Stout fantasies

As a light aside from my dour Scottish series, here's a strong Papazian Cup contender.

This one definitely falls into the category Fantasy History.

"The search for why the acidic, bitter-coffee nature of stout gained popularity over the rich, chocolate taste of porter has little connection to beer. In stout's case it leads to the insurance business.

That strange form of making money started when businessmen began underwriting the safe voyages of ships. They took a chance by guaranteeing a payoff when a ship encountered tragedy; in exchange for this promise they reaped a tidy profit if the cruise was successful. Obviously the key to making money hinged upon the underwriter's ability to assess accurately the risk inherent in any particular ship. To ensure they had an edge, many underwriters stayed close to the piers.

Entrepreneurs saw this steady pier side activity and responded by providing a place where the insurance agents could sit and conduct business while enjoying refreshment. What they provided was the origin of the coffee shop. Within their walls notable firms such as Llyod's of London amassed princely wealth, along with a taste for the acrid flavor of coffee. It was only a matter of time until a brewer latched onto the trend and developed a beer with similar characteristics. Doubt that? Look at what US microbrewers did in the mid 1990s. They won new customers who grew up on "soda-pop" by producing light fruit-flavored beers.

Fortunately, at the same time coffee grew popular, technological advances equipped malt houses with the ability to 'drum roast' grains. This was also essential to the development of stout, and it clearly dates the introduction of stout after porter. Whatever story about the development of stout you prefer, one part of its introduction remains unchallenged: the story of Guinness.

In 1759 Arthur Guinness closed what his peers considered a foolish real estate deal. He agreed to pay 40£ per year rent on an old idle brewhouse. The unusual or foolish part was the term of contract, a period of 9,000 years. As things turned out Guinness was far from foolish. At first the brewery promised nothing but struggle, but his fortune changed in the 1760s when he moved away from ale. The beer he switched to was stout. Guinness brewed his with high levels of roasted grain to emphasize the coffee character. Next, he intentionally added the unthinkable - sour beer - but in a controlled amount (approximately 1%) he found it pleasantly dried the finish. His modifications brought rising profits and a complete switch to 'porter-stout' in 1799. From then on stout was solidly linked to the Guinness family name.

Other brewers watched the influence of stout expand and joined the trend. William Beamish and his partner William Crawford sold their first stout in 1792. By 1800 they were the largest stout brewer in Ireland, a position they held until 1833. Another famous label came from the family of James, William, Jerome and Francis Murphy when, in 1856, they gave up on porter and made the switch to Murphy's Stout.

Why did porter decline and stout triumph? It had to do with politics and war. During World War I rationing and energy restrictions in England prevented malting companies from deeply roasting grains. But Ireland, poised on the edge of rebellion and leaning toward alliance with Germany, was treated with kid gloves. No restrictions of any kind were enacted. During the war, and after, England moved away from their dark beer while Ireland continued its love affair with stout."

. . . . .

"Foreign stout represents the first member of stout's extended family. As the name implies, it was brewed to ship beyond Ireland's shores. Although foreign stout retained the undiminished qualities of the original, it further emphasized elements that naturally preserve beer. To that end brewers fortified it with additional malt.

That modification significantly darkened the beer; moreover, it increased the alcohol which helped stabilize it during transportation. To ensure balance they matched the malt with a higher hopping rate, and it too extended the beer's life. However, raising the amount of malt inevitably led to a fuller body and production of 'fruity' esters, which were subdued in dry stout but blossomed in the foreign version. Along with the esters another by-product was introduced: diacetyl, which lent a touch of butterscotch. The changes bulked up the low alcohol of dry stout to a level of 5 to 6 percent and when this happened it infused the beer with a light scent of perfumey sweetness. "
By Gregg Smith http://www.northamericanbrewers.org/ShoutforStout.htm

That stuff on Irish brewers is just so wrong. Where do they get this stuff from? I suppose they just make it up because it sounds like a good story. Beamish & Crawford brewed Porter before Guinness. Murphy's were still brewing Porter in the 20th century. As were Guinness, a point that seems to have escaped the author. As has the fact that Guinness Foreign Extra Stout and Extra Stout used to have identical gravities.

And all that coffee-roasting shit. The development and use of black malt had nothing to do with its flavour. It was simply a colouring agent.

I'll let you discovcer the many other inaccuracies. I wonder if Gregg Smith was paid to write this guff?