Let's Brew - 1897 Eldridge Pope XXXX

An 1890 price list describes XXXX as a Strong Old Ale. No equivocation, as with the different flavours of XXX.

Still the same three elements in the grist: pale malt, flaked maize and sugar. But with a much lower proportion of the last two. Leaving it almost 95% pale malt. What else am I going to talk about here? Let’s have a think.

I know. There are no fewer than six types of pale malt. Some made from English barley and some from foreign barley. Which seems slightly excessive. Two or three is more usual.

Four types of hops on this spin. Three English, one Californian. One lot of English hops from the 1895 harvest and another from 1896. There’s no indication of the age of the other two types of hops.

Given that this was advertised as an Old Ale, I’m fairly certain that this would have been aged. Probably for at least a year. And maybe more. 

1897 Eldridge Pope XXXX
pale malt	16.25 lb	94.20%
flaked maize	0.50 lb	2.90%
No. 2 invert sugar	0.50 lb	2.90%
Fuggles 150 mins	3.00 oz
Fuggles 30 mins	3.00 oz
OG	1075
FG	1024
ABV	6.75
Apparent attenuation	68.00%
IBU	61
SRM	7
Mash at	151º F
Sparge at	170º F
Boil time	150 minutes
pitching temp	60º F
Yeast	White Labs WLP099 Super High Gravity

Punch taling the piss out of a school of brewing

Everyone seems to have found the idea of teaching brewing at university hilarious. So much so, there was an article parodying the school in the magazine Punch.

The Proposed School of Brewing.
(From Punch.)
OXFORD, 2,000 A.D.
[“The Midland University, which is being formed at Birmingham, will, in one respect, be quite unique amongst the Universities of Great Britain, for it has been decided to establish in connection with it a school of brewing. There will be a chair of brewing, and the training will be of the fullest. ... A special brewing laboratory will be established contiguous to the University buildings."— Westminster Gazette.]

On reading the above, Mr. Punch was seriously perturbed. What about Oxford and Cambridge? How would they stand such competition? Would they be cut out of the field by their up-to-date rival? Obviously there was but one way to answer these questions, and accordingly Mr. Punch’s Special Prophetic Interviewer was dispatched to the Isis.

At the first glimpse it was obvious that, whatever else had happened, Oxford was not deserted. Great changes had, however, been effected. The spires and towers had all disappeared, and in their place rose a forest of tall chimneys. The S. P. I. made his way to Christ Church, which indeed he had some difficulty in recognising. Tom Quad and the Cathedral had been pulled down to make room for a huge red-brick building, whence issued a continuous stream of brewer’s drays driven by undergrads in cap and gown. The S. P. I. entered. A large audience were listening to Dr. Vatz, the Dean, who was lecturing on the Chemistry of Bitters, samples of which were handed round the class at frequent intervals. It appeared to be a very popular lecture. At its conclusion the S. P. I. presented himself to the Dean, who kindly volunteered as cicerone.

“Great changes?” remarked the Dean. “No doubt there are. Why, in your time, there wasn’t even a chair of Brewing. This is the Bottling Department. Most of the undergraduates here are Freshmen. That man in the scholar’s gown? He is one of our most promising students, and has already taken the Hertford and Ireland. No," added the Dean, smiling indulgently at the S. P. I's ignorance, “these are no longer classical scholarships, they are given for Malting and Brewing.”
The Brewers' Journal vol. 35 1899, January 15th 1899, page 7.

They imagined that beer wouldn't be the only industry taught at the university.

“Then is beer the only profession now taught in Oxford?" “By no means. In Balliol they make whisky, in All Soles, boots and shoes, and so forth. But here we don’t do much but brewing. Christ Church is still the aristocratic college, you know. Even in your time brewers were a majority of the House of Lords—not a majority ? Well, a big percentage, at all events.”

“And classics?”

The Dean laughed. “Of course, the old regime died hard. Balliol was the Pioneer of the new Oxford Movement, and when she first put up her whisky laboratory. Convocation and Congregation protested to a curate. But the change had to come. Birmingham was beating us everywhere. The aristocracy were all going there, Birmingham Bachelors of Brewing and Doctors of Distilling were getting every post in the country worth having."
The Brewers' Journal vol. 35 1899, January 15th 1899, page 7.

The article finishes with some good, old-fashioned sexism.

“And what about the women?”

“Of course, the New Movement affected them too. Somerville is now a steam-laundry with a mangling laboratory, and Lady Margaret’s is a school of cookery where they read for degrees in the domestic arts. But I must be off," cried the Dean, “to visit the fermenting bins, or the Freshmen will be poisoning themselves with the carbonic acid. Before you leave Oxford, you should run round and see the improvements at the Ashmolean. It used to be a library, didn’t it ? Now it’s the University Co-operative Stores, where undergraduates do their practical work for the shopwalkers’ degree."

So the S. P. I. returned to town, satisfied that Oxford will hold her own with her pushful younger sister.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 35 1899, January 15th 1899, page 7.

All very amusing, I'm sure you'll agree. Well, and incredibly snobbish and condescending.

Reminding you of some more of my excellent books

And also that I promise all the money I raise will be spent on kid's shoes. Maybe a little whisky as well. And the odd bottle of cachaca.

Talking of the kids, this book recounts some of my travels with them.

 

My book in brewing in WW I recounts its true horrors: like 1% ABV Mild. 

 

 The happy years of post-WW II brewing you can find in "Austerity!",

 

Follow me on my travels, mostly around the USA. 

 

 I usually describe this as an expansion pack for the Home Brewer's Guide to Vintage Beer. Just recipes. Lots of them.

 

 Me touring around again, this time pushing my Scottish book.

 

 And this is that Scottish book. By far the best history of Scottish beer.Full of facts rather than myths. Lots of recipes, too.

 

 Finally, guide to a country that no longer exists.

Lost pubs

There's much lamentation nowadays when a pub is lost. A sad day when last orders really are the last orders.

Pubs are seen as community assets. Generally, a good thing. Worthy of protection and preservation.

But that wasn't always like that. Go back 120 years and there were many who considered pubs so irredeemably evil that they needed to be stamped out. Unfortunately, many such men served as licensing magistrates. With the power to arbitrarily refuse or remove a licence. A power they weer only too happy to abuse.

In 1902, Farnham licensing magistrates decided to refuse the renewal of the licences of nine of the town's 45 pubs. For no other reason than that they thought there were too pubs. Not then they were dens of crime, unsafe, insanitary, insolvent or anything else. Just some magistrates wanted to eliminate as many pubs as possible.

A delicensed pub was worth a fraction of its value as a pub. Especially a fully-licensed pub (one that could sell both beer and spirits). Meaning a destruction of capital for the brewer. This threat led to a fall in the price of a pubs. As a big chunk of a brewer's capital was tied up in pubs, this fall in the value of their tied estate led some to being overcapitalised. Some marked down their shares from £10 to £1. The economic impact of closures was greater than just the loss of pubs.

Between 1870 and 1914 there was a 25% fall in the number of on-licences in England and Wales. Despite a considerable growth in the population, which rose from 31.5 million in 1871 to 46 million in 1914.
 
I'll finish with some numbers. 

Number of pubs in England and Wales 1879 - 1914
Date	Full	Beer / wine	Total Pubs
1870	68,789	49,396	118,185
1875	69,184	43,884	113,068
1880	69,112	49,597	118,709
1881	68,632	38,309	106,941
1885	67,822	37,278	105,100
1890	67,315	36,498	103,813
1893	67,028	35,809	102,837
1895	66,750	35,351	102,101
1895			103,341
1900			102,189
1905			99,478
1910	64,129	28,355	92,484
1914	62,104	25,556	87,660
Sources:
Brewers' Almanack 1912, page 162.
Brewers' Almanack 1971, page 83.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1897 Eldridge Pope XXX

In addition to their standard Mild, Eldridge Pope also had something a little stronger. In the form of XXX.

An Eldridge Pope price list from 1890 has different types of XXX.:

M XXX Burton Ale
XXX Old or Mild Ale 

Not sure which one of the three this is.

The ingredients are exactly the same as in XX. Though the proportions aren’t the same. As all the extra gravity comes from more base malt. The quantities of flaked maize and sugar remaining exactly the same. Still none the wiser as to exactly what type of sugar that was.

Half the malt was made from English barley, the rest from what’s simply described as “foreign”. Which doesn’t narrow down the origin much. Could be California, Chile, Australia, Hungary, the Middle East. Anywhere malting barley was grown, really.

There were only two types of hops, both English. Neither with any indication of vintage. 

1897 Eldridge Pope XXX
pale malt	12.25 lb	85.96%
flaked maize	0.50 lb	3.51%
No. 2 invert sugar	1.50 lb	10.53%
Fuggles 150 mins	1.75 oz
Fuggles 30 mins	1.75 oz
OG	1065
FG	1019
ABV	6.09
Apparent attenuation	70.77%
IBU	38
SRM	9
Mash at	151º F
Sparge at	170º F
Boil time	150 minutes
pitching temp	60º F
Yeast	White Labs WLP099 Super High Gravity

Not very Reinheitsgebot

German beer is renowned for its purity, right? That's not necessarily true.  As German brewers have been guilty of various dodgy practices in the past.

This report details some of the illegal practices which the makers of Malzbier got up to. Though it should be borne in mind that the article refers to practices in 1901 in Saxony. Where, at the time, the Reinheisgebot did not apply. It was only a few years later that the law was extended to the whole of Germany.

Beer Substitutes in Dresden.
In a report on the work of the Municipal Chemical Station of Dresden for the year 1901 Beythien states that the attention bestowed in the previous year on the various draught beers sold in Dresden having shown the existence of a satisfactory state of things in this connection, dispensed with the necessity of constant examination on the part of the station. On the other hand, the investigation of several kinds of sweetened malt extracts led to some curious revelations. In one case of a so-called wheat malt extract, chiefly consisting of sugar colouring, and used in the preparation of “malt beer,” the maker and 25 vendors of the bottled product were prosecuted for adulterating single beer, or diluted Kulmbacher beer, with saccharin. Another “sweet malt-beer” was found on analysis to contain 1.52 per cent. of alcohol and 5.64 per cent. of extract, and to consist merely of single beer qualified with sugar. It is stated that quite two dozen varieties of a similar nature are still being sold in the city. Another product of like character (“Methon”), and consisting of sugar solution, impregnated with carbonic acid and slightly scented, has been largely advertised as a “non-alcoholic beverage"; and the same claim has been advanced in connection with a “champagne beer" prepared by diluting and carbonising an essence containing 7.78 per cent, of alcohol and 15.8 per cent. of extract. The extract was found to consist chiefly of sugar colouring, the foam being produced by a substance believed to be identical with saponin.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, October 15th 1902, page 626. 

These Malzbiers were supposed to be non-alcoholic, like the malt drinks that you find in some tropical countries today. And definitely weren't supposed to be watered-down and sweetened beer. Kulmbacher would certainly have needed a lot of watering down as it was usually at least 6.5% ABV.

Why would they be charged with adulteration for the addition of saccharin? Because even before the Reinheitsgebot its use in beer was banned in Germany. Which is ironic, given that the current version of the Reinheitsgebot does allow artificial sweeteners in some classes of low-alcohol beer.

 

 

Beer in Madagascar in 1902

Madagascar and beer. They aren't two things I'd usually associate with each other. Yet here we are.

It seems some beer was being shipped to Madagascar. Though, given its size, the quantities weren't really that large. Only around 2,500 Imperial barrels. To put that into context, the UK exported over 20,000 barrels to Malta annually.

The Beer Trade of Madagascar.
The quantity of beer annually imported into Madagascar is very considerable, the estimated quantity for the past year being about 4,000 hectols. (hectol. 22 imperial gallons). This total shows a marked increase over the figures for the two preceding years, viz., 2,000 and 3,000 hectols. in 1899 and 1900 respectively.

In the district of Diego Suarez there is an annual sale of about 20,000 bottles of beer. They are imported in cases containing 24 or 48 bottles, each bottle containing about 0.7 litres (1.23 pints). The retail price is from 1.25 francs to 1.50 francs per bottle, and is practically the same in the whole coast region for beer of French manufacture.

In the Province of Tamatave and the districts of Andovoranto and Vatomandry, the sales reach to about 150,000 bottles per annum. The retail price ranges from 1.25 francs to 1.50 francs per bottle for French beers, and from 1.75 francs to 2 francs for British or German beers.

About 120,000 bottles of French and German beers are annually sold in the Province of Majunga. German beer, although dearer in consequence of the Customs duty, sells well owing to its quality. The price of French beer is from 1.25 francs to 1.50 franca per bottle; that of German beer is about 2 francs per bottle.

With regard to the less important provinces, the yearly consumption of beer in the Province of Imerina amounts to about 200,000 bottles, in the Provinces of Ambositra and Botsileo about 30,000 bottles each, in the Cercle Tulear about 15,000 bottles, and in the Province of Nossi-Bé about 8,000 bottles of French beer, and 8,000 bottles of German beer from Hamburg and Bohemia.

It should be noted that French beers enter Madagascar free, and have to pay only the consumption duty of 10 centimes per bottle, or 5 francs per hectolitre when imported in casks. Foreign beers have to pay the same consumption duty as French beers, and in addition an import duty of 12 francs per 100 kiloms. gross.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, March 15th 1902, page 124.

Interesting that the French didn't have a monopoly on beer imports. There was also a lot of German beer. Though some of the beer described as "German" was from Bohemia, which was actually German Austrian at the time. I assume that the French beer was Lager like the German stuff. I could be wrong.

If I knew what a franc was worth at the time, I could make some comments about the prices. But I don't, so we'll have to pass on that.
 

Comparison of Burton London and Edinburgh brewing waters (ppm)

You can't imagine how much time I dedicated to finding an analysis of Edinburgh brewing water. Without success. And know I've just tripped over the information. When I wasn't looking for it.

Meaning that I can now compare the waters of the big three UK brewing centres: Burton, London and Edinburgh.

Edinburgh water is hard. Harder than London water, but not as hard as Burton water. Then again, what is? Burton water is ridiculously stuffed with minerals.

Though not as high as in Burton, the calcium sulphate (gypsum) content of Edinburgh number 1 water is pretty high. Though, interestingly, much lower in sample 2. Was sample 1 the water usually used for brewing? The high gypsum would surely have helped in the brewing of Pale Ales before water treatment became the norm.

Quite a lot of magnesium sulphate in the Edinburgh number 1 leaves the totally sulphur content of Edinburgh water quite high. Though still well short of Burton water. Would this have been enough to give Edinburgh Pale Ales the Burton snatch?

The chalk (calcium carbonate) and common salt (sodium chloride) content of the Edinburgh waters was notably higher than either in Burton or London. What effect would that have had on brewing? If only I understood all this shit. 

Comparison of Burton London and Edinburgh brewing waters (ppm)
	Burton		London		Edinburgh
	highest	lowest	Old London well water	London Metropolitan Water Board supply.	Number 1	Number 2
Calcium carbonate	290.4	290.4	160.2	253.4	349.7	497.4
Calcium sulphate .	1742.4	721.6	—	33.4	205.7	171.8
Magnesium chloride	37.0	12.3	—	—	—	37.5
Magnesium sulphate	457.6	369.6	—	22.9	191.8	27.5
Magnesium carbonate	—	—	82.7	—	—	—
Sodium chloride .	93.3	58.1	121.4	35.2	206.1	136.9
Sodium nitrate	73.9	51.0	—	5.3	—	—
Sodium carbonate	—	—	65.1	—	—	—
Sodium sulphate .	—	—	140.8	44.0	78.5	—
Chloride of potassium	—	—	—	—	50.3	9.9
Phosphates	—	—	—	—	—	5.5
Oxide of iron	—	—	—	—	—	4.6
Silica	—	—	—	—	12.0	5.6
Total solids (dried)	2816.0	1513.6	570.2	394.2	1094.0	993.0
Sources:
Brewing Theory and Practice by E.J. Jeffery, 1956, page 101.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, February 15th 1902, page 101.

Let's Brew - 1912 Crowley Porter

It’s odd to find a brewery as far away from London as Hampshire that was still producing a Porter as late as 1912. It’s probably explained by Crowley also owning a brewery in Croydon

I must say that it’s quite an interesting recipe. First off, there’s no black malt as you might expect. Instead, the roasted element consists of chocolate malt. Which wasn’t that common at the time. There’s also rather a lot of wheat malt. Which I assume is there for head retention purposes. The small amount of oats is presumably there so that some could be sold as Oatmeal Stout.

There are two types of sugar, cane sugar and a type of caramel. Rather a lot of caramel, hence the dark colour.

Just a single type of English hops, from the 1911 harvest, was employed. The hopping rate was fairly modest at 6.25 lbs per quarter (336 lbs) of malt.

1912 Crowley Porter
pale malt	7.50 lb	70.89%
chocolate malt	0.75 lb	7.09%
wheat malt	0.75 lb	7.09%
flaked oats	0.25 lb	2.36%
brown sugar	1.00 lb	9.45%
caramel 1000 SRM	0.33 lb	3.12%
Fuggles 135 mins	0.75 oz
Fuggles 90 mins	0.75 oz
Fuggles 30 mins	0.75 oz
OG	1050
FG	1015.5
ABV	4.56
Apparent attenuation	69.00%
IBU	27
SRM	37
Mash at	149º F
Sparge at	176º F
Boil time	135 minutes
pitching temp	59º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1275 Thames Valley ale

 

UK beer production and exports by country 1899 - 1901

Just a short little post today. Along with some lovely, juicy fat numbers.

I'm a sucker for statistics. Especially ones that tell me something I didn't expect. Though the numbers do also confirm something I already knew.

Let's start with that. Scotland punched well above its weight when it came to beer exports. In the years covered, 38% to 55% of UK beer exports came from Scotland. Despite Scotland only having around 11% of the UK population. The percentage of production exported was also way higher: over 10% compared to under 2% for the UK as a whole.

And what was the surprise? How little beer Ireland exported. A mere 0.5% of production. Of course, huge quantities of beer were leaving Ireland. But they were only hopping over the Irish Sea. A couple of decades later Irish exports would massively increase. For the simple reason that Ireland gained its independence from the UK.

UK beer production and exports by country
	production			exports
	1899	1900	1901	1899	1900	1901
England & Wales	32,152,264	31,473,616	30,701,123	319,634	356,750	376,796
Scotland	2,206,149	2,112,385	2,116,055	229,188	330,310	238,093
Ireland	3,046,970	3,082,554	3,232,473	14,484	14,624	15,058
UK	37,404,383	36,668,655	36,139,651	563,306	591,714	630,847
Source:
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, February 15th 1902, page 98.

Percentage of output exported
	1899	1900	1901
England & Wales	0.99%	1.13%	1.23%
Scotland	10.39%	15.64%	11.25%
Ireland	0.48%	0.47%	0.47%
UK	1.51%	1.61%	1.75%
Source:
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, February 15th 1902, page 98.

 

 

 

Drinking at Railway Stations

The licensing laws had many inconsistencies. One of which was for railway refreshment rooms.

Whatever the time of day, train passengers arriving at or departing from a station were allowed to use the refreshment room. To the cunning, this allowed the opportunity to drink all day on a Sunday, even outside the permitted hours. All you had to do was buy a cheap ticket to the next railway station. And that was your ticket to all-day drinking.

Obviously, the killjoy police wanted to prevent this.

Drinking at Railway Stations.
Mr. Muskett appeared on behalf of the Commissioner of Police at the West London Court, on the 28th ult., to prosecute twelve persons for infringing the Licensing Act by being on licensed premises during prohibited hours. The police, he said, desired to put a stop to a practice at Latimer Road Railway Station which amounted really to an evasion of the law. It appeared that it was the custom of certain individuals, chiefly of the working class, to go to the station on Sunday morning, take penny tickets, whereby they might gain access to the platform, and then proceed to the refreshment saloon for the purpose of drinking. Under the Licensing Act, of course, persons arriving at, or departing from, a railway station by train were entitled to have access at all times to a refreshment saloon bar, but in this case it would be proved that none of the defendants had any intention of proceeding by train.

Sub-Divisional Inspector Evans stated that on Sunday, October 26th, he called at the station; after the 11.29 train had gone he went up to the platform, entered the refreshment saloon, and found several persons there. One individual proved to him that he had just come by train. All the defendants, who were present, held 1d. tickets for Shepherd’s Bush, but as a matter of fact there was no train due for an hour and a half.

Mr. Oswald Hanson, who represented the owner of the refreshment saloon, informed the magistrate that his client was pleased the police had instituted proceedings, because he was placed in a very awkward position when persons, who were apparently passengers by train, applied for refreshment.

Mr. Rose said anyone was entitled to evade an Act of Parliament if he could, but in this case the defendants had failed. He imposed a penalty of 3s., with 2s. costs.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, December 15th 1902, page 725.

The culprits mostly being working class, it's no surprise that the police clamped down on the activity. Though, without impacting on genuine travellers, it would still have been possible to dodge the restrictions. For example, by buying a return ticket to the nearest station that also had a refreshment room. Kick off with a few pints in the departure station, have a few more at the destination, then come back and have a few more at the departure station.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1912 Crowley B

I'm now hard at work on the recipes for "Free!" As I have been for a while. I don't want a repeat of "Blitzkrieg!", where the text of the book was complete but I still had 200 recipes to write. It was a pain in the arse. 

Which is why I've been chipping away at the "Free!" recipes for  a year or so. I'm already up to 300 recipes. It's now a race. Which will I finish first: the text or the recipes?

We’re now with Crowley’s second range of Pale Ales. The ones described in an 1885 advertisement as “Bitter Beer”.

This is the weakest of the set, with a very low gravity for a pre-WW I Pale Ale. Usually, around 1045º was the absolute minimum. It doesn’t seem to have been brewed in very large quantities and doesn’t feature in their newspaper adverts.

What’s the difference between this and the other set of Pale Ales? Well, this lot are slightly more heavily hopped. And use No. 2 invert sugar rather than No. 3.

There are two types of English hops, both from the 1911 season. 

1912 Crowley B
pale malt	7.75 lb	92.04%
No. 2 invert sugar	0.67 lb	7.96%
Fuggles 120 mins	0.75 oz
Fuggles 90 mins	0.50 oz
Goldings 30 mins	0.50 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.25 oz
OG	1039
FG	1008
ABV	4.10
Apparent attenuation	79.49%
IBU	24
SRM	5.5
Mash at	150º F
Sparge at	170º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	60º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1275 Thames Valley ale

Exhibit of Foreign and Colonial Beers (part two)

I'm going yo be mining this article for a while, so you'd better get used to it. This time we're looking at the comments of the chairman of the jury, who was J. Grimble Groves, M.P. for Salford and chairman of Groves and Whitnall, a prominent Lancashire brewer.

He starts off by saying how brilliant British beer is.

It is generally admitted that English beers are at the present time superior in every respect to what they were in former years. Whilst, therefore, English brewers may have little to learn in the direction of improving the national beverage, it cannot be denied that the opportunity of gaining an insight into the character of the productions of their foreign and Colonial confreres was unique, and it was for this reason that I gladly consented to act as one of the jurors.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, November 15th 1902, page 673.

I wouldn't argue with him there. Technological and scientific advances most certainly improved the general quality of UK beer in the second half of the 19th century. Though, ironically, this is around the time the UK stopped being at the forefront of technical advances in brewing. For example, bottling techniques, where the UK adopted practices first developed in the USA.

One area where the UK lagged behind was in packaging. UK labels tended to be rather plain and straightforward. Unlike those from some of the more adventurous foreign brewers.

One of the first points to be noted at the exhibition was the pains expended abroad in making bottled beers attractive to the eye by choosing the most tasteful bottles and labels. It will not be invidious to state that the beers of the United States of America stood out prominently in this connection, whilst the Russian and Japanese samples deserve the highest praise for their artistic get-up.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, November 15th 1902, page 673.

Modern technology had made brewing possible in places with unsuitable climates.

The adoption of scientific methods of brewing has rendered possible the production of beers in countries where the climate is by no means propitious, so that those who have taken up their abode in tropical countries need no longer be deprived of the luxury of malt liquors except at prohibitive prices. Indeed, the establishment of breweries would seem to proceed hand in hand with the spread of civilisation, and to-day some type of beer is produced practically all over the world.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, November 15th 1902, page 673.

Before the development or artificial refrigeration in the 1870s, brewing had been pretty impractical in the tropics. With brewers in India having to locate their plant at altitude to find a suitably cool environment. With artificial refrigeration it was possible to brew literally anywhere on earth.

Rather surprisingly, all the beers shipped from far distant lands arrived in decent condition.

Bearing in mind the conditions obtaining in some of the countries from whence the beers emanated, and taking into account the distance they had to be sent, it would not have been surprising had many of the samples arrived in an undrinkable condition; yet such was not the case, and among the whole collection tasted not one of the beers could be described as actually unsound.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, November 15th 1902, page 673.

Lots more still to come. Like the jury's rating of the different samples.

Exhibit of Foreign and Colonial Beers

An argument that's often been thrown at me in defence of rigid beer style guidelines is that you can't hold beer competitions without them. Even though plenty occurred in the past. For example, the event we're looking at today. Despite it's title as an exhibition, there was a competitive element to it as the beers were given scores.

The exhibition was the idea of a Mr. Boake.

Seldom has a collection of greater interest to the trade been on view in London than the display of foreign and Colonial beers at the works of Messrs. A. Boake, Roberts, and Co., Stratford, between October the 20th and 24th. Great praise is due to Mr. Arthur Boake for having in his recent tour round the world conceived the idea-'of making arrangements with the various brewery companies he visited for the getting together of such an interesting collection; nor must we omit to mention the very excellent way in which this idea was carried into effect. The beers were most tastefully arranged, and every facility was given to those who were present at the exhibition to inspect and taste as many of the samples as they desired.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, November 15th 1902, page 672.

In total, there were around 80 beers exhibited. Coming from Europe, Asia, America, Africa and Australia. Which is pretty impressive given that all would have been shipped by sea. Something which would have taken weeks or even months in 1902. Coordinating the deliveries from all the different parts of the globe must have been a nightmare. I assume that it was mostly arranged by telegram.

I found this an interesting remark on pasteurised beer:

The lager beers of France and Belgium were on the whole very creditable samples; we certainly preferred the non-Pasteurised to tne Pasteurised, as the latter had for the most part the peculiar flavour characteristic of some Pasteurised beers which obscured their original taste.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, November 15th 1902, page 672.

I think I'm with the jury there on pasteurisation.

Slightly weird knowing that I've drunk beer from some of the breweries mentioned. In a couple of cases, even the specific beer.

A good dark lager beer was the Trappist Monastery beer (Holland). Some of the Russian beers were excellent of their kind. A dark lager from the Brasserie Francois Lutoslawski Fils was a very full-drinking sample, resembling the Munich "Salvator Bier” in type, but decidedly sweeter. We determined the original gravity of a sample of this beer, and found it to be 1090. The Lezak beer of a Warsaw firm was a fine pale lager, but quite different from the German pale beers in character, being much fuller. Messrs. D. Carnegie and Co., Goteborg, Sweden, sent a very good sample of stout.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, November 15th 1902, page 672.

Was the La Trappe beer really a Lager? Odd that it's the only Dutch beer represented, as it was pretty small. Also odd that they were exporting to Java.

That Lutoslawski must have been incredibly sweet if it was sweeter than Salvator. Interesting that they, correctly, call Carnegie Porter a Stout. Which, of corse, it was. That's one of the specific beers featured that I've drunk.

Interested in seeing a full list of the beers exhibited? I don't know why I'm asking. I'll be posting them whether you like it or not.

Dublin Porter Shipments 1894 - 1908

From various years of the Brewers' Journal I've managed to assemble quite a neat little table of Porter exports from Dublin. Pretty sure that they are all shipments from Dublin, both to the Britain and abroad. Though the vast majority of, at least, the Guinness shipments were being sent to Britain. Oh, and only a tiny amount was in the form of Porter. It was almost all Stout.

The proportion accounted for by Guinness was on the increase throughout the period covered, rising from 75% in 1894 to 89% in 1908. Which shows how dominant Guinness was in the Dublin trade. Of course, two of the biggest Irish Porter brewers don't appear in the figures. Because Murphy and Beamish & Crawford were based in Cork.

When you see how much bigger Guinness was than the other Dublin breweries it's no surprise that they were the only ones left a couple of decades after the period covered in the tables.

To put the figures into context, total exports of beer from the UK were only around half a million barrels. And beer imports around 50,000 barrels. When Ireland gained independence in 1922, imports suddenly rocketed to around a million barrels. Almost all of it Guinness. 

Dublin Porter Shipments 1894 - 1899
	1894	1895	1896	1897	1896	1897	1898	1899
Guinness and Son	443,629.5	425,833.5	413,344.5	418,921.5	413,344.5	418,921.5	415,225.5	479,535
Mountjoy Brewery	24,522	24,322.5	28,588.5	31,176	31,095	33,907.5	33,561	33,205.5
Jameson, Pim	24,747	28,378.5	31,098	33,907.5	28,588.5	31,176	34,554	33,033
Watkins	39,465	33,004.5	32,302.5	30,501	32,304	30,501	25,242	18,630
D'Arcy and Son	24,402	22,033.5	25,204.5	25,914	25,204.5	25,914	25,740	22,935
Phoenix Brewery	20,133	18,049.5	17,554.5	13,447.5	17,554.5	13,447.5	12,732	11,586
E. & J. Burke	14,014.5	13,741.5	11,316	8,302.5
All others	1,234.5	3,333	4,890	3,700.5	16,206	12,003	5,881.5	15,198
Total	592,147.5	568,696.5	564,298.5	565,870.5	564,298.5	565,870.5	552,942	614,122.5
Source:
The Brewers' Journal vol. 36 1900, January 15th 1900, page 9.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 34 1898, January 15th 1898, page 36.

Dublin Porter Shipments 1900 - 1908
	1900	1901	1902	1905	1906	1907	1908
Guinness and Son	544,792.5	557,806.5	557,236.5	600,318	650,980.5	670,503	687,486
Mountjoy Brewery	33,105	34,278	33,915	30,498	29,562	27,513	25,522.5
Jameson, Pim	32,050.5	32,128.5	28,668
Watkins	17,782.5	16,656	21,552	38,544	39,481.5	36,541.5	36,175.5
D'Arcy and Son	23,326.5	23,056.5	15,201	23,493	27,789	23,472	21,946.5
Phoenix Brewery	10,033.5	8,133	7,423.5
All others	12,511.5	17,737.5	21,696	228	-	-	22,834.5
Total	673,602.0	689,796	685,692	692,991	747,813	758,029.5	768,457.5
Source:
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, January 15th 1902, page 9.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 39 1903, January 15th 1903, page 8.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 45 1909, January 15th 1909, page 8.