It seems congruent with American BJCP history and understanding of the style. Sample paragraph:
"The name 'mild' comes from the fact that the style is low in hop bitterness: in that, it is mild compared to the other English pub staple, the style called bitter. Mild dates back to the 18th century and grew to meet the demands of a new class of industrial laborers."
I have a subscription and just read the article. Previously, I'd skipped it, since I pegged it as another hapless crypto-editorial pleading for brewers to start producing the style in the U.S.
Good: It notes the facts that mild's been around for a while, that it was once a popular 19th and early 20th century refresher for the masses, that it is lower in hops than bitter and that it comes in colors other than dark. Obligatory references to "cloth cap stigma," CAMRA's reverence for the style and Sarah Hughes mild are duly mentioned.
Bad: It takes the modern (late 20th century) interpretation of mild at face value, assuming that all milds are low alcohol, lightly hopped beers. It also assumes that the evil late 19th/early 20th century practice of recycling beer from the drip trays back into the cask was widespread.
I blame historic errors in the article to Roger Protz, who gets a credit at the end of the article.
Overall, I'd give it a B-. Some factual errors and omissions, but overall not that bad for a popular article in an American magazine.
It seems congruent with American BJCP history and understanding of the style. Sample paragraph:
ReplyDelete"The name 'mild' comes from the fact that the style is low in hop bitterness: in that, it is mild compared to the other English pub staple, the style called bitter. Mild dates back to the 18th century and grew to meet the demands of a new class of industrial laborers."
I'll let you be the judge.
I have a subscription and just read the article. Previously, I'd skipped it, since I pegged it as another hapless crypto-editorial pleading for brewers to start producing the style in the U.S.
ReplyDeleteGood: It notes the facts that mild's been around for a while, that it was once a popular 19th and early 20th century refresher for the masses, that it is lower in hops than bitter and that it comes in colors other than dark. Obligatory references to "cloth cap stigma," CAMRA's reverence for the style and Sarah Hughes mild are duly mentioned.
Bad: It takes the modern (late 20th century) interpretation of mild at face value, assuming that all milds are low alcohol, lightly hopped beers. It also assumes that the evil late 19th/early 20th century practice of recycling beer from the drip trays back into the cask was widespread.
I blame historic errors in the article to Roger Protz, who gets a credit at the end of the article.
Overall, I'd give it a B-. Some factual errors and omissions, but overall not that bad for a popular article in an American magazine.
Thomas, thankfully the article stayed mostly away from history.
ReplyDeleteIt could have been much worse. I had to laugh when I was the credit give to Roger Protz at the end.