Cannon (Ramsgate) ingredients in 1893-1894

Time to look at the grists. This bit is going to be easy. As all of Cannon’s beers only contained base malt. Usually, this was pale malt. Though sometimes AK had 50% pale malt and 50% mild malt.

The hops are slightly more complicated. Though not that much. 

The two cheapest beers, T and X, used a combination of East Kent and Californian hops, Both from the 1891 harvest. That is, a couple of years old. The use of older hops isn’t particularly unusual. Neither of these beers were dry-hopped.

The more expensive XXX and KKK only had a single type of copper hop. East Kent hops, in these cases from the most recent season. Again, pretty normal. Dry hops were fresh Worcesters.

Similar hopping was used in the two Pale Ales. Though, this time there were two types of copper hops: East Kent from 1892 and Worcester from 1893. The latter were also used as the dry hops. 

Cannon (Ramsgate) hops in 1893-1894
Beer	Style	hop 1	hop 2	dry hops
T	Table	EK 1891	Californian 1891
X	Mild	EK 1891	Californian 1891
XXX	Mild	EK 1892		Wor 1893
KKK	Old Ale	EK 1893		Wor 1893
AK 10d	Pale Ale	EK 1892	Wor 1893	Wor 1893
KK	Pale Ale	EK 1892	Wor 1893	Wor 1893
Source:
Cannon Brewery (Ramsgate) brewing record held at the Kent Archives, document number R/U7/B6.

 

 

Cannon (Ramsgate) beers in 1893-1894

Looking at the range of the Cannon Brewery, it seems quite odd. Because there’s no Porter or Stout. There is an explanation. In 1878, Cannon was taken over by Tomson & Wooton. Who did brew a Porter. I assume they just provided whatever Black Beer Cannon required.

Other than that, Cannon’s range of six beers looks reasonably complete. A table Beer, two Mild Ales, two Pale Ales and an Old Ale. At least, that’s what I think KKK was. Not totally sure about that.

Just like at their parent company, the gravity range was pretty narrow: 1048º to 1062º. (Thar’s ignoring the tiny quantities of Table.) 

The Milds might look impressively strong by modern standards. But they were weedy compared to those brewed in London. In 1884, Whitbread X was 1062º, stronger than Cannon XXX.  Though London beers did tend to be stronger than those brewed elsewhere in the UK.

The hopping rate of X is also lower than in London. Where Whitbread X received 8 to 9 lbs per quarter (336 lbs) of malt.  XXX, however, is at about that level.

KKK is the strongest beer of the set. But, at 1062º, not particularly strong for the day. Oddly, its hopping rate was lower than for XXX. Which isn’t what you would expect. It was the most heavily dry-hopped of their beers, though.

The AK is a little on the weak side for the style: they were usually 1045º to 1050º. But, as the name indicates, it was sold cheaply. Just 10d per gallon. Whereas the usual price was 12d per gallon.

KK is the most heavily hopped beer. Which makes sense as it’s the strongest Pale Ale. It doesn’t look quite strong enough or heavily hopped enough to be a Stock Pale Ale. My guess would be that it’s semi-stock. 

Cannon (Ramsgate) beers in 1893-1894
Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	dry hops (oz / barrel)
T	Table	1026.6				6.00	0.64	0.00
X	Mild	1048.4	1009.4	5.16	80.54%	6.00	1.10	0.00
XXX	Mild	1060.6	1013.9	6.19	77.16%	8.94	2.17	2.00
KKK	Old Ale	1062.1	1015.5	6.16	75.02%	8.00	1.94	4.00
AK 10d	Pale Ale	1042.7	1013.3	3.89	68.87%	7.00	1.23	2.00
KK	Pale Ale	1058.9	1008.3	6.70	85.90%	10.00	2.35	2.00
Source:
Cannon Brewery (Ramsgate) brewing record held at the Kent Archives, document number R/U7/B6.

 

 

Final results by brewery

I think we're finally there. The very last post in this series. I think.

We'll be looking at the results for each of the beers from every brewery. It's quite depressing in some cases to see just how shit the quality of beer in their pubs was. There really are some breweries whose houses should be avoided.

I suppose I'll just dive straight in with the first brewery alphabetically, which just happens to be Barclay Perkins.

Brewery	style	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	score	rank	% bright
Barclay Perkins	Burton	1010.8	1052.4	5.42	79.41%	-0.18	13	27.27%
Barclay Perkins	Pale Ale	1008.7	1045.6	4.81	80.88%	0.25	8	50.00%
Barclay Perkins	Porter	1011.6	1037.5	3.35	68.98%	-0.63	8
Barclay Perkins	Stout	1014.6	1055.4	5.31	73.72%	-1.21	12
Barclay Perkins	X	1041.8	1010.7	4.01	74.38%	-0.64	12	7.14%
average						-0.48	10.6	28.14%

Shit. That's the only way to describe their beer. Only their Pale Ale claws its way up to a small positive score. the Stout - with an average score of -1.21 is just awful. And you'd want to steer well clear of the Porter and Mild Ale, too. The overall average of -0.48 is very poor. Cloudy shit, too. Only just more than a quarter of the samples were bright.

Next it's Cannon.

Brewery	style	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	score	rank	% bright
Cannon	Burton	1013.3	1052.8	5.13	74.77%	-0.73	14	45.45%
Cannon	Pale Ale	1009.0	1045.2	4.72	80.06%	-0.09	14	54.55%
Cannon	Porter	1009.6	1034.6	3.25	72.38%	-2.56	11
Cannon	Stout	1014.9	1049.5	4.49	70.05%	0	9
Cannon	X	1035.1	1008.1	3.53	77.11%	0.54	4	64.29%
average						-0.57	10.4	54.76%

That's not really any better. Still only one positive score. And the truly appalling score for their Porter leaves the average even worse than Barclay Perkins at -0.57. Surprisingly, the one half-decent beer is a fairly weak Mild. At least their beer wasn't as murky as Barclay Perkins, with around half the samples bright.

Charrington was very much a brewery on the up between the wars.

Brewery	style	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	score	rank	% bright
Charrington	Burton	1014.6	1054.48	5.19	73.28%	1.00	6	66.67%
Charrington	Pale Ale	1008.7	1048.2	5.14	81.91%	-0.09	15	27.27%
Charrington	Stout	1012.9	1049.7	4.78	73.73%	-1.09	11
Charrington	X	1040.8	1008.7	4.17	78.63%	-0.70	13	30.00%
Charrington 9d only	Stout	1013.3	1052.5	5.10	74.70%	-1.00	10
average						-0.38	11	41.31%

Which is why it's such a surprise how poor their beer is. Again there's a single average positive score, this time for Burton. But the overall average is negative once more, -0.38. Clarity isn't great, either. The vast majority of Pale Ale and Mild Ale samples were cloudy.

So far so bad. Will City of London show any improvement?

Brewery	style	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	score	rank	% bright
City of London	Burton	1010.2	1051.33	5.36	80.03%	0.09	12	27.27%
City of London	Pale Ale	1008.7	1045.5	4.79	80.82%	1.00	5	38.46%
City of London	Porter	1008.9	1036.1	3.54	75.56%	-2	10
City of London	X	1033.7	1006.4	3.55	81.04%	-1.25	14	33.33%
average						-0.54	10.25	33.02%

A bit. OK, the overall average is still a poor -0.54. But at least two beers have a positive average, Pale Ale and Burton. Even if the Pale ale score is only just positive. Clarity, on the other hand, is dreadful.

Not sure I can face all of this today. Maybe I'll stop after the next brewery, Courage.

Brewery	style	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	score	rank	% bright
Courage	Burton	1012.1	1052.45	5.25	76.95%	1.25	2	50.00%
Courage	Pale Ale	1012.0	1053.8	5.46	77.93%	1.25	4	50.00%
Courage	Porter	1010.9	1037.5	3.45	70.88%	0.22	5
Courage	Stout	1011.6	1046.3	4.51	74.98%	-1.67	13
Courage	X	1034.5	1007.3	3.53	78.76%	0.38	7	93.75%
average						0.29	6.2	64.58%

That's better. Take out the rubbish Stout and it would look pretty good. Even with that, there overall average is still positive at 0.29.  Without it, the average would be 0.79. Odd that their Porter did better than their Stout. Clarity is excellent for their Mild, not so good for their Burton and Pale Ale.

Fifteen breweries in total, five done today. I make that two more parts to go. Then we really will be done.

Cannon Brewery Stout quality 1924

Not long to go now. Especially when there are as few analyses as for Cannon Stout.

I've always imagined Cannon as a relatively small brewery. I may have to review that after seeing how profitable they were. During the 1920's, their profits were larger than Whitbread's of Barclay Perkins, who brewed around 500,000 and 300,000 barrels respectively. Either they were making a huge profit per barrel, or they were brewing a couple of hundred thousand barrels a year. I'd be inclined to go for the latter.

In the table below I've fiddled slightly with the dividend percentage. This is why:

"Brewery Capital Repaid.
Here is further evidence of the prosperity of the brewery trade. In 1910 the capital of the Cannon Brewery was written down from £3,000,000 to £2,350,000, and now it is proposed to restore to the former figure by the capitalisation £650,000 of undivided profit. This will give holders of the Preferred Ordinary one new £2 10s for every share held, and holders of the £25 Deferred three new £25 shares for each Deferred share held. Profits at £420,930 compare with £352,170, and the available balance is £605,533, against £509,712. The Deferred shares, which are privately held, receive a dividend and bonus of 36 per cent., tax free — the same as for each of the previous four years."
Aberdeen Journal - Thursday 21 March 1929, page 13.

The official percentages given from 1919 to 1928 are on the reduced value of the shares, which was 25% of their original value. I've given then as this figure divided before, so that it reflects the original share capital. It makes the figures clearer.

Cannon Brewery profits and dividends
Year	net profit	brought in	carried forward	dividend Ordinary shares	to reserve	reserve fund
1904	£253,450	£2,045		10%	£10,000	£130,415
1919	£280,849	£54,588	£57,269	9%	£10,000
1920	£276,694	£57,296	£60,958	5%	£10,000
1921	£262,785	£60,958	£67,449	4%	£10,000
1922	£281,480	£67,449	£71,216	8%	£10,000
1923	£295,485	£71,216	£80,197	8%	£20,000
1924	£316,542	£80,198	£105,190	9%	£30,000
1925	£309,295	£129,830	£105,190	9%
1926	£338,043	£129,831	£157,542	9%	£50,000
1927	£352,170	£157,542	£184,603	9%	£50,000
1928	£420,930	£184,603	£205,714	9%
1929	£410,480	£205,714	£50,973	9%	£100,000
1930	£340,849	£50,972	£76,146	12.50%
Sources:
Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Thursday 09 February 1905, page 10.
Gloucester Citizen - Saturday 13 March 1920, page 7.
Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Tuesday 22 March 1921, page 9.
Dundee Courier - Wednesday 22 March 1922, page 2.
Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Wednesday 14 March 1923, page 11.
Dundee Courier - Friday 21 March 1924, page 2.
Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Tuesday 24 March 1925, page 14.
Dundee Courier - Thursday 01 April 1926, page 2.
Aberdeen Journal - Wednesday 23 March 1927, page 11.
Aberdeen Journal - Wednesday 21 March 1928, page 11.
Aberdeen Journal - Thursday 21 March 1929, page 13.
Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Wednesday 19 March 1930, page 15.
Western Morning News - Saturday 28 February 1931, page 11.

The owners obviously decided to cash in, because in 1930 Cannon Brewery was sold to Taylor Walker. I can see why they'd have been keen. The place was a gold mine. It must have remained profitable because it didn't finally close until 1955, decades after the takeover*.

That's enough financial crap. On with Cannon's Stout. It's a bit weak for an 8d Stout (9d until 1923), coming in about 4 points below the overall average of 1053, and 0.5% below average ABV. How did it score? Take a look:

Cannon Brewery Stout quality 1924
Year	Beer	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	Flavour	score	Price
1924	Stout	1016.1	1051.9	4.64	68.98%	good	2	8
1924	Stout	1013.6	1047.1	4.34	71.13%	v poor	-2	8
Average		1014.9	1049.5	4.49	70.05%		0	8
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

Not much I can say about such a small sample size. One pretty good one, the other pretty crap. They perfectly cancel each other out, leaving an average score of zero. Which was typical of the overall standard of Cannon Stout? Was it the good one or the bad one.

Time-travelling advice: plumping for Cannon Stout is at your own risk. I can't make any further recommendation.






* "A Century of British Brewers Plus" by Norman Barber, 2005, page 83.

Cannon Brewery Porter quality 1922 - 1923

As we penetrate further into the jungle of 1920's draught beer, we're being swallowed by the darkness.

Which is another way of saying their beers are getting even worse. Cannon, if you remember, was a fairly small company (they had 110 tied houses in 1895, according to Norman Barber*) with a  brewery crammed into the middle of Clerkenwell. They were bought by Taylor Walker in 1930 but surprisingly kept brewing until 1955.

Cannon's scores have been, to be polite, patchy so far. Their Mild Ale came a respectable fifth of seventeen with an average score of 0.54. It wasn't such a happy story for their Burton Ale which came last of fourteen with a poor average score of -0.73. Barclay Perkins Burton was the only other one with a negative average score. It was a similar story for their Pale Ale, which was joint last of fifteen with an average score of -0.9. Again, only two beers had negative average scores, the other being Charrington.

Their Porter is a little weaker than the average, but other wise unspectacular. Let's see how it scored:

Cannon Brewery Porter quality 1922 - 1923
Year	Beer	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	Flavour	score	Price
1922	Porter	1010	1035	3.24	71.43%	nasty	-3	6d
1922	Porter	1010	1034	3.11	70.59%	poor	-1	6d
1922	Porter	1010.2	1036.2	3.37	71.82%	sour	-3	6d
1922	Porter	1010.2	1035.2	3.24	71.02%	v poor	-3	6d
1923	Porter	1009.8	1032.8	2.98	70.12%	nasty	-3	6d
1923	Porter	1008	1033.5	3.31	76.12%	sour	-3	6d
1923	Porter	1009.4	1034.9	3.30	73.07%	sour	-3	5d
1923	Porter	1009.4	1033.9	3.17	72.27%	thin poor	-2	6d
1923	Porter	1009	1036	3.50	75.00%	v poor going off	-2	6d
Average		1009.6	1034.6	3.25	72.38%		-2.56
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

That's impressive: not one good score. In fact, "poor" is the best score any sample could muster. An impressive two-thirds of the examples get the worst score of -3.

My guess is that Porter sales were slow and that, combined with the low gravity, left it going off, unloved in the cellar while the punters tucked into Mild or Stout. Something that didn't taste like vinegar. By this time draught Porter was available in few parts of the country. Probably hardly anywhere other than the London area and Ireland.

I wonder what London brewers thought? They must have realised Porter was dying. But I suppose while there was still a market, however small and diminishing, it was worth their while to brew it. That's the joy of parti-gyling: it allows you to brew very small batches economically, as long as there's a more popular beer in the same general style. The continued thirst for Stout in London meant that was the case for Porter. It took the upheaval of WW II for London brewers to finally pull the plug on Porter.

My advice should you find yourself in a Cannon pub? Drink Mild!

Loads more of this to come, as I'm sure you realise.




* "A Century of British Brewers plus" by Norman Barber, 2005, page 83.

Cannon Brewery Pale Ale quality 1922 - 1925

Mixed results so far for Cannon. Their Mild came in a reasonable, but their Burton came last. How will their Bitter do?

Cannon's Clerkenwell Brewery in 1896

There was certainly money in the brewery. A former director left £100,000:

"WILL OF MR. W. M. WROUGHTON.
FORMER MASTER OF HOUNDS, WHO WAS KILLED WHILE HUNTING.
Mr. William Musgravo Wroughton, of 77 Chester-square, London, Creaton Lodge, Northampton, and Clarehavon, Melton Mowbray, a former Master the Pytchley and later of tho Woodland Pytchley Hunt, at one time a director Cannon Co.. who was killed on December 29th last whilst hunting with the Belvoir Hounds, aged 78 years, has left estate of the value of £99,515 with net personalty £73,038. Probate is granted to Mrs. Wroughton, the widow.

He gives Creaton Lodge, property and 1,150 preferred ord. shares in the Cannon Brewery Co. to his wife for life, and then in trust for his granddaughter, Antoniette Musgrave Morland; £200 each to Sub.-Lt. John A. D. Wroughton, and Walter P. Cazenove, and the Rev. John Maillard, and James Moore Hickson; and £300 to the Westminster Hospital. One half of the residue of the estate he leaves in trust for his wife for life, and, subject thereto, the whole trust for his two daughters Cicely Countess Coreth. and Dulce Musgravo Morland, and their children.'
Nottingham Evening Post - Friday 22 March 1929, page 1.

And in 1928 they made over £350,000. Quite a tidy sum for a brewery that wasn't enormous, as you can see from the map above.

"Brewery Company's Big Profits.
LONDON, Tuesday.
The Cannon Brewery report for the year shows a net profit of £352,170 compared with £338,043, while £157,542 was brought in. The distribution on the Deferred Ordinary shares unchanged in a dividend 16 cent., free of tax, and a bonus of £5 per share, free of tax, equivalent to 9 per cent, on the Deferred Ordinary capital before reduction. The allocation to reserve is again £50,000, while £184,603 is carried forward. The directors announce that the company has agreed to acquire the old established brewery of Messrs Christie and Co., Ltd., Hoddesdon, with the licensed houses attached."
Aberdeen Journal - Wednesday 21 March 1928, page 11.

And they had the money to be making acquisitions, which is what the smart and successful breweries of the 1920's did.

Cannon's beer is an 8d Ordinary Bitter, with a typical gravity of mid-1040's. It's another beer that looks pretty dry.

How does it score?

Cannon Brewery Pale Ale quality 1922 - 1925
Year	Beer	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	Appearance	Flavour	score	Price
1922	PA	1008	1045.5	4.89	82.42%	bright	good	2	8d
1922	PA	1007.3	1044.8	4.89	83.71%	hazy	fair	1	8d
1922	PA	1008.4	1045.4	4.82	81.50%	brilliant	good	2	8d
1922	PA	1007.4	1046.4	5.09	84.05%	bright	Poor & thin	-2	8d
1923	PA	1009.6	1045.1	4.62	78.71%	brilliant	thin poor	-2	8d
1923	PA	1008.6	1045.1	4.75	80.93%		(rank aftertaste, no character	-3	8d
1923	PA	1010.3	1045.3	4.55	77.26%	fairly bright	unpleasant bitter	-1	8d
1923	PA	1009.8	1045.8	4.68	78.60%	brilliant	fair	1	7d
1923	PA	1010.6	1044.1	4.35	75.96%	fairly bright	going off	-2	7d
1924	PA		1044.5			bright	v fair	2	7d
1925	PA	1010.2	1045.2	4.55	77.43%	not bright	only fair	1	7d
Average		1009.0	1045.2	4.72	80.06%			-0.09
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

Not brilliantly, is the answer. Just over 50% - six out of eleven - samples were clear. The same number got a positive score for flavour. There were some pretty bad examples - two -2 and 1 -3 - but also three +2. Another very mixed bunch.

Drinker beware, is my advice.