Final results by brewery (part three)

Whoohoo! (I should really have a band playing triumphal music.) It's finally here. The end of one of my longest series.

And, appropriately, this time some of my favourite breweries are featured. Objects of my obsession: Truman, Whitbread and new favourite Watney.

Beginning with Truman.

Brewery	style	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	score	rank	% bright
Truman	Burton	1013.4	1058.73	5.90	77.11%	0.77	5	54.55%
Truman	MA	1029.0	1007.5	2.79	74.31%	-0.63	2	50.00%
Truman	Pale Ale	1008.0	1047.5	5.14	83.09%	1.62	3	84.62%
Truman	Porter	1010.5	1037.0	3.43	71.62%	0.67	3
Truman	Stout	1017.6	1053.5	4.66	67.20%	1.00	5
Truman	X	1041.2	1011.8	3.82	71.44%	0.5	5	78.57%
average						0.65	3.8	66.93%

You'll not that the top score, Pale Ale, wasn't brewed at their home base of Brick Lane, but in Burton. It's a rare example of a combination of good score and good clarity. Mmm . . . isn't Burton water supposed to aid brightness? That could explain why this beer did so well. Though their Mild wasn't far behind, with almost 80% clear. Only MA, a watery type of Mild, lets them down with a negative score.

Now Watney, who have been the star performers.

Brewery	style	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	score	rank	% bright
Watney	Burton	1013.4	1058.73	5.90	77.11%	0.77	9	69.23%
Watney	Pale Ale	1011.4	1053.8	5.54	78.90%	2.21	2	64.29%
Watney	Porter	1010.0	1035.0	3.24	71.28%	1.44	1
Watney	Stout	1013.4	1054.9	5.40	75.55%	1.13	3
Watney	X	1043.6	1008.8	4.50	79.65%	1.25	2	94.12%
average						1.36	3.4	75.88%

As those results prove. Consistently good scores across all styles. And three quarters bright. Any score over 1 is pretty damn good, and Watney managed that with everything except Burton. 2.21 for its Pale Ale is outstanding. And to think that's probably the forerunner of Red Barrel. Getting their Mild near perfect for clarity is also impressive. Yup, I'd be positively seeking out Watney's pubs in the 1920's.

Wenlock has been a surprise.

Brewery	style	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	score	rank	% bright
Wenlock	Burton	1011.2	1052.46	5.38	78.69%	1.00	7	44.44%
Wenlock	Pale Ale	1006.9	1044.5	4.90	84.56%	0.09	9	63.64%
Wenlock	Porter	1011.3	1034.3	2.97	66.94%	-0.33	7
Wenlock	Stout	1016.1	1045.7	3.83	64.56%	1.36	2
Wenlock	X	1034.6	1007.2	3.57	79.21%	1.17	3	66.67%
average						0.66	5.6	58.25%

I hadn't expected them to do so well. All pretty good except for the Porter and Pale Ale, with the other three all scoring more than 1. Not quite so good with clarity, especially their Burton Ale. Some breweries - Wenlock, Watney and Mann - produced very decent Milds.

And finally . . . the people responsible for all this information . . . .

Brewery	style	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	score	rank	% bright
Whitbread	Burton	1010.6	1053.2	5.56	80.26%	1.33	1	33.33%
Whitbread	MA	1028.7	1005.1	3.06	82.04%	0.67	3	0.00%
Whitbread	Pale Ale	1011.3	1046.0	4.51	75.55%	2.25	1	75.00%
Whitbread	Porter	1011.9	1034.7	2.95	65.87%	1.33	2
Whitbread	Stout	1014.8	1055.3	5.27	73.32%	2.00	1
Whitbread	X	1041.2	1007.6	4.38	81.62%	-0.2	11	60.00%
average						1.23	3.6	45.00%

Impressive, again. Though the sample sizes were much smaller than for the other breweries for some reason. That side, their Pale Ale got the highest average of any beer. And two other beers, Burton and Stout, came top in their class. The only disappointment is their X Ale. Bizarrely, their weaker Mild, MA, scored better. Pale Ale does quite well for clarity, with three quarters bright. Not so great with the others, especially Burton.

So there we are. Done, done and done. Except for the appendices.

Final league table of breweries

We're very nearly done. I'm starting to get a bit impatient myself for it all to be over.

Everything but the final pieces of text are in place. The covers are designed - I'll be announcing the winner of the front cover typography contest soon - I even have the isbn number. It seems like forever since I last issued a book. That reminds me that I have two unfinished volumes: Newark! and Malt!. I must get around to finishing them.

Don't worry - there are still plenty of tables to come. They're one thing I never tire of. That could explain why I've come up with not one but two league tables. One is based on the overall average score, the other on the position in the individual style tables. The results aren't identical. Where to start? Let's go with position.

Ranking of breweries by position
Brewery	Burton	Mild	PA	Porter	Stout	Average
Whitbread	1	4	1	2	1	1.8
Watney	8	2	2	1	4	3.4
Mann	3	1	10	6	6	5.2
Truman	9	6	3	3	5	5.2
Wenlock	6	3	9	7	3	5.6
Courage	2	8	4	5	12	6.2
Huggins	11	10	6		2	7.25
Meux	4	11	7		8	7.5
Lion	7	7	12	4		7.5
Hoare	10	9	11	9	7	9.2
Cannon	14	5	14	11	9	10.6
Barclay Perkins	13	15	8	8	10	10.8
City of London	12	17	5	10		11
Charrington	5	16	15		11	11.75
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

In this Whitbread are clear winners. Unsurprising when they were never lower than fourth and had three top positions. But caution is required because the sample sizes were so small. And it was Whitbread doing the sampling. Where did they get their samples? If it was the brewery tap, then the contest is clearly unfair.

Mann, Truman and Wenlock all did pretty well, while Courage were let down by a poor Stout. Not sure if this means anything, but the top four breweries were all still around in the 1970's. And all but Whitbread were in the Watney group. It's odd how rubbish Charrington's beers were. The brewery was large and doing well between the wars. Were its beers really always that poor? Cannon, Barclay Perkins and City of London.  weren't much better. Was it the fault of poor cellarmanship or did beers leave the brewery in poor condition?

We'll move on now to the league table based on average score.

League table of breweries by score
Brewery	average score
Watney	1.36
Whitbread	1.23
Wenlock	0.66
Truman	0.65
Huggins	0.58
Mann	0.57
Lion	0.45
Courage	0.29
Meux	0.21
Hoare	-0.10
Charrington	-0.38
Barclay Perkins	-0.48
City of London	-0.54
Cannon	-0.57

You'll see that Watney tops this table with an impressive 1.36 average. Whitbread is not far behind on 1.23. Only two breweries achieved positive scores for every style: Watney and Huggins, though there was no Porter from the latter. Quite a way behind were Wenlock, Truman, Huggins Mann and Lion. Charrington isn't bottom this time, but is still one of the five breweries with a negative average score.

Barclay Perkins have the unfortunate distinction of having four out of five styles with negative score. I can only warn time-travellers to steer clear of their pubs. In fact I'd avoid all those with averages below zero.

I'm still not quite ready to let you off the hook. I'll be finishing with a look at each brewery's scores in more detail.

League table of London Stouts in the 1920's

Almost time for a final look back at the overall results. But first it's the final style league table.

As a stronger style - it was usually the strongest draught beer in a pub - you'd expect Stout to score reasonably well. At least better than its sibling Porter, for which only five of the eleven breweries could muster a positive average score.

London seems to have been out of step with the rest of Britain in terms of styles. By the 1920's draught Porter had pretty much disappeared elsewhere and draught Stout was following a similar path to extinction. But in London it was still going strong through WW II and into the 1960's. Why was that? Probably simply because they were styles with their origins in the capital.

The vast majority of the Stouts analysed were of the 9d (8d after 1923) per pint type. The price implied a gravity in the low 1050's, which is where most of these beers are. Wenlock and Courage were the odd men out with a weaker 8d (7d after 1923) per pint Stout. They fared quite differently, though.  Wenlock's was one of the weakest, but scored surprisingly well. While Courage's was crap.

In the Mann and Meux samples, a few of the cheaper Stouts seem to be mixed in, but which were sold for the higher price. I would have been easy enough for a dodgy landlord to pass off a weaker Stout as a more expensive one, if the punters weren't paying too much attention. Some Charrington landlords went one better, passing off Porter as Stout, an old WW I trick. Gravities under 1040º are a dead giveaway.

I think it's time to look at that league table:

League table of 1920s London Stouts by score
Brewery	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	score
Whitbread	1014.8	1055.3	5.27	73.32%	2.00
Wenlock	1016.1	1045.7	3.83	64.56%	1.36
Watney	1013.4	1054.9	5.40	75.55%	1.13
Huggins	1018.5	1062.1	5.67	70.27%	1.09
Truman	1017.6	1053.5	4.66	67.20%	1.00
Mann	1012.0	1054.5	5.54	78.05%	0.43
Meux	1014.7	1054.9	5.23	73.29%	0.18
Hoare	1017.9	1054.2	4.70	67.06%	0.10
Cannon	1014.9	1049.5	4.49	70.05%	0
Charrington 9d only	1013.3	1052.5	5.10	74.70%	-1.00
Charrington	1012.9	1049.7	4.78	73.73%	-1.09
Barclay Perkins	1014.6	1055.4	5.31	73.72%	-1.21
Courage	1011.6	1046.3	4.51	74.98%	-1.67
all Stout	1014.8	1053.8	5.06	72.35%	0.29
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

There are a couple of points of interest there. And a least one depressing one.

Only two of the traditional Porter breweries manage a top five finish: Whitbread and Truman. Oddly, the top three all have names beginning with a "W". And the bottom five all begin with  a "B" or a "C". The table is almost in reverse alphabetical order. At least eight breweries managed an average positive score, with one averaging zero and three negative scores.

The top five all did pretty well. Any average over 1 is good. Whitbread came out especially well, but the sample size - three - was very small. Once again, Watney is in the top three. They really do seem to have been one of the top breweries for quality before the war. Where (and when) did it all go wrong?

Charrington, Barclay Perkins and Courage are all dreadful. It saddens me to see how crap Barclay Perkins beer was. No wonder their sales fell off so much in the 1920's. As this table shows:

Barclay Perkins output 1920 - 1929
year	barrels
1920	464,033
1921	393,045
1922	348,576
1923	293,728
1924	303,676
1925	329,464
1926	317,628
1927	306,682
1928	306,300
1929	300,569
Source:
Document ACC/2305/1/711/1 in the London Metropolitan Archives

Time for one final league table. This time ranked by the percentage with good flavour:

League table of 1920s London Stouts by good flavour
Brewery	No. examples	no. good flavour	% good flavour	score
Whitbread	3	3	100.00%	2.00
Huggins	11	9	81.82%	1.09
Wenlock	11	9	81.82%	1.36
Watney	16	13	81.25%	1.13
Truman	4	3	75.00%	1.00
Mann	14	9	64.29%	0.43
Hoare	10	6	60.00%	0.10
Meux	11	6	54.55%	0.18
Cannon	2	1	50.00%	0.00
Barclay Perkins	14	3	21.43%	-1.21
Charrington	11	2	18.18%	-1.09
Courage	3	0	0.00%	-1.67
Total	110	64	58.18%
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

Not that different from the other league table.

Just a few steps left now in our journey. I'll be finishing with a roundup of all the styles and a final definitive league table. I can't wait.

Wenlock Stout quality 1922 - 1925

I have to admit that this marathon swim through the Whitbread Gravity Book has been very instructive. Particularly with regard to the finances of brewing companies.

The Wenlock Brewery emerged from the difficult decade leading up to WW I in pretty good shape. Many breweries had to revalue their shares after 1910 when the value of their assets, principally pubs, fell after extra burdens were put on the trade in the 1909/1910 budget. They found themselves in the unenviable position of not having enough assets to cover their capital. A decline in pub values was kicked off by an earlier Licensing Act which made it easier for magistrates to refuse licence renewals.

That didn't stop the brewery chairman having a good moan. It's a common feature of Edwardian annual brewery meetings, the chairman complaining about government policy driving them towards ruin.

"WENLOCK BREWERY.
Sir John Bell, presiding at meeting in London of the Wenlock Brewery, spoke of the great difficulties the trade laboured under owing the very heavy rates, and he hoped this would be borne in mind when the new London County Council came to be elected next year. He also complained of the war tax being still kept on. The effect of the war tax, the tax on sugar, and the compensation claims was to take an account which would be sufficient to pay 4 per cent on the capital of the company. Referring to the deputation of the trade which waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chairman stated that the Prime Minister, who was present, said he would not lift his hand against clubs. He also said he would not interfere with teetotalers sitting on the Licensing Committees, but he would not allow the brewing interest to be represented. This he (the Chairman) considered most unjust. He did not think that Government would dare confiscate their property as had been threatened."
Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Friday 07 December 1906, page 9.

If you're wondering why the hostility to clubs, brewers saw them as unfair competition for their own tied houses. He does have a point about temperance campaigners being allowed to be part of Licensing Committees but no-one connected with the brewing trade.

He was still moaning two years later. Though he did let slip one really handy piece of information:

"WENLOCK BREWERY COMPANY.
Presiding at the annual meeting the Wenlock Brewery Company in London yesterday. Sir John Bell complained of the 1s. a barrel war tax, which made a difference them during the past year of £4,337. Malt had been exceedingly high in price, while rates and taxes were a very heavy item.  The brewers, he said, would always lend their support furthering real temperance, but the Licensing Bill was mere confiscation. He advocated dealing drastically with grooers and clubs. The most gratifying feature of the year was the increase in the barrelage, and the improvement had continued since the end of October. Malt was not likely to fall in price, but their hop position was favourable. The report was adopted."
Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Wednesday 16 December 1908, page 12.

Did you spot it? He let slip the barrelage of the brewery. An extra shilling a barrel tax had cost them £4,337. Just multiply that by 20 and you have how many barrels they brewed in 1908: 86,740. Which puts Wenlock somewhere in the Second Division of London brewers, quite a way behind First Division outfits like Barclay Perkins, Whitbread, Truman and Watney. This is how much they brewed that year:

Largest London breweries in 1908
Brewery	barrels
Barclay Perkins	527,716
Whitbread	808,237
Truman	355,110
Mann	625,130
Watney	906,026
Sources:
The British Brewing Industry, 1830-1980 T. R. Gourvish & R.G. Wilson, pages 610-611
Reid archive

Let's take a look at Wenlock Brewery's financial results from 1899 to 1939:

Wenlock Brewery profits and dividends 1899 - 1939
Year	net profit	brought in	carried forward	dividend Ordinary shares	to reserve	reserve fund	write down properties and loan account
1899			£6,089	10%	15,000
1900	£51,857	£6,089	£4,357	10%	£20,000	£110,000
1901	£50,055	£4,356	£2,555	10%	£20,000	£130,000
1902	£46,851			10%			£15,000
1903			£4,416	10%
1904	£36,673	£4,416	£4,173	10%		£130,000
1905			£2,101
1906	£32,515	£2,101	£2,015	10%			£3,000
1907
1908			£970
1909	£23,993	£970	£2,494	5%			£4,000
1910
1911
1912
1913	£22,726	£2,696	£2,922	5%			£5,000
1914	£30,100	£2,921	£10,521	5%			£5,000
1915	£29,650	£10,521	£15,671	6%
1916	£29,489	£15,671	£11,660	8%
1917
1918	£45,358		£17,858	10%
1919
1920	£46,882	£16,569	£14,382	10%
1921				10%
1922				10%
1923	£62,365		£36,478	10%	£15,000
1924	£72,105	£36,478	£51,083	10%	£25,000
1925	£84,198	£51,083	£52,731	10%	£50,000
1926	£112,986	£52,731	£83,267	10%	£50,000
1927	£119,201	£73,267	£97,469	15%	£50,000
1928	£122,047	£97,469	£118,266	17.5%	£50,000
1929	£109,343	£118,266	£126,359	17.5%	£50,000	£475,000
1930	£109,649	£126,359	£134,758	17.5%	-£50,000
1931	£90,527	£134,758	£127,388	15%	£45,397
1932				12.5%
1933	£58,108	£118,649	£112,842	14%	£13,166
1934	£75,179	£122,841	£110,120	15%	£25,401
1935	£88,437	£110,120	£113,321	17.5%	£25,236
1936	£87,049			17.5%
1937				17.5%
1938	£76,105			16.25%
1939			£113,904	15%	£22,640
Sources:
Aberdeen Journal - Tuesday 08 December 1925, page 11.
Aberdeen Journal - Wednesday 07 December 1927, page 10.
Aberdeen Journal - Wednesday 10 December 1924, page 11.
Birmingham Daily Post - Thursday 07 December 1916, page 7.
Derby Daily Telegraph - Monday 09 December 1929, page 9.
Dundee Courier - Friday 18 July 1930, page 2.
Dundee Courier - Monday 09 December 1935, page 2.
Dundee Courier - Monday 11 December 1939, page 2.
Dundee Courier - Monday 19 November 1900, page 3.
Dundee Courier - Saturday 10 December 1938, page 2.
Dundee Courier - Saturday 27 November 1937, page 2.
Dundee Courier - Thursday 06 December 1928, page 2.
Dundee Courier - Thursday 06 December 1934, page 4.
Dundee Courier - Thursday 08 December 1932, page 2.
Dundee Courier - Thursday 23 November 1899, page 2.
Dundee Courier - Tuesday 08 December 1936, page 2.
Dundee Courier - Tuesday 19 November 1901, page 2.
Dundee Courier - Wednesday 10 December 1924, page 2.
Dundee Courier - Wednesday 26 November 1902, page 3.
Gloucester Citizen - Wednesday 22 December 1920, page 6.
Hull Daily Mail - Thursday 10 December 1931, page 8.
Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser - Thursday 16 December 1915, page 2.
Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser - Tuesday 08 December 1914, page 3.
Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser - Tuesday 09 December 1913, page 4.
Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser - Tuesday 14 December 1909, page 5.
Sheffield Daily Telegraph - Thursday 26 November 1903, page 11.
Western Daily Press - Thursday 10 December 1931, page 9.
Western Daily Press - Wednesday 08 December 1926, page 10.
Western Morning News - Monday 09 December 1935, page 9.
Western Morning News - Thursday 08 December 1921, page 6.
Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Friday 25 November 1904, page 10.
Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Monday 26 November 1906, page 18.
Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Thursday 11 December 1930, page 14.
Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Thursday 12 December 1918, page 9.
Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Tuesday 19 November 1901, page 10.

It's a shame that a few years are missing, but you can see the general trends. The profits fell up until 1913, after which they started to pick up. The dividend started to fall sometime after 1906, which is what you'd expect. It only started rising after the outbreak of the war. In 1916 things were going so well that they retrospectively issued a 2.5% dividend for each of the years 1914 and 1915.

After 1901 they weren't able to add to their reserve, instead starting to write down the properties and loans account. This could be the reason they didn't get into real trouble in 1911 - 1913. They'd started early, before the trade really started to be hit by government legislation. Added to this, at £250,000, their capital was relatively modest.

Which has got me thinking. I always saw WW I as being a disaster for the brewing trade. Whereas in reality it was the saviour of many brewers. After a decade or so of falling profits, brewers started to make decent profits again. Without it, many would surely have gone bankrupt.

By 1918, the dividend was back to the 10% level of before 1906. The 1920's, were very good for the Wenlock Brewery with net profit rising to over £100,000 and the dividend hitting 17.5% by the end of the decade. With large surpluses, they were able to stack away a considerable sum in reserve, with it reaching almost half a million by 1929.

Though profits were lower in the 1930's, Wenlock still managed to pay a dividend greater than 10% every year. Even Snowden's disastrous emergency budget of 1931 didn't reduce the dividend by much, 12.5% being the lowest paid. It's clear that while the 1930's were challenging times for brewers, they were nothing like as bad as the period 1904-1914.

Time to look at Wenlock's draught Stout. All but one example is of the weaker 8d (7d after 1923) type of Stout. Which makes it difficult to compare with most of the other breweries examples. It does have one very obvious feature: a low degree of attenuation. Were they leaving the FG deliberately high to give it more body? The low OG and high FG leave it with an average ABV of less than 4%. Not very Stout at all.

Let's see how the scores went:

Wenlock Stout quality 1922 - 1925
Year	Beer	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	Flavour	score	Price
1922	Stout	1018.2	1044.2	3.35	58.82%	fair	1	9
1922	Stout	1017.9	1044.9	3.48	60.13%	good	2	8
1922	Stout	1014.2	1055.2	5.33	74.28%	poor	-1	8
1922	Stout	1017	1046	3.75	63.04%	v good for price	3	8
1923	Stout	1015.6	1045.6	3.88	65.79%	compares well with the others at 9d	2	8
1923	Stout	1013.4	1041.4	3.62	67.63%	fair	1	8
1923	Stout	1015	1046	4.01	67.39%	good	2	7
1923	Stout	1018.2	1045.7	3.55	60.18%	good compared with others @ 9d pint	2	8
1923	Stout	1016.1	1043.6	3.55	63.07%	v fair	2	7
1923	Stout	1017.6	1045.1	3.55	60.98%	v good for the money	3	8
1925	Stout	1014	1045	4.01	68.89%	poor & thin	-2	7
Average		1016.1	1045.7	3.83	64.56%		1.36
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

Nine of the eleven examples get positive scores, which is pretty good. Ironically one of the two bad scores is for the stronger 9d type of Stout. Two 3's and 5 2's leave it with the very respectable average score of 1.36.

Stout-drinking time-travellers should head directly to a Wenlock pub. They just need to remember to order the cheaper Stout.