Early 19th-century IPA

Still banging the IPA drum. Not quite sure why, other than that I've started. Why stop now?

To delight you today, I've details gleaned not from analyses, but from brewing records. Giving an insight into the hopping levels. As expected, they're between very high and insanely high. Anything over 20 lbs per quarter (336 lbs approx.) of malt is very heavy.  To contextualise, Combe's - if it was really them -- Porter got just 10 lbs per quarter and even the strong Keeping Stout no more than 20 lbs. Younger's Scotch Ales, 5 to 7 lbs.

To explain the question mark, Combe is just a guess. All I know for certain is that it isn't from Reid, as it says in the archive catalogue. Why do I guess Combe? Because it's in a Watney Combe, Reid archive. And the quantities brewed too large for Watney. Can't be sure, though. Unless by some miracle I came across another Combe brewing record.

Given the way IPA was produced and aged, the FG when sold would have been considerably lower than the racking gravity I've listed. The final rate of attenuation would have been considerably higher, 85%-95, much like the analyses from the 1840s.

Not sure of the intended market. Possibly both export and domestic. Pretty sure I've seen UK adverts for Younger's XXP.

Early 19th-century IPA
Year	Brewer	Beer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl
1838	Combe?	IPA	1056.2	1007.0	6.51	87.55%	28.62	6.53
1839	Combe?	IPA	1056.8	1007.0	6.59	87.67%	26.6	5.88
1851	Younger, Wm.	XXP	1072	1018	7.14	75.00%	24.00	8.18
1852	Younger, Wm.	XXP	1067	1017	6.61	74.63%	24.00	8.20
1858	Younger, Wm.	XXP	1059	1016	5.69	72.88%	21.05	5.00
	Average		1062.2	1013.0	6.51	79.55%	24.85	6.76
Sources:
Brewing record held at the Westminster City Archives, document number 789/264.
William Younger brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive, document number WY/6/1/2/5.
William Younger brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive, document number WY/6/1/2/14.

Miscatalogued records

Archives aren't perfect. Especially when it comes to cataloguing specialised material, such as brewing records.

Which makes searching for brewing records a sometimes frustrating task. What has this particular archive called them? Brewing books? Brewing journals? Something else entirely? It necessitates a good bit of rumbling around in the catalogue, making sure you've covered all the possibilities.

Then there's the example of the Whitbread brewing records. Where the catalogue has the wrong years for several of the brewing books. I think I'm the only person who has a correct catalogue of them. I suppose I should really have told the archivists.

A third problem is when records are attributed to the wrong company. For years I believed that the earliest IPA brewing log I had was 1837 from Reid. Until I saw some records from the 1820s which were in a completely different format. Which was identical to the format of Reid's 1840s logs. Clearly the 1837 records were from a different brewery. Which, I don't really know. I'm guessing Combe, as the material originated from Watney, Combe, Reid.

Today I came across another example of incorrect attribution. Though I'm scratching my head as to how it could have occurred. It's a brewing book which supposedly comes from Beard's of Lewes.  Yet it has this in the inside cover:

Not only does it say "Harvey & Son" at the top of the page, it also says "Bridge Wharf Brewery", which is the name of the Harvey's brewery.

Has anyone ever looked at this record properly before? You have to wonder.

1898 - a big year for Watney

Because that's when they orchestrated the first big merger in UK brewing. When they clubbed together with two other established London breweries to form Watney, Combe Reid.

But they were busy with other deals, too. Like taking over the Mortlake brewery, their final home.

"Messrs. Phillips, More, and Co., Limited, Mortlake Brewery, S.W., have completed the amalgamation of their company with that of Messrs. Watney and Co., Limited, Pimlico, and they trade now entirely under the style of Watney and Co., Limited. The business is conducted, however, in all respects precisely in the same manner, and under the same management, as hitherto."
"The Brewers' Journal, 1898", page 134.

The new merged company was enormous, with a combined output of over 1 million barrels a year. And a huge amount of share capital:

"Watney, Combe, Reid and Co., Limited — Registered, with a capital £9,000,000 in £1 shares (2,500,000 first preference and 6,500,000 ordinary), to adopt and carry into efiect three several agreements made by this company with Watney and Co., Limited, Combe and Co., Limited (and the liquidators thereof), and with Reid's Brewery Co., Limited (and its liquidators), for the acquisition of the businesses and undertakings, assets and liabilities, &c, of the said companies, and to develop and extend the same. The first directors — of whom there shall be not less than nine nor more than 15 — are Messrs. H. C. O. Bonsor, V. J. Watney, C. Combe, A. M. Wigram, C. J. Phillips, C. Watney, R. Combe, C. H. Babington, C. H. Combe, H. E. Phillips, J. A. Combe, 0. P. Serocold, E. M. Wigram, and P. Combe. Qualification, £8,000. Remuneration, £22,500 per annum, divisible. Registered office: Stag Brewery, Pimlico."
"The Brewers' Journal, 1898", page 536.

To put that into context, the same year Tetley was floated with a share capital of £1 million and Charrington, one of the largest breweries in London, with £3,950,000 capital.

Though there were still a few formalities, like vacuuming up all the stock of the three constituent companies and converting into stock in the new company:

"Watney, Combe, Reid and Company, Limited.
The statutory meeting was held at the Stag Brewery, Pimlico, on the 10th inst. Mr. H. Cosmo Bonsor, M.P., who presided, observed that nearly all the stockholders of the three companies which had recently been amalgamated had assented to the change and had converted their various stocks into the stock of the new company. In regard to the debentures, about 8 per cent. in money value had not yet been converted, but in view of the fact that a considerable quantity of the stock was held by trustees and others, an that a great deal of it was in joint names, he thought that the terms ofi'cred had been sufficiently liberal to bring in a large body of stockholders. In regard to the conversion of the old preference stocks of the companies the amount unconverted was so small that he could not place it in the form of percentage, but there were under 20 stockholders who had not as yet converted, and some of those had not given their assent owing to absence from England and other causes. This absence, of course, prevented these stockholders from completing their transfer. However, the directors could say that practically the whole of the preference shares of the old companies had been converted into the shares of the new company. The solicitors to the company had informed him that the application for a quotation and settlement on the Stock Exchange had been before the officials, and the directors daily expected to hear that both had been granted by the committee. The business, so far as the directors were aware, was doing as well as they could possibly expect."
"The Brewers' Journal, 1898", page 763.

Then came the inevitable closure of one of the three breweries:

"The Brewing operations of the amalgamated company of Watney, Combe, and Reid, Limited, will, in future, conducted, we understand, at Pimlico and Long Acre. We learn that it has been decided to close Messrs. Reid's establishment, or, at any rate, not to use it as a brewery, the other establishments being sufficient to meet the demands of the company's trade."
"The Brewers' Journal, 1898", page 820.

Combe's Long Acre brewery didn't remain in operation much longer. Presumably because Watney's two breweries in Pimlico and Mortlake had sufficient capacity. However, Watney continued to brand some beers Combe or Reid for decades.

The Brewing Trade in 1892

The 1890's were good years for British brewing. Output was up and profits were good. Business was doing so well that many decided to convert into limited companies. Which provided them with bucketloads of cash to buy pubs.

On the other hand, licensing restrictions made it virtually impossible to get a new pub licence. And in many areas licensing magistrates were actively reducing the number of pubs, driving up their cost. Some breweries that came late to the game - Allsopps, for example - over-extended themselves, leading them into sever financial difficulties when trade got worse in the new century.

As you can see from the figures below, brewing contributed a considerable sum to the nation's finances. Which was good in a way, as it meant the government was unlikely to take too radical actions against brewing becvause of the financial consequences.

There's also a mention of the man with the best name in brewing, Cosmo Bonsor. Though it doesn't mention it, he was at the time a director of Combe. After that firm's merge with Watney and Reid he ewas a director of the new amalgamated company.

"The Brewing Trade in 1892.
The Annual Parliamentary return recently issued at the instigation of Mr. Cosmo Bonsor, M.P., furnishes much information I of very considerable interest to the brewing a trade, and at the present time, when the public are eing moved with indignation at the confiscatory proposals of the present Government, this return becomes of very much more than trade interest. From previous articles in these columns on the production and consumption of beer, our readers already know that the quantity of beer manufactured in the United Kingdom during last year was much above that of the previous year, and now we find from these returns that a larger amount of duty was paid during the twelve months ended September 30, 1892, than in any year since 1881; we cannot go further back than this, because prior to 1881 the duty was levied on the malt, and not on the beer as at present, and any comparison between the two systems would be valueless.

The following figures give the total amounts of beer and licence duty charged to brewers for sale during the last twelve years, and the result last year compares very favourably with that of any previous period :—

1881	£8,498,044	1887	£8,845,919
1882	8,668,405	1888	8,782,725
1883	8,449,721	1889	9,323,171
1884	8,746,529	1890	9,864,556
1885	8,664,319	1891	10,039,217
1886	8,539,329	1892	10,079,678

It will thus be seen that the total amount paid last year (i.e., for twelve months ended Sept. 30, and unless otherwise stated this period is meant in all cases) was £10,079,678, which represents an increase of £40,461 in excess of the preceding year, and £215,122 more than in 1890. This state of affairs, while eminently satisfactory to the brewing trade, must be particularly annoying to the parties championed by Mr. Caine, Sir W. Lawson, and their allies, and the more so because, going hand in hand with the increased consumption of our national beverage, is the great diminution of drunkeness, crime, poverty, and ignorance; this is a bitter potion to swallow for those who would wantonly destroy a legitimate trade without any redress.

It is now a fact, established beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the number of brewers continues year by year to grow less, and this has been the case ever since the repeal of the malt tax, the principal decrease being among the smallest members of the trade. During last year the falling off amounted to 578 as compared with the corresponding period of the previous year, and the total decrease from 1880 to 1892 inclusive was 10,558. We have compiled the following table to show how rapidly this diminution in the number of brewers has been continuing since 1880, when there were no less than 21,223 who took out licences :—

Number of Common Brewers Paying for Licences in Year Ended September 30.
	1881	1882	1883	1884	1885	1886	1887	1888	1889	1890	1891	1891
1,000	14,948	14,499	13,864	13,199	12,608	12,155	11,716	11,586	10,705	9,986	9,283	8,766
10,000	1,677	1,619	1,592	1,560	1,537	1,529	1,533	1,518	1,479	1,447	1,370	1,303
20,000	275	275	274	289	270	260	271	264	273	274	284	276
30,000	88	84	79	85	83	85	94	89	108	130	126	136
50,000	63	66	58	64	66	68	68	74	69	72	74	78
100,000	32	36	40	39	38	39	42	38	48	53	54	55
150,000	7	11	11	10	10	9	11	9	13	16	20	20
200,000	7	6	6	9	9	7	6	6	5	5	5	4
250,000	2	2	2	2	1	3	3	3	3	2	2	2
300,000	3	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	3	4	3	2
350,000	—	1	1	1	1	1	1	—	1	2	3	3
400,000	1	1	2	1	2	1	2	3	3	2	1	1
450,000	3	2	1	2	1	2	1	1	1	1	1	2
500,000	1	2	2	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	3	3
550,000	—	—	—	1	1	1	1		1	—	—	1
600,000	—	—	—	—	—	-	—	1	1	2	2	1
1,000,000	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	—	—	—	—
over 1000000	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	2	2	2
Total	17,110	16,609	15,937	15,268	14,633	14,166	13,755	13,598	12,756	12,000	11,233	10,855
deacrease compared with preceding yrs.	4,113	501	672	669	635	467	411	157	842	756	767	578

The Brewers' Guardian 1893, page 89.

What the article says about the decline all being in the smallest categories is true. All the categories greater than 10,000 barrels were either stable or increased. The authorities were quite happy to see many of the very small breweries to close because they were more difficult for the Excise to chek up on.It was much easier to check up on a smaller number of larger breweries.

The situation is now completely reversed. From what I hear the Excise can't cope and most of the smaller breweries are never checked out.

Bottled Stout in the 1950’s – Strong Stout

This is the first of many posts about bottled Stout in the 1950’s. I hope you can contain your excitement.

To make things more manageable, I’ve created my own categories based on gravity and degree of attenuation. Pretty arbitrary, I’ll admit. But this is my party and I can do what I like. Including crying. And making up styles when I feel like it.

The biggest surprise is how many strong Stouts were still knocking around after WW II. There are six different brands with gravities over 1070. Kicking off with the granddaddy of them all, Barclay’s Russian Stout. Which had returned to its classic 1100 OG. In the early 1950’s it’s the only beer I can think of which still retained its 19th-century strength. Hang on. That 1958 Guinness FES is another.

The Bass and Worthington examples are obviously the same beer: P2. Just as Bass Red Triangle and Worthington White Shield were the same beer. I’m not sure why they insisted on keeping both brands long after the beers had become the same. Something similar was going on at Watney, where they were still branding Stouts as Reid when the brewery had been closed for half a century.

Royal Jubilee Stout played a key role in the merger mania of the 1950’s. Hope & Anchor of Sheffield wanted to sell it in Canada and struck a deal whereby they brewed Canadian Black Label Lager under licence in return. This drew the UK market to the attention of Eddie Taylor, owner of the Black Label brand. He’d been successful in merging brewing operations in Canada and saw an opportunity to do the same in Britain.

During the 1950’s Taylor built the UK’s largest brewing group, United Breweries, which eventually became Bass Charrington. Other large brewers didn’t want to get left behind and went on a takeover spree, too. By 1970, British brewing was dominated by 7 large groups: Allied breweries, Bass Charrington. Courage, Scottish & Newcastle, Watney and Whitbread. And Guinness, of course.

You’ll note that most of the stronger examples in the table have pretty decent attenuation.  I suppose you could say, in the case of Russian Stout, by cheating. With a secondary Brettanomyces fermentation measured in years, it was always going to be a dry beer. The same is probably true of Guinness FES, which I still believe was at least partially aged in vats.

I struck by how good value Russian Stout was. It’s the same price – 45d per pint – as the Bass, Murray and Castletown Stouts which are all much weaker. If you think that it took more than two years from mash tun to glass, that’s impressive.

Considering that I used attenuation as a criterion for selection, I’m surprised that there’s a Milk Stout and  a Sweet Stout in this set. The names allocated to Stouts in the 1950’s do show a trend towards sweetness. Things like Glucose Stout or – a real favourite this one – Nourishing Stout.

One last point. None of these even vaguely resembles the very sweet, low ABV beers British Stouts were supposed to have become around 1900, if you’d believe many beer historians.

Bottled Stout in the 1950's - Strong Stouts >65% attenuation
Year	Brewer	Beer	Price	size	Acidity	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	colour
1953	Barclay Perkins	Russian Stout	22.5d	half pint	0.08	1101	1018	10.97	82.18%	1 + 25
1950	Barclay Perkins	Russian Imperial Stout	22.5d	half pint	0.11	1100.1	1021.1	10.41	78.92%	1 + 19
1955	Bass	Imperial Stout			0.34	1078.8	1018.4	7.90	76.65%	375
1955	Worthington	Imperial Stout			0.17	1078.2	1017.3	7.97	77.88%	325
1953	Bass	Imperial Stout	15d	nip	0.08	1078.2	1025.1	6.90	67.90%	1 + 20
1953	Samuel Smith	Sam's Extra Stout	1/2d	half pint	0.06	1077.8	1020	7.54	74.29%	1 + 13
1958	Guinness	Foreign Extra Stout		half pint	0.12	1074.4	1015.9	7.65	78.63%	250
1950	Watney	Reids Stout			0.10	1072.9	1021	6.75	71.19%	1 + 14.5
1955	Watney	Reids Stout			0.05	1072.1	1018	7.06	75.03%	325
1955	Guinness	Export Stout		half pint	0.04	1071.4	1013.3	7.61	81.37%	175
1950	Unknown	Imperial Stout			0.16	1066.8	1017	6.49	74.55%	1 + 19
1955	Murray W	Export Stout	1/3d	nip	0.05	1064.6	1015.8	6.36	75.54%	350
1953	Castletown	Manx Maid Stout	1/3d	nip	0.06	1064.1	1022.3	5.41	65.21%	1 + 18
1950	Tennent	Milk Stout (Export)		half pint	0.16	1063.2	1020	5.60	68.35%	1 + 17
1955	Castletown	Manx Oyster Stout			0.05	1063	1013	6.53	79.37%	250
1955	Hope & Anchor	Royal Jubilee Stout		half pint	0.06	1059.5	1019.9	5.13	66.55%	325
1953	Brickwoods	Black Bricky	1/-	nip	0.06	1054.8	1015.5	5.10	71.72%	1 + 11
1953	Young & Co	No. 1 Stout	11d	nip	0.07	1052.1	1016.3	4.64	68.71%	1 + 69
1956	Hammonds	Senior Sovereign Sweet Stout	1/3.5d	half pint	0.06	1050.4	1016.2	4.43	67.86%	300
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001.

Let’s move on to the second set. More than half of the examples are only just below my arbitrary ceiling for this group. One, Bass Imperial Stout, also appears in the other table. Of the five examples with attenuation below 60%, it’s significant that two are Scottish. Scottish Stout genuinely seems to have gone mostly sweet quite early. From what I’ve seen in brewing records the trend started in the 19th century.

Archangel Stout must have been an interesting drink. With an FG of over 1040º - that’s higher than the OG of many Stouts – it must have been quite treacly. Which is just how an Arctic Ale is supposed to be.

Would you be allowed to call a beer Export Vitamin Stout today? I doubt it. They probably wouldn’t even let Nourishing or Invalid Stout pass, the miserable bastards.

Notice how few beers there are in this group. You could argue there are only really five. Which is all there would be left if I shifted the boundary from 65% to 63% attenuation.

Bottled Stout in the 1950's - Strong Stouts <65% attenuation
Year	Brewer	Beer	Price	size	Acidity	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	colour
1953	Simonds	Archangel Stout	16.5d	nip	0.05	1084.6	1041.2	5.57	51.30%	1 + 10
1956	Bass	Imperial Stout	18d	nip	0.06	1077.5	1027.9	6.43	64.00%	350
1950	Calder Alloa	Milk Stout			0.07	1069.3	1029.7	5.10	57.14%	1 + 14 B
1958	Hope Brewery	Export Vitamin Stout	15d	nip	0.06	1066.2	1024.2	5.25	63.44%	300
1956	Steward & Patteson	Stout	1/3d	nip	0.05	1064.6	1027.4	4.79	57.59%	350
1953	Steward & Patteson	Double Stout	1/2d	nip	0.08	1063.8	1031.4	4.16	50.78%	1 + 31.5
1955	Truman	Stout			0.06	1062	1022	5.18	64.52%	225
1957	Tennent	???? Brand Stout		half pint	0.06	1059.4	1020.8	4.99	64.98%	300
1953	Bellhaven	Heavy Stout	1/3d	nip	0.05	1059	1029.6	3.77	49.83%	1 + 16
1956	Whitbread	EMS		half pint	0.06	1056.7	1020.3	4.71	64.20%	325
1956	Atkinsons	Double Punch Stout	1/3.5d	half pint	0.05	1051.8	1018.9	4.25	63.51%	500
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001.

We’ll be looking at some weaker Stouts next time.

Watney, Combe Reid (part three)

Still not quite done with Watney.

It’s interesting to see just how the brewery saw themselves. I don’t think “progressive” is an adjective anyone would have used to describe Watney in the 1970’s.

“In many Other respects "Watney's" conforms to the pattern of the most progressive undertakings. Its ramifications are so wide as to surprise even those who know the industry well. Few brewers may know, for instance, that at the firm's Bungay Maltings willows are specially cultivated for sale to manufacturers  of cricket bats! It has kept abreast of the modern methods of scientific investigation; there  is close co-operation between brewing room and laboratory (the brewery claims to be the first in London to have a chemist on the staff). The firm's publicity is marked by freshness and vivacity even in an industry whose advertising is second to none in brilliance and originality. Welfare work takes many forms: there is a Ladies' Visiting Committee dealing with family welfare, a convalescent home, a rest home, a housing estate, to mention only a few. The firm has had its own sports ground at Mortlake for 30 years past.”
"Brewing Trade Review, 1950", page 43.

Watney were eager embracers of advertising. During the 1940’s and 1950’s, they had the slogan “What we want is Watneys” and used the Watney’s wall on posters. Slogans were scrawled over a red brick background like graffiti. And who could forget their Red Revolution campaign for Watney’s Red? It was so ubiquitous it was difficult to ignore.

Am I reading that right? Does it say that Watney had their own convalescent home, rest home nd housing estate? Wonder what happened to those?

Most would have disagreed with this in the 1970’s:

“But it would be difficult to find outside the industry, together with this high degree of organisation and efficiency, the same thriving family spirit. For all that it has expanded and developed so rapidly in the past 50 years it has never become a mere giant machine. It is a "family business" still, imbued throughout with a strong sense of personal responsibility, and preserving what was best in the old firms while absorbing all that is best in the new.”
"Brewing Trade Review, 1950", page 43.

Watney was definitely considered a “giant machine” in my young days. But I suppose the family links had been cut by then.

Here’s more stuff about the family nature of the business:

“In welcoming the guests, Major A. C. Bonsor, the chairman, said he would like particularly to emphasise the family side of the business, because many of the present directors of the firm were members of the old original families. Moreover, many of their staff and employees had long family association with the House of Watney. That, too, was in keeping with tradition, because they would rather engage the sons of the older people they had known than introduce new people into their business. He could give instances of people working for the House of Watney to-day who represented the fifth or sixth generation, some of whom, indeed, had been for 50 or more years in their service. That was a fact of which they were extremely proud.”
"Brewing Trade Review, 1950", page 44.

I believe it was relatively common amongst long-established breweries to recruit from the offspring of existing employees. Isn’t that a form of nepotism?

But Watney wasn’t just about brewing. There was a whole raft of supporting trades:

“That was all the more noteworthy when he mentioned that a business such as theirs had many other connections. Their job was not simply the brewing of beer. They had subsidiary breweries, bottling stores and maltings, apart from vast motor works, laboratories and all sorts of other avenues giving employment to a large number of technical people. Apart, too, from possessing many freeholds in the London area, they employed lawyers, architects and scientific chemists  — the chemist who examined everything used in the process of brewing to ensure that all the commodities used in the brewing were of the highest standard of quality. So far as the architects were concerned they tried to bring all their houses up to date according to the most modern standards.”
"Brewing Trade Review, 1950", page 44.

For my recollection of Watney’s pubs, the architects had tried to strip out any character or original features. They were generally pretty grim, unless you found one they hadn’t got around to ruining yet. Not all the big brewers were as bad. Tetley were pretty good at retaining Victorian and Edwardian interiors.

This last bit would have caused a good laugh in CAMRA circles in the 1970’s:

“The speaker went on to express the conviction that in most of the company's houses, the public could get not only good drink, but good food, coupled with a general feeling of cheeriness which should be the hallmark of every good public house.”
"Brewing Trade Review, 1950", pages 44 - 45.

You wouldn’t have found any of those in the Watney pubs I recall. Crap beer, crap food, rubbish atmosphere.

Here are the crap beers you might have been drinking at the end of the decade:

Watney's bottled beers at the end of the 1950's
Year	Beer	Style	Price per pint d	Acidity	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	colour
1959	Best Pale Ale	Pale Ale	32	0.05	1048.3	1013.9	4.46	71.22%	17
1959	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	20	0.04	1033.2	1010.1	2.99	69.58%	23
1959	Dairy Maid Stout	Stout	24		1033.3	1012.6	2.67	62.16%	250
1957	Dairymaid Sweet Stout	Stout	24	0.06	1033.1	1012.7	2.63	61.63%	250
1957	Special Stout	Stout	26	0.05	1042.3	1009.4	4.28	77.78%	200
1957	Reids Special Stout	Stout	36	0.06	1045.2	1011.8	4.33	73.89%	225
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/002.

Two bob a pint for Dairymaid Stout? A beer that could be up to 25% returned beer and other junk? That’s just 2d less a pint than the much stronger Special Stout. They must have earned hand over fist with that beer.

Watney's draught beers at the end of the 1950's
Year	Beer	Style	Price per pint d	Acidity	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	colour
1957	Mild Ale	Mild	15	0.05	1032	1007.6	3.16	76.25%	100
1957	Best PA	Pale Ale	21	0.06	1044	1014.2	3.86	67.73%	20
1957	Keg Bitter	Pale Ale	24	0.06	1039.4	1007.6	4.14	80.71%	23
1957	PA	Pale Ale	17	0.06	1036.8	1006.9	3.89	81.25%	26
1959	Red Barrel	Pale Ale	22	0.04	1038.5	1010	3.70	74.03%	24
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/002.

Lots of lovely Red Barrel. The beer called Keg Bitter looks like it’s Red Barrel. Great how it costs 3d more a pint than the stronger Best PA. What is it I always say? Keg beer – crap value yesterday, crap value today

That’s Watney done. Where to go next?