difficult to detect."
"The Art and Practice of Innkeeping" by Alexander Francis Part, published by Heinemann London, 1922, pages 214 - 215.

During WW II, when glass was in short supply, losing glasses to theft was a real problem for publicans. They couldn't be easily replaced. Which is why you see what seem extremely petty court cases where people are prosecuted for stealing a couple of glasses from a pub.

The next problem for the publican wasn't from customers, but from dishonest staff.

"Even beers are not always what they seem, and the beer engine  is a worthy ally of Ananias, when several classes of beer, at different prices, are on tap. Hence, some people consider that beer in bottle is of better quality than that in the cask.

Lest I be accused of lack of respect for "Beer, Beer, Glorious Beer," let me say at once that nothing can be of greater importance in the eyes of your Brewers, and customers, than the condition of your beers. I have known each, in their several ways, to show striking attention to it!

Even this is better than the action of the saloon bar customer who merely left his glass unfinished. When remonstrated with by the proprietor, he replied: "It is not to be found fault with. One must not speak ill of the dead!"

Silent reproaches, when accompanied by a decrease in receipts, are a mournful reminder that you may be the victim of some ghostly visitation which waters the beer. You may even be conscious of departing spirits, and yet find it difficult to lay the phantoms, which you can only do by collaring the cash, or the delinquent."
"The Art and Practice of Innkeeping" by Alexander Francis Part, published by Heinemann London, 1922, page 215.

I had to look up who Ananias was. A disciple of Jesus who dropped dead after lying about money. The implication is that a server could pull a cheaper beer than that ordered, charger the price of the expensive beer and pocket the difference. Could this be another reason for Mild turning darker? So that bar staff couldn't substitute Mild for Bitter?

With bottled beer, which has a label clearly saying what it contains, pulling a substitution would be much more difficult. Surely another reason the popularity of bottled beer was on the rise.

It's also implied that staff could be watering the beer. I'm not sure I see how that would work. Surely it would be the landlord who would profit from watered beer? I must be missing something here. Unless they wwere just drinking beer and then replacing it with water. I can see how this would work with spirits.

Inside a 1920s bar (part six)

We've finally got to actually serving beer. What fun. Though we aren't going to get to drink any.

"Most of the operations, which, in the ordinary way, you would imagine to be simplicity itself, require considerable dexterity and experience — in a rush trade particularly.

For example, in pouring out naturally conditioned bottled beers, which carry a sediment, such as Whitbread's, the bottle must be inverted, so that the liquor, but not the sediment, is poured into the glass, and the operation requires the service of two hands — one for the bottle, the other for the glass.

Again, the right way to serve spirits from a thimble measure, in a rush, is to hold the measure and glass in one hand, so that no liquor is lost; leaving the other free for the turning of the tap.

It is everything to have your paraphernalia to your hand; as far as possible, arranged so that you need not stoop to reach for it, e. g. cork and crown-cork extractors. Beers should carry a "head." Customers like them brilliant and clear. They must never be served dull, sick, tart, or thick. A certain lively cloudiness denotes brilliancy of condition.

In Scotland, beers are almost invariably drawn through the engine, under pressure from below, and this undoubtedly ensures better condition. Some Brewers, however, do not like the use of carbonic acid gas.
"The Art and Practice of Innkeeping" by Alexander Francis Part, published by Heinemann London, 1922, page 214.

Whitbread remained true to bottle-conditioning long after most of their rivals had gone over to artificial carbonation. Though it wouldn't last that much longer. When they bought the Forest Hill Brewery in 1924, one of the main reasons was to acquire their bottling plant, which produced artificially-carbonated beers. Long after that brewery had closed Whitbread continued to produce one of their beers: Forest Brown.

Part has some great terms for beer in poor condition: dull, sick, tart, thick.

Tart is pretty obvious. How many pints of vinegar have I been served in London. "It's supposed to taste like that. It's Real Ale." Real Sarsons, more like.

Thick I'm assuming means very cloudy beer. You know, like the stuff resembling orange juice that the kids drink nowadays.

Dull and sick I'm not so sure about. Based on stuff he wrote in the cellar chapter, where he mentions that if the cellar is too cold cask beer will become "sick", I think it means beer which hasn't had a proper secondary fermentation and conditioned properly.

The bit about Scottish pubs using gas ppressure to serve beer is a bit of a surprise. Using air pressure to serve through what looked like keg fonts was common in Scotland when I was young. I would have assumed that was what was being referred to, except that "carbonic acid gas", or CO2, is specifically mentioned.