London bottled beers in the late 1930s

Now we’ve finished with the draught beers, let’s have a look at the bottled ones.

Before we start, you may notice that there are no Strong Ales in the table. Not because they didn’t exist, but because Whitbread and Truman didn’t analyse them. Or just the odd example. Too few, in any case, to be meaningful.

Another note, bottled beers were 1d per pint more expensive than the equivalent draught beer. At least, when sold in pint bottles. A 7d draught beer cost 8d per pint bottle, 15d per quart bottle and 4.5d per half-pint bottle.

Starting at the top, there are three classes of Brown Ale, around half the breweries made a 7d version and half an 8d version. Note that Mann Crossman, the originator of the style, made a beer in the 8d class. Watney had both 7d and 8d beers.

The only beer in the 9d class was Whitbread Double Brown. They also had Forest Brown, a beer in the 7d class. Eventually, after WW II, that would become the only Brown Ale Whitbread brewed.

Pale Ales come in four price classes, 6d, 7d, 8d and 9d. Though the overwhelming majority are 7d beers. With only two 6d beers, and one each of 8d and 9d ones. I’m not sure what this tells us. Though many would be selling a 10d bottled Pale Ale that they didn’t brew themselves. We’ll come to that later.

Interesting that the most popular category of both draught and bottled Pale Ales was the 7d one. Though a bottled 7d Pale Ale was the same strength as a 6d draught one.

The Stouts come in the largest number of price categories, five in total. Though only Whitbread’s Pioneer Stout was in the 6d category. By far the most common was 8d Stout, produced by everyone but Wenlock. 

Half the brewers made both a 7d and an 8d Stout. Which is a testament to the popularity of bottled Stout. While Barclay Perkins had Stouts in three different price categories. And Whitbread in four. Though not the same ones. 

Whitbread’s Stout in the 9d class was Mackeson Milk Stout. Which obviously sold at a premium as, despite having a gravity in the mid-1050ºs, a pint bottle cost 10d. As we’ll see later, pretty well everyone was selling a bottled Stout that cost 10d per pint. Just not one they brewed themselves.

The one beer in the most expensive class is Imperial Russian Stout.

What does all this tell us? That each brewery had a bottled Brown Ale, a Pale Ale, and a couple of Stouts in their range.

London bottled beers in the late 1930s

type

price per pint

OG

BP

Ch

C

F

M C

M

TW

T

Wa

We

Wh

Y

Brown Ale

7d

1036

X

X

X

X

X

X

Brown Ale

8d

1042

X

X

X

X

X

X

Brown Ale

9d

1054

X

PA

6d

1036

X

X

PA

7d

1042

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

PA

8d

1048

X

PA

9d

1054

X

Stout

6d

1036

X

Stout

7d

1042

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Stout

8d

1048

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Stout

9d

1054

X

X

X

Stout

>10d

>1070

X

Sources:

A Whitbread 1934 price list

Truman Gravity Book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number B/THB/C/252.

Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001.

Young's brewing record held at Battersea Library, document number YO/RE/1/8.

Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number ACC/2305/01/622.

 

Brewery key:
BP	Barclay Perkins
Ch	Charrington
C	Courage
F	Fullers
M C	Mann Crossman
M	Meux
TW	Taylor Walker
T	Truman
Wa	Watney
We	Wenlock
Wh	Whitbread
Y	Young

 

UK sales of packaged beer by strength and type

More lovely numbers today. Again about beer sales by type. But this time of packaged beer (bottled and canned) rather than draught.

I would have included some older numbers as well. Except in the older figures the types were defined differently. Which is a bit irritating.

Let's look at Bitter first. Which is now split into four classes. I assume that the first three remain the same:

Class I <= 1034º
Class II 1035º - 1039º
Class III >= 1040º

I'm guessing that class IV was >=1050º.

Just as with draught beer, since 1990 there's been a noticeable shift from Ordinary Bitter to Best Bitter. With the latter taking the lead in 2011. The strongest class Starts out with minimal sales in 1990, dropping to nothing in 2011. Not really sure what the pooint of the category is when there's nothing in it for half the years.

The Stout figures are fascinating. Kicking off with a very reasonable 7% in 1971. But falling to not much over 1% in the early 2000s, before rising again in the 2010s. There is a simple explanation for the collapse: Guinness.

That 7% figure will have been mostly bottled Guinness. Which was available in every pub. At a time when draught Guinness wasn't very common. The rise of draught Guinness will have really eaten into bottled Guinness sales. Hence the dramatic drop. That doesn't explain recovery in the 2020s, though.

In Lager there's also a shift from standard to premium strength. With the latter taking the lead in 2000. Ending in 2024 with sales almost treble those of Cooking Lager. While the super-strong Lagers of class IV show a steady decline from not very much to fuck all.

In the last few years there's been growth on low- and non-alcoholic beer. And, in 2024, it caught up with bottled Stout. Considering how much it's been pushed and how many brands there are out there, its market share isn't that impressive.

I wonder where all the trendy craft IPAs and Pale Ales fit into these figures. I'm guessing that they're lumped in with Bitter.

UK sales of packaged beer by strength and type
Year	Bitter		Strong ale & barley wine	Stout	Lager			No/low alc beer	Total packaged
					standard	premium
1971	16.1		0.6	7.0	2.8			-	26.5
1980	9.7		0.5	3.2	5.4	2.3		-	21.2
	Bitter I + II	Bitter III	Bitter IV		Lager I + II	Lager III	Lager IV
1990	5.5	2.4	0.2	1.7	9.9	7.9		0.8	28.4
2000	3.9	2.2	0.1	1.4	13.3	15.3	1.4	0.2	37.7
2001	3.7	2.3	0.1	1.4	13.8	16.7	1.3	0.2	39.4
2002	3.4	2.3	0.1	1.3	14.3	18.6	1.3	0.2	41.4
2003	3.3	2.3	0.1	1.4	14.9	19.5	1.3	0.2	42.9
2004	3.2	2.2	0.1	1.4	15.6	20.0	1.3	0.2	44.0
2005	3.1	2.3	0.1	1.3	16.6	20.1	1.2	0.2	44.8
2006	3.0	2.4	0.1	1.4	17.5	20.8	1.1	0.2	46.3
2007	3.2	2.4	0.1	1.4	18.8	20.5	1.0	0.2	47.6
2008	3.2	2.6	0.1	1.4	19.8	21.7	1.0	0.2	49.8
2009	3.2	2.8	0.1	1.5	19.6	21.9	0.7	0.2	50.1
2010	3.0	3.0	0.1	1.6	20.1	23.1	0.8	0.2	51.8
2011	2.9	3.1	0.0	1.5	19.5	24.0	0.8	0.3	52.2
2012	2.8	3.4	0.0	1.6	19.1	24.3	0.8	0.2	52.3
2013	2.9	3.7	0.0	1.6	20.1	24.4	0.8	0.2	53.6
2014	2.7	4.0	0.0	1.4	20.2	24.9	0.6	0.3	54.2
2015	2.6	4.5	0.0	1.7	19.2	26.0	0.5	0.3	55.0
2016	2.5	4.9	0.0	1.7	18.2	27.2	0.4	0.4	55.3
2017	2.3	4.9	0.0	1.7	18.1	28.8	0.4	0.5	56.6
2018	2.1	4.9	0.0	1.6	17.6	30.8	0.4	0.7	58.1
2019	1.9	4.7	0.0	1.5	16.5	33.1	0.4	0.9	58.9
2020	2.5	6.4	0.0	2.4	22.9	43.8	0.4	1.1	79.6
2021	2.2	5.9	0.0	2.3	19.2	41.0	0.4	1.3	72.3
2022	1.7	5.0	0.0	1.9	14.8	36.9	0.3	1.4	62.0
2023	1.5	4.8	0.0	2.1	14.0	37.3	0.3	1.6	61.5
2024	1.6	4.5	0.0	2.1	13.1	37.6	0.3	2.1	61.4
Source:
The Brewers' Society Statistical Handbook 2025, page 16.

 

Brewing in Argentina (part five)

It's time to finally say farewell to Argentina with the final post in this series. Which has spanned the time I was actually in Argentina, having a really good cough.

This time we're looking at how beer was packaged. At the time, there were only two options: bottles and casks. And both were employed.

The Argentine beer is put up in bottles and barrels, the retailers in the larger towns being supplied mainly in barrels. Shipments in quantities to the interior are occasionally made in barrels also, the beer being, kept cool by means of ice. The more general way of shipping the beer to a distance, however, is in closed cases containing four dozen bottles. 
The Brewers' Journal vol. 35 1899, January 15th 1899, pages 46 - 47.

Large settlements got casks and the countryside got casks. Pretty obvious, that. I wonder how draught beer was served. Was it with CO2 or air pressure? And how on earth could I find out?

A personal observation here. I noticed that in non-specialist beer places, while they served draught beer, quite a lot of people were drinking bottles. That's usually a sign of customers not trusting draught beer and resorting to bottles as a safer option.

Empty barrels and staves for barrel making are admitted free of duty. The value of the casks, barrels, and staves imported into the Argentine during 1895 was £43,598, these goods to the value of £17,035 being imported from the United States and to the value of £8,510 from Belgium. Germany sent them in to the value of £5,164. 
The Brewers' Journal vol. 35 1899, January 15th 1899, pages 46 - 47.

It sounds like a lot of the casks were imported or made from imported wood. Much of it from the USA. Presumably, American oak, then. But, if they were going for the continental practice of lining casks, taint from the wood wouldn't have been a problem. I'm a bit surprised by Belgium as a source. I can't recall there being forests of oak there.

The importation of glass bottles of all kinds fell off from a valuation of £70,078 in 1896 to £60,334 in 1897. Most of these goods were obtained from Germany, whose share of the trade amounted to £42,503, Belgium ranking next with £9,000. The amount purchased from the United States amounted to £2,026. The duty on glass bottles is 25 per cent, ad valorem. The machinery used in the breweries is nearly all of French manufacture. A little of it is from Germany. Machinery generally pays a duty of 10 per cent. ad valorem when it exceeds a value of £20.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 35 1899, January 15th 1899, pages 46 - 47.

Interesting that there was no import duty on casks, but there was on bottles. The sources were the same as for most brewing-related items: the USA, Germany and Belgium. Which makes it all the weirder that the machinery mostly came from France. 

Gallon Jars (with tap)

Now all that travel stuff is out of the way, I can get back to the roots of this blog. Regurgitating tidbits of my research. Rather that previewing bits of a new book based on that research. There's a big difference.

I'm currently trying to research Brown Ale.Which is a slippery eel of a beer style. Despite its relatively recent origins, I know frustratingly little about Brown Ale before WW I. Other than that it existed and wasn't very common.

All of which is totally irrelevant to the rest of this post. Which is about take-home formats. What are the options nowadays? Bottle, can, minikeg, polypin, growler.

It was pretty much the same in 1900. You buy bottled beer. Or send your kids with a jug to fetch draught beer from a pub (growler equivalent). Splash out on a cask (polypin). But what was the minikeg equivalent?  A gallon jar (with tap).

In 1901, this grocer's in Newmarket was selling beer for the home market in three formats:screwtop pint bottles, gallon jars with taps and casks up to 36 gallons.

An advert for G. F. Layng's in Newmarket Journal of Saturday 28 September 1901, page 1.

 The advert suggests "Try a Gallon Jar and test the Quality." Which, given it was the same price per gallon as in the larger casks, seems like a bargain.

The puzzle now is: what exactly was the beer inside the jar? Was is sparkling like bottled beer? Or was it cask beer run off bright? I suppose I'll never know.

 

Brown Ale in 1972

A slight change of pace as we look at a bottled beer, rather than the draught beers discussed before.

It's a shame that most of the Mirror articles only covered draught beers. It did make sense, as, at the time, the vast majority of beer was drunk in draught form: around 80%. But it means that I have little information on the bottled beers of the 1970s. As the Good Beer Guide only listed the OG of draught beers. Other than the handful of beers which were still being bottle conditioned.

We're starting with Brown Ale. A style which had been very popular between the wars and in the 1950s, but which had started to fall out of favour by the 1970s. It's not a type of beer I ever considered drinking. Mostly on cost grounds. Now I realise that most of the examples were also barely alcoholic.

The cheaper examples come out at 12p or 14p per pint. More expensive than Mild, which was around 11p. But also weaker. Only five of the Brown Ales are over 3% ABV. And two of those are the very atypical Newcastle Brown and Double Maxim.

Worst value, now here's a surprise, were the London-brewed beers. Which averaged a pathetic 2.7% ABV. Mostly as a result of poor attenuation. In that respect they parallel London Mild Ales. Just even weaker.

The beers from the North and the Midlands generally show a greater degree of attenuation. And average almost 3.5% ABV. Take out the two strong ones, and it comes to ever so slightly above 3% ABV. Still not great, but at least intoxicating. Interesting that those two strong ones were some of the best value, with Double Maxim far out in front.

The Southern beers were even more poorly attenuated than those from London. and averaged a pathetic 2.53% ABV. I wonder if drinkers were aware of just how watery Brown Ale was. I can only imagine that such a revelation would have reduced demand even more.

What next? Maybe Light Ale. A type of beer which is almost totally extinct. 

Brown Ale in 1972
Brewer	Beer	Price per half pint (p)	º gravity per p	% ABV per p	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation
London
Truman	Trubrown	8.5	3.76	0.29	1032	1012.6	2.50	60.62%
Charrington	Toby Brown Ale	8	3.89	0.31	1031.1	1011.7	2.50	62.38%
Young	Brown Ale	8	3.96	0.37	1031.7	1008.6	3.00	73.03%
Mann	Brown Ale	8	4.15	0.31	1033.2	1013.8	2.50	58.43%
Whitbread	Forest Brown Ale	7	4.61	0.40	1032.3	1010.65	2.80	67.03%
Courage	Brown Ale	7	4.81	0.41	1033.7	1011.3	2.90	66.47%
Average		7.8	4.20	0.35	1032.3	1011.4	2.70	64.66%
Midlands and North
Wolverhampton & Dudley	Banks Brown Ale	8	4.16	0.38	1033.3	1010.1	3.00	69.67%
Theakston	Brown Ale	9	3.47	0.32	1031.2	1008.8	2.90	71.79%
Scottish & Newcastle	Newcastle Brown Ale	9.75	4.71	0.46	1045.9	1011.3	4.50	75.49%
Vaux	Double Maxim	8.5	5.16	0.49	1043.9	1011.5	4.20	73.80%
Jennings	Castle Brown Ale	9	3.73	0.38	1033.6	1007.4	3.40	77.98%
Greenall Whitley	Bullseye	8	4.20	0.35	1033.6	1011.9	2.80	64.58%
Average		8.7	4.24	0.40	1036.9	1010.2	3.47	72.22%
South
Greene King	Harvest Brown Ale	7.5	4.36	0.37	1032.7	1011.1	2.80	66.21%
Ind Coope	Brown Ale	7	4.57	0.34	1032	1013.4	2.40	58.13%
Cook	Nutbrown Ale	7	4.70	0.34	1032.9	1014.3	2.40	56.53%
Adnams	Brown Ale	6	4.97	0.42	1029.8	1010.5	2.50	64.93%
Devenish	Bosun Brown Ale	8.75	3.68	0.31	1032.2	1011.3	2.70	64.91%
Hall & Woodhouse	John Brown	8	4.25	0.30	1034	1015.4	2.40	54.71%
Average		7.4	4.42	0.35	1032.3	1012.7	2.53	60.90%
Source:
Daily Mirror - Tuesday 11 July 1972, page 9

Bottling 1880 - 1914 (part 5)

You'll be pleased to learn that this is the last part of my series on bottling. It's been fun, right? Well, maybe for me. And that's all that counts, really.

Prolonged chilling and filtering
By holding beer at a temperature of 26º to 28º F for one to three weeks, more material was precipitated out than by the quick method. Resulting in a beer which would remain free from sediment for several weeks after bottling. The downside was that the process made beers taste thinner and weaker than a cask version.

Prior to chilling, the beer was dry hopped and allowed to condition in the cask. In contrast to beer for bottle-conditioning, a high level of CO2 was desirable. Some brewers used Kräusen to condition in the cask, but most preferred priming sugar.

Some brewers added additional CO2 before filtering, while others pressurised casks with CO2 while they were in the cold store.

Pasteurisation
Despite the limited shelf-life of non-naturally conditioned beer, brewers in the UK almost never pasteurised their beer. The only exception being Lager.

UK brewers associated the practice with Lager beer and didn’t find it appropriate for native types of beer. Why was Lager almost always pasteurised? Because it was susceptible to heat when unpasteurised. At least that’s what British brewers thought.

It was recognised that the shelf-life of beer was improved by pasteurisation, but this was outweighed by its disadvantages. The greatest being the “bready” flavour it gave to beer. Which wasn’t popular with everyone:

“Its general tendency is towards a loss of delicacy, and it is strongly objected to by some beer drinkers.” 

Pasteurisation also required extra equipment, so a capital cost. If you were already producing beer which kept long enough for your local market, why spend money for little practical gain? 

Bottling 1880 - 1914 (part 4)

I hope you're not getting bored with all this stuff about bottling. As I'm still not finished yet.

Forced bottling
This was effectively a streamlined version of natural conditioning. The main aim being to speed up the process and hence leave less capital tied up in conditioning bottles.

A quicker conditioning in the cask was encouraged and the beer fined before flattening prior to bottling. The store where the bottles were conditioned was at 60º and 70º F to speed up the process.

Beer produced by this method was satisfactory as long it was consumed quickly. When stored for too long it was likely to develop a thick sediment and become unappealingly cloudy.

Simple carbonation
In this method, beer was carbonated by injecting CO2 prior to bottling. Most brewers purchased cylinders of gas for this purpose, though some preferred to make it themselves. No-one seems to have collected the CO2 naturally produced during primary fermentation.

The big drawback of bottled beer produced this way was that it started to throw a sediment after just a few days. The shelf-life could be improved by filtering before bottling, but it remained limited.  Unless you could guarantee that the beer could be sold and consumed quickly, this wasn’t a suitable way of bottling. It did have the advantages of speed and reducing inventory of conditioning beer.

Quick chilling and filtering
Originally developed in the USA, this method entailed chilling beer quickly to around freezing point (26º - 36º F), which caused a haze to be precipitated. Carbonation and filtration followed, after which the beer was bottled.

Though quick, this method had the disadvantages of producing beers with a short shelf life and sometimes giving them an unpleasant flavour. Generally, the slow chilling method which follows was considered to be superior.