British Stouts in the 1950's

Still not finished with "Dry Stout". Today I'm taking a look at some British Stouts in the 1950's.

The selection of beers for inclusion in the table wasn't random. I've just picked out beers with an apparent attenuation of more than 80%.


As you can see, there are examples from all over the country. Some have a very similar profile to Guinness, Mitchell & Butler's Extra Stout, for example.

Guinness 1940 - 1966

I told you I'd get back to Guinness today. The perfect way to start the new year. Loads more numbers.

Today's numbers are to demonstrate the sudden change in the degree of attenuation of Guinness around 1950. Is this when "Irish Dry Stout" was born?

In 1950, the degree of attenuation of Guinness shot up from around 74% to 84%. This must have had a huge impact on the taste and body of the beer. It also sharply differentiated Guinness from English Stouts, which were rarely more than 75% attenuated.

change in book plans

Just a few hours into 2009 and I'm already fiddling with things. My Mini Book Series, to be precise.

As I write, eight are complete: Amsterdam Pub Guide, Can we go home now?, Mild!, Decoction!, Brown Beer, War!, Trips!, and Trips! (South). The remaining three books will now be entitled Trips! (East), Trips! (North) and Numbers!

Not exactly the same titles as my original plan. But I did warn you that they were liable to change. I assume it will be easy to guess the themes of the remaining books.

Volume II and III arrive

I was disturbed while writing my first post today by the ringing of the doorbell. It was the postman with two packages. The next two volumes of my Mini Book Series. "Mild!" and "Can we go home now?".




The two books have a very different target audience. "Mild!" is full of stuff about, well . . . Mild. Not exactly most people's idea of bedtime reading. Lots of statistics. A few recipes, too. "Can we go home now?" is much more personal. Travels tales from my journeys with the family.




My first task of the New Year will be sending them out. I think I can remember who's getting a copy.

Even more Guinness between the wars

Stout, Porter and Guinness. Three of my favourite topics. Today they all come together in a coming together sort of way.

One of the common misconceptions about Guinness is that the "Dry Stout" style it represents has been around since Moses was in nappies. And that an essential ingredient has always been roast barley. You can guess what I'm going to say now: both ideas are utter crap.

I'll start with Guinness in the 1920's and 1930's. Until 1917, Guinness Extra Stout had the same gravity as Foreign Extra Stout: 1074º. Like all other UK beers, government legislation drastically reduced its gravity as the war progressed. Though, due to the somewhat laxer rules applied to Ireland, not as drastically as English beers. The nadir was 1049º in 1918. Not that bad when you think Mild was mostly 1027º. And higher than the gravity of Guinness today.

Between the wars, the gravity of Guinness Extra Stout was pretty constant at 1055º. Take a look:

Take a look at the apparent attenuation. It's mostly around 75%. That's very different from post-1950 Guinness. But more of that tomorrow.

Whitbread also brewed a beer called Extra Stout. Which too had an OG of 1055º. And attenuation of about 75%. It has a profile very similar to Guinness. Though the grists are different. Whitbread Extra Stout had this grist:

pale malt 73%
brown malt 7%
oats 0.5%
chocolate malt 7%
sugar 14%

Guinness Extra Stout used a combination of pale, amber and roast malt. I think. Or maybe just pale and roast malt. Definitely no brown or chocolate.

Guinness and Whitbread in the 1930's

I promised you more detail on Whitbread's Stouts in the 1930's and here it is. A breakdown of Whitbread Porter and Stout output by type. And details of their sales of Bass and Guinness.

It's unfortunate that I don't have individual figures for Bass and Guinness. It would be nice to see if the proportion of the sales of those two varied as well. For the period where I do have them (ending in 1916), it was 75% Guinness and 25% Bass. Anyway, here are the figures I do have:


You'll notice that LS (London Stout) has sales at least double those of Guinness and Bass combined for every single year. The meteoric rise of Mackeson (MS) is striking. In just the third year it was brewed at Chiswell Street, it was second only to London Stout.

The figures demonstrate the long, slow decline of established beers like Porter and London Stout and the move to sweeter Milk Stout like Mackeson. These trends continued in the 1940's and 1950's, with the disappearance of Porter and Mackeson becoming the main Stout. But these were lengthy processes which took decades to play out. Not sudden changes brought about by events like WW I.

Guinness in the 1930's

Still not finished with my anti Guinness wiping out British Stout theory. More numbers, I'm afraid.

It's great having such detailed information for Whitbread. It means I can check whether Guinness was replacing Whitbread's out Porter and Stout. Let's compare the sales of Whitbread's own beers with their resales of Guinness and Bass.


Whitbread's output of Porter and Stout was very stable from 1933 onwards. As was the amount of Bass and Guinness Whitbread was selling, which hovered around 25%. I can see no evidence of Guinness replacing Whitbread products.

Though the overall quantity of Porter and Stout brewed was pretty stable, the quantities of each specific beer made varied considerably. The decline of Porter continued and in 1936 a newcomer arrived that began eating into London Stout's share: Mackeson. Whitbread had acquired the brewery in 1929 and the fact that they began brewing Mackeson Milk Stout at Chiswell Street shows the importance the product was acquiring.

But more about that tomorrow. I need to crack on with "Trips!".

Guinness and WW I

Nope, still haven't finished kicking this one around yet. The "everyone stopped brewing Stout in Britain during WW I and drank Guinness instead" theory. The one really irritatingly repeated in the introduction of the 2008 Good Beer Guide.


It's not that difficult to check. I've got figures for Guinness sales in Britain for the relevant period. Tell me if I'm making a false assumption here, but, if Guinness had taken over pretty much the whole Stout market in Britain, you'd expect their sales to have increased significantly after 1920. Wouldn't you? Let's see what actually happened.



In absolute terms, Guinness sales in Britain only increased slightly post WW I, from just over 1 million barrels a year to 1.2 - 1.3 million. In terms of the beer consumed in Britain, the percentage did indeed increase, from just under 3% to between 4% and 5%. But their market share had already been increasing pre war. In fact, between 1900 and 1912 their share of the British market doubled. As you can see below.


What happened after 1914 was just a continuation of trend of increasing sales that started well before hostilities. If anything, WW I and its aftermath put Guinness at a disadvantage in the British market. Irish independence left Guinness's Dublin brewery outside the UK and its beer liable to import duty. This was what prompted Guinness to build the Park Royal brewery in London in the 1930's.

To put Gunness's 4-5% share into perspective, between the wars 25-30% of Whitbread's output was Porter and Stout. The market for black beer was considerably larger than the output of Guinness.

Deventer today

We're going to Deventer today. After three days looked indoors with the kids, we all need get out. There are those 10-euro Blokker train tickets we need to use up, too. Today and tomorrow are the last days they're valid.

We don't even need to go into town. To get to Deventer. Lack of capacity at Cetraal Station has prompted an upgrade to Amsterdam Zuid. Just a short busride away from our gaff.

Hopefully lots of chaotic jocularity will occur and I'll have something new to write about tomorrow. Or you'll have to put up with lots of numbers. Like Whitbread's bottled beer sales by type, 1902 - 1916. Or Guinness exports to the UK.

Is it time to look back yet?

It's Boxing Day (or Thumping Day as I tell Lexie). Is it too soon to start looking back on the year yet? Naaaaaah. It's never too soon to look back.

Another year has passed disturbingly speedily, but without any serious injury. To me, at least. Just that toe-breaking incident. But that's almost too insignificant to mention. In many ways, a very productive year. At least in terms of number of words produced. I haven't counted them, but it's a couple of hundred thousand, minimum.

I doubt I'll write as much next year. More commitments. It would be nice to get the book finished. I reckon I've got around 400 pages done. So almost half way.

And remember my Mini Book Series? That's now more than 50% complete. I finished "War!" yesterday. "Trips!" is already started. No-one has successfully guessed its theme yet. Remember there's a dully glinting metallic cluster of death for the first correct guess. Sorry, a nice shiny copy of the book. The metallic cluster of death is for someone else.

I was going to post about Whitbread bottled beer sales by type today. But I couldn't be arsed to to transpose all the numbers. Perhaps tomorrow.

Xmas still life

This photo just about sums up my christmas. No need for cluttering words.


Wow. Fewest words ever.

Bottled Beer 1901 - 1938

It's Christmas Eve and I've spent the morning looking through old documents. In particular, Whitbread sales by draught and bottled. Fascinating stuff. My life is non-stop fun.

There was a massive surge in the popularity of bottled beers at the beginning of the 20th century. It was partly fuelled by changes in technology which allowed the production of bright, artificially-carbonated bottled beers.


The proportion of Whitbread sales which were bottled doubled over the years 1901 to 1914, rising from a quarter to a half. The war knocked this back down to close to its 1901 level, but in the 1920's it soon rose back to around 50%.

The dubious quality of much draught beer helped bottled beer to continue increasing its market share after WW I.


For the whole interwar period, Whitbread's bottled and draught beer sales were neck and neck.

Whitbread's Ales in 1955

I've had this post for a while. It's not been posted yet because I noticed some more stuff about Brown Ale. In particular, what Whitbread got up to in WW II.


I have the first results from my archive trip this week. A comparison of Whitbread's Ales in 1955.

Since I got back from London, I've been thinking a lot about Brown Ale. I lead such an exciting life. Whitbread's postwar logs are very revealing about Brown Ale. Maybe I've been a bit hasty.

I do like Whitbread's logs. Much easier to understand than some of the others. Maybe it's just because I've got used to them. I probably wouldn't have spotted this straight way in Truman's of Barclay Perkins logs. It's something about Brown Ale.

Whitbread started brewing a beer called Double Brown in the 1920's. It was pretty strong, at around 1054º. Quite heavily hopped, too. Not at all what you would expect from a Southern Brown Ale. Sometime in the 1930's they introduced a second, weaker Brown Ale. I'm not exactly sure when or at what OG, because it doesn't appear in the brewing records. I've seen it in their price lists, but nowhere else. The first gravity book entry for it is 1934, when it had an OG of 1037.9º. In 1946 it was a pretty pathetic 1029.2º.

So I was pretty excited when I spotted a beer called FB in the 1955 logs. Why didn't it turn up before? I can think of two explanations. It could have been brewed at another brewery they owned. It could have been their Mild bottled. In the 1930's, Whitbread X was around 1036º. In 1946 Whitbread's XX Mild was just 1027.6º. Both are a couple of degrees weaker than Forest Brown. Could they have just been adding primings to the Mild before bottling, boosting it's OG a bit and making it sweeter? I'm not sure where I could look to check.

See what you make of their 1955 Ales:


Notice the two Brown Ales? Pretty different, eh? Forest Brown is clearly just a slightly stronger version of their Mild. In the logs there are brews of the Best Ale and Forest Brown that have exactly the same quantities of exactly the same ingredients. Just slightly more water in the Best Ale.

But what about Double Brown? It's a funny one. It was brewed from very similar ingredients to the PA. The only difference was a touch of chocolate malt in DB and some crystal malt in PA. And the sugar in DB was dark. Surprisingly, it's much more heavily-hopped than the PA. The PA isn't hopped any more than the Mild, which is a bit odd.

And the IPA - the most highly-attenuated and with the most hops.

I'm still trying to work out exactly what all this tells me. Certainly that there were two very different types of Brown Ale. One that was effectively bottled Mild and one that wasn't.

Finished!

I'm finished with my Mini Books. Finally. The ones I've been working on, at least. Can you believe that it took 6 days to assemble the last three?

My Mini Book Series is now almost half complete. I wonder if I'll have time to finish the rest before the New Year? Probably not. I've got most of the titles, but haven't quite got all the themes yet. The title's the trickiest bit, though. Once that's there all the rest is a piece of urine.

"The Amsterdam Pub Guide" is distributed, "Mild!" is at the printers and "Can we go home now?", "Decoction" and "Brown Beer are complete. Prolific or what?

This post has to be quite short. "When are we going, dad?" I'm taking Lexie skating. Thankfully, it's a licensed skating rink. I'll be able to get a beer. Or a jenever to keep out the cold.

I'm lazy - Can we go home now?

I'm lazy. A right lazy git. That's why there's no proper post today. Just me filling space in that void between Sunday dinner and Sunday tea.

This morning I was busier. And wiser. Starting to realise how much work my little christmas holiday project entails. Quite a bit, as it turns out. Getting Andrew to help had been factored into my original equations. But his stomach's hurting. Makes a change from his knees.

I took the kids into town yesterday. Shopping. Presents don't buy themselves. Well, sometimes they do. Dolores has been known to buy her own. She doesn't trust me with so many things. Presents is number 32 on the list. Of course, I got my pub visit, too.

Bierkoning, too. I nipped in there as well. For supplies of St. Bernardus. My local offie is down to just the Tripel again. Christmas wouldn't be christmas without St. Bernardus. Hell, Friday isn't Friday and Tuesday isn't Tuesday without St. Bernardus.

The kids have got quite used to Wildeman. They know its snack menu intimately. That usually gives me time for at least two beers. In christmas beer season, I have chance to get my cockles at least lukewarm. And I did. They were maybe even three-quarters cooked.

No glass-eating from Lexie. Andrew didn't demand cheese. Neither kid ran off and neither said "Can we go home now?" until I was well into my second beer. Life is finally good.

I'm a winner!

I never win anything. That's why I'm such a lonely and embittered old man. Well, one of the reasons. The inability of pretty girls to appreciate my inner beauty is another. And the inexplicable reluctance of multimillionaires to give me enough money so I never need to work again.

Which is why I'm so overjoyed to have finally won a prize. In Alan and Stonch's annual photo contest. A bit surprised, too, as my photo has no obvious beer connection. It's a photo of a bit fat book. Well there is a sort of beer connection, because the big fat book in question is a Whitbread Ale log. But only I know that.

And what a prize. As much beer as I can drink in the Gunmakers. My sort of prize. And appropriate as the photo was taken just a couple of hundred yards away.

Hops 1920 - 1939 (can't be arsed)

Some stuff about hops today. I would write a witty and erudite introduction, but I can't be arsed.


Hops
Different varieties had gradually developed over a period of two or three hundred years as growers selected hops with particular qualities to plant. Sometimes flavour was paramount, but other characteristics such as the yield and disease resistance were also important. "It [selection] has resulted in the cultivation in a large number of districts of hops of homogenous type, particularly suited to the soil and climatic conditions, and also in the elimination of apaprently well-established varieties and replacement by others which met with a greater degree of approval." (Source: "Brewing Science & Practice" H. Lloyd Hind, 1943, pages 387-388.)


During WW I, when the hop industry came under government control, the different types of hops were classified into four groups: Goldings, Golding Varieties, Fuggle's and Tolhursts. Though many of the hops classified as Golding Varieties had little relation to Goldings. The differentiation was based as much on the use of the hops as on genetic relationship. Hops with the most delicate flavour were put into the Golding Varieties group. Such hops were often used for dry-hopping, while stronger flavoured Fuggle's and the lower-quality Tolhursts were used in the copper. (Source: "Brewing Science & Practice" H. Lloyd Hind, 1943, page 388.)


Goldings
These were named after a Mr. Golding who at the end of the 18th century selected a hop plant from a garden in Canterbury. By the 20th century, the name was being used for several related varieties grown in the best hop-growing regions of East Kent, Worcester and Hereford. They had a delicate flavour and good preservative properties but did not crop as heavily as other varieties. (Source: "Brewing Science & Practice" H. Lloyd Hind, 1943, page 388.)

The Canterbury Whitebine or Canterbury Golding was one of the oldest and best types. Very similar to this, and probably closely related, were the Worcester Mathon and the Farnham Whitebine. In Kent and Worcester the Bramling, an early-ripening hop first cultivated in 1865, was widely grown. It was a development of the Golding and had a similarly good aroma and preservative qualities. Amos' Early Bird was a further development of the Bramling that cropped better and earlier, but was of a slightly lower quality. (Source: "Brewing Science & Practice" H. Lloyd Hind, 1943, pages 388-389.)

For dry hopping, Barclay Perkins used mostly East Kent Goldings. They also used them sometimes as copper hops.


Golding Varieties
There were two main types of Golding Varieties. The Cobb, selected from a garden of Canterbury Whitebines in 1881, which had a good flavour but poor preservative power. It was very good as a dry hop. The Tutsham cropped well but was of only average quality. (Source: "Brewing Science & Practice" H. Lloyd Hind, 1943, page 389.)


Fuggle's
Widely grown in Kent, Sussex, Hereford and Worcester, Fuggle's was the commonest copper hop. It cropped well, had a high lupulin content, but had a coarser flavour than Goldings. It was particularly suited to the soil in Hereford and Worcester. (Source: "Brewing Science & Practice" H. Lloyd Hind, 1943, page 389.)

Barclay Perkins used Fuggle's as a copper hop for most of their beers.


Tolhurst
A collection of low-quality, but heavy-cropping, varieties which were widely planted after WW I, when new hop gardens needed to be developed quickly. By 1940 it had gone out of favour on account of its poor flavour and preservative power and was no longer widely grown. (Source: "Brewing Science & Practice" H. Lloyd Hind, 1943, pages 389-390.)


New varieties
Several new varieties of hop were developed at the South-Eastern Agricultural College at Wye in Kent. They included Brewer's Favourite, Brewer's Gold, Fillpocket and Quality Hop. All had excellent preservative qualities but not such a great aroma. They were used in the copper in conjunction with other, better-flavoured hops. None of these new varieties was widely grown before WW II. (Source: "Brewing Science & Practice" H. Lloyd Hind, 1943, page 390.)

I write too much

I'm assembling "Can we go home now?", "Decoction!" and "Brown Beer" at the moment. It's taking somewhat longer than expected.

I've been at it two days now. (Though I was interrupted this afternoon when we tried to install our new wireless modem. There was a fair bit of shouting, some crawling into dusty corners and then a bit more shouting. About par for the course. We're an excitable bunch, us Pattinsons. The modem still isn't working.) Looks like a third day will be needed. To blame is the forest of articles I've planted on the web. How on earth did I manage to write so much in the last 18 months?

Feel free to guess what any of the other titles might mean. The first correct guess will be rewarded with a copy of the book. Assuming you want to read my unique combination of anger and tedium.

Though the book isn't quite finished, I've already done the front cover for "Can we go home now?". I'm quite pleased with it. If you can tell in which pub the photograph was taken, there's a (what a surprise) free copy of the book for you.

Can we go home now? - the answer.

We have a winner. It's starting to get scary how often he gets the answers to my weird questions right.

Beernut correctly explained that "Can we go home now?" is a collection of bits I've written about travels with my family. I plan finishing it tomorrow. Have to think of a cover still. Any suggestions?

Decoction!

I'm so prolific. One book (well, mini book) off to publisher yesterday and I've already half-finished three more.

I'm not sure many have understood my Mini Book Series. It took Mike four explanations to grasp the concept. And he's not that slow. So I'll run through it once more.

My Mini Book Series is, believe it or not, a series of books.I'm compiling a series of 11 books. Not writing, but compiling. I wouldn't have the time to write ten books* in whatever length of time it takes me to roughly sew them together. Stuff I've published in my blog or website that you hoped you'd seen the last of. No such luck.

Over the next whatever, I'll be getting eleven books vanity printed. That's when you pay to have your book published.In a way, most of the web is vanity publishing. So why should I feel embarrassed about indulging in a little physical vanity publishing?

To keep it interesting (and to save me dosh), there only be 10 of each volume printed. They won't be for sale..The only way you'll get one, is if I give it to you. Unless some ungrateful bastard doesn't hang on to it. Then there'll be a name crossed off my christmas card list. If I find out.

As always, my motivation is selfish. Not just vanity, though I'm certain there's a full pudding with custard of that in there. Each book contains something I wanted to have in one place, for my own reference. Finding where things are in my blog is harder than I imagined. I shouldn't write so much. “Stuff I didn't want to lose track of is” the theme.

As I write this I have, I have ten titles. “Can we go home now?”, “Decoction!”, “Mild!”, “Numbers!”, "War!", “Destroy the evidence!”, "Trips", "Brown Beer", “Unreadable” and “Dutch Pub Guide”. These may change. Depending on my holiday plans. A printed guide can be really handy when you're in a foreign city.

All the books will be numbered in my own fair hand. Except volume I, “The Amsterdam Pub Guide”, where I forgot to number and sign some copies. I keep one of each volume. And no, it won't necessarily be number one.

Is that clear?

Still no-one has guessed the theme of volume II, "Can we go home now". I thought it was easy.

* One of the eleven is already nailed together, printed and mostly handed out.