To me, this is too weak to be classed with a contemporary Burton IPA. They had gravities around 1065º, a good ten points stronger. And were far more heavily hopped. So, what makes this an IPA? That’s what the brewer called it. Simple as that. Another brewery might well have called it just Pale Ale. There’s absolutely no logic to this stuff.
There’s a slight variation in the recipe here, in that the type of sugar is different. While in the Mild Ales the sugar is described as “Garton”, here it’s simply called “invert”. As this is consistent, I have to conclude that it’s a different type of sugar. I’ve plumped for No. 2. It could just as easily have been No. 1, which was mostly employed in classier Pale Ales.
Unlike in the Mild Ales, there’s no Ouchac malt, just English and Californian.
Hops came mostly from England, there types, backed up my one Californian. All undated, sadly.
1901 Boddington IPA | ||
pale malt | 11.25 lb | 91.84% |
No. 2 invert sugar | 1.00 lb | 8.16% |
Cluster 130 mins | 1.00 oz | |
Fuggles 90 mins | 2.00 oz | |
Goldings 30 mins | 2.00 oz | |
Goldings dry hops | 0.50 oz | |
OG | 1054.5 | |
FG | 1017 | |
ABV | 4.96 | |
Apparent attenuation | 68.81% | |
IBU | 68 | |
SRM | 7 | |
Mash at | 154º F | |
Sparge at | 165º F | |
Boil time | 130 minutes | |
pitching temp | 60.5º F | |
Yeast | Wyeast 1318 London ale III (Boddingtons) |
I think officially this is a hazy New England IPA because it uses London Ale III. Seems odd, but I don't write the rules...
ReplyDeleteI'll be trying this after seeing off the similar "1896 Rose AK" recipe in your "AK!" book (no rice in this Boddington one but tons more hops). BUT ... sugar! Garston sugar seems reasonable (their refineries were just up the road/ship-canal). After making that 1896 Rose AK (home-made invert syrup No.2) I investigated Invert Sugar: In 1901 (and 1896!) "No.2" ("No.3, etc.) referred to "quality" of sugar (before inverting), not "colour" (mainly from caramelising fructose after inverting) like today. Is "plumped for No. 2" such a good idea?
ReplyDeleteYou write "I have to conclude that it’s a different type of sugar". No you don't? Many breweries inverted their own "invert sugar" so they could still be using sugar from Garston's refineries. E.g. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1902.tb00186.x
ReplyDeleteI get most of my information from ... hang-on, I'll find his name ... ah, this guy "Ron Pattinson". You could ask him?
I take back my earlier posts. Seems Garston (sugar refiners in Liverpool) was a very coincidental typo by me. Ron records "Garton" (sugar refiners in London). Even Lancastrian Edd (Beer-History-Bloke) didn't think Boddington's (in Manchester) got sugar from Garston (which I think got swallowed up by the T&L bunch).
ReplyDeleteNice idea but leaping to conclusions based on a spelling mistake isn't very clever.