Thursday, 26 February 2009

Barclay Perkins EI

Brewhouse names and beer codes. You'll have noticed how they fascinate me. I spend much of my free time contemplating them. The most incomprehensible I've found in brewing logs are those of Barclay Perkins. I've not decoded half of them.

EI is one that had flummoxed me. Then this week I stumbled on a explanation. At least I think I did. I found a mention on the web of Barclay Perkins Export India Porter. It referred to a recipe in the Durden Park "Old British Beers and how to Brew them" book. Which is embarrassing. I own the book and hadn't noticed it.

First thought that crossed my mind was "I can't remember seeing an Indian Export Porter in the Barclay Perkins logs." Then the penny dropped. Export India = EI. It makes sense. As you can see in the tables below, EI was brewed to standard Porter strength. The main difference with standard Porter (TT - don't ask me to explain that code, either) was the hopping rate. As you would expect, it was greater for EI.

Now I only have to work out what Hhd and FSt mean. It keeps my brain active, I suppose, trying to work it out.

Oh, and that's another not-that-strong export beer. EI would have been in the range 5 to 5.5% ABV.


Oblivious said...

Ron if you want the Durden Park recipe I can mail it to you if you want. It would be intresting to get your opinion of the book

Its really amazing hom the percentage of brown malt changed and the addation of roasted malt later in the centery. The 1862 EI looks very similar to the grist of whitbread london porter of a similar period.

Ron Pattinson said...

Oblivious, that's OK, I own the Durden Park book. I was just too dozy to notice the BP EI recipe.

Watching Porter grists change in the 19th century is fascinating. But the London brewers were very loyal to brown malt. Whitbread were still using it in the 1950's. They were also notable for being late adopting roast malt (1850's) and early to drop it (1930's).

The Durden Park recipe for EI is incorrect. It specifies roast barley, when the original must have used roast malt. Roast barley was an illegal ingredient in 1856.

Oblivious said...

Ron I woundering did the roasting drums become better at creating a uniform brown malt later in the 19th century and required the inclusion of roasted malt to make up colour/flavor?

Thank you for the recipe correction

Anonymous said...

Ron, interesting data as always and that's a good deduction re EI, clearly you are right.

Could TT mean double table beer? Doesn't make sense in some ways but maybe Barclay Perkins originally had two strengths of table beer.

On Fst, could it mean fast, for a fast fermentation?


Ron Pattinson said...

Oblivious, roast malt was used to get the right colour when the brown malt content fell below a certain level. It's in fact the other way around - brown malt was no longer needed to get the colour and was used purely for flavour.

Anonymous said...

Ron, here is something I found just in the last few minutes before work. In the table at p. 299 it shows two types of small beer (seemingly one about 1% ABV and the other about 3%, so could these have been BP's T and TT?).,M1

In general, I find Ures a very good source on beer and brewing in the mid-1800', it's carefully written and explained.


Ron Pattinson said...

Gary, I suspect that TT does mean "Double T". In the early Barclay Perkins logs there is a Table beer that's a low-gravity Porter.

I'm pretty sure I know what the St in FSt stands for: Stout. Can't really imagine what the "F" could mean.

Bill said...

"I'm pretty sure I know what the St in FSt stands for: Stout. Can't really imagine what the "F" could mean."


I've recently become aware of your blog and I'm curious how these different malts translate to what is available today. What would you substitute for brown malt, is roast the equivalent of chocolate? I know you've made several historical brews, could you post the recipes for those who homebrew? Keep up the interesting work.


Ron Pattinson said...

Bill, Foreign is a possiblilty.

Roast malt = black malt

Both terms were used iterchangeably in the 91th century.

You can't really substitute the brown malt. It's very distinctive stuff. Even I can spot it in a beer.

I do post recipes fairly regularly here. I've done some Mild ones recently. You could also take a look at my book "Mild!". That has a chapter of historic Mild recipes. "Brown Beer", which I aim to release in March will have a heap of historic Porter and Stout recipes.

Ron Pattinson said...

Gary, it's Small Beer and Table Beer listed in Ure. In 1805 Barclay Perkins Table beer was 1031 and TT 1053.

I've just found something very interesting in that book about Pale Ale. I'll probably post about it later.

Anonymous said...

Ron, I believe that anything marked T or TT was probably in the non-strong ale category when there were only two categories for taxation purposes (up until 1820's sometimes). Then the intermediate category came in and a third tax applied to such beers but the T category carried on. Then as you just said in another thread, from 1830 the tax on beer itself was abolished. So I would think even though denominations varied (small beer, table beer, table porter, table ale I think there was too, etc.), the T side attracted the lowest rate per shilling of barrel. There was a statute I know that required placing a T on barrels that qualified for the low tax, it is mentioned in the group of search results that came up with the search I did (it's in the URL) that lead to the Ure dictionary. I tried to find the Geo. 3 statute itself to see if it talks about TT but can't find it as yet.


Oblivious said...

Hi First Stater there are a number of us who like to brew historical beers. Nearly all the malts are available although easer to get brown and amber in Europe.

Whitbread's London porter (1850's) is a hit with many people and just shows you what a simple malt bill can archive