Showing posts with label Sweden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sweden. Show all posts

Monday, 3 September 2018

Drunkenness in Russia

That got your attention. It is genuinely the headline of the article below. Though it would more accurately have read "No Drunkenness in Russia". Those clickbait headlines from a century ago.

It's really an overview of boozing restrictions in the middle of WW I.

"DRUNKENNESS IN RUSSIA
Is Punished With a Fine of £15.
Belligerents, Neutrals, and the Drink Problem.
(Special the Courier.)
The historian of the future whose concern with the great war is chiefly its contemporary social life will find some of its most wonderful phenomena centred round the drink problem. Practically all the belligerents and not few neutrals have been obliged deal directly with the subject. Bulgaria, Italy, Serbia, and Turkey have not, it is true, been called upon to restrict the consumption of alcoholic liquors, but the reasons are obvious.

Italy, like most wine-drinking countries, is essentially an abstemious nation. Only in the seaport towns, where mixed nationalities are congregated is drunkenness known. In his own country the typical Italian is too frugal to indulge in alcoholic excesses. The Turk is, theoretically, debarred from indulging in strong drink, but religion sits but 1 lightly on the ruling caste. They are essentially materialistic in outlook, and have acquired most of the Western vices. The average Turk, however, is a good Moslem, observant of the requirements of his religion, and strictly avoids the juice of the grape.

Serbs and Their Brandy.
The Serbian, travellers tell the truth, is somewhat fond of his national beverage, Slivovitsa. This is a brandy made from plums, and extremely potent in its action, but the wonderful constitution and open-air life of the Serb neutralises any possible effect it might have on his system. The countries which have dealt directly with the drink question are Great Britain, France, Russia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, and Germany. Great Britain's solution of the problem common property. Its success is doubtful, although, owing to the different habits of the southern portion of the island, it appears to have been slightly more successful there than in Scotland.

France has confined her attentions to dealing with absinthe, which even in the piping times of peace was more the drink of decadents than a beverage of the people. The French, bon vivants though they be, are not given to excesses, although readers of some of the realist school in French fiction might think otherwise.

Russia a Sober Nation.
In the search for drastic legislation restricting the consumption of alcohol must go to Russia. Now, there any matter on which one can dogmatise it is that the Russian peasant — and Russia is essentially a country of peasants — was a drunkard. His brother of the towns was little better. Yet now Russia, of all the belligerents, is perhaps the most sober nation.

No sooner did the order for mobilisation go forth in Russia than all wine shops, beer saloons, and Government "vodka" shops were closed, and the sale of all intoxicants absolutely prohibited, except in first-class restaurants and hotels. This order, with certain modifications, remains in force. In passing it is interesting to note that a bottle of whisky which could be procured in Dundee for somewhere in the neighbourhood of four shillings is costing in from twenty-five to thirty shillings. Like our own country, Russia is not exempt from evasions of the law. The next step of the Russian Government was to prohibit the sale of vodka and spirits until the end of the war. One month later, in October, 1914, local municipal and provincial administrative bodies were empowered topetition for prohibition of the sale of all strong intoxicants within the district in question, equivalent reductions of license duty being returned to license-holders. This power has been largely availed of by local authorities, but it is a mistake to assume, as is frequently done by temperance writers, that Russia is now a prohibitionist country. The consumption of light alcoholic drinks is permissible under severe restrictions. Beer and drinks of an equivalent strength are still procurable.

Heavy Fines.
The conspicuous feature about the Russian control of the licensed trade is the savage nature of its fines against the orders of the governing authorities. An intoxicated person is liable to a fine of, in British money, £15. The publican who supplies the liquor is liable to a fine of £450, and his conviction entails the loss of his license. That the new restrictions have resulted in a vast beneficial social upheaval all recent travellers to Russia, especially men such as John Foster Fraser, who knew the country intimately prior these changes, are agreed.

In Denmark there is absolute prohibition of the sale of spirits to soldiers in certain police districts. In more limited extent this prohibition is extended to civilians. The Government of the country has also prohibited the use of home-grown cereals for the distillation of spirits, but has sanctioned the importation of foreign corn and maize for the purppse. Apparently brewing beer in Denmark has not been greatly restricted since our trade returns continue to show fairly constant importations of Danish beer.

In Norway soon war broke out the use of grain and potatoes for distillation was forbidden, but in deference to the desires of farmers this restriction was withdrawn in September. 1914. The supply for distillation was reduced by one-half. Local veto very largely obtains in Norway, but in places where this was not in force the sale of whole bottles of spirits was permitted between 10 a.m. and noon for four days each week. Later a general sale of spirits was allowed on the four open days, and ultimately, except where there existed local veto, sales of spirits were allowed from 8 a.m. to midnight. It should be remembered, however, that the same time Norway raised her tariff on alcoholic liquor very considerably, although proportionately not so high as this country.

Sweden Suspends Sale.
Sweden, on the outbreak of war, required no new law to deal with the emergency. In common with other neutral nations in the belligerent zone she partially mobilised. Swedish law provides that in the event of mobilisation the provincial Governor in nearly every province except Stockholm has power to suspend the sale of spirits. This power was freely exercised. Sweden, too, had only six months before initiated the new "Stockholm system" for controlling the liquor trade. This system, which is merely a logical extension of the "Gothenburg system," has effected marvellous reforms in the brief period that has been in force, and promises to be fruitful of much reform in the future.

In Switzerland the preparation of distilled spirit from potatoes and cereals during the 1914-15 season was forbidden; the sale of potable spirit was forbidden, except for the preparation of medicines and for certain specially authorised uses. The use of methylated spirits as potable spirit was also prohibited. The Liquor Control Board in this country might take a leaf out of Switzerland in this respect.

Last (may she ever be there!) comes Germany. At first restrictions on drinking were imposed. Then the scarcity of raw material necessitated a limitation of the output of breweries and distilleries. Later it was made an offence to supply ardent spirits to soldiers, and in March, 1915 steps were taken to regulate the prices of alcoholic drinks. Characteristically in fixing the limitation of output and sale the Germans exempted certain breweries and distilleries. The ruling caste are largely interested in these, and, the Kaiser owns at least one brewery, whose wares he is reputed to be quite keen on pushing.

Strangely enough few questions have the power to raise passion as readily as the interference of the State with the drink traffic. The average citizen feels that Government interference in such matter is the rankest injustice. Surely it augurs well for the success of our just cause that Great Britain and her Allies have accepted in such good part the restrictions on their private habits which those in authority have found it necessary to impose."
Dundee Courier - Friday 21 January 1916, page 4.

What a wonderful cobination of racial stereotyping and temperance logic. Though you have to love the comparison of the price of a bottle of whisky in Dundee and St. Petersburg.  Good on the journalist for squeezing in the local angle.

I love this bit aboutthe effect of slivovice on Serbs: "the wonderful constitution and open-air life of the Serb neutralises any possible effect it might have on his system." Probably no coincidence that the Serbs were allies of the UK.

Friday, 1 June 2018

Norwegian- and Swedish-brewed Lager in the UK 1955 - 1963

You may recall me expressing some surprise that Norway featured as a source of UK beer imports in the 1950s and 1960s. It seemed quite odd.

Then I got to thinking. Norway was one of the first places outside of central Europe to bottom ferment. There was a very simple reason why: they had an enormous supply of natural ice. Before the advent of artificial refrigeration, brewing Lager in a country with a temperate climate like the UK was problematic. Where would you get the ice required for lagering?

Some readers speculated that it was most likely Ringnes that brewed the imported Norwegian Lager. As it turns out, it looks like three breweries were in the business: Frydenlund and Schou, as well as Ringnes.

The Ringnes Export is a full-strength beer, so I doubt that it was made specifically for the UK market. The Frydenlund, on the other hand, has an OG similar to a domestic UK Lager. I'm not sure about Schou. The first two examples, though stronger than normal UK Lager, aren't quite full continental strength. While the final example is clearly designed for the UK.

I'm surprised at how strong Three Towns is. I though that was the classic mellanöl.


Norwegian- and Swedish-brewed Lager in the UK 1955 - 1963
Year Brewer Beer Price per pint d OG FG ABV App. Atten-uation colour
1956 Frydenlund Peak Lager 30 1034.3 1005.7 3.72 83.38% 12
1959 Frydenlund Peak Lager 1036.6 1007.5 3.78 79.51% 17
1955 Ringnes Export Pilsener 48 1053.8 1010.9 5.59 79.74% 11
1957 Ringnes Export Lager Beer 1052.5 1006.9 5.96 86.86% 13
1957 Ringnes Export Lager 48 1054.5 1008.8 5.97 83.85% 9.5
1957 Schou Norwegian Beer 1042.2 1006.6 4.64 84.36% 12
1959 Schou Norwegian Beer 36 1041.2 1005.5 4.66 86.65% 8.5
1963 Schou Export Lager 34 1030.4 1003 3.43 90.13% 6
1955 Swedish Beer Export Co. Three Towns Beer 30 1052.9 1008.7 5.77 83.55% 9
Average 37.7 1044.3 1007.1 4.84 84.23% 11.1
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/002.

Sunday, 29 April 2018

The Gothenburg licensing System (part two)

It's worth remembering that the author of the pamphlet was there at the behest of the Country Brewers' Society. The very people responsible for the Brewers' Guardian.

I mention that because the author is about to get very negative about the Gothenburg system. Not surprising, seeing as UK brewers would be dead set against it spreading to where they operated. Brewers were just in the process of investing vast sums in purchasing tied houses. The last thing they wanted was for them to be taken away from them.

"Coming now to the number of licensed houses, the author gives a detailed table showing the total number controlled by the company in each year from 1865 down to September 30, 1892, in examining which we find that the number of licensed houses have increased during that period from 23 to 39. These houses are conducted by managers for the company, and these former do not benefit at all from increased sales; many only sell wines and spirits for ready money; must not supply anyone “visibly” intoxicated, or “apparently” below eighteen years of age; and many more restrictions are put upon them in order to reduce drunkenness. And what do we find as the result? In a table showing the number of convictions for drunkenness, and the number of paupers, for each year, beginning with the year 1865, Mr. Mortimer tells us that the numbers in each case have very greatly increased. It appears that “the convictions per 1,000 of the population in the year 1866 were 30.0, in 1875 they were 41.5, and in 1891 they were 44.3. The number of paupers per 1,000 of the population was, in 1866, 68.4; in 1875, 94.5; in 1891, 114.1.” These figures are very largely above those for this country. Mr. Mortimer has given a table for England and Wales, concerning which he says:— "It will be observed that the convictions for England and Wales per thousand inhabitants for the year 1870 amount only to 4.8, for 1875 to 7.6, for 1880 to 5.8, and for 1891 to 5.7. The number of paupers per 1,000 of the population in England and Wales was, in 1870, 48.1; in 1875, 33.9; in 1880, 32.5; and in 1891, 26.6.”

The pamphlet contains many other matters concern ing the Gothenburg licensing system, but we think we have given sufficient to show that it should never find a home in this country—unless it were desirable to terminate the rapid decrease in crime and drunkenness which is going on apace in Great Britain. Thanks are due from “all sorts and conditions of men” for the lucid and painstaking manner in which Mr. Mortimer has done his task, which will be of great assistance to anyone wanting to study the working of this system in all its details."
The Brewers' Guardian 1893, page 3.
To put this into context, there was quite a bit of discussion - some of it prompted by bishops in the House of Lords - about introducing the Gothenburg system in the UK. Nothing ever came of it, thankfully. At least not in the 20th century. There was Carlisle from WW I onwards, but that wasn't exactly the same.

There were a some pubs in Scotland run by trusts along the classic Gothenburg lines, mostly in mining districts. A handful are still run that way today.

I'm pretty dubious of the use of statistics in the article, as the author is clearly not impartial.

Friday, 27 April 2018

The Gothenburg licensing System (part one)

The Gothenburg system was often held up in Britain as an example of an alternative - and better - way of running pubs.

The basic tenet being that there should be no financial incentive to the person running the pub to sell more alcohol. Instead they would receive a share in the profits on sales of non-alcoholic drinks and food.

This article gives a little background into why the original system in the Swedish city of Gothenburg was set up and what had preceded it. First, how things worked before it was set up.

"The Gothenburg licensing System.
A LITTLE pamphlet dealing with this subject is the result of a visit by Mr. R. Mortimer to Gothenburg, whither he was sent by the Country Brewers' Society, to make an inquiry into the real working of the licensing system adopted there. The author first briefly describes the manner in which licences were granted before the present system came into vogue. Under the old system “which was in existence up to the year 1865, the town authorities owned all the licences, and put them up to public aution, some being sold for a term of one year, and others for a term of three years; and upon the expiration of the term for which they were sold they were again put up to auction—the result being that the purchasers naturally made every effort during their term to sell as much liquor as they could, in order to recoup themselves for their outlay. There were also certain ‘privileged' houses, whose licences did not expire in this manner, but which were granted usually for the life of the holder. It should be borne in mind that the liquor almost exclusively sold was called Bränvin (the native brandy)-—a strong liquid drunk undiluted, which cost six öre, or something less than 0.5d. per liqueur glass, and which was the favourite and ordinary drink of the working classes. The result of this system was that something like one person in every seven of the population was, during one year, convicted of drunkenness, accompanied by violent or disorderly conduct, as without such the police have no authority to arrest."
The Brewers' Guardian 1893, page 2.
 That does sound like a recipe for disaster. Publicans would have to work mostly on a very short-term basis and need to recoup their investment quickly. Selling lots of booze would seem to be the logical approach for them.

This is what replaced it:

"Mr. Mortimer next proceeds to deal somewhat extensively with the present system, which was started in October, 1865, a licensing company being formed with the following objects :—-“(1) Of controlling the sale of this Bränvin to the working classes; (2) of bringing the Bränvin shops under strict control ; (3) of improving the quality of the spirit; (4) of raising the price of the spirit; (5) of opening eating-houses where food of good quality and at a cheap rate (meat or fish, bread, and potatoes for 3d.) could be obtained, and at which the supply of Branvin was limited to two glasses a head ; and (6) of establishing a system which, as far as the sale of this Bränvin was concerned, would give no opportunities of private gain, and by the unattractiveness of the premises offer no inducement to customers to loiter.” With regard to the finances of the company, the highest authorised capital was £11,000, and the present amount of capital called up is £5,700. The shares are sometimes sold on the market, but cannot be held by anyone except with the authority of the directors. Under the original grant of licences by the town authorities referred to below, a statutory rate of 6 per cent. only was to be paid to the shareholders, and the balance of profit was to be paid to the town authorities to be devoted to the betterment of the working classes. But in 1868 the town authorities insisted upon devoting the profits — which have averaged £30,000 a year — towards the reduction of the local rates. In 1865, under their contract with the new licensing company, the town authorities offered no licences by auction, but handed over forty to the company, seventeen of which they held in abeyance and did not use. The question of compensation, as understood in this country, did not arise. It is, however, a fact that the company, in order to obtain possession of certain of the “privileged ” houses, did pay sums of money, the exact amount of which I was unable to ascertain, to the then licence holders."
The Brewers' Guardian 1893, pages 2 - 3.
 Making premises unattractive, supplying food, limiting the amount of booze customers could drink. It sounds much like what went on in Carlisle during WW I. Which is no coincidence. The Gothenburg system was used as a template.

The "improved public" house movement in the UK between the wars took a slightly different approach. That sought to make pubs more attractive and used by a broader public. As well as providing activities other than drinking, such as bowling greens. A better concept, in my opinion, but one which was opposed by most temperance bastards. They wanted pubs to be as horrible as possible because then they were easier to campaign against.

A more sensible approach might have been to encourage drinkers to witch from spirits to beer. Having spirits as the standard drink is asking for trouble.

Next time we'll have a look at the effect of the Gothenburg system in its home town.

Thursday, 1 October 2015

Ten things you must know about Stockholm

1. I was there last week doing a bit of judging.

2. More people are growing beards. Mostly men.

3. It's going as brewery-crazy as everywhere. Despite a hostile environment.

4. You can survive on a cooked breakfast, beer and sausages.

5. The cask at Akkurat is more than decent. (Blind Tiger, I'm looking at you.)

6. It isn't as flat as Holland.

7. A combined beer and whisky festival doesn't necessarily incite anarchy.

8. Stockholm airport and Stockholm city aren't on the same planet. Barely in the same galaxy.

9. Dark Mild is available*.

10. If you're an unhealthily pale, blue-eyed pisshead, you'll always be addressed in Swedish.




* Sadly no trams or professional Rugby League, the other requirements of a civilised society.

Thursday, 17 September 2015

Stockholm next week

I'll be at the Stockholm Beer & Whisky Festival next week. No Borefts for me this year. I can put my imperial pint pot back into sotrage for another year.

I'll probably have some free time on Friday 25th September. Any sugegstions as to what I might do?

Sunday, 3 May 2015

Imported bottled Lager in the 1950's

Mmm. I’ve already written this once, but somehow managed to lose the text. I hate doing that.

Continuing with my look at the beers on sale in Britain in the 1950’s, I’ve come to imported Lager. Back then there were only two types of beer imports: Stout from Ireland and Lager from the Continent. Lager brewing was still in its infancy in Britain, at least outside of a few specialists like Tennent’s, Barclay Perkins and the Welsh Lager Brewery. Only towards the end of the decade did other brewers start dipping their toes in the Lager pool.

Once again, I’ve arbitrarily divided the beers into random groups, this time with highly scientific names: watery stuff (1030-1035º), not quite to watery stuff (1035-1040º), normal-strength stuff  (1040-1050º) and strong stuff  (>1050º).  The groups are just for my own convenience and have no real significance.

The origins of the beers is revealing. Holland delivered the most samples, but almost a third came from Scandinavia. Germany scores quite poorly, though that could be a lingering effect of the war. I don’t believe the American samples were on general sale. The lack of a price is a sign. The one which did have a price was listed as being sold on a US base.

Here’s that information in a handy table form:

Country no. samples %
Australia 2 4.00%
Belgium 7 14.00%
Canada 3 6.00%
Czechoslovakia 2 4.00%
Denmark 7 14.00%
Germany 6 12.00%
Holland 10 20.00%
New Zealand 1 2.00%
Norway 7 14.00%
Sweden 1 2.00%
USA  4 8.00%
Total 50

Let’s start with the watery stuff. These all look like beers specifically brewed for the UK market. The Dutch ones for sure, as all domestic Dutch Pilsners were 5% ABV. Carlsberg and Tuborg were both over 4% in Denmark. Foreign brewers weren’t always that keen on making such weak beer, but it was largely what the UK market demanded. Partly because Continental-strength beers would be too expensive.

Even these watery beers were eye-wateringly expensive, averaging over 3 bob a pint. A pint of draught Mild – about the same in terms of strength - would cost just 12-14d. The high rate of attenuation of some of the lowest-gravity examples seems designed to wring as much alcohol out as possible.

Imported bottled Lager in the 1950's - watery stuff
Year Brewer country Beer Price per pint (d) Acidity OG FG ABV App. Atten-uation colour
1957 Tuborg Denmark Lager 40 0.05 1030.7 1005.8 3.23 81.11% 10
1959 Tuborg Denmark Tuborg Lager 42 0.05 1030.7 1005.8 3.23 81.11% 13
1959 St. Pauli\ Germany B.B. Lager 0.02 1030.7 1010.3 2.64 66.45% 7
1957 Amstel Holland Lager 42 0.02 1030.8 1007.2 3.06 76.62% 9.5
1957 Carlsberg Denmark Danish Pilsner 0.02 1030.9 1009.7 2.74 68.61% 10
1957 Carlings Canada Black Label 42 0.05 1031 1006 3.25 80.65% 4.5
1959 Bierbrouwerij "De Wereld" Holland Piraat King Size Ale 27.5 0.02 1031.1 1005.6 3.31 81.99% 10
1959 Vanderheuvel Belgium Ekla Lager 32 0.02 1031.2 1006.1 3.26 80.45% 10
1957 Tuborg Denmark Tuborg Lager 0.04 1031.2 1007.4 3.09 76.28% 13
1957 Carlsberg Denmark Danish Pilsner 40 0.04 1031.5 1008.4 2.99 73.33% 9
1957 Z.H.B. Holland Export Pilsner Lager 42 0.02 1031.6 1006.2 3.30 80.38% 10
1957 Amstel Holland Amstel Lager 0.04 1031.9 1006.9 3.24 78.37% 12
1957 Z.H.B. Holland Export Pilsner Lager 0.05 1032.3 1005.8 3.44 82.04% 13
1957 Bierbrouwerij De Wereld Holland Piraat Lager Beer 30 0.04 1032.8 1005.7 3.52 82.62% 9
1956 NV Bierbrouwerij Holland Breda Lager 48 0.04 1033.2 1005.3 3.63 84.04% 7
1957 Oranjeboom Holland Dutch Pilsener 42 0.02 1033.3 1007.8 3.31 76.58% 9
1956 Frydenlund Norway Peak Lager 30 0.04 1034.3 1005.7 3.72 83.38% 12
Average 38.13 0.03 1031.7 1006.8 3.23 78.47% 9.88
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/002.

Moving on to the slightly less watery, the next group also looks like beers solely for the UK market. With the exception of Pilsner Urquell. That beer looks like the 10º version. Something that would have been on sale back home, unlike the others. That so many foreign brewers were prepared to brew something just for the British market a demonstration of the money to be made.

I’m surprised Heineken is in this group. Because I know from their brewing records of the early 1950’s that the version for the UK was brewed to 8º Plato, or 1032. They must have beefed it up during the decade.

A few of these beers – Heineken, Carling and Stella – are currently big players in the UK Lager market.

The price is even more scary for this set – 4 shillings a pint for Carling and Urquell. You’d need plenty of cash to get pissed at that price. They must have been fairly exclusive drinks. Lager continues to be more expensive than Ale in Britain, though the price differential has become much smaller. Price was one of the reasons I never drank Lager. It seemed like just throwing money away for no good reason.

I have my doubts about the colour given for Black Label. It wasn’t ever a Dark Lager, was it?


Imported bottled Lager in the 1950's - not quite so watery stuff
Year Brewer country Beer Price per pint (d) Acidity OG FG ABV App. Atten-uation colour
1957 Oranjeboom Holland Dutch Lager 0.04 1035.4 1007.5 3.62 78.81% 10
1957 Carlings Canada Black Label 48 0.05 1036.3 1007.7 3.71 78.79% 75
1957 Pilsner Urquell Czechoslovakia Pilsener 48 0.04 1036.3 1010 3.41 72.45% 9
1957 Pilsner Urquell Czechoslovakia Pilsener 0.04 1036.4 1010.1 3.41 72.25% 12
1959 Frydenlund Norway Peak? Lager 0.02 1036.6 1007.5 3.78 79.51% 17
1957 Carlings Canada Black Label 0.04 1037.5 1007.8 3.86 79.20% 10
1957 Heineken Holland Lager 42 0.04 1038.7 1009 3.86 76.74% 5
1957 Artois Belgium Stella Lager 0.05 1039.7 1006.5 4.32 83.63% 9
Average 46.00 0.04 1037.1 1008.3 3.75 77.67% 18.38
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/002.


We now get to beers which do look like standard domestic versions, what I’ve called normal-strength stuff. Again, there are a couple of familiar beers: Stella, Fosters, Holsten, Miller and Pabst.

You’ll notice that prices are fairly random. Some beers in this set are the same price or cheaper than ones in the watery group. It’s a trick that’s easy to pull when drinkers have no idea of your beer’s strength. It seems any strength of Lager cost 3 to 4 shillings a pint. There’s a simple explanation why Miller High Life is an exception: that was sold on a US base .

Note the very high degree of attenuation of these samples. Only a couple are under 80%.

Imported bottled Lager in the 1950's - normal-strength stuff
Year Brewer country Beer Price per pint (d) Acidity OG FG ABV App. Atten-uation colour
1959 Schous Brewery Norway Norwegian Beer 36 0.03 1041.2 1005.5 4.66 86.65% 8.5
1957 Schous Brewery Norway Norwegian Beer 0.05 1042.2 1006.6 4.64 84.36% 12
1957 Dortmunder Union Germany Pilsener 42 0.04 1042.8 1007.4 4.61 82.71% 8
1959 Pilsor Belgium Lamot Lager 42 0.04 1043.8 1003.2 5.31 92.69% 7.5
1957 Artois Breweries Belgium Stella Lager 40 0.06 1044.3 1007.6 4.78 82.84% 8
1957 Holsten Germany Pilsner 0.05 1044.7 1007.4 4.86 83.45% 8
1957 Holsten Germany Pilsner 42 0.04 1044.7 1008.2 4.75 81.66% 8
1959 Vanderheuvel Belgium Ekla Lager 42 0.04 1045.6 1009.6 4.68 78.95% 10
1956 Miller USA High Life 20 0.04 1045.7 1012.3 4.33 73.09% 6
1957 Carlton United Australia Fosters Export Lager 48 0.05 1046 1005.8 5.25 87.39% 8.5
1956 Carlton United Australia Export Lager 48 0.05 1046.2 1004.5 5.45 90.26% 8
1957 Vanderheuvel Belgium Ekla 42 0.05 1046.3 1008.2 4.96 82.29% 7
1955 Pabst USA Blue Ribbon 0.05 1048.9 1011.7 4.84 76.07% 9
1958 New Zealand Breweries New Zealand Steinecker Lager 0.04 1049.1 1006.5 5.57 86.76% 85
1955 Liebmann USA Rheingold Extra Dry Lager 0.04 1049.8 1011.6 4.97 76.71% 6
Average 40.20 0.04 1045.4 1007.7 4.91 83.06% 13.30
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/002.


The final group would have been pretty strong by UK standards in the 1950’s. These, too, look like Continental-strength beers. Though the Löwenbräu Bock looks a bit weak. I thought Bock had to have a gravity of at least 16º Plato by German law. That’s about 1064º.

Tuborg are most confusing. They were selling both a watered down version and a full-strength one. And the stronger one was actually cheaper. Weird. How would drinkers have been able to work out what was good and what was bad value? Impossible, unless you had the beers analysed.

Imported bottled Lager in the 1950's - strong stuff
Year Brewer country Beer Price per pint (d) Acidity OG FG ABV App. Atten-uation colour
1955 National Brewery USA Beer 0.04 1050.9 1011 5.19 78.39% 10
1957 Tuborg Denmark Export Beer 40 0.06 1052.3 1011.5 5.31 78.01% 7
1957 ????brau Germany Light Beer 60 0.04 1052.3 1014.4 4.92 72.47% 9
1957 Tuborg Denmark Export Tuborg Beer 0.06 1052.4 1006.9 5.95 86.83% 7
1957 Ringnes Norway Export Lager Beer 0.05 1052.5 1006.9 5.96 86.86% 13
1955 Swedish Beer Export Co. Gothenburg Sweden Three Towns Beer (Lager) 30 0.05 1052.9 1008.7 5.77 83.55% 9
1956 Artois Breweries Belgium Sparta Special Lager 0.06 1053.2 1015.2 4.93 71.43% 20
1955 Ringnes Norway Export Pilsener 48 0.04 1053.8 1010.9 5.59 79.74% 11
1957 Ringnes Norway Export Lager 48 0.05 1054.5 1008.8 5.97 83.85% 9.5
1957 Löwenbräu Germany Pale Bock 52 0.05 1061.9 1014.3 6.20 76.90% 6
Average 46.33 0.05 1053.7 1010.9 5.58 79.80% 10.15
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/002.


Maybe Brown Ale next. But it’s a long set and I’m very lazy.