I know those aren't the usual names nor is mine the usual way of dividing up Brown Ales. But can't everyone play the beer styles naming game? Or is that pleasure reserved only for those that talk out of their arse?
Pale malt, crystal malt, wheat malt and various sugars. Pretty typical apart from the wheat malt. With presumably the majority of the colour being derived from sugar, though all that crystal would have added some. That's quite a lot of crystal, pushing 15% of the grist. You'll note, except for the one example with a bit of black malt, there are no dark malts in the Brown Ale and Mild grists.
Funny that the Lager has the highest malt content. I've no idea what Solexona is, other than it's a type of sugar. Presumably a pale one. Not really anything more to say. Except to remind you that it was fermented with Carlsberg yeast. I must remember to ask Kristen to do it as a Let's Brew as an example of a British pseudo-Lager.
Now for the Pale ales. I forgot to mention the HX sugar when talking about the Milds. Looking at the tiny amounts in the Pale Ales, I assume this is a dark sugar. Some caramelly type thing. What's listed as invert is probably No. 2. The percentage of sugar, around 10%, is very similar to what you'd find in late 19th-century Pale Ales. Some things just never change.
Here, finally, are Pale Ales with crystal malt in them. A lot less than in all the other types, mind you. Why is the wheat flour in there? Probably because it was cheap at helped head retention. But that's just my guess.
The Strong and Old Ales are a funny bunch. I said in the first instalment that Strong Old Ale and XXXX were probably the same beer. I now realise that's probably not the case. Because the former was parti-gyled with the Pale Ales and the latter with Mild. Which explains the much higher crystal malt content of XXXX.
Dorset Special Ale was also parti-gyled with the Bitters. I know from the Whitbread Gravity Book that it was dark brown, so it must have been primed with a dark sugar. Was the same true of Strong Old Ale? I don't have a colour measurement for that so can't be sure. But it would be unusual for a beer called Old Ale to be pale in the 1960's. Anyone out there remember the beer? It's not that long ago.
Parti-gyling also explains why the Double Stout contains oats. Note how the percentage of oats has fallen even more, to around 3%. I get the impression that breweries deliberately lowered the oat content of their Oatmeal Stout to a level that wasn't perceptible. Which makes you wonder why they bothered with it at all. I suppose they couldn't have called it Oat Malt Stout with no oats at all in the grist. Perhaps this explains why the style died out.
Here's all the information in table form.
| Eldridge Pope grists in 1964 | |||||||||||||||||
| Year | Beer | Style | OG | FG | ABV | App. Atten-uation | pale malt | choc. Malt | crystal malt | lager malt | wheat flour | malted oats | malt extract | Barbsyrup | HX sugar | invert sugar | Solexona |
| 1964 | Dorset Brown Ale | Brown Ale | 1025.5 | 1006.4 | 2.53 | 75.00% | 71.68% | 13.94% | 4.65% | 3.54% | 3.54% | 2.65% | |||||
| 1964 | Dorset Brown Ale | Brown Ale | 1025.5 | 1005.5 | 2.64 | 78.26% | 66.56% | 14.06% | 9.38% | 3.13% | 3.75% | 3.13% | |||||
| 1964 | IPA | IPA | 1043.2 | 1011.4 | 4.21 | 73.72% | 76.44% | 5.96% | 4.88% | 3.25% | 0.07% | 9.40% | |||||
| 1964 | König Lager | Lager | 1033.5 | 95.92% | 4.08% | ||||||||||||
| 1964 | SM | Mild | 1026.3 | 1006.9 | 2.57 | 73.68% | 75.00% | 12.50% | 4.17% | 2.78% | 2.78% | 2.78% | |||||
| 1964 | SM | Mild | 1026.3 | 1006.9 | 2.57 | 73.68% | 71.68% | 13.94% | 4.65% | 3.54% | 3.54% | 2.65% | |||||
| 1964 | Mild | Mild | 1026.3 | 1006.4 | 2.64 | 75.79% | 66.56% | 14.06% | 9.38% | 3.13% | 3.75% | 3.13% | |||||
| 1964 | Mild | Mild | 1026.3 | 1007.5 | 2.49 | 71.58% | 65.38% | 1.92% | 17.31% | 7.69% | 2.56% | 2.56% | 2.56% | ||||
| 1964 | Strong Old Ale | Old Ale | 1051.2 | 1013.0 | 5.06 | 74.59% | 76.44% | 5.96% | 4.88% | 3.25% | 0.07% | 9.40% | |||||
| 1964 | BAK (Crystal) | Pale Ale | 1030.2 | 1007.8 | 2.97 | 74.31% | 76.44% | 5.96% | 4.88% | 3.25% | 0.07% | 9.40% | |||||
| 1964 | Best Bitter | Pale Ale | 1030.2 | 1007.5 | 3.00 | 75.23% | 68.17% | 7.18% | 9.58% | 5.98% | 0.13% | 8.97% | |||||
| 1964 | BK | Pale Ale | 1030.2 | 1006.9 | 3.08 | 77.06% | 68.17% | 7.18% | 9.58% | 5.98% | 0.13% | 8.97% | |||||
| 1964 | BPA | Pale Ale | 1042.1 | 1011.6 | 4.03 | 72.37% | 76.44% | 5.96% | 4.88% | 3.25% | 0.07% | 9.40% | |||||
| 1964 | Oat Malt Stout | Stout | 1030.2 | 1009.4 | 2.75 | 68.81% | 59.11% | 11.82% | 13.30% | 2.96% | 3.94% | 5.91% | 2.96% | ||||
| 1964 | Oat Malt Stout | Stout | 1030.2 | 1011.6 | 2.46 | 61.47% | 54.42% | 13.61% | 15.31% | 3.40% | 3.40% | 6.80% | 3.06% | ||||
| 1964 | Double Stout | Stout | 1039.3 | 1015.0 | 3.22 | 61.97% | 54.42% | 13.61% | 15.31% | 3.40% | 3.40% | 6.80% | 3.06% | ||||
| 1964 | XXXX | Strong Ale | 1053.2 | 1017.2 | 4.76 | 67.71% | 71.68% | 13.94% | 4.65% | 3.54% | 3.54% | 2.65% | |||||
| 1964 | Dorset Special Ale | Strong Ale | 1074.8 | 1024.1 | 6.71 | 67.78% | 76.44% | 5.96% | 4.88% | 3.25% | 0.07% | 9.40% | |||||
| Source: | |||||||||||||||||
| Eldridge Pope brewing records | |||||||||||||||||
We're not finished yet with Eldridge Pope. Next time we'll be moving on to 1967 and the first brew of Hardy Ale.
Im guessing that the malt extract was used to dial in to the exact target OG?
ReplyDeleteRob, no, I don't think that was the reason. They were parti-gyling so hitting a target OG wouldn't be a problem.
ReplyDelete"Im guessing that the malt extract was used to dial in to the exact target OG?"
ReplyDeleteThe malt extract was added to the mash run to "assist conversion". At one time there was the idea that British pale malt was not sufficiently diastatic to fully convert itself without assistance from either malt made from high nitrogen foreign barley or highly diastatic malt extract. Gales brewery were still adding EDME DMS (Diastatic Malt Syrup) as a matter of tradition when I visited for a brew day in the late 1980s, even though the head brewer was aware that it was quite unnecessary with good quality malt. It was probably a myth put about by the malt extract companies.