Marathon

I hope that's what I'm on. If it's a sprint, I'm fucked.

Long view is what I'm all about. That doesn't stop with the present.

Outside of my obsession with Tetley's Mild and St. Bernardus Abt, I am genuinely interested in the wider world of beer. I consume the occasional sludge beer. Admittedly mostly due to inadequate signage. I still drink them. I'm not a monster. Also for research purposes. Know your enemy.

Been good to finish a couple of books this year. And publish them. Another is three-quarters done.. Stuff is getting finished. New books are rolling along.

A long run. I hope that's what I'm on. I'm nowhere near finished with the books I plan on writing.

Unless I drop dead, of course. You can never rule that out at my age.  Here's hoping I have a few more years yet.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1904 Tetley XX

Tetley’s brewhouse use of Xs is dead confusing. After the four X Ales, we now have an XX.

Is this Tetley’s strongest Mild Ale? I’m not totally sure. True, it’s parti-gyled with X3 Mild. But I’ve seen beers marketed as Strong Ales or Burton Ales that were parti-gyled with Mild Ales. Does it matter if it was sold as Old Ale/Strong Ale or Mild Ale? Not really.

Not much to discuss about the recipe, as this was brewed together with the X3 above. Just over 100 barrels of each were in the parti-gyle. Which is a decent quantity for stronger beers. Though there were fewer brews than for the weaker Mild Ales.

Being stronger than X3, the colour is darker. Hitting a classic Dark Mild colour of around 20 SRM.
 

1904 Tetley XX
pale malt	5.25 lb	41.58%
mild malt	5.50 lb	43.56%
No. 3 invert sugar	1.75 lb	13.86%
Caramel 1000 SRM	0.13 lb	0.99%
Fuggles 120 mins	2.50 oz
Goldings 30 mins	2.50 oz
Goldings dry hops	1.00 oz
OG	1072
FG	1017
ABV	7.28
Apparent attenuation	76.39%
IBU	53
SRM	21
Mash at	151º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	60º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1469 West Yorkshire Ale Timothy Taylor

 

Let's Brew - 1904 Tetley X2

And here we are with the non-pale version of X2. Quite different from X2 Pale but also not the same as X1.

What’s the difference? Grits. While X and X1 both contain a very high proportion of grits. While X2 has none. In its place, there’s rather more mild malt. Almost as much mild malt as pale malt. Along with some sugar. All in all, a rather simple grist.

The hopping is much heavier than in X1: 7lbs per quarter (336 lbs) of malt compared to 4 lbs. That’s quite a big difference. Though it’s well short of the 12.5 lbs per quarter which graced Tetley’s Pale Ale.

And what were those hops? Worcester, Kent and Mid-Kent. All from the 1903 harvest. 

1904 Tetley X2
pale malt	5.25 lb	44.42%
mild malt	5.00 lb	42.30%
brown sugar	1.50 lb	12.69%
Caramel 1000 SRM	0.07 lb	0.59%
Fuggles 120 mins	1.75 oz
Goldings 30 mins	1.75 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.50 oz
OG	1057
FG	1014
ABV	5.69
Apparent attenuation	75.44%
IBU	41
SRM	14
Mash at	151º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	60º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1469 West Yorkshire Ale Timothy Taylor

 

 

 

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1904 Tetley X

At this point, Tetley had two parallel sets of Mild Ales. The standard ones and ones with the suffix “Pale”. This is one of the former.

You might have expected this to be similar to the pale version, just with more caramel. But it isn’t. The grist is, in reality, rather different. For a start, around a third of it consists of grits. Something totally absent from the pale version. It seems to substitute for a good chunk of the mild malt.

The sugar is different, too. “M. Brazilian” rather than the “RC(3)” in the pale. I’ve interpreted it as being a type of raw cane sugar. There’s also rather more caramel in this version.

There’s just a single type of Kent hops. I’ve guessed Fuggles. Which seems fair enough for a Mild. At a lower hopping rate than for Pale: 4.25 lbs per quarter (336 lbs) of malt compared to 5.75 lbs.

1904 Tetley X
pale malt	2.50 lb	31.33%
mild malt	1.50 lb	18.80%
grits	2.67 lb	33.46%
brown sugar	1.25 lb	15.66%
Caramel 1000 SRM	0.06 lb	0.75%
Fuggles 120 mins	0.75 oz
Fuggles 30 mins	0.75 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.25 oz
OG	1039
FG	1009
ABV	3.97
Apparent attenuation	76.92%
IBU	19
SRM	12
Mash at	149º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	61º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1469 West Yorkshire Ale Timothy Taylor

 

Can you learn too much?

Just been thinking about one of my favourite beers, ever: Tetley's Mild. A beer I adored in those far off days of my youth. When my legs still obeyed and my lungs weren't fucked.

We have to mention univacs/economisers here. The devices that recycled beer from the drip tray.

I was used to electric dispense when I arrived in Leeds as a scruffy student in 1975. It was almost universal in the Midlands, for both cask and bright beer. (An annoyance right there. Metered electric pumps were ambiguous, being used for both cask and bright beer.) Seeing cask Tetley's dispensed that way wasn't a surprise.

My initial impressions of Tetley's Mild were: pretty deccent, nothing special.

Until me and Matt ventured down into Sheepscar. To a pub surrounded by nothing, called, the Sheepscar. Probably being destined for demolition, they'd let the handpulls be. And the associated economisers. What a revelation.

Tetley's Mild was promoted from a supporting role to a star. Fuck me, it was such a better beer. How could the method of dispense make such a difference?

I cherished every Tetley's pub with handpulls I found. Mostly located in the less fashionable bits of Leeds: Sheepscar, Cross Green and Hunslet, for example.

When the Cardigan Arms went from electric to beer engines, their Mild went from decent to amazing. Overnight. No wonder the possible hygiene problems were overlooked.

Tetley was the one bit of the Big Six I had a very soft spot for, not just because of the beer. Also how they didn't fuck up their pubs. When the Big Six swapped pubs in the 1980s, Bass immediately buggered up the pubs they acquired in Leeds. Whereas Tetley very rarely did. Weird that, despite owning almost all the pubs in the city, Tetley and their beers were incredibly popular.

That says to me that the Big Six overall could have pursued a different strategy and still made money. Maybe even more than they did.

I didn't immediately realise, after discovering and then worshipping handpulled Tetley's Mild, exactly why they could so recklessly spill it over the top of the glass. The niceties of serving weren't drawing my attention. Not like that lovely Mild.

That sea of Mild in the drip tray wasn't just there for decorative purposes. As lovely as it looked. (I'm thinking Brassmoulders Arms in Hunslet. Loved the photos of international Rugby League games they had on the walls.) That was getting recycled into your pint.

You know what? I didn't care. The beer only tasted right served that way. Well, the way I liked it. And I think the brewery did, as they reinstated handpulls and univacs in most of their pubs in Leeds.

Recently, I got my hands on the Tetley standards manual from 1985. With too much detail possibly even for me. Lots of the way they were brewing was the same as in 1945, the most recent of their records I've photographed.

The standards say for additions post-fermentation:

"Sterilised beer, 12.5% max, 1031º, racking tank"

I think I know what that means: ullage. Returned beer and all sorts of other crap. The type of thing Watney got up to. Evil brewers like those. That's why their beers were crap.

But, if you talk to brewers, well, almost everyone did it. To one extent or another. Because there was so much money in, essentially, untaxed beer. The tax system hugely incentivised this behaviour. Until they changed the tax to being based on the ABV at the brewery gate.

Does that mean that all beers were crap? No. Objectively, they weren't. Surprisingly.

That Tetley's Mild I loved. Drip ray and ullage combined might have been 20% recycled. How eco-friendly is that?

More than I needed to know? Maybe. Well, no, not at all. It could have been 50% slops and 50% spit, for all I care. The taste was great great. I'm not going to worry about the nicetie of how it was created. Flavour beats everything.

To answer the question in the title. If you can remember that. No. Not in the case of Tetley's Mild. Learning of its faults makes it no less wonderful. Like Maradonna. But less druggy. The truth hasn't spoilt my, retrospective, enjoyment.

Tetley cask Mild specifications (part five)

Just for a little variation, we're back with Tetley's beer specifications from 1982. Looking at the processes between the end of the boil and the start of fermentation.

Kicking off with the hop sparge. Which is, I suppose, intended to wash any wort that has been soaked up by the hops. For some reason the process isn't exactly the same as for the Bitter. Ever so slightly. Only 80 barrels go to the DeMarkus opposed to 85 barrels for Bitter.

10. HOP SEPARATION (SPARGE)
Whirlpool (Hop Back)	60 brls.
DeMarkus	80 brls.
Source:
Tetley Beer and Malt Specifications, 1985, beer page 9.

Next we have the water added before fermentation. For Bitter, only 100 barrels were added to the fermenter before the wort. For Mild, a lot more water was added: 150 barrels before the wort and 175 barrels after. I can understand adding more water to a weaker beer, but why in two lots?

11. BREAKDOWN WATER
a) Added to wort	To FV prior to wort: 150 brls. To FV after wort: 175 brls.
b) All water sterilised by steam in heat exchanger and cooled by Brewing/Chilled water.	30 secs, at 195 - 205°F.
Source:
Tetley Beer and Malt Specifications, 1985, beer page 9.

The same two-strain yeast was used. But a bit less of it than in the Bitter: 0.5 lbs per barrel rather than 0.625 lbs. Not sure why less yeast was needed. Because of the lower gravity? Maybe.

12. ADDITIONS BEFORE COLLECTION
a) Yeast - AB7/AB9	0.5 Ibs/brl. pressed yeast injected into wort main 30 mins, after start of 1st length.
b) Aeration	Compressed air after cooling stage in Paraflow to give D.O. of 6 - 8 ppm.
c) Zinc as ZnS04	0.10 mg/1 into FV prior water
Source:
Tetley Beer and Malt Specifications, 1985, beer page 9.

The collection gravity is, unsurprisingly, about the same as the target OG of 1032º.  

13. COLLECTION
a) Temperature (°F) (°C)	63/64 (17.2)
b) Gravity	1031.8
(Metric)	1031.5
Source:
Tetley Beer and Malt Specifications, 1985, beer page 9.

There will be more of this. When I can be arsed. Or run out of other stuff. Or I'm off travelling again.

Tetley cask Mild specifications (part four): boiling

No, I hadn't forgotten about this. Just been a little distracted by memories. And I wanted to give you some rest. Too much of this type of post in a row gets boring. Well, more boring than its already inherent tedium. 

Boiling. A pretty important process. But one which Tetley seems to have standardised. At least amongst its cask beers. The table below is identical to that of Bitter save in one respect. The casting gravity of the first copper is 1080º rather than 1084º. Not exactly a huge difference.

Looking back to 1945, the boiling times were longer: two hours for both the first and second copper. The gravities of the wort at the end of the boil were also quite different, at 1095º for the first copper and 1016º for the second.

A little more Irish moss was added in 1945: 12 oz per quarter of malt. Which works out to 81 oz per 100 barrels, compared to 78 oz per barrel in 1985.

As you would expect, all the sugar went into the second wort. Other than the caramel, which for some reason went in the first.

9. BOILING
	1st Copper (270 brls)	2nd Copper (270 brls)	Type	When Added
a) Addition Sugar	NONE	ALL	Liquid or Crystallised	Copper 2/3 full
Caramel	ALL	NONE	Caramel AB Tintose 1A(1045	Before Boil
Hops	50%	50%	alpha Acid Target to each Copper	After Sugar
Irish Moss	42oz/100 brls.	36oz/100 brls.	Dry Granulated	30 mins before casting
Casting gravity	80°	30°	-	-
b) Boiling Time (mins)	90	90	-	-
c) Evaporation (%)	10	10	-	-
Source:
Tetley Beer and Malt Specifications, 1985, beer page 9.

Tetley cask Mild specifications (part three)

Funning this material up isn't the easiest. You could call it rather dry. Even though it's documenting something rather wet. Well, at least with a lot of water in it.

Are there any big surprises? No, is the short answer. Because the mashing scheme is identical to that for Bitter. In fact, the Bitter and Mild are so similar, that I could imagine them being parti-gyled together.Spin the Mild out at a lower gravity and add a bit more caramel to it at some point and there you go. As the popularity of Mild fell, I'm sure brewers did things like this. Or simply added caramel to their Ordinary Bitter.

I've gone back and looked at Tetley's records from 1945. As with the Bitter, the process doesn't seem to have changed much over the forty years. The barrels per quarter rate is the same at 2.25. Both are a single infusion, followed by a sparge. The initial heat, at 148º , was a little higher than in 1985. But within the +-2º F tolerance. The biggest difference is the time the mash was stood, which, at two hours, was twice as long in 1945.

The sparging rate was the same, too, at around 5 barrels per quarter of malt. And, at 165º F, the sparge temperature was also much the same as in 1985. 

6. MASHING AND SPARGING
a) Mash rate (brl/qr)	2.25
b) Mash Temp (°F) (°C) (i.e. water & malt to masher)	146 +-2 (63.3° +- 1.2) varies with materials
c) Stand Time (mins)	60
d) Sparge Temp (°F) (°C)	165 - 170 (74 - 76.5)
e) Sparge Rate (brl/qr)	5
Source:
Tetley Beer and Malt Specifications, 1985, beer page 8.

Any guesses for what comes next? Yes, boiling.

Tetley cask Mild specifications (part two)

No, I hadn't forgotten about my series on Tetley's beers in 1985.  Loads more to go just on the cask beers. Then there's all the brewery-conditioned beers. Lots of fun just waiting for us.

Exciting stuff in this installment. Little things like the grist. Which isn't all that exciting, as it turns out.

To my total non surprise, the grist turns out to be very similar. Th only difference is in the sugar. Bitter had two different types, T3000 of LPW in addition to S. G. T. While Mild only had the latter. Other than that, it's just the quantity of caramel that distinguishes the two beers.

How much coloured malt is there? None at all. Not even crystal malt. All of the colour comes from caramel. Did I realise this when I was shovelling down gallons of the stuff in the 1970s and 1980s? Of course I fucking didn't. I assumes the colour came from crystal and chocolate malt. Or something like that. How wrong I was.

When I first started looking at brewing records I soon noticed that recipes weren't as I expected them to be. Once I'd finished being all snobby about flaked maize and sugar, I discovered how brewers had actually brewed the beers I loved. And I embraced it. Like a a long-lost child. Or something. No, I remember what it was. I started shouting at home brewers telling them they'd got UK beer totally wrong.

3. EXTRACT DERIVATION (%)
a) White Malt	75 - 80
b) Torrified Barley	5 - 10
c) ERC 4ths	-
d) S.G.T.	10 - 15
e) Caramel	Variable
Source:
Tetley Beer and Malt Specifications, 1985, beer page 8.

I assume that the torrefied barley is there for head retention. Why barley and not wheat, which was more common in this role? No idea. I'm sure there must have been a reason, though. As the same quantity of S.G.T. was used in the Bitter, it couldn't have been very dark. Given it was only 21 EBC.

No idea what ERC 4ths is. Nor why it was included in the table when the quantity is zero.

The water isn't very exciting, being from the same sources and treated the same as for cask Bitter.

5. LIQUOR
a) Source	Town/Borehole Mixture (2 : 1 Ratio)
b) Treatment	H2SO4, Auto-Injection (Variable)
c) Filtration (borehole only)	Sand filtered but not chlorinated
Source:
Tetley Beer and Malt Specifications, 1985, beer page 8.

Next time we'll be looking at mashing.

Tetley cask Mild specifications (part one)

I'm plodding my way through these Tetley specifications. And now I've hit my favourite: Tetley's Mild. A beer I drank huge quantities of in the 1970s and early 1980s, I was living in Leeds. What else was I supposed to do.

It's sad going back to Leeds now. Nowhere sells the Mild. Not many pubs even sell the Bitter. Tetley used to completely dominate the city's pubs. When I lived there, it seemed as if their grip was unbreakable. Even when they swapped some pubs with Bass Charrington. 

I suppose it did last around 60 years. From when they gobbled up local rival Melbourne to the brewery's closure in 2011. Not a bad run, I suppose. I probably experienced the brewery at its height. When its beers were popular and good.

That's enough nostalgia for the heady days of the 1970s. (Many seem so nostalgic for that period, that they're trying to recreate it today. The empty shelves in the supermarkets. Endless strikes. Happy days.)

Let's crack on with the beer.

Tetley cask Mild specifications
O.G. (in package)	1032.0 +- 1.0.
PG (in package)	1007.0 - 1008.0
Apparent atten (%)	75
Limit atten	1004 +- 1.0
Alcohol (v/v)	3.15 +- 0.17
(w/v)	2.51 +- 0.14
Colour (EBC)	56 +- 3
Bitterness (EBU)	24 +- 2.5
Haze (EBC/°F)	Polished (Fined)
PH	4.2 +- 0.1
Head Retention (secs)	> 100
SO2 (ppm)	¬> 20
Cu (ppm)	¬> 0.2
Fe (ppm)	¬> 0.4
Yeast Count (10^6 cells/ml)	0.5 +- 0.4
Microbiological	Absence of beer spoilage organisms
Packaged in Cask	9:18:36 galls.
Storage
Shelf Life (weeks)	4
At Brewery (days)	5 (prior to trunking)
or Depot	14 days max.
Recommended age at point of sale (weeks)	¬> 3
Source:
Tetley Beer and Malt Specifications, 1985, beer page 6.

That sounds very much like the beer I drank. Fairly light, both in colour and body. It wasn't a really dark Mild. But dark enough to be easily distinguishable from Bitter.

I didn't know anything about bitterness units and would have had no idea how many the beer had. Not particularly bitter is what I thought. And less bitter than the Mild. Such simple times, back then.

Perspective (part two)

Being older has some upsides. Like getting into priority lanes in South America. And added perspectives.

At the start of my drinking career, the 1930s were the distant past. A time almost beyond human memory.

When I'm perspectiving, I like to use my own experience. For example, for drinkers on the cusp of WW I, what was their idea of beer prices. When, for oldies like me, there might have been no increases in their lifetime.

My first pub pints were fifty years ago. And a bit more. For someone my age, back in 1973, Their first beers would have been in the early 1920s. When the shrapnel from WW I had barely stopped flying. Drinkers I shared pubs with would have experienced very different pints from me. In terms of strength, taste and price.

I wish I'd been aware enough as a spotty twat to ask them.

You youngsters won't have to ask me. I have this blog to bore you with my perspective. Until you twig.

Getting ready for Rio

I'm off to Brazil quite soon. For another round of beer judging. I only do it for the social aspect. And the weather. Not forgetting dossing around in Rio for a couple of days.

In preparation I've spent a big part of the day scanning the Tetley Beer & Malt Specifications. That may seem an odd way to prepare for a trip to South America. I suppose it is. My fault, really. As I insist on posting every day. Which means that when I travel, I need to have a couple of weeks of posts scheduled.

Over the next week I need to write at least eleven extra posts. The easiest way to do that is to have some sort of theme. One worthy of multiple posts. I don't think I can get away with many more posts of DDR labels. Something else is needed.

That's where the Tetley document comes in. It has very detailed specifications of all their Leeds-brewed beers. Ingredients, process and loads more. What's best is that it's dated October 1985. Just after I stopped drinking Tetley Mild by the gallon.

Expect lots about Tetley's beers in March. And maybe some DDR labels, if I get lazy.

Let's Brew - 1904 Tetley X3

The people have spoken. Mild it is. And, as one person suggested Tetley's Mild, taht's what I've gone with.

Tetley brewed a lot of Milds. Which is why I love them so much. Parti-gyled with XX, X3 was Tetley’s second-strongest Mild. Why they brewed quite so many. I’m not sure.  Most breweries by this point only brewed two or three at most. Including the differently-coloured versions, Tetley had seven in their portfolio.

It's not a complicated recipe. Just base malt and sugar. Though there were two types of base malt. That makes the recipe a bit more exciting.

Oddly, as Mild generally got darker as the 20th century rolled along, the Tetley's Mild I loved was quite a bit paler. I now know exactly how much paler, as I've seen the brewery specifications. It was only around 13 SRM.

1904 Tetley X3
mild malt	5.50 lb	42.31%
pale malt	5.50 lb	42.31%
No. 3 invert sugar	2.00 lb	15.38%
Fuggles 90 mins	2.25 oz
Fuggles 30 mins	2.25 oz
OG	1062.9
FG	1014.7
ABV	6.38
Apparent attenuation	76.63%
IBU	51
SRM	14
Mash at	150º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	60º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1469 West Yorkshire Ale Timothy Taylor

 

Let's Brew - 1888 Tetley X3

There are certain beers where, in the absence of a price list to tell you exactly what they were marketed as, it’s hard to be certain about the style just from the brewing records.

It’s particularly tricky at the top end of Mild Ales. Is it still a Mild Ale or is it an Old Ale? Or even just Strong Ale? This is a good example. The X implies a Mild Ale and it sits neatly atop three other beers in the style.

However, the hopping rate is much higher than even for X2 – 12 lbs per quarter (336 lbs) of malt compared to 8 lbs. That’s 50% higher. One of the features of beers meant for ageing was a higher level of hopping, leading me to infer that X3 was probably an Old Ale. I could be wrong. Without more evidence, it’s impossible to be sure.

No complication of any sort in the grist, other than there being two types of base malt, pale malt and mild malt.

Rather more complexity in the hopping, where there are four different types: Kent from the 1886 and 1887 harvests, Worcester from 1886 and Bohemian from 1887. To account for the age of some of the examples, I’ve cut the original hopping rate by 20%. 

1888 Tetley X3
pale malt	8.00 lb	49.23%
mild malt	8.25 lb	50.77%
Fuggles 180 mins	4.50 oz
Saaz 120 mins	1.50 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.50 oz
OG	1071
FG	1016
ABV	7.28
Apparent attenuation	77.46%
IBU	71
SRM	6.5
Mash at	152º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	180 minutes
pitching temp	63º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1469 West Yorkshire Ale Timothy Taylor

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1888 Tetley X2

We.re continuing our walk up Tetley’s Mild hill with X2. The next to strongest of the four.

I’ve mentioned that the recipes for the Milds are basically all the same. But there is one are where they differ: the hopping rate. While X has just 4.5 lbs per quarter (336 lbs) of malt, X2 has 8.5 lbs.  Obviously, this is reflected in the bitterness level, which is much higher in X2.

The grist is much the same as the weaker Milds: pale malt, mild malt and some sugar. Once again “Inality”. Slightly more legible in this record. Not that it helps me much. I’ve still no idea what it was.

The same hops again, but lots more of them. Kent from the 1886 and 1887 harvests, Alsace from 1886 and Altmark from 1887. 

1888 Tetley X2
pale malt	4.75 lb	34.55%
mild malt	8.00 lb	58.18%
No. 2 invert sugar	1.00 lb	7.27%
Fuggles 180 mins	2.00 oz
Strisselspalt 180 mins	2.00 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.50 oz
OG	1063
FG	1016.5
ABV	6.15
Apparent attenuation	73.81%
IBU	50
SRM	8
Mash at	148º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	180 minutes
pitching temp	61º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1469 West Yorkshire Ale Timothy Taylor

Let's Brew - 1888 Tetley X1

Next on the Mild pile was X1, logically enough.

The recipe is pretty much the same as X, even though the two were not parti-gyled together. Which is to say a combination of pale and mild malts along with some sugar. The last again being the enigmatic “Inchity”. Whatever that might be.

It’s really just a slightly beefed-up version of X. Which isn’t surprising, really.

The hops were the same as in X. Just a few more of them. Kent from the 1886 and 1887 harvests, Alsace from 1886 and Altmark from 1887. 

1888 Tetley X1
pale malt	4.00 lb	34.78%
mild malt	6.50 lb	56.52%
No. 2 invert sugar	1.00 lb	8.70%
Fuggles 120 mins	1.00 oz
Strisselspalt 120 mins	1.00 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.25 oz
OG	1053
FG	1016.5
ABV	4.83
Apparent attenuation	68.87%
IBU	25
SRM	7.5
Mash at	148º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	63º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1469 West Yorkshire Ale Timothy Taylor

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1888 Tetley X

Despite all their newspaper adverts pushing their East India Pale Ale, in the 1880s Tetley was basically a Mild Ale brewery. They produced four different versions, all brewed single-gyle.

Bottom of the pile was X. Or rather, X with a line through it. Unlike other breweries, Tetley didn’t go from X to XXXX. Instead, all were a single X, just with varying numbers of horizontal lines through it. No idea why.

There are only three elements to the grist: mild malt, pale malt and sugar.  I’ve no idea what the last was exactly. I can’t really read the description. It looks something like “Inchity”. I’ve gone for a conservative guess with No. 2 invert.

The hops are more comprehensible: Kent from the 1886 and 1887 harvests, Alsace from 1886 and Altmark from 1887.

1888 Tetley X
pale malt	6.50 lb	66.67%
mild malt	2.25 lb	23.08%
No. 2 invert sugar	1.00 lb	10.26%
Fuggles 120 mins	0.75 oz
Strisselspalt 120 mins	0.75 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.25 oz
OG	1046
FG	1016.5
ABV	3.90
Apparent attenuation	64.13%
IBU	20
SRM	7
Mash at	148º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	65º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1469 West Yorkshire Ale Timothy Taylor