let's Brew Wednesday - 1901 Boddington's IPA

Welcome back Kristen. I’d been sitting on this for a while. I can’t remember why. Maybe it will come back to me.

IPA was Boddington’s top-range Pale Ale. And the direct ancestor of post-WW II Boddington’s Bitter. Though it did undergo a few changes over the years. Such as quite a big drop in gravity.

In 1901, Boddington only brewed two Pale Ales, this beer and an AK. The latter had a classic gravity for the style of 1046º. Their range was completed by four Mild Ales, X, XX, XXX and XXXX, one Strong Ale and a Single and Double Stout. Which is a pretty classic late-19th-century set.

The grist is very simple: just pale malt and invert sugar. The malt being a mix of English and Californian. The invert, well, it could be any type. Though No. 1 is probably the best guess for a beer of this type.

With 10 lbs. of hops per quarter of malt, this was easily their most heavily-hopped beer. The Milds were hopped at about 5.5 lbs. per quarter of malt, the Strong Ale and AK at 8 lbs. per quarter.

There’s not really much else to say about this beer. It’s very straightforward, which is typical of the period. I’m slightly surprised that there’s no flaked maize. Most brewers at the time used 10-15% in their grists.




Time to pass you over to Kristen . . .

Kristen’s Version:
Notes: Really neat eye opener for this one laddies. Such a pale beer well back at the turn of the 20th. Solidly hopped, a bit rounder on the end than ones we’d see today but all and all something that would fit into pretty much any beer bar in the world these days.

Malt: Two pale malts. A bit grainy from the US malt but nonetheless, pick two nice ones. Or a solid one….even if its just all American, Belgian, whatever. Just not pils. For the invert, there is so little in this, and its pale, just swap white sugar for it, you won’t tell the difference. 

Hops: I would mention the 5 different hops they used in this beer except they did the same for every beer they seemed to produce. A blend of the same hops, where there doesn’t seem to be rhyme or reason as to how they are broken down. Just split up for whatever reason. That said, you can really use anything for this. Anything at all as it will sing with the malt. There was no indication of any sort of dry hopping but to me, I think you have to. At least 0.5lb/bbl (4g/L) minimum…frankly, this is the type of beer that could take a giant thumping in the hop back but, then it wouldn’t be this recipe, which is what we are talking about.

Yeast: Pick something that doesn’t attenuation so well and I’d under pitch a touch to to keep her a bit more round on the end. London III really would go swimmingly with this beer. Stay away from anything really minerally I’d say…or weird.

Cask: Standard procedure:
1) let the beer ferment until finished and then give it another day or so. For me right around 5-7 days.
2) Rack the beer to your vessel of choice (firkin, polypin, cornie, whatever).
3) Add primings at ~3.5g/L
4) Add prepared isinglass at 1ml/L
5) ONLY add dry hops at 0.25g/l – 1g/L.
6) Bung it up and roll it around to mix. Condition at 55F or so for 4-5 days and its ready to go. Spile/vent. Tap. Settle. Serve at 55F.

Maximum price of a reputed pint

It seems that the confusion about reputed pints was unwarranted. Because the Procurator-Fiscal was talking out of his bottom when he said that the maximum prices were fixed on imperial measures.

I’ve just gone back and had a look at the regulations as laid out in the Food Supply Manual. And, while it’s true that for draught beer, only imperial measures are specified, that isn’t true for bottles beer. The schedule includes half reputed pint, reputed pint and reputed quart measures.

I don’t quite see how they could be unaware of this in Scotland, as the reputed measures had presumably been included specifically for them.

Scottish drinkers weren’t so keen on the reputed pint, as this letter to an Aberdeen newspaper demonstrates:

“Stout at 10d per "Reputed" Pint.
Sir,- It has taken the Food Controller with his invincible and indisputable power, all his time to keep "even" with that "double-dy'd villain," "the profiteer"; and it would now seem as if the Liquor Controller were having the worst of it with the drink profiteer. This, too, in relation to bottled stout — chiefly.

In pre-war days a so-called "bottle" stout was sold by Mr "Bung" at 4d. It was alleged then — it is still alleged - that you purchased a pint of stout; The consumer, of course, does nothing of the kind. He is victimised every time by a bottle, known in Scotland only, as a "reputed " pint. Its reputation is of the vilest type, for it is no measure any kind. Draught stout, when it can had, id sold by imperial stamped measure: so, too, are spirits various depressing strengths. Why, then, shouldn't bottled stout and beers be put in the same category?

But what one desires to find out more particularly is why stout should go up in price by leaps and bounds the way has done! At present it is selling in public-houses at 10d per "reputed." pint. It jumped from 8d to 10d in a week's time. There seems be "profiteering" and "profiteering", but this licks even fish profits into a cocked hat! Will some one in the "trade " explain? —Yours, etc.,
Bottled Stout,
Aberdeen, 21st May, 1918.”
Aberdeen Evening Express - Wednesday 22 May 1918, page 4.

These are the controlled prices from early 1919:

Maximum prices of beer in the public bar and for off consumption
beer of a gravity	draught	half reputed pint	half imperial pint	reputed pint	imperial pint	reputed quart	imperial quart
under 1023º	3d	2.5d	3d	5d	6d	7d	9d
1023º - 1029º	4d	3d	3.5d	5.5d	6.5d	9d	11d
1029º - 1035º	5d	3.5d	4d	6d	7d	11d	1s 1d
1035º - 1042º	6d	4.5d	5d	7d	8d	1s 1d	1s 3d
1042º - 1050º	7d	5.5d	6d	9d	10d	1s 3d	1s 5d
over 1050º	8d	6.5d	7d	11d	1s	1s 5d	1s 7d
Source:
"Food Supply Manual May 1919", HM Stationary Office, 1919, page 18.

Should I stop buying this beer?

I've always has a soft spot for Brouerij 't Ij. At one time, they were one of the few breweries making interesting beer in the whole of the country. For a while, it was the only brewery in Amsterdam. Now it's just the oldest.

I've drunk their beer regularly all the thirty years that I've lived in Amsterdam. And their labels are good, too. Distinctive, and with an underlying design theme.

You've probably spotted the underlying egg theme. Ij sounds like "ei", the Dutch word for egg. Fun, slightly quirky labels. I really like them.

But when they introduced an IPA, they went with something very different in style.

I don't feel very comfortable with the image. It's also a pretty crap design and doesn't fit with the packaging of any of their other beers.

I've no idea why they came up with this label. It put me off trying the beer at first. Unfortunately. I quite like it. Should I keep buying it? Are my continuing purchases encouragement to keep the current design?

Closing pubs in Carlisle

In the old days, pubs rarely closed because they had no custom. They were forced to close, by local authorities determined to reduce the number of licensed premises.

Closing pubs was seen by some as a way of reducing remptation, by the more fanatical as a way of eventually closing them all. So it's no surprise that reducing the number of licences was one of the tactics they used in Carlisle.

"Purchase area — excluding the Maryport extension1 — four breweries, 207 "on" licences,2 and 20 "off" licences. Up to the end of 1918, of the total of 227 "on" or "off" licences, 104 had been suppressed as redundant or undesirable. In Carlisle, also, the "off" sale of spirits was withdrawn from a number of houses which were not dislicensed. That apart, the sale of liquor ceased entirely in 45 per cent, of the total number of licensed premises in the area.

Take Carlisle alone. In the ten years, from 1905 to 1915, eighteen licences were suppressed. The Board, under State Purchase conditions, speedily made a net clearance of fifty in the city.3 The houses closed were mainly those in back streets or in the narrow courts characteristic of the ancient part of the city, structurally unsuitable and difficult for the police to supervise properly. the simple act of closing houses of this type was a definite contribution to public order.

All "grocers' licences" were abolished. Mixed trading in groceries and intoxicants was stopped throughout the area. There were eight "grocers' licences" in Gretna-without-the-Township and ten in Carlisle District. Of those in Gretna-without-the-Township, seven were discontinued, and in the eighth instance the sale of groceries was abandoned. Of those in Carlisle, seven were discontinued; in the other three instances the sale of groceries was given up.

The concentration of business also made it possible to close two of the four Carlisle breweries.4

2. Further Restrictions on the Sale of Spirits.-—(1) At the request of the Gretna authorities the Board stopped the sale of spirits at Longtown and a few village public-houses near the Factory. The Longtown prohibition took effect in mid-December, 1916, and remained in force until the autumn of 1917.



1 The Maryport extension is excluded from these statistics because the process of transfer from private to public ownership was incomplete at the time of publication.

2 At the close of 1918 there were four licensed proportion in Carlisle which had not boon acquired by the Board, viz. the County Hotel, the Crown and Mitre Hotel, the Red Lion, and the Silver Grill.

3 the actual number of licences suppressed by the Board in Carlisle itself, from July, 1916 to October, 1918, was 53. New licences were given to the Gretna Tavern and the London Tavern; and the Station Refreshment Rooms, which were formerly worked under the County Hotel licence, received a separate licence.

4 These four were the Carlisle Old Brewery, the Carlisle New Brewery, Iredale's, and the Queen's. The two latter were closed.
"The Control of the Drink Trade" by Longmans, Green & Co., London, 1919, page 209 - 210.

Only one of the breweries really remained open, the Old Brewery. The New Brewery was just a bottling plant.

Fascinating which licensed premises weren't purchased. Two presumably nice hotels, what sounds like a posh restaurant and just one that sounds like a pub. Just done a quick search and it seems there was a Red Lion Hotel in Carlisle. Which is a currently a listed building, so I'm guessing it was pretty posh. Looks to me like they only went for the working-class places.

Let's Brew -1940 Shepherd Neame AK

AK, I know what that is: a Light Bitter. So this definitely is a Pale Ale, albeit a fairly watery one.

Appearing around 1850, AK was once brewed by dozens, if not hundreds of breweries. It was a great innovation, being one of the first Running Pale Ales. In the first half of the 19th century, Pale Ales were always brewed as Stock Ales, being matured for many months before sale. AK was lighter, both in body and strength and was sold no more than a couple of weeks after it was brewed.

Remember me mentioning that it was odd that BB, supposedly a Pale Ale, contained sugar? Well, not always. This AK was parti-gyled with BB, but the recipe contains no sugar. It’s all very confusing.

What’s the difference between the AK and LDA, other than half a gravity point? There’s a pretty obvious one. LDA was bottled, while AK was draught. And the AK, not having No. 3 invert, is a good bit paler.

1940 Shepherd Neame AK
pale malt	7.00 lb	99.01%
malt extract	0.07 lb	0.99%
Fuggles 120 mins	0.50 oz
Goldings 60 mins	0.50 oz
Goldings 30 mins	0.25 oz
OG	1030.5
FG	1005
ABV	3.37
Apparent attenuation	83.61%
IBU	19
SRM	3
Mash at	151º F
Sparge at	170º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	62º F
Yeast	a Southern English Ale yeast

Booze restrictions in Carlisle

Action was taken soon after the influx of construction workers to Carlisle.

The main features being a restriction in the hours of sale of alcohol, particularly of spirits.

"A delegation of the Board met the local authorities in conference, and without delay a drink-restriction Order was made for the Western Border Area. This came into force on November 22, 1915. It applied, on the English side of the Border, to the counties of Cumberland and Westmorland and adjoining parts of Northumberland and Lancashire; on the Scottish side of the Border, to the counties of Kirkcudbright and Dumfries and neighbouring parishes in the county of Roxburgh. The Order placed the Board's customary scheme of restriction on this wide territory: the hours for the sale of drink were reduced to 5.5 daily for "on" and 4.5 for "off" trade; the "off" sale of spirits was limited to 2.5 hours per day, from Mondays to Fridays, with no "off" sale at all at the week-end; the "flask habit" condemned by the fixing of the reputed quart as the smallest quantity of spirits to be sold for "off" consumption; at railway refreshment rooms the "off" sale of spirits altogether forbidden; treating, credit-sales of liquor and the "long pull" prohibited; regulations against hawking were included; dilution of spirits permitted; and the bona fide traveller's privilege to buy liquor in closing hours cancelled. All these restrictions applied alike to registered clubs and licensed premises. Further, Carlisle and the parts of Cumberland adjacent to Scotland—where Sunday Closing was the law—were placed under complete Sunday Closing, so as to prevent an exodus in quest of drink from the Scottish to the English side of the Border on Sundays.

It should be emphasised that all these regulations were imposed by the Board within a few weeks of the first influx of labour. Critics of the State Purchase scheme have implied that the life of the district was allowed to drift into wild disorder. The fact is that if a policy of restriction would of itself have met the need, no disorder would have arisen; for the placing of restrictions on the area swiftly followed the first incoming of the navvies. It was the inadequacy of the Board's ordinary Plan of Control to meet the extraordinary local situation which impelled the Board to employ another method of grappling with a problem of unique acuteness and complexity."
"The Control of the Drink Trade" by Longmans, Green & Co., London, 1919, pages 201 - 202.

Some of the rules sound very Systembolaget. Like having to off sales of spirits at the weekend. Pretty sure they once had a minimum quantity rule for spirits in Sweden, too. I'm sure the Board would have been horrified by Germany today, where small bottles of spirits are often on the impulse shelves next to the tills and railway station kiosks sell all sizes of spirit bottles day and night.

But this was insufficient to quell the disorder, so even stricter measures were introduced:

"A. Further Restrictive Action
Over and above the normal restrictions of the Board, recounted a few pages back, the following restraints were placed on the liquor traffic throughout the State Purchase area—

1. Redundant and undesirable licences were suppressed; tlus included the suppression of all "grocers' licences."
2. Further restrictions were placed on the sale of spirits, viz.—

(1) Temporary Prohibition of the sale of spirits in houses near the National Factory.
(2) Institution of the "spirit-less Saturday."
(3) Reduction of the number of houses selling spirits for "off" consumption.
(4) Mixed drinking—i.e., the custom of drinking beer and spirits mixed — was checked.

3. The "on" sale of liquor to young persons under eighteen was forbidden, excepting the sale of beer served with a meal.
4. The display of liquor-advertisements on the fronts of licensed premises ceased.
5. Complete Sunday Closing was extended with each extension of the State Purchase area in Cumberland."

"The Control of the Drink Trade" by Longmans, Green & Co., London, 1919, page 208.

What fun Satuday nights in Carlisle must have been.

By grocer's licences they mean shops that sold both food and alcohol. The supermarkets would love it if that was reintroduced.

In a way, it's all pretty logical, trying to limit spirit drinking. That was always likely to cause the most problems. Labourers probably weren't used to earning enough to regularly drinks spirits.

The restrictions on external advertisements has a dramatic effect Here's one Carlisle pub before:

and after:

and today, when it's known as Gallagher's Irish Bar

Interesting that it's still basically retained the State Control look. Though there was a fracas in 2014 that sounds very late 1915, with workers from outside the area causing trouble.


Gallaghers Irish Bar
10 St Nicholas St,
Carlisle CA1 2EE, UK
Tel: +44 1228 597799

Why Carlisle's pubs were nationalised

One of most long-lasted effects of WW I was the Carlisle State Management Scheme. Started in 1916, it lasted until 1973. But why was it introduced?

In late 1915 construcion was begun of a giant munitions plant, the National Factory, just outside Gretna. Thousands of labourers flooded into the Carlisle and Gretna district to work on the factory's construction. Well-paid and with little in the form of entertainment available, they flooded Carlisle's pubs.

The number of convictions for drunkenness rocketed:

Convictions for drunkenness
date	Annan	Carlisle
Jan-Jun 1915	6	72
Jan-Jun 1916	146	564
Source:
"The Control of the Driink Trade" by Longmans, Greem & Co., London, 1919, page 202.

It sounds like the Wild West:

The Rev. G. Bramwell Evens, who was resident in Carlisle throughout the period, thus describes the position in the city: "October, 1915-June, 1916 witnessed the coming of a new population. Into this quiet city of 50,000 inhabitants . . . there poured 10,000 to 12,000 of the navvy class whose hard-drinking propensity is proverbial. In addition to these, 2000 to 4000 more took up their abode in the Gretna hutments and neighbouring hamlets, making Carlisle, especially on Saturday nights, their drinking rendezvous. . . . The housing problem at once became acute. Small houses were simply stacked with men. Every available room was commandeered for sleeping purposes. Hundreds were compelled to board out. At night these men were practically turned out into the street until bed-time. Their landladies did not want them inside the house; their money was wanted but not their company. . . . The cafes and places of entertainment were crowded, and after these there only remained the public-house as a place of refuge.

"Here, then, were thousands of men wandering aimlessly about, with no home ties, with plenty of money and with public-houses at every few yards inviting them to conviviality and seeming comfort. It is not to be wondered at that scenes of the most nauseating and degrading character became a common occurrence. Men fought like beasts; fierce fights raged round the doors of the public-houses. The diminished police force was unable to cope with the situation. Almost every alley was littered with prostrate drunken men. The main thoroughfare of Carlisle was Bedlam."
The Truth about Direct Control in Carlisle, p. 4 (P. S. King).

The measures taken to combat drunkenness were drastic. We'll hear about them next time.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1913 William Younger XXP

William Younger had been early to the Pale Ale game and even built a new brewery specifically to brew the style.

Their initial brews were quite similar to Burton versions. In 1858 XXP had an OG of 1059º and was hopped at a massive 21 lbs per quarter, 5 lbs per barrel. The gravity was lopped back a little and the hopping rate a lot over the next 60 years. This 1913 version was hopped at 5.85 lbs per quarter, 1.25 per barrel. Which is quite a change.

The grist is typical of this period William Younger beers: simply pale malt and a huge amount of grits. I know. It looks terrible. But the beers couldn’t have been that bad, given how successful the brewery was. The pale malt was a combination of Oregon, Indian and Scottish.

I’ve reduced the hopping rate quite a bit, as almost 50% were from the 1910 crop. They’re listed as Kent and Pacific, which I’ve interpreted as Fuggles and Cluster, respectively. There’s no mention of the variety used as dry hops and I’ve guessed Goldings. It probably is an English variety, but it could equally be Fuggles.

The finished beer was almost certainly darker than indicated below. Knowing how Scottish brewers operated, it was most likely coloured up at racking time to a variety of different shades for different markets.

1913 William Younger XXP
pale malt	7.00 lb	53.85%
grits	6.00 lb	46.15%
Cluster 120 mins	1.00 oz
Cluster 90 mins	0.50 oz
Fuggles 60 mins	0.50 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.50 oz
OG	1056
FG	1017
ABV	5.16
Apparent attenuation	69.64%
IBU	40
SRM	4
Mash at	150º F
Sparge at	160º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	59º F
Yeast	WLP028 Edinburgh Ale

Doubt and uncertainty in Glasgow

The further WW I progressed, the more regulated the brewing industry became.

Intially, the government simply limited the number of standard barrels which could be brewed. Which gave the brewer two options: brew a smaller quanitity of beer at the same strength or brew the same quantity of beer at a lower strength.

But in 1917 the government started to put controls on gravity. After 1st July brewers had to have half the beer they brewed of no higher gravity than 1036º. However, they didn't specify what the price of such beer should be. Which led to complaints of profiteering by publicans. Presumably that lay behind the thinking of new Beer Orders in October 1917. This fixed the retail price for the first time.

"CHEAPER DRAUGHT BEER EFFECTS OF THE NEW ORDER.
The new Order concerning the price of beer which has been issued by the Ministry of Food is regarded by certain retailers in Edinburgh as somewhat of a mystery, which requires further official explanation. Briefly, the Order decrees that draught beer of an original gravity of less than 1036 degrees must not be sold in a public bar at more than 4d. a pint. At a gravity not exceeding 1042 degrees and not less than 1036 degrees, the maximum price is 5d. per pint. These prices are to come into force on 28th October.

The suggestion has been made in some quarters that the Order is designed to check a certain amount of "profiteering" that has been going on in beer. Inducements were given to brewers some time ago to brew lighter beer. The inducement took the form of permission to brew increased quantities of beer of this class. It was understood, of course, that the lighter beer would be cheaper. In some places, it is alleged, this lighter beer was sold at the maximum prices, so that dealers were reaping a double profit. They were able to sell more, and their profit on any given quantity was higher than under the previous conditions. This placed those who were doing a more legitimate trade at a  disadvantage. In this view one effect of the Order will be that those consumers who have been supplied with light beer will either get it at a much reduced price, or have the strength of their beverage increased.

RETAILERS' CRITICISM
"I cannot see clearly the trend of the Order." said a prominent Edinburgh retailer and restaurateur yesterday. "Can it be that the Government, after the third year of war, are going to do what ought to have been done lowg ago - fix the price of beer, as the price of bread and sugar and meat is fixed? It is admitted that the price and supply of beer have led to much of the industrial unrest, and this new fiat appears on the first glance to be an attempt to remove the grievance. But, upon scrutiny, one fails to see what it is aiming at. It does not fix a maximum price for beer and the public will be deluded if they take it as doing so. The sting is not in tho tail; it is in  the very opening sentence. 'The maximum price of certain qualities of beer.' it runs . 'Certain qualities' — that is qualities under 1036 and 1042 gravvity must be sold at 5d. a pint. Beer of 1042 1.9 gravity may be sold at anything the public may care to pay.

"So, as far as the man at the counter is concerned, his pint of beer will cost him neither less; nor more. It will still be 8d. a pint for the kind of beer he pays 8d. a pint now for.

"The salient point is that the brewer has never told the retailer the gravity of the beer he delivers. He refuses to put it on the invoice, as the distiller does regarding whisky. The retailer pays his full duty on a 1055 standard barrel, and he has to base his charges to the public on that cost. He is ignorant of the gravity, and has nothing but his payments to the brewer to guide him in fixing the price per pint. Probably some of the beer is above 1042 gravity, and yet the same price is forced on the publican, and through him on the customer. Certlainly, under the new Order inspectors will be able to discover this. But who is to blamed if beer at 8d. a pint is shown to be only  1042 in gravity?

"It is set down that barrels and casks must be labelled 4d. and 5d., as the case may be. But ther is no guide to the customer. The customer rarely sees the cask. It is almost invariably in the cellar"

ENLIGHTENING THE CONSUMER
Another retailer expressed the opinion that this was another chapter in the history of confusion which surrounded the publican. "Brewers," he said, "ought to give us some assurance of quality which would justify our charges in the eyes of the public. The gravity ought to be disclosed. It is easy to ascertain it. The Exciseman makes sure of it in bulk at the brewery, but the gravity it has when it is sent out in barrels is a secret known only to the brewer. Perhaps the new Order is to catch the brewers. They will have to announce the gravity up to 1042, or run the risk of being prosecuted. But, generally speaking, the pint of beer at the ordinary house will remain at 8d. The new Order does not affect the trade generally. It only concerns cortain qualities of beer - namely, the lighter kinds."

One retailer welcomed the Order as preventing profiteering. "It will force the brewer," he said, "to put us right with the public. He will not tell us the gravity of the beer for which he charges us a price that fixes our price to the customer, but henceforth if a publican sells beer of 1042 degrees at 8d. a pint instead of 5d., he will be prosecuted. He will plead ignorance, as the brewer keeps the gravity a secret, but the prosecution will force the-fact into public knowledge, and the right culprit will be found out. The public will be able to have a light beer at 4d. or 5d., and if they pay more they will know they are getting a stronger beer. Althougn here again is an absurdity. You can have a pint of beer not exceeding 1042 gravity for 5d. Another fraction of a degree over that and the price may be anything, though it would need many degrees over to make any appreciable improvement in the quality or strength of the beverage."

A COMPLICATED MATTER FOR THE BREWERS.
An Edinburgh brewer, who was seen yesterday, said the effect of the Order was so complicated that it was impossible to state how it would work from the point of view of the manufacturers. The matter had been sprung upon them unexpectedly and it was causing them no end of trouble and worry. It was obvious, he thought, that as far as the man in the street was concerned, that the result was going to be good for him, if he were content with the beer that could be sold at 4d.  and 5d. per imperial pint. It was not expected that there would be a great deal of difference in the quality of the cheaper beer from that which was sold at the present time. Of course, the higher classes of beer were not affected, and they would be sold as formerly, and it was only at the "public bars" that the effect of the new Order would come into force. This, it was pointed put, was the first time that the Government had fixed a gravity of beer in relation to price, and the first time that retail prices had been dealt with in an Order. In their action as regards beer, the Government were simply carrying on  their policy in regard to bread and other food materials — that of lowering prices for the people.

DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY IN GLASGOW.
An attempt to secure authoritative views as to the probable effect of the new orders upon the retail trade in Glasgow did not succeed, partly because leading officials of the Defence Association are at present in London, but more largely on account of the fact that retailers are not in a position to form definite opinions. The future lies with the brewers, they say, and until it has been ascertained what action the brewers decide upon, retailers cannot settle their attitude. "Certainly, it will involve a big turn up" declared a leading representative.

"Gravity is a thing, that the brewer has kept up his sleeve," remarked one licence-holder, "and sometimes even their customers don't know what is the gravity. For some time back brewers have been supplying various grades and lighter beers have been on sale in Scotland than we have hitherto been accustomed to. But then there have also been differences in price. So far as I am awan we have not been selling what is popularly known as English ale, because our customers have never taken kindly to such light liquor.

While the general attitude of the trade is one of doubt and uncertainty, one retailer declared that the step taken by the Food Controller has justification. His contention was that retailers had played into the hands of brewers by raising prices, as almost immediately the brewers advanced the wholesale prices, and the only section who suffered were the public. "I think Lord Rhondda and his advisers will have gone fully into the subject, and that they are allowing quite a reasonable return. We have been selling light beers, and the consumers have not stopped drinking them. I believe that if only the same thing was done in the matter of whisky, say, by fixing a maximum price of 6d. per glass, the present absurd prices would soon adjustthemselves to reasonable standards."
The Scotsman - Friday 19 October 1917, page 4.

 As the one retailer pointed out, the new regulations were full of holes. The prices onlt related to the public bar and anything over 1042º could be sold at whatever price you fancied. This situation continued until February 1919, when six different price bands were introduced. These covered beer of any gravity.

Price control 1917-1921
Price	Oct 1917	Apr 1918	Feb 1919	Jul 1919	Apr 1920
2d				<1019 span="">
3d			<1022 span="">	1020-1026	<1019 span="">
4d	<1036 span="">	<1030 span="">	1023-1028	1027-1032	1020-1026
5d	1036-1042	1030-1034	1029-1034	1033-1038	1027-1032
6d			1035-1041	1039-1045	1033-1038
7d			1042-1049	1045-1053	1039-1045
8d			>1050	>1054	1045-1053
9d					>1054
Sources: The Brewers’ Almanack 1928 pages 100 – 101. “The British Brewing Industry 1830-1980”

Two price schedules were introduced at the same time: one for the public bar and off sales, the other for anywhere else in the pub.

Price controls were finally abolished on 31st August 1921.