Cost price of Young's beers in 1939/1940

It seems that Youngs had more than eight beers in their range. In the last page of the brewing record there’s a table of cost prices (at least, that’s what I assume they are) of all their beers. And there are twelve of them.

Where did the other four come from? My guess is that they are the bottled beers. Tweaked versions of the draught beers. And hence not in the brewing books.

OS (Oatmeal Stout) and FS (probably Family Stout) must have been magicked up from the Porter and Stout. Probably by blending the two together in different proportions. That might explain the large quantity of Porter being brewed.

Bot. PA looks like it was just a bottled version of PAB. Though wasn’t that a bottling beer? Maybe there was a draught version of PAB, too. AA? I’ve no idea what that was. Some sort of Pale Ale? Or Brown Ale? Could it be X with 2º added in primings?

The price immediately jumps after September 1939, when war broke out. An emergency budget raised the tax on beer from 80/- per standard barrel (36 Imperial gallons with an OG of 1055º) to 104/-. Prompting quite a large increase in the cost price.

There was a further increase in the tax in April 1940 to 135/- per standard barrel. Resulting in another leap in the cost price in May 1940. One which would have been greater, had Youngs not reduced the gravity of all their beer by 1º that month. 

Cost price of Young's beers in 1939/1940

Beer

XXXX

XXX

X

A

PA

PAB

S

P

Bot. PA

AA

OS

FS

OG

1080

1057

1035

1029

1048

1039

1053

1035

1039

1037

1046

1037

July

-

97/1

49/8

35/3

79/2

57/6

94/4

53/-

57/6

51/4

72/5

52/-

August

-

97/11

49/11

35/2

79/5

57/3

92/7

55/-

57/3

51/5

74/5

53/-

September

151/3

98/1

52/1

37/7

81/5

59/8

92/9

54/4

59/8

52/7

73/4

53/-

October

-

116/4

73/3

59/1

103/-

78/11

119/-

80/1

78/11

73/7

98/11

75/-

November

178/1

119/2

73/7

59/6

103/3

79/4

120/11

74/5

79/4

73/7

94/5

71/6

December

178/4

123/1

75/-

59/4

103/1

79/7

120/9

78/6

79/7

73/9

96/9

74/2

January

181/6

124/-

73/8

60/10

102/-

80/10

121/9

81/3

80/10

72/-

98/8

77/-

February

175/2

121/8

74/-

59/6

104/-

81/7

120/3

80/8

81/7

73/4

97/11

78/-

March

184/4

122/4

76/1

59/8

105/2

80/5

123/6

81/10

83/2

72/11

102/4

79/4

-

-

96/5

78/8

126/5

103/1

158/9

-

103/1

91/9

136/4

105/1

April

174/7

125/1

78/4

62/-

106/-

80/8

128/5

83/2

83/5

74/-

106/4

83/4

May

-

146/10

96/-

77/4

125/11

102/11

156/9

104/3

102/11

91/3

130/-

101/6

June

-

151/10

93/4

81/-

128/5

102/8

156/-

106/8

102/8

92/3

131/-

105/6

Source:

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

 

 

Things I should have noticed (part 9,775,397)

I spend a lot of time staring at brewing records. Osmosis. That's how I extract most information.

Doesn't always work.

I bang on about the influence of taxation on beer. It's one of my things. That make me feel like I'm dead clever. Until I meet an actual expert. Time, then to walk off before I look like the idiot I am.

Harking back to the first sentence, how I came to understand brewing records is a bit of a mystery. To me. There was some backup from historical texts. Lots of staring in incomprehension, too. Then stuff making sense.

I won't claim to understand 100% of most records I have. Only the dead simple ones. Yet this really obvious observation had avoided me. Especially given my tax obsession.

This observation, in my defence, was complicated by the different ways of measuring beer gravity. Many breweries used the older method. Measuring gravity in pounds per barrel. While the new taxation system, introduced in 1880, used original gravity.

This new tax system was based on the gravity of the wort before fermentation. Measured in specific gravity, not pounds per barrel.

When I write my recipes, I always round the OG. Because they're almost never a round number. Despite brewers, especially those parti-gyling, being able to hit the same OG every time.

The Youngs beers in the 1990s almost all have gravities ending in .8º. Coincidence? I think not.

It's all about the taxation system. Which was based on the OG before fermentation. For tax purposes, they were rounding down. So Ordinary's 1036.8º was, for tax purposes, 1036º. It might seem trivial, but, with the high taxation of the UK, this could add up to a shitload of money.

I've seen the same thing at other breweries. How the hell did I not notice until now? 

Youngs beers in 1990
Beer	Style	OG
Exp	Pale Ale	1066.8
JYLL	Lager	1037.8
LA	Pale Ale	1030.8
ON	Barley Wine	1086.8
PA	Pale Ale	1036.8
PL	Pilsner	1047.8
Porter	Porter	1040.8
SPA	Pale Ale	1046.8
Winter Warmer	Strong Ale	1055.8
Source:
Young's brewing record held at Battersea Library, document number YO/RE/1/59.

 

Excise duty rates in the EU and UK

Some more numbers I've plucked from the BBPA Statistical Handbook 2025. This time comparing the tax rates amongst European countries.

I've sorted the table in ascending order of beer tax rates. It makes for interesting reading. No surprise that the UK and Ireland are at the top end. With only Finland having higher tax.

I already knew that beer tax was low in Germany. But not that low. Only in one country in the table is it lower: Bulgaria. And even then only marginally so. I'm gobsmacked that the tax is higher in Czechia. Who would have guessed that?

Here in the Netherlands, while the tax is a third of that in the UK, it's still quite high compared to most EU countries. And four times higher than in Germany. It's no wonder beer is so much cheaper in German supermarkets than here.

I was surprised at how many EU countries have zero tax on wine. Just over half - 14 of 27. Pretty much all of them being countries which produce large quantities of wine. With the one exception of Luxembourg. 

Excise duty rates in the EU and UK
Country	Beer pence per pint at 5% abv	Wine pence per 75cl bottle at 12% abv	Spirits £ per 70cl bottle at 40% abv	VAT
Bulgaria	4.4	0	1.3	20
Germany	4.5	0	3.1	19
Luxembourg	4.5	0	2.6	17
Spain	4.7	0	2.2	21
Romania	6.1	1.3	2.5	19
Czechia	7.2	0	3.6	21
Slovakia	8.5	0	3.5	23
Malta	10.9	12.9	3.2	18
Hungary	11.2	0	3.5	27
Austria	11.4	0	2.8	20
Belgium	11.4	47	7	21
Portugal	11.5	0	3.8	23
Croatia	12.6	0	1.9	25
Cyprus	14.3	0	2.2	19
Poland	14.5	32.5	4.4	23
Denmark	15.5	94.8	4.7	25
Italy	17.1	0	2.4	22
France	19.3	2.6	4.5	20
Netherlands	19.3	60.1	4.3	21
Latvia	23.3	84.2	4.6	21
Lithuania	26.1	159.5	6.5	21
Greece	28.5	0	5.7	24
Slovenia	30.8	0	3.3	22
Estonia	33.3	102.4	4.9	22
Sweden	47.9	164.2	10.9	25
UK (draught beer)	53.3	265.9	9.2	20
Ireland	53.6	266.8	10	23
UK (packaged beer)	61.9
Finland	86.1	286.4	13	25.5
Source:
BBPA Statistical Handbook 2025, page 58.

 

Systems of taxation

How beer is taxed can have a big impact on what gets made.

A couple of examples.

In the system introduced in the UK in 1880 (and in effect for moe than a century) tax was based on the OG of the wort before fermentation. This gave brewers a huge incentivbe to throw in all sorts of crap, including beer returned from pubs. As this stuff was tax-free. When half of the retail price of a pint was duty, 5% per barrel tax-free could add up to a lot of money.

The US flat-rate tax system has also distorted the market. However strong your beer, you pay the same tax. In ost countries, the tax is in some sort of proportion to the amount of alcohol in a beer. A flat-rate tax is an incentive to brew stronger beer. As the production costs of a 5% and a 9% beer aren't very different. But drinkers won't be happy paying the same price for the weaker beer.

In my chat with Chris Flaskamp, I discovered Chile has another way to tax beer. One not based on alcohol content. It's at 21:47.

 

For those who can't be arsed to look at the video, the Chilean system is simply based on the price. As craft beer is more expensive, its brewers pay more tax than the big boys. Not very faif.

Revenue from Alcoholic Beverages 1898-99

With my freshly-broken arm, I'm keeping thins simple. Not too much typing or computer work. Because, er, it fucking hurts.

Today, we've a quick look at how important taxation on alcohol was in various countries. It comes as absolutely no surprise that the UK was the most dependent on alcohol taxation. Which accounted for more than a third of tax revenue. That was a typical number for most of the 19th century.

In France and Germany, it was only around half of that. I wonder where they were getting all their tax from?

The only country in the table that comes anywhere close to the UK is the USA. Which makes Prohibition, which came along a couple of decades later, seem quite problematic. I'm sure any country would struggle with more than a quarter of tax revenue suddenly disappearing. That's one of the reasons banning alcohol was never really on the cards in the UK. Where would the tax have come from?

I was a bit surprised that France's total revenue was higher than the UK's. Was that simply down to a larger population? 

Revenue from Alcoholic Beverages 1898-99
Country	Year	Total Revenue	Alcohol Revenue	% from alcohol
United Kingdom	1898-9	£94,301,000	£34,400,000	36%
France	1898	£116,448,000	£22,051,000	19%
Germany	1897-8	£72,171,000	£12,884,000	18%
United States	1897-8	£102,986,000	£28,710,000	28%
Australian Colonies	1898	£29,142,000	£2,965,000	10.20%
Canada	1898	$40,555,000	$6,940,000	17.10%
Source:
The Brewers' Journal vol. 36 1900, February 15th 1900, page 205.

 

 

Whitbread Stout OG 1816 - 1880

Someone did request this. A long-term chart of Whitbread Stout gravity. So it's not my fault, OK. Though I had already constructed the chart before they asked. 

Let's crack on with the pretty chart, then.

The gravity kicks off pretty low. That's a result of the Napoleonic Wars and the high taxation required to pay for them. The gravity then rises in reaction to a reduction in the malt tax. Then falls again when the malt tax was increased in 1819.

In 1830 there's another rise. I assume prompted by the abolition of excise duty on beer.

The fall in 1854 is when  the malt tax was increased to pay for the Crimean War. I had wondered about why there was a fall in gravity in the early 1860s, as there was no increase in the malt tax then. But there was the introduction of a much higher charge for brewing licences, which was a shilling per quarter (336 lbs) of malt.

1880, of course, is when the malt tax was abolished, and the system of taxation based on OG was introduced.

Not quite sure what happened in 1846 and 1875. But, in general, all the troughs correspond to tax increases and the peaks to tax reductions.

War, tax and technology

Porter and Stout were transformed in these decades. And the catalysts for this change were taxation and technology. The former necessitating change and the latter enabling it.

For much of the time the UK was at war. Mostly with France, though they were happy fight anyone else who fancied a scrap. Wars cost money and one of the easiest sources of it was taxing alcohol.

There were hikes in the malt tax in 1780, 1791, 1802 and 1806. It took around two bushels of malt to brew a barrel of Porter, which after 1806 would have incurred a tax of 9s 11.5d. Or just a half penny short of the other tax of ten shillings a barrel of strong beer. Add in 3d or so for the hop tax and you have a total of a bit over twenty shillings. Not far short of half the wholesale price.

For Stouts, which required more bushels of malt, that would be providing more than 50% total tax. Making reduced the quantity of malt needed an obvious way to save money. Not just fewer materials to pay for, also less tax.

All this was happening just as the hydrometer was coming into use. Providing brewers with lots of information about the yield from different types of malt. They soon realised replacing some of the brown malt with pale would reduce the quantity of malt required to brew a beer.

Another technological development, the thermometer, gave brewers unprecedented control over the mashing process. Combined with the hydrometer, it also enabled honing of the procedure for maximum efficiency.

The third new piece of technology, the attemperator, allowed brewing all year round, without the need for a summer break. Allowing brewers to make much better use of their equipment and not having it lie idle for part of the year.

Taxes on and price of beer 1779 - 1816
Year	Tax/bush.malt	tax/lb. Hops	tax/brl strong	tax/brl small	tax/brl table	Price barrel porter	Price quart porter
1779	9.25d	1d + 5%	8s	1s 4d	2s	30s	3.5d
1780	1s 4.25d	1d + 10%	8s	1s 4d	2s	30s	3.5d
1782	1s 4.25d	1d + 10%	8s	1s 4d	3s
1786	1s 4.25d	1.6d	8s	1s 4d	3s	30s	3.5d
1791	1s 7.25d	1.6d	8s	1s 4d	3s	30s	3.5d
1801	1s 4.25d	2.5d	8s	1s 4d		40s	4.5d
1802	2s. 5d	2.5d	10s		2s	35s	4d
1806	4s 5.75d	2d	10s		2s	45s	5d
1816	2s. 5d	2d	10s		2s	40s	4.5d
Sources:
The Brewing Industry in England 1700-1830 by Peter Mathias page 546.
A History of English Ale and Beer by H.A. Monckton, pages 203 and 204.

Variety or Uniformity?

Beer wasn't just in short supply in WW II. It was also short on variety.

The main reason for the reduction in choice was beer zoning, the system by which brewers had their distant pubs supplied by other breweries. Which is some areas had the effect of introducing a local monopoly.

"Variety or Uniformity
Apart from questions of war damage, the zoning arrangements, following upon the large degree of voluntary exchange of houses previously undertaken by breweries in the interest of transport economy, have resulted in a great many people finding themselves unable to obtain their accustomed brew. Doubtless most breweries will resume the supply of their own licensed premises and their other customers with their own beers as soon as may be. Although the considerations of petrol and tyre shortage make it imperative that long journeys should be avoided wherever possible in war time, it is not in normal circumstances an uneconomic proposition for a brewery to supply its beer over a wide area, and there is every reason to suppose that breweries will wish to do so as soon as it is practicable. From the point of view of the public it is right that there should be this resumption of free choice. In ordinary circumstances the public expects, and has the right to expect, to be able to choose between several alternatives, and the public is quick to detect, or imagine, it detects, subtle differences between the products of different breweries."
The Brewing Trade Review, September 1943, page 268.

Of course, after the war the biggest threat to diversity and choice was the brewers themselves. The mergers and takeovers of the 1950s and 1960s created many local monopolies of near monopolies. Like Watney in Norwich, for example. The tied house system made reduction in choice pretty inevitable.

Shortage of materials had led brewers to prune the range of beers they brewed, eliminating stronger or less popular beers.

"It would be desirable, too, that the range of beers from a given brewery should be fully resumed when the arbitrary restrictions made necessary at present by the shortage of materials are removed. How far this will be possible must depend a great deal upon the policy of the Government after the war in the matter of the beer duty. In 1939 the average beer paid a duty of a trifle over 2d. per pint; the average! beer of to-day—an appreciably lighter product—pays more than 7d. per pint. It is questionable how far, while the present heavy beer duty is in force, the public could afford to return to the qualities of beer which it consumed before the war. Immediately after the last war the duty was increased, not reduced; In 1914 it stood at 7s. 9d. per standard1 barrel; when the war ended it stood at 50s., which was increased in 1919 to 70s. and in 1920 to 100s. Not until 1923 was there a reduction of 20s. on the bulk barrel. When it is remembered that the present duty on a standard barrel is 281s. 10.5d., however, one realises that there may be very little in common between the problem of the beer duty after the last war and that which will have to be faced when this war ends. One is led by the frequent references to the subject to believe that the prosperity of the people generally will be tackled more successfully in the days to come than it was 25 years ago, and this may well go far towards counterbalancing a beer duty disproportionately high in comparison with the general level of the cost of living, whether that comparison is with 1939 or 1914."
The Brewing Trade Review, September 1943, page 268.

The author was pretty astute to point out that beer duty continued to rise after the end of WW I. Because something similar happened after WW II.

UK tax on beer 1943 - 1949
Year	Tax/Std. Brl	tax pint	Total Tax £
1943	281s 10.5d	5.96d	209,584,343
1944	286s 5.5d	7.20d	263,170,703
1945	286s 5.5d	7.42d	278,876,870
1946	286s 5.5d	7.54d	295,305,369
1947	286s 5.5d	7.13d	250,350,829
1948	325s 5d	7.24d	264,112,043
1949	364s 4.5d	9.10d	294,678,035
Source:
1955 Brewers' Almanack, pages 50 & 80.

Though the rate of tax was remarkably stable between 1944 and 1947.

Just as with the WW I, there was never a return to pre-war strengths. And brewers never reinstated all their beers.

For example, Shepherd Neame brewed 8 beers pre-war, but only six after it, dropping a strong Pale Ale and one of their Stouts. It was even more extreme at Fullers, where half of their eight pre-war beers disappeared for good.

How to tackle tax increases

I always wondered a couple of things about Australian beer when I lived there. Why was it stronger than beer in the UK and why did they use such weird glass sizes.

This aricle in the excellent Time Gents blog explains it.

It's all to do with price inelasticity and tax increases. And it forms an interesting contrast with what occurred in the UK.

In the 20th century, brewers struggled with small tax increases. Mostly beacuse of the limitations of the currency. The cheapest beer only cost 2d per pint and the smallest coin was a farthing (a quarter penny).  What did you do if a tax increase raised the price by 12.5% (as happened in 1901)? If you raised the price of Mild from 2d to 2.25d, what price would you sell a half pint for?

The brewers found a simple solution: they just dropped the OG enough so the beer could still retail for the same price. Which also caused less unrest amongst drinkers, as the price of their pint remained the same. Quite inportant pre-WW I, when the price of beer had been constant for 40 or 50 years. And, initially, drinkers probably wouldn't notice the difference in strength.

Australian brewing struggled with the same challenges when the tax on beer was increased. Drinkers didn't want to pay more for their beer, and there were limits on the currency.

But a different approach was taken. Mostly because it was the publicans, rather than the brewers, who were calling the shots. Rather than increase the price, they reduced the glass size. As only Imperial Pints and half pints were controlled measures, new glasses, such as the schooner, were introduced.

When introduced in 1932, a New South Wales schooner was 18 fluid ounces, just a little smaller than an Imperial pint. By 1945 it was down to just 13 fluid ounces.

So while UK drinkers got the same quantity of weaker beer, Australians got less beer, but at the same price.

2d per pint extra for high gravity beer

One of the unique features of tax rises in the first half of the 20th century is that they usually amounted to an increase in 1d per pint, retail.

At least that's what was usually claimed. But, as the tax was related to the gravity of the beer, the situation was, in reality, more complicated. The 1d was based on average strength beer. Obviously the increase would be greater for a beer of greater strength.

"TWOPENCE A PINT EXTRA ON HIGHER GRAVITY
As a result of the new Budget tax, higher gravity beers will be increased 2d. a pint, and not 1d. per pint as had been generally understood.

At a meeting of Derby and District Bottlers' Association yesterday the chairman said that it was very necessary to make it clear to the public that the new tax was on a gravity basis and that gravity beers are affected to a much greater degree than 1d. a pint.

The meeting fixed prices as under for Guinness Extra Stout, Bass Pale Ale, Worthington I.P.A., and Younger's No. 3 Scotch Ale delivered for home consumption as from Monday next: Bass, Worthington and Younger's, 12s. 6d. per doz. pints, 6s. 6d. per doz. half pints, 5s. per doz. nips. Guinness E.S., 11s. 4d., 6s. 2d., and 4s. 10d. respectively.

Gravity of beer depends on the amount of alcohol, hops, malt, and barley contained. A higher gravity beer is essentially a brewed beer with a higher percentage of these ingredients than the cheaper and chemically treated kind. In most cases brewers use "X's" to indicate the strength of their ales and stouts, and those that will go up by only 1d. pint are, generally speaking, those denoted by one X." "
Derby Daily Telegraph - Saturday 27 April 1940, page 3.

I understand the basic principle. But were the beers mentioned really so strong that the tax increase was 2d per pint? Why don't we take a look?

The increase in April 1940 was from 104 shillings per standard barrel to 135 shillings. A standard barrel being 36 Imperial gallons at 1055º. Luckily, I know the gravity of all four beers mentioned. They were all well above average strength, but nothing like double as strong.

Looking at the table below, you'll see that the increase in tax for an average strength beer was about 1d per pint. For the four higher-gravity beers, it's more like 1.25d.

Effect of April 1940 tax increase
Beer	Tax in shillings	OG	tax per barrel (shillings)	tax per pint (d.)
Average OG beer	104	1041	77.53	3.23
Average OG beer	135	1041	100.64	4.19
Bass Pale Ale	104	1056	105.89	4.41
Bass Pale Ale	135	1056	137.45	5.73
Guinness Extra Stout	104	1054	102.11	4.25
Guinness Extra Stout	135	1054	132.55	5.52
Worthington IPA	104	1055	104.00	4.33
Worthington IPA	135	1055	135.00	5.63
Younger's No. 3	104	1052	98.33	4.10
Younger's No. 3	135	1052	127.64	5.32
Sources:
1955 Brewers' Almanack, pages 50 & 80.
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.
William Younger brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive, document number WY/6/1/2/76.

Looks like the bottlers were taking the piss.

Given that the four beers were of very similar gravities, I wonder why Guinness Extra Stout was cheaper? What do the beers have in common? They were all nationally available.

War with the French

Porter wasn’t a static thing, it continued to develop during the 1700s. Moving away from its origins as a 100% brown malt beer.

Towards the end of the 18th century, almost constant war with the French left the British government in need of cash. And they turned to their favourite source of revenue: alcohol. At the time, beer was taxed in three ways: on the malt, on the hops and on the finished beer itself.

A combination of increased taxation on malt to pay for the wars with France and the introduction of new technology, in the form of the hydrometer, transformed Porter grists. Brewers realised that, though cheaper, the poorer yield from brown malt actually made it more expensive to use than pale malt. The base malt changed from brown to pale, with brown retained just for flavour and colour.

It’s likely that this is when brown malt stopped being diastatic. With a majority of the malt pale, there was no need for the brown malt to retain any diastatic power. At a time when it was also required to provide more colour and flavour than previously.

At this point London brewers still used ingredients from the immediate area: malt from Hertfordshire or Sussex and hops from Kent. This would change radically in just a couple of decades as the UK’s population and thirst for beer outstripped the productive capacity of agriculture.

The increased taxation had a couple of effects on Porter. The first was the move away from a 100% brown malt beer to one brewed from a base of pale malt. But it retained a high percentage of brown malt.

The second change was a reduction in OG. Dropping from 1075º in the 1770s to around 1055º by the first years of the 19th century. This was as a direct result of increased taxation, which encouraged brewers to lower strength to cut costs.

Taxes on beer 1779 - 1815
Year	Tax/bush.malt	tax/lb. Hops	tax/brl strong	tax/brl small	tax/brl table	Price quart porter
1779	9.25d	1d + 5%	8s	1s 4d	2s	3.5d
1780	1s 4.25d	1d + 10%	8s	1s 4d	2s	3.5d
1783	1s 4.25d	1d + 15%	8s	1s 4d	3s	3.5d
1786	1s 4.25d	1.6d	8s	1s 4d	3s	3.5d
1791	1s 7.25d	1.6d	8s	1s 4d	3s	3.5d
1801	1s 4.25d	2.5d	8s	1s 4d	3s	4.5d
1802	2s. 5d	2.5d	10s		2s	4d
1804	4s 5.75d	2.5d	10s		2s	6d
1815	2s. 5d	2d	10s		2s
Sources:
The Brewing Industry in England 1700-1830 Peter Mathias, p.369
A History of English Ale and Beer, H.A. Monckton, p.204

Porter before black malt
Year	Brewer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	pale malt	brown malt	amber malt
1804	Barclay Perkins	1055.4	1015.5	5.28	72.02%	6.83	2.00	42.59%	47.43%	9.98%
1807	Whitbread	1052.6	1015.5	4.91	70.53%	13.06	3.60	66.32%	16.84%	16.84%
Sources:
Whitbread brewing record held at the London Metropolitan archives, document number LMA/4453/D/09/002.
Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan archives, document number ACC/2305/1/525.

You'll find more information that you'll ever need to know about Porter in my excellent book on the subject: