The first three chapters, covering the period up to 1780, are unstarted. They're the most difficult ones because I have so little hard information. And you know how much I love numbers. I suppose they'll be pretty short. I'm leaving them until last because, well, they require the most work. And I hate work.
I've been finishing off the odd bit from the other chapters and tidying up a little. Mostly this week, though, it's been writing recipes. They take time. And, if I complete my plan, there will be loads of them. I've just about got up to 1850 and there are 44 already. To get all the way to the 1970s will take at least 100 more.
Which all depends on me being arsed.
Just about 35,000 words so far. Not sure how many more there will be. I have been known to get carried away.
Posts
4 comments:
Ron,
I can't hope to match your work, but I have been trying to push back to 1650 for some time. Take a look, you might be able to follow up some of the leads? If there is anything new to you that is! The thesis from Loyola Univ. probed most useful and has loads of references I haven't begun to follow through yet. I'm rather proud of my "brown malt" chart! https://www.jimsbeerkit.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=83285&start=75#p865898
PeeBee,
I've had a quick look.
Brown malt is such a tricky thing to get a handle on. I was just browsing through Richardson's "Statistical Estimates of the Materials of Brewing" and happened to notice some analyses of brown malt. I was surprised to see that most examples provided an extract not far short of pale malt. The exception being those from Hertfordshire, where the extract was much worse. That being the brown malt used by London Porter brewers.
What does "not carbonated" mean here on the label? Was it flat?
Artem Belitsky,
it means that it was artificially carbonated. Not flat though, because it was bottle conditioned.
Post a Comment