Let's Brew Wednesday - 1899 Barclay Perkins Brown Stout

I have almost no Barclay Perkins Stout records from this period, as explained in an earlier recipe. What doesn’t help is that some of the photos are crap, too.

Like for this beer. I took the photo on one of my earliest archive visits when I didn’t have a very good camera. Leaving the records pretty difficult to decipher. I think I’ve got it about right. Though I could be the odd bushel out in the coloured malts.

The grist is surprisingly similar to in 1887. All the individual elements are the same. And in not too dissimilar quantities, other than crystal malt, of which there’s a lot more.

While over at the mash tun things have most definitely changed. There are still three mashes, but one is an underlet. And there isn’t just one sparge, but two. All in all, very different from the 1887 scheme.

Mash number	barrels	strike heat	tap heat
mash 1	64	150º F
underlet	2	166º F	144º F
mash 2	50	164º F	150º F
sparge 1	30	170º F	153º F
sparge 2	39	160º F	153º F

More hops than last time. Two different types of East Kent, both from the 1897 crop.

No more than a few weeks in trade casks to condition. 

1899 Barclay Perkins Brown Stout
pale malt	9.00 lb	56.25%
brown malt	1.50 lb	9.38%
black malt	1.00 lb	6.25%
crystal malt 60L	1.50 lb	9.38%
No. 3 invert sugar	3.00 lb	18.75%
Goldings 150 min	2.00 oz
Goldings 60 min	2.00 oz
Goldings 30 min	2.00 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.50 oz
OG	1076
FG	1022
ABV	7.14
Apparent attenuation	71.05%
IBU	69
SRM	43
Mash at	150º F
Sparge at	170º F
Boil time	150 minutes
pitching temp	61º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread Ale

This is one of the 277 recipes in my new book on London Stout. Get your copy now!

Drunken decisions deciding the fate of empires

I've been researching on the internet this week. Using the search term "brown stout". It's thrown an eclectic set of results.

This is one of the odder ones. It's from a long essay critiquing the 1831 Reform Bill. Which eventually became the 1832 Reform Act. Which was the start of  restructuring parliament and making the size of and voting entitlement in constituencies more consistent. It extended the franchise to more of the middle classes. And that's where some saw a problem.

In every town about one house in seventeen is an alehouse; and as the nature of their business requires that they should be of the better class, it is probable that their occupiers will all be electors. The elective franchise in all large towns will thus in reality be placed in the hands of publicans. The attornies and apothecaries, though forming nearly half the remaining votes, will be powerless against this influential body, whose drunken decisions will henceforth decide the fate of empires. The other electors, too few in number to be considered, however important may be their interests, however qualified they may be for their functions, must content themselves with looking on. The new privileged orders will save them the trouble of deliberating on their choice. Henceforth the first qualification of a Member will be the strength not of his head but of his stomach. The man who in his own person best patronises the trade of the Blue Anchor, will be the fittest representative for such constituents. The great struggle of the Scots against the union with England was to preserve the purity of twopenny; and henceforth the most important duty of the Member for a great town, will be to watch over the integrity of butt beer. Whigs and Tories will disappear from history; the strife will be no more between the court and country parties, but between the advocates of brown stout and country ale. The balance of power will give way to the weight of malt; no free trade will be thought of but that in beer and gin.
"The Reform Bill Considered", London, 1831, pages 35 - 36.

Now, personally, I'd prefer pub landlords to be running the show rather than some other groups of the middle classes. 

I'm imagining a bunch of drunken landlords slurping down Brown Stout and saying: "Yes! Let's invade Russia!" Then regretting launching the invasion when they sober up the next morning.

Did pub landlords dominate politics in the UK? Not by any means. In fact, politicians spent much of the rest of the century making life difficult for them. Limiting their opening hours and other such nonsense.

If only the Tories had disappeared from history.

Let's Brew - 1887 Fullers Brown Stout

Fullers other black beer was called BS in the brewhouse, which presumably stands for Brown Stout. That was, after all, the original name for Stout. A strong beer brewed from brown malt.

In terms of gravity, it’s pretty typical of a standard London Stout of the 1880s. A beer which would principally have been sold on draught. Though there would also have been a bottled version, unlike with Porter.

Confusingly, a price list from 1893 has two draught Stouts, Double Stout and Single Stout. Based on the price – 54 shillings and 44 shillings per barrel, respectively – Double Stout was this beer. My guess is that Single Stout was a blend of BS and Porter. To make things even more complicated, BS in its bottled form was called Extra Stout.  And Single Stout simply Stout.

For a discussion of the recipe, consult the Porter recipe. As you’ve probably already guessed, the two were parti-gyled together. There is one difference: only the Stout was dry-hopped.

1887 Fullers Brown Stout
pale malt	7.25 lb	50.88%
brown malt	3.00 lb	21.05%
black malt	1.00 lb	7.02%
No. 2 invert	3.00 lb	21.05%
Fuggles 90 mins	1.50 oz
Fuggles 60 mins	1.50 oz
Goldings 30 mins	1.50 oz
Goldings dry hops	1.00 oz
OG	1068
FG	1027
ABV	5.42
Apparent attenuation	60.29%
IBU	47
SRM	39
Mash at	156º F
Sparge at	175º F
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	57º F
Yeast	WLP002 English Ale

 

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1837 Reid BS

Reid, one of the great London Porter brewers, is one I've much neglected. Despite theirs being the first brewing records I collected.

It’s fun finally getting around to these Reid’s records. Not that the Porter recipes are that weird or exciting. Just nice to do some different ones.

This is their base level Stout. Brown Stout was the first modern Stout in the 18th century. Brown because of the base brown malt, Stout because of the strength.

I won’t talk at great length about the recipe. Because it’s the usual pale, brown, black malt and pale malt. And East Kent hops. Pretty standard. London Porter brewers were pretty conservative with their grists. And we’re before the period foreign ingredients flooded in. When British agriculture couldn’t keep up with the growth in population and thirst.

Hertfordshire malt and Kent hops. They were the backbone of London brewing through the birth and blossoming of Porter in the 1700’s. And continued when to be so while Mild Ale’s star rose in the middle of the 1800’s. Until there just wasn’t enough to brew the quantity of beer the masses required.

Getting back to the beer, the simplicity doesn’t extend to the mashing scheme. Three mashes, no sparges. With a fourth mash for a return wort.

Here are the details:

action	water (barrels)	water temp.	tap temp.	time
mash	213	160º F	142º F	90
mash	114	182º F	158º F	50
mash	155	168º F	158º F	40

As you’d expect, BS spent some time in vats. It wasn’t the poshest Stout, so perhaps less than a year, but at least six months.

1837 Reid BS
pale malt	13.75 lb	77.46%
brown malt	3.25 lb	18.31%
black malt	0.75 lb	4.23%
Goldings 75 mins	3.00 oz
Goldings 60 mins	3.00 oz
Goldings 30 mins	3.00 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.50 oz
OG	1074
FG	1023
ABV	6.75
Apparent attenuation	68.92%
IBU	98
SRM	33
Mash at	150º F
Sparge at	168º F
Boil time	75 minutes
pitching temp	65º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread Ale

This recipe is in my wonderful book, Let's Brew!:

 

 

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1868 William Younger DBS

Time for another Scottish recipe. Especially as I forgot to post a recipe last week. Apologies for that. A pure oversight on my part. Though the extra Saturday recipes I threw in mean I’ve still averaged more than one a week so far.

Though Scottish brewers all made Porter and Stout, it was never as important a product as for many of their English colleagues. Especially those in London. William Younger had three: Porter, Bottling Porter and DBS. The first two were both pretty weak, 1041º and 1046º, respectively. All three were brewed in small quantities,  far less than most of their Scottish Ales, Strong Ales and Pale Ales.

I assume this was for a combination of factors. A limited market in Scotland for Stout. But also what they could sell in export markets. Scottish brewers were famous for Strong Ales and Pale Ales and these were what they sold to England and beyond. While in these markets London and Irish brewers controlled the Stout trade.

The grist is very different to a London Stout. There’s no brown malt, something that appeared in every London Porter and Stout from the 18th century to the 1970’s. But there is amber malt, something you mostly only saw in the better quality London Stouts. Whereas Irish Stouts were usually just pale and black malt.

Younger DBS is also weaker than London Stouts of the period. Truman’s weakest Stout, Running Stout, had an OG of 1070º. Whitbread’s, SS, an OG of 1082º. Barclay Perkins BSt 1089º.

But there’s one thing that makes this brew very special. It also appears in the personal brewing book of Carl Jacobsen, son of Carlsberg’s founder. A couple of years later he was brewing his own beer called DBS back in Copenhagen. With an OG of 1077º, his was a bit stronger than Younger’s. And the grist was a little different:

2 pale
9 amber
1 patent
3 brown

Quaint that Jacobsen still listed the grain quantity in Imperial quarters. I was more shocked to see that even in 1932 Carlsberg Porter, the successor to DBS, still contained 21% brown malt. Who would have expected that?

Nothing left but the recipe itself . . .

1868 William Younger DBS
pale malt	12.25 lb	81.67%
amber malt	1.75 lb	11.67%
black malt	1.00 lb	6.67%
Poperinge 90 min	2.75 oz
Goldings 60 min	2.50 oz
Saaz 20 min	2.50 oz
OG	1062
FG	1014
ABV	6.35
Apparent attenuation	77.42%
IBU	85
SRM	31
Mash at	150º F
Sparge at	185º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	62º F
Yeast	WLP028 Edinburgh Ale

Labatt beers in 1893

Canada – why have I suddenly started writing about it again? Maybe I’m getting bored with the 1950’s. Nah, that couldn’t be true. How could anyone tire of the 1950’s?

Have I already written anything about the Labatt’s brewing records I have? I can’t remember, to be honest. And I can’t be arsed to look it up. If I did, it can’t have been that memorable. Otherwise I’d remember it, wouldn’t I? Then again, I often can’t recall what I’ve had for breakfast. Quite an achievement, seeing I eat the same every day.

Rambling again. I think I remember now why I’ve not done much with the Labatt’s stuff: it’s a bit dull. Just four different beers with nothing particularly exciting about them: a Pale, an IPA, a Stock Ale and a Brown Stout. Hard to get too worked up about those. Other than the fact it demonstrates IPA was a common style in North America in the 19th century. If you didn’t already know that.

That seems slightly thin fare, given the rich, thick broth I usually serve. So I guess I’ll beef it up with some other stuff. But what? Tables. You can never go wrong with tables. Or comparing a brewery’s beers with those of another. Two London breweries, that makes sense. One from London, Ontario and the other from London, England.

Let’s kick off with the rather small Labatt table:

Labatt beers in 1893
Date	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	hops lb/brl	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)
5th Sep	EIP	IPA	1056.8	1012.5	5.86	78.05%	2.16	2	2.58
8th Sep	Pale	Pale Ale	1049.9	1012.5	4.95	75.00%	1.90	2	2.67
22nd Sep	BS	Stout	1067.9	1015.2	6.96	77.55%	2.25	2	2.75
6th Feb	ES	Stock Ale	1063.7	1009.7	7.15	84.78%	2.93	2	2.67
Source:
Labatt brewing record document number A08-054-1156

Labatt’s Pale Ale would probably have been classed as a Light Bitter in Britain. While their IPA could have been either a Pale Ale or an IPA in the UK.

You’ll probably notice something when we look at Whitbread’s rather more expansive beer range. Here you go:

Whitbread beers in 1893
Date	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	hops lb/brl	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)
20th Jul	X	Mild	1058.7	1015.0	5.78	74.46%	1.81	1.75	2
20th Jul	XK	Mild	1067.3	1020.0	6.26	70.29%	2.08	1.75	2
14th Oct	FA	Pale Ale	1051.2	1014.0	4.93	72.68%	2.42	1.5	1.75
22nd Sep	2PA	Pale Ale	1052.6	1014.0	5.11	73.40%	2.41	1.33	2
20th Oct	PA	Pale Ale	1058.7	1017.0	5.52	71.05%	2.96	1.33	1.92
11th Oct	KK	Stock Ale	1074.5	1025.0	6.55	66.45%	4.38	2	2
8th Dec	2KKK	Stock Ale	1082.5	1035.0	6.29	57.60%	5.38	2	2
13th Dec	KKK	Stock Ale	1087.0	1036.0	6.74	58.61%	5.51	2	2
10th Jan	P	Porter	1055.4	1014.0	5.48	74.73%	1.74	1.5	2
10th Jan	C	Porter	1057.9	1016.0	5.54	72.36%	1.82	1.5	2
15th Feb	SS	Stout	1086.4	1031.0	7.33	64.13%	4.21	2	2
15th Feb	SSS	Stout	1095.0	1034.0	8.07	64.21%	4.63	2	2
Sources:
Whitbread brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document numbers LMA/4453/D/01/059 and LMA/4453/D/09/087.

What’s that something? That Labatt mostly only have the base level beer. Their Brown Stout is the equivalent of an English Single Stout, their Pale Ale like Whitbread’s weakest Bitter, Family Ale, while their Stock Ale is barely strong enough to be a KK. And, of course, Mild is missing completely, s is a simple Porter.

The hopping of Labatt’s Pale Ales looks on the low side. The Pale has a round the same quantity of hops as Whitbread’s X Mild. While their IPA has fewer hops than Whitbread’s FA. And don’t get me started on Labatt’s Stock Ale – it’s way off the UK standard for that type of beer. Only the Brown Stout looks to have a similar rate to a UK equivalent.

I went a bit table crazy. Too crazy for a single post. I’m saving the spare ones for next time.

Benskin’s beers 1944 - 1960

Here, as promised, are Benskin’s beers for the immediate post-war years.

It looks like pretty much a full set of their beers, which is nice. There’s a reason for that. Watford being just outside London, it was on Whitbread’s patch. So a competitor, and quite a large one as they had 600-odd pubs. They were bound to have attracted Whitbread’s attention.

Let’s start with the strongest, Colne Spring Ale. Notice something strange about it? A really high degree of attenuation for a beer of its strength. That screams one thing at me: Brettanomyces. It’s hard to see how you could get the FG so low without Brettanomyces playing a part. As you can see, it wasn’t cheap at 5 shillings a pint. Then again, it was four times the strength of their weaker beers.

What else is there? A bog-standard looking Brown Ale. It looks very much like a bottled version of the X Ale. And look there – the IPA is one of the weakest beers. Looks very much in the Southern, low-gravity styles. Light Sparkling Ale seems to have had its name chopped down to just Light Ale in the mid-1950’s. Around 3% ABV is what you’d expect it to be.

The Stout is an interesting one. It looks like a Scottish one, with attenuation below 50%. You can see that the OG fell and the FG rose as the 1950’s progressed. Sweet and barely alcoholic. A bit like me, really.

Not sure what the beer for the Belgian market was. I can’t read the name. Maybe it’s a Scotch Ale. No, a bit weak for that. Pale Ale, maybe. Why have a Jubilee Beer in 1953? Surely it should be a Coronation Beer?

Moving on to the draught beers, they look, well, normal. I’ve seen weaker ones in the 1950’s.

That’s all for Benskin’s for now.

Benskin bottled beers 1944 - 1960
Year	Beer	Style	Price	Acidity	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	colour
1953	Colne Spring Ale	Barley Wine	60	0.05	1090.7	1008.2	10.95	90.96%	1 + 8
1955	Colne Spring Ale	Barley Wine	60	0.08	1091.8	1011.1	10.69	87.91%	75
1960	Colne Spring Ale	Barley Wine		0.04	1092.2	1007.6	11.25	91.76%	68
1951	Nut Brown Ale	Brown Ale	16	0.06	1032.9	1008.1	3.22	75.38%	11 + 40
1951	India Pale Ale	IPA	20	0.07	1029.3	1006.3	2.98	78.50%	20 B
1944	Bitter Ale	Pale Ale		0.06	1027.6	1008.1	2.52	70.65%	22 B
1956	Light Ale	Pale Ale	19	0.04	1031.4	1009.8	2.79	68.79%	25
1946	Light Sparkling Ale	Pale Ale	13	0.04	1028.9	1004.9	3.12	83.04%	20.5 B
1947	Light Sparkling Ale	Pale Ale	12.5	0.08	1029.4	1008.7	2.68	70.41%	18.5
1947	Light Sparkling Ale	Pale Ale	16	0.08	1029.6	1007	2.93	76.35%	20.5
1951	Light Sparkling Ale	Pale Ale	16	0.08	1032.6	1008.1	3.18	75.15%	18 B
1951	Brown Stout	Stout	20	0.06	1039.2	1013.6	3.31	65.31%	1 + 18
1953	Brown Stout	Stout	21	0.07	1036.6	1014.2	2.89	61.20%	1 + 11.5
1953	Brown Stout	Stout	21	0.04	1037.6	1018.3	2.48	51.33%	275
1955	Double Stout	Stout	24	0.04	1036.2	1018.6	2.26	48.62%	250
1955	Double Stout	Stout	22	0.02	1036.1	1018.3	2.29	49.31%	275
1950	???? Ale Bottled in Belgium	Strong Ale		0.09	1060.3	1011.3	6.40	81.26%	18 B
1953	Jubilee Beer	Strong Ale	30	0.06	1054	1017.7	4.70	67.22%	14.5 + 40
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/002.

Benskin draught beers 1952 - 1953
Year	Beer	Style	Price	OG	colour
1953	X	Mild	13	1031.5	84
1952	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	18	1039	23
1953	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	16	1037.2	18
Source:
Truman Gravity Book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number B/THB/C/252

Barclay Perkins Stout quality 1922 - 1925

We're finally on the final leg of my crawl through the cellars of 1920's London. It's been a fascinating journey. So much so, that it probably deserves a volume of its own. But what to call it? Gravity!? Or maybe Draught! Feel free to throw suggestions at me.

The 1920's was a funny period. Brewers weren't sure legislation the government might throw their way, particularly with regard to pubs. The so-called local option, where inhabitants of a ward could vote for it to go dry was seen by brewers as a great threat. Pubs were their primary outlets. Whole areas becoming pub-free could seriously affect their sales. Eventually, local option legislation was only passed in Scotland and only a small number of areas there ever voted to go dry.

One of the ironies is that the temperance campaigners who argued against the bad influence of the old type of pub were opposed to them being improved. Purely on the grounds that well-run, modern pubs countered many of their crazy arguments. But rationality, truth and objectivity are rare companions of teetotallers. Distortions and downright lies are their stock in trade.

Here's an example of the temperance view compared to the rational view. We'll begin with sense:

"IMPROVE THE "PUB."
HOW TO DEFEAT PROHIBITION AND LOCAL OPTION.
The best way to defeat the prohibition and local option movements was by the improvement of the public-house, was the opinion put forward Mr E. W. Giffad presiding at the annual meeting of the Barclay, Perkins Brewery Co. in London yesterday.

The American prohibition campaign had been stated in this country, said, but the promoters were not working very much on the surface at present. Their methods were thoroughly unenglish, and they were working the same lines as they did in America. He didn't believe there was any prospect of carrying prohibition in this country, for the working man did not want it. The local option movement was another danger the trade had to face, and it could be put before working men so that they would see that it was as dangerous as prohibition.

Admiral Sir Reginald Hall, M.P., a newcomer to the Board of Directors, said that as a social reformer he had joined the Board because he realised that Barclay, Perkins were pioneers in the movement of improved public-houses. There was no stigma attaching to the presence of ladies and children in an hotel, and public-house ought to be made so that working man could take his women folk and children there without risk of insult to eye or ear."
Aberdeen Journal - Tuesday 29 June 1920, page 4.

Now the nutcases:

"Public-House Improvements. At the annual meeting of the Barclay Perkins Brewery Company the chairman stated that the best way to defeat the prohibition and local option movements was by the improvement of the public-house. According to this representative of the liquor trade, the Trade can do as well or better than the Government in improving the public-houses. This deliverance is an admission that there is room for improvement of the public-houses and also that the Trade can do something for the ensuring of improvement. As matter of fact, prohibition and local option movements are making progress because the Trade has not succeeded in improving the public-houses or the conditions of the working of the liquor traffic. The Trade lavishing money on opposition to the local option movement, and this means opposition to freedom to the full majorities of citizens declaring for or against the maintenance of unimproved public-houses in their areas."
Evening Telegraph - Tuesday 29 June 1920, page 2.

The distortion? That the trade wasn't trying very hard to improve its pubs. While in many cases brewers were prevented from improving their pubs by teetotallers on licensing committees who refused their applications. The hypocritical bastards.

The prohibition and local option movements weren't really gaining ground. If anything the opposite was true. The impact of a drop in beer strength and the restriction in pub hours had greatly reduced the perception of drunkenness. Partial success had in fact weakened their cause.

Let's look at Barclay Perkins Stout now. I can see which beer it is: BS. Not sure if that still stood for Brown Stout at this point or if it had already become Best Stout. That doesn't really matter. It was their bog standard draught Stout. It terms of strength, it was a typical 9d (after 1923 8d) Stout, with a gravity in the mid-1950's. Here are the numbers in a nice table:

Barclay Perkins BS Stout in the 1920s
Date	Year	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)	boil time (hours)	Pitch temp	colour
7th Feb	1922	1055.1	1017.0	5.04	69.15%	9.00	2.34	2			60º
21st Jan	1929	1053.8	1020	4.46	62.79%	6	1.26	2.25	2		61º	340
7th Jan	1929	1053.3	1018	4.67	66.22%	6	1.43	2.25	2	1.75	61º	320
Sources:
Barclay Perkins brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document numbers ACC/2305/01/608 and ACC/2305/01/614.

Now let's take a look at the grist. There's much more fun here. Take a look:

Barclay Perkins BS Stout grists in the 1920s
Date	Year	OG	brown malt	amber malt	crystal malt	MA malt	SA malt	roast barley	no. 3 sugar	caramel	oats	flaked maize
7th Feb	1922	1055.1	4.35%	47.83%	4.35%	21.74%	17.39%	4.35%
21st Jan	1929	1053.8	5.04%	10.08%	7.56%	35.29%	12.61%	12.29%	10.08%	1.68%	0.32%	5.04%
7th Jan	1929	1053.3	5.49%	10.98%	7.32%	32.93%	10.98%	12.58%	12.20%	1.83%	0.23%	5.49%
Sources:
Barclay Perkins brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document numbers ACC/2305/01/608 and ACC/2305/01/614.

The example from 1922 isn't typical. There's a note on the brewing record saying that it was a special all-malt brew for the yeast. It's certainly a pretty odd grist, with 50% amber malt. With less than 40% malt with diastatic power - the MA and SA malts - you have to wonder how well it would have converted.

Unless the amber malt was diastatic. The small amount of roast barley doesn't seem to make much sense, either, given the lack of dark sugar and caramel to colour the beer.

The more standard recipe is still unusual. Any amber malt is rare in weaker Stouts of this period. And over 12% roast barley is very high. The other oddity is the total lack of pale malt. A combination of MA (Mild Ale) and SA (Strong Ale) malts make up the base grains. But there's still around 35% coloured grains in the grist. I guess that explains the dark colour - over 300 lovibond is pretty much black.

Oh, and note the token few pounds of oats so they could sell some of it as Oatmeal Stout. A massive 42 pounds of it for 150 barrels of beer. Far too little to have any impact at all.

Time to look at the quality of BS down the boozer. You may remember that Barclay Perkins beers have mostly been pretty crap so far. Let's see how they do this time:

Barclay Perkins Stout quality 1922 - 1925
Year	Beer	FG	OG	ABV	App. Attenuation	Flavour	score	Price
1922	Stout	1016	1057	5.32	71.93%	caramel flavour	-1	9
1922	Stout	1017.6	1057.6	5.19	69.44%	fair rather thin	-1	9
1922	Stout	1013.6	1056.6	5.60	75.97%	sour	-3	9
1922	Stout	1015.4	1054.9	5.13	71.95%	v poor	-2	9
1922	Stout	1013.9	1055.4	5.40	74.91%	v unpleasant	-3	9
1923	Stout	1015.6	1058.1	5.52	73.15%	fair	1	9
1923	Stout	1013.4	1057.9	5.80	76.86%	going off	-2	9
1923	Stout	1013.4	1053.9	5.27	75.14%	going off	-2	8
1923	Stout	1016.2	1053.7	4.86	69.83%	Poor & thin	-2	8
1923	Stout	1015.8	1055.8	5.19	71.68%	unpleasant bitter	-2	9
1923	Stout	1014.8	1054.3	5.13	72.74%	v fair	2	8
1924	Stout	1012.1	1050.4	4.98	75.99%	going off	-2	8
1924	Stout	1013.4	1055.5	5.48	75.86%	v poor	-2	8
1925	Stout	1012.8	1054.8	5.47	76.64%	good	2	8
Average		1014.6	1055.4	5.31	73.72%		-1.21	8.57
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

That's quite impressive, in  way. It's scored even worse than their Porter. Only three of fourteen samples had a good flavour. A scary nine examples scored -2 or -3. Based on the descriptions, many had gone bad. Very disappointing. Given Stout was a better seller and higher gravity than Porter, you'd expect it to be in better condition. The overall average score of -1.21 is one of the worst so far.

Time-travelling advice? Stick to bottled Russian Stout in Barclay Perkins pubs.