The range of beers produced by Tetley wasn’t the largest, just eight in total. Four Mild Ales, two Pale Ales, one Stout and one Porter.
At least I think that’s what they are. X3 could be an Old Ale rather than a Mild. Especially with that level of hopping. It’s interesting that the hopping rate per quarter (336 lbs) of malt is different for all the four Milds. Increasing as the gravity rises. Which may be the reason they weren’t parti-gyled with each other.
There’s a full-strength Pale Ale and what looks like a Light Bitter. There’s quite a difference in the hopping rate between the two. My guess is that PA was a proper Stock Bitter, aged for maybe 12 months before sale. While K was a Running Beer, intended for almost immediate sale.
The Stout is a few degrees weaker than a London equivalent. But not by a huge amount. They weren’t making much of it. Most of their beers were brewed in lengths of 160-odd barrels. The batch of Stout in the table was just 12.5 barrels.
It’s surprising that Tetley still brewed a Porter. Most regional breweries had dropped them by the 1880s. Though many had a beer called “Stout” at Porter strength. At a bit over 1050º, it has a similar gravity to London versions.
| Tetley beers in 1888 | |||||||
| Beer | Style | OG | FG | ABV | App. Atten-uation | lbs hops/ qtr | hops lb/brl |
| X | Mild | 1046.0 | 1016.1 | 3.96 | 65.06% | 4.31 | 0.69 |
| X1 | Mild | 1053.7 | 1016.6 | 4.91 | 69.07% | 5.31 | 1.02 |
| X2 | Mild | 1063.2 | 1016.6 | 6.16 | 73.68% | 8.40 | 2.02 |
| X3 | Mild | 1071.2 | 1016.1 | 7.29 | 77.43% | 12.00 | 3.57 |
| K | Pale Ale | 1049.3 | 1013.9 | 4.69 | 71.91% | 10.00 | 1.95 |
| PA | Pale Ale | 1063.2 | 1011.4 | 6.85 | 82.02% | 16.00 | 5.75 |
| P | Porter | 1052.6 | 1016.1 | 4.84 | 69.47% | 5.87 | 1.66 |
| S | Stout | 1068.7 | 1029.1 | 5.24 | 57.66% | 7.47 | 2.24 |
| Source: | |||||||
| Tetley brewing record held at the West Yorkshire Archives, document number WYL756/44/ACC1903. | |||||||
This is probably a very big ask, but do you have any data or even anecdotes on why Mild was so popular in the 19th century? I assume there are two factors here, taste and price, and the latter would've been the primary factor--was it the only factor? Are there documented instances of wealthier drinkers choosing mild for taste?
ReplyDeleteMichael Foster,
ReplyDeleteit's very hard to pin down why beer styles wax and wane.
You quote price as a factor, yet quite often at the start of a style's popularity it's relatively expensive. Mild is a case in point. At first it was more expensive than Porter. At least in London. It's in the late 19th century that its gravity and price fell to the same level.
Milds weren't just low-strength beers in the 19th century. The stronger versions were likely to have been drunk by the better off. Or at least the middle classes. Mild was much broader in the 19th century. Not just what the working man drank in the public bar.