tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445569787371915337.post366608858179766982..comments2024-03-28T13:20:29.156-07:00Comments on Shut up about Barclay Perkins: Parti-gylesRon Pattinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03095189986589865751noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445569787371915337.post-30999291309342564922014-06-29T01:41:49.512-07:002014-06-29T01:41:49.512-07:00Mike,
not sure which is correct, to be honest. I ...Mike,<br /><br />not sure which is correct, to be honest. I now usually use parti-gyle.Ron Pattinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03095189986589865751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445569787371915337.post-46627102607169741062014-06-28T09:17:51.073-07:002014-06-28T09:17:51.073-07:00I am confused about one issue - I am writing a bri...I am confused about one issue - I am writing a brief article on parti-gyle beers, and was in the middle of a mild rant about the etymology of the term - parti-gyle (a portion or part of the wort) versus "party" (which seems to have originally meant a united group of people meeting for a common purpose). This blog, however, frequently uses "party," not "parti-" ... I am more than ready to bow to an expert opinion (Ron!) ... and I do NOT want to propagate an error. Help? Am I wrong about the etymology?Mike Anson (Killer Ales Webmaster)https://sites.google.com/site/marylandkillerales/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445569787371915337.post-8490696473296471772010-04-27T03:24:59.590-07:002010-04-27T03:24:59.590-07:00Graham, Randy Mosher's description doesn't...Graham, Randy Mosher's description doesn't explain the method of party-gyling used by British brewers for the last 200 years. Like I've already said, the whole point is mixing the different strength. This isn't something you "can" do, it's the whole bloody point.<br /><br />So do you think all the Fullers beers taste the same? They're a classic example of party-gyling.Ron Pattinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03095189986589865751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445569787371915337.post-51643742311904413222010-04-26T14:41:54.563-07:002010-04-26T14:41:54.563-07:00Don't blame those homebrewers you're argui...Don't blame those homebrewers you're arguing with for the mistake. Practically every how to brew sort of book that we read says that the original is parti-gyle. Few of us have gotten esoteric enough in our brewing history to know about the other.<br /><br />That said, I'm interested in tomorrow's post.Kevin LaVoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03422429428826110381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445569787371915337.post-75521806521122595172010-04-26T14:09:11.458-07:002010-04-26T14:09:11.458-07:00As far as I am aware, parti-gyling means, and alwa...As far as I am aware, parti-gyling means, and always has meant, making more than one beer from the same mash or batch of grain. It matters not how this is or was achieved. There certainly does need to be any blending of worts. Indeed, there does not need to be any more than one wort; the other strength(s) can be achieved by liquoring down a single collection.<br /><br />When blending does occur it is performed for consistency between batches by commercial brewers. It matters little whether it is blended before or after the boil. It is far more flexible if it is blended before the boil such that each beer has its own boil, because then variations in each beer can be made: roasted malts, roast barley and even crystal malt can be added to the copper, along with sugars and different varieties and quantities of hops.<br /><br />This is quite difficult for small brewers to do, particularly those with only one copper, because they need to hold mash tun run-off somewhere in readiness for the next copper charge. It would probably require at least two underbacks to hold different run-off fractions for blending purposes.<br /><br />Most brewers, even small ones, have several fermenting vessels, so it is quite common for the blending to be done post boil, in the fermenters. The disadvantage of this is that the resulting beers suffer decreased hop character and decreased colour with decreasing gravity; basically the beers all taste the same - they have no individuality - a criticism often levelled at many regional brewers in the late twentieth century, and some still deserve that criticism today.<br /><br />Likewise I cannot see why the definition should not apply to beers produced by the old-fashioned triple-"mashing" process; there is little difference in end result between re-mashing and continuous sparging, apart from improved efficiency. Even Hind talks in terms of first, second, and third worts just like the old days.<br /><br />The fact that Ellis mentions "Entire Guile Small Beer" in his book, which pre-dates porter and certainly pre-dates continuous fly-sparging, means by inference that parti-gyling must also have existed. It was not mentioned specifically because it was the standard way of doing things, and did not need singling out for special mention. <br /><br />As far as I can see, Randy Mosher's definition is equally as valid as any given here; lacking in detail perhaps, but that's about all.<br /><br />If you wish to wage all-out war on home brewers, there are far more serious "misunderstandings" to pick on than what parti-gyle actually meant.Graham Wheelernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445569787371915337.post-36238804255373946352010-04-26T11:52:22.752-07:002010-04-26T11:52:22.752-07:00Martyn, thanks, and my thinking is absolutely in t...Martyn, thanks, and my thinking is absolutely in the direction of three threads duplicating entire gyle brewing and even more so for the vice versa because entire brewing seems a later historical development.<br /><br />I believe some evidence is in the Denneston essay. The pub in that case made a three threads from two beers, one strong, one weaker. I inferred - it's not direct evidence I know - that those two beers were made from the same set of goods. I believe the publican in that case was the brewer himself, in which case the inference is even stronger. The extra-strong beer would have been like Mosher's strong first run brew, the weaker one like his second, weaker beer. And, both three threads and entire/porter were sold for 3 p the pot...<br /><br />GaryGary Gillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445569787371915337.post-37355405936248845132010-04-26T09:39:27.969-07:002010-04-26T09:39:27.969-07:00Gary, I'm not sure struggling with the etymolo...Gary, I'm not sure struggling with the etymology of party- or parti-gyle gets us anywhere, as looking through the Oxford English Dictionary it could be "party-" in the sense of "divided, separated" (as in "party wall", or it could be "parti-" in the sense of "partly of one sort and partly of another" (as in "parti-coloured": sense one gives us the "each mash brewed separately" meaning and sense two gives us the "mashes combined together" meaning. My own impression, from what I've read of brewers' practices, is to believe that British brewers used the term to mean BOTH those things, but Ron has read very many more old brewing records than I have …<br /><br />Interesting idea that three-threads could mean strong and weaker mashes combined in the ration 1/3 to 2/3: this would, of course, make "three-threads" a synonym for "entire" as a combination of all mashes. But I'd have to see some early 18th century evidence for that …Martyn Cornellhttp://zythophile.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445569787371915337.post-57492578655748777232010-04-26T07:59:56.606-07:002010-04-26T07:59:56.606-07:00Spencer, it's highly confusing to talk about a...Spencer, it's highly confusing to talk about a method of part-gyling no-one has used for 200 years or more. While at the same time ignoring the method that has been in widespread use in Britain over the same period.<br /><br />That's why I keep getting into arguments with homebrewers who tell ne the one running per beer is the "accepted definition" of parti-gyling.<br /><br />Real parti-gyling is a useful and efficient technique which is much more subtle. I just want top inform people about it.Ron Pattinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03095189986589865751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445569787371915337.post-80872847818513547422010-04-26T07:28:36.376-07:002010-04-26T07:28:36.376-07:00I see that Ron. The whole focus of the article is...I see that Ron. The whole focus of the article is on small-scale brewing but he may not be aware of how the parti-gyle concept evolved in commercial brewing. <br /><br />Lloyd Hind is masterful as always, I can never read enough of him.<br /><br />GaryGary Gillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445569787371915337.post-57682084937346678182010-04-26T07:26:48.474-07:002010-04-26T07:26:48.474-07:00I'm a bit confused about your historical bound...I'm a bit confused about your historical boundaries. From reading your blog for the last couple years, it appears that usage within the last 50 years is not sufficient to make something "correct", but usage that ended 250 years ago is also not "correct." <br /><br />I don't think you can have it both ways, Ron.Spencerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00884188052527454989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445569787371915337.post-21257820136222355592010-04-26T07:01:20.450-07:002010-04-26T07:01:20.450-07:00Gary, but in parti-gyling as practised for the las...Gary, but in parti-gyling as practised for the last 200 years there's no "can" about mixing the different-strength worts. That's the whole point.Ron Pattinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03095189986589865751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445569787371915337.post-81328168490865879262010-04-26T06:59:28.449-07:002010-04-26T06:59:28.449-07:00mentaldental, OK, "yonks ago" would have...mentaldental, OK, "yonks ago" would have been more accurate.Ron Pattinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03095189986589865751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445569787371915337.post-29881627168942560772010-04-26T05:05:56.640-07:002010-04-26T05:05:56.640-07:00OK, I'll bite.
"That method of brewing d...OK, I'll bite.<br /><br />"That method of brewing disappeared about 1762."<br /><br />That's quite precise for an <i>about</i>. What happened in 1762?mentaldentalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15226160741245530097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445569787371915337.post-41998107431579814622010-04-26T04:08:50.099-07:002010-04-26T04:08:50.099-07:00The writer in the posted link does state you can m...The writer in the posted link does state you can mix some of the stronger wort with the weaker, or vice versa, to obtain a target gravity, so I think he is aware of parti-gyling in this sense. I think too he is focusing on the older sense of the term because of its relevance in the context of brewing at home or on a small scale. <br /><br />I don't know the etymology, but seems logical that parti-gyle is a "part" of the gyle which could take in e.g., just the first runnings.<br /><br />I was struck by his statement that 1/3rd of the wort produces a strong beer and 2/3rds, a beer of average strength, each component having about an equal amount of the available extract. This made me think of another explanation for "three thirds" (supposed antecedent to porter). Mixing the beers from those two fractions gives you all - 3/3rds - of the available extract in the malt.<br /><br />If you combined the beers from three runs the same reasoning would apply of course, but it works with two beers also and the Bailey definition of three-thirds seemed to allow for the possibility of only two beers, as did the Denneston essay. In this way of looking at it, of course thread would be a derivation from third. <br /><br />GaryGary Gillmannoreply@blogger.com