Weird stoppers

I'm continuing with the very informative account of the history of beer bottle stoppers. I know. This blog has hit a new low. The really sad bit is that I really am finding it fascinating.

The crown cork is so simple, cheap, easy to remove you wonder why it wasn't developed earlier. Instead there were plenty of whacko and totally impractical solutions kicked around. The first - finding ways getting an unwired cork to remain in place - was never going to fly.

"The defenders of the long stopper did not, however, give in without a struggle and attempts were made by altering the shape of the bottle neck to enable it to withstand higher internal pressures without resorting to wiring. Various patents were issued embodying different principles, some of which are illustrated in Plate 4.

J. Yeo in 1879 concentrated on the idea of neck designs in which the cork was subjected to side pressure only. H. T Lufwin in 1880 was one among several who made use of a metal pin through the stopper and P. England in 1887 introduced an offset bottle neck in order to increase the frictional hold. The patents of Yeo and England would obviously have met strong opposition from the bottle makers owing to the technical problem of reproducing the shapes required in the glass, to say nothing of the difficulty which would be encountered in drawing the cork in the case of the latter. Lufwin's idea was objectionable from the point of view of the use of a sharp spike and the necessity of fitting it by hand in each bottle."
"Background to the Crown" by Cecil J. Parker.

Most of those necks look like they wouldn't pour very well. And you'd have to hold the bottle the right way. Lufwin's design, on the other hand, looks plain scary. What would happen when you tried to take out the cork from a bottle with too much pressure in it? I can imagine that spike flying out in an eyewards direction. Wouldn't that be fun? Risking your sight every time you drank a bottle of beer.

Bottles like that would probably have been a bugger to clean, too. Something which would really have put bottlers off them.

I'm sure Cecil Perker would be amazed (and a little dismayed) at how many bottles are sealed with corks today. Especially as he worked for a manufacturer of a rival stopper. I'm not sure what I think of corked and caged beer bottles myself. I'll admit that they look classy. But opening them isn't my favourite passtime - I can also imagine a cork flying eyewards. And they form a very imperfect seal. Longterm, a beer is going to struggle to remain carbonated. Like Harvey's Imperial Stout. Cracking beer, but I've only had one bottle with a normal level of carbonation. Then there's the problem of "corking" - fungus growing on the cork tainting the contents. Really not nice.

Others were busy with a different kind of stopper.

"The early attempts at closure simplification contained in general the same basic principle, that is to say employment of a cap easily stamped out from sheet metal and in most of them the utilisation of a thickened neck ring to the bottle under which the cap was to take hold.

One of the first to introduce a preformed dished cap was B. Martin in 1878 — see Plate 5 — who employed a separate outer holding band bent at intervals under the shoulder of the container. No provision was apparently made for a sealing gasket, but the fundamental idea of the two-piece cap was sound and indeed persists to-day in the well known band cap, used chiefly for wide mouthed closures."
"Background to the Crown" by Cecil J. Parker.

The well-known band cap? Not well known by me. If you know what he means by this, let me know. I've genuinely no idea.

Here are some other experiments with metal caps:

"Two months later in the same year a patent was issued to W. E. Gedge for a one-piece cap of sheet metal, the lower edge of which was spun under the shoulder of the glass by means of a wheel which was pressed against it while the container was rotated in a machine. An india-rubber washer was used as sealing medium. Cork discs were evidently used as well, for in 1887 we patent taken out by C. Laurent covering the use of gold-beaters skin as a facing to the cork in this type of cap. Plate 6.

Also in 1887 a closure was patented by J. Holmes which consisted of a dished cap with a flanged edge, in which a packing ring of cork formed a side seal on the container. Plate 5.

H. J. Haddan followed soon with a sheet metal cap containing a very thick cork washer. As will be seen in Plate 6, this was deep in section and was provided with a number of dependent lugs though the extremities of which a wire was threaded. When the wire loop was tightened a gripping action was obtained below the shoulder provided around the bottle neck."
"Background to the Crown" by Cecil J. Parker.

Mmm. Gedge's cap looks very much like a crown cork to me. Except for bit about attaching it with a wheel. There's something else I don't understand. I can't see what's holding on the cap designed by Holmes. Surely it needs to hook under something at the mouth of the bottle?

Haddan's cap with its lugs and wire, sounds as complicated as a flip-top stopper. Wasn't that exactly the sort of thing they were trying to avoid?

The last one is a variation on that design, but even less practical, by the look of it. It doesn't even look as if it's forming a proper seal.

"In a specification of November 1888 issued by E. L. Blake and J. Wild—see Plate—there was a modification of the Haddan cap in which the body was shallower and the lugs were clipped on to a spring band. The glass finish was practically identical with that of the Haddan patent but the holding point was beneath the reinforcing ring instead of the lower shoulder.
"Background to the Crown" by Cecil J. Parker.

We've not finished with the weird stoppers quite. Did brewers ever use the devices at a commercial level? I'd love to know.  Unfortunately the author doesn't mention anything about that. The band cap presumably was, as it's mentioned that it was still in use. But what about the others?

Naturally-conditioned bottled beer

This time I'm not letting you wait as long before I live up to my promise. I'm already diving into naturally-conditioned bottled beer. I don't know what's come over me.

This is again from an article by H. Lloyd Hind in 1923. It's made me realise that the victory of chilled and carbonated beer may not have been as swift as I had believed. Simply because there are so many mentions of naturally-conditioned beer.

Here's the first, discussing the shelf-life and susceptibility to infection of both types of bottled beer.

"Experiments with forced beers give the necessary evidence that the increased infection does lead to decreased stability, and that the in creased cleanliness brought about by rinsing does increase the stability. These experiments were no doubt made on lager beer which is more delicate than naturally conditioned beer with its own sediment in the bottle. But the effect of dirty bottles on the latter is too well known to need much insistence on the statement that what is bad for one is bad for the other, perhaps in a less degree, but the naturally conditioned beer has to stand up generally against the infection for a longer period than the lager, and in this way the danger is levelled up."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 29, Issue 3, March 1923, page 117.

It makes sense that naturally-conditioned beer with yeast still active would be less susceptible to infection. Yeast is very well adapted to living in and feeding off beer. It will out-compete most other organisms.

This is an interesting point:

"The brilliance of the beer is of the first importance and here the bottler, as apart from the brewer, must see that naturally conditioned beers are brilliant when he bottles them, and that for chilled and filtered beers his filters are working efficiently. This brings the pulp into consideration, and the treatment of the beer before it goes to the filter."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 29, Issue 3, March 1923, page 120.

If you remember the older bottling texts I published a few years back, they stressed that beer for this type of bottling should spontaneously drop bright during its maturation in cask. Though, of course, it would still contain some yeast in suspension. It wouldn't have carbonated otherwise, as back then they didn't reseed with yeast at bottling time like they do today.

Here's another advantage of naturally-conditioned beer: you could analyse the sediment.

"It is very difficult to judge by appearance whether the greyness of a beer is due to the deposition of a protein haze or to the development of bacteria or other organisms in the bottle. By means of a microscope and certain chemical tests these questions can be readily decided and the cause of the trouble be traced to the beer or the pulp, the brewer or the bottler, defective beer or bad filtration. By means of a microscopical examination of the sediment of a naturally conditioned beer it is often possible to trace the cause of any defect and to apportion the blame as between brewer and bottler."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 29, Issue 3, March 1923, page 121.

It was more important in the 1920's to pin down the problem to either the brewing or the bottling operation as they were not necessarily performed by the same company.

This confirms my suspicion that natural conditioning was nothing like all but dead:

"The great extension of the sales of beer in bottle has been universal during recent years. We know it in England; in America before prohibition it was enormous, and on the Continent the same thing is found. The greater proportion of the output of the great Copenhagen breweries is now in bottle and it is even notable in Northern France where brewing is still in many places rather primitive. In England we still adhere to the naturally conditioned beer and are content to put up with the sediment and very often defective head and brilliance on account of what is generally recognised as superiority in flavour and body. Abroad, on the other hand, the public demand is muoh more exigent, defects in appearance are not tolerated and various methods are adopted to ensure deglutination, so that haze shall not develop in the bottle within a reasonable time. The whole process of lager beer manufacture tends in this direction. Some of these methods are not adapted to chilled and filtered beers, but there is room for very considerable extension in that direction to render such beers fit for long storage and export.

A naturally conditioned beer can indeed be made without any preliminary or after treatment to satisfy the keenest demand, and such are the vintage beers. Special selection of materials, skilful brewing, very lengthy storage and careful bottling are essential. Given these any Englishman will say the beers are unsurpassed, but English taste is, however, not universal. Something less hoppy is required by what is after all the majority of beer drinkers, and it is necessary to brew a beer which will keep well without the preservative action of the hops. New methods have in consequence to be found to produce such a beer and keep it brilliant in bottle."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 29, Issue 3, March 1923, pages 123 - 124.

Once again the brewer's preference for bottle conditioning is clear. Just a pity those foreigners didn't care for our bitter beer.

So much for Lloyd Hind. Let's see what the audience had to say. This is the chairman, Mr. R. Whitaker:

"The points that had been raised about cleanliness were highly important, and the different courses that the beer went through before it was finally bottled were very interesting, especially at the present time when, in Manchester, chilled and filtered beer commanded such attention. Personally, he thought this was a mistake, and they brought some trouble on their heads when they adopted these chilled and filtered beers. The process took the character out of the beer, and they got an article quite different to the naturally-conditioned."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 29, Issue 3, March 1923, page 127.

This highlights a point that I've already made: brewers thought naturally-conditioned beer superior in flavour, the public just wanted something brilliant.

The next speaker says just about exactly that:

"Mr. H. Hobson said, although not a strong supporter of chilling, he understood that by this process they eliminated constituents which, if allowed to remain in solution, subsequently went to form body or to assist in head retention. It was surprising how the chilling process had appealed to a large number of brewers. A chilled beer certainly looked nice and brilliant, but he considered it was robbed of a large amount of character. He supposed the public demand for as bright a beer as could be produced was the reason for so much chilling. He would ask Mr. Hind if there was any fresh evidence of other constituents which might be precipitated by the chilling process other than the theory that precipitation was chiefly due to the albumoses ?
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 29, Issue 3, March 1923, page 129.

And Lloyd Hind concurred:

"In reply to Mr. H. Hobson, chilling and filtering no doubt took away some of the character and head-retaining properties and he was not one of those who considered that chilling produced the best beer. On the other hand it was the easiest way to get the best appearance and nothing was more unattractive then turbid beer. In regard to precipitation during chilling he was not sure that it was albumoses which came down, it might be a combination of proteins with some bodies from the hops."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 29, Issue 3, March 1923, page 130.

Nothing more unattractive than turbid beer? I think drinkers of Hefeweizen might disagree. Just shows you that it's all about expectations. I remember reading the label stuck on a keg of Hoegaarden advising the publican to turn it upside down before tapping to make sure it was nice and cloudy.

Pasteurising next time.

Background to the Crown

Nothing to do with the monarchy. The crown meant is a crown cork and the title of a booklet produced by the Crown Cork Company.

I'd given little thought to stoppers before my current obsession with bottling. If pushed, I'd have said crown corks had been introduced a little before 1900 and that before that old-fashioned wine-style corks had been used. After reading the booklet, I'm much wiser. And that wisdom I'll be passing on.

A couple of words of warning. The booklet has no date. My guess, based on the style of the illustration would be 1950's or 1960's. It also lacks page numbers. It does name the author: Cecil J. Parker, Chief Chemist at the Southall Research Laboratories of the Crown Cork Company Limited.

We start with an account of early replacements for corks.

"The steady continuous growth of the industry which arose from these two modest beginnings brought with it the need for more and more bottles and for more efficient means of sealing. In point of numbers the demand for closures naturally exceeded by many times that of bottles, for whereas the former may be used but once, the latter is refilled several times over. It is interesting to note that although, particularly in Great Britain, the ordinary cork stopper, which was a "one use" device, took pride of place, the tendency of new inventions during several decades was to produce a closure which would have a life equal to that of the bottle and which in many instances formed almost an integral part of the same.

There was indeed no lack of inventive thought applied to the solution of the stopper problem. For some unfathomable reason it seemed that the one great urge of innumerable mechanically minded men over a period of many years was to introduce a new form of bottle closure. Imagination truly ran riot and some of the ideas evolved bordered on the fantastic. Simplicity of design and practicability were forgotten while intricacy and caprice raced hand in hand to the Application counter of the Patent Office.
"Background to the Crown" by Cecil J. Parker.

Interesting motivation that, to make a stopper with as long a life as the bottle it closed. One that, ironically, remains unfulfilled by the crown cork. Surely the kind of stopper, given the booklet was published by the Crown Cork Company, the text is trying to promote.

You may have noticed that the original text is a bit flowery. Reads like someone trying a bit too hard to me. (Something I can never be accused of. Trying too hard. I knock these posts off in 20 minutes before breakfast.)

"It is not the purpose here to discuss the merits and disadvantages of the thousand and one types of stoppers that were engendered in the brains of inventors prior to the appearance of the Crown Cork. Many were virtually stillborn and as many again enjoyed but a brief span of life before being thrown into the discard by the perplexed and harassed bottlers. Some of the more whimsical forms are shown herewith in Plates 1a and 1b, but all have perished "unwept, unhonoured and unsung".

Out of early chaos emerged three closures that were destined to survive the holocaust and in one case at least to endure to the present day. They owed their survival to the one characteristic they had in common — simplicity. The first of these was the interior glass marble which was kept pressed against a rubber ring in the bottle neck by the gas pressure of the beverage. It was invented by H. Codd in 1870 and had a life extending well into the memory of most of us. It was known generally as the Codd Stopper and used exclusively for minerals. It was simple and effective, but necessitated inversed filling. The seating of the rubber ring provided a breeding place for bacteria and breakage was a considerable item. This was not due to any weakness of the bottle, but rather to the cupidity of small boys who liked marbles. See Plate 2."

The bit about pop bottles closed with marbles should help date the piece. I'm a bit of an old bastard, but I can't remember those stoppers. I can remember my mum telling me about them. It always sounded a weird way to close a bottle to me. And not the most secure method. Even putting aside cleaning problems. "Most of us" implies that a mjority of people would still be able to remember them. And I think they fell into disuse around WW II. Late 1950's or early 1960's is my revised guess.

"The second survivor for many years was the levered wire bail stopper. The origin of this type of closure is obscure, but the earliest reference to it in its best known and simplest form is found in a patent taken out by W. J. King in 1888. See Plate 2. Other forms were introduced many years prior to this but were either without the lever action or else achieved the latter by more complicated design. This stopper had a much greater vogue on the Continent than in Great Britain and is possibly still on use there."
"Background to the Crown" by Cecil J. Parker.

Mmm. For an expert on bottle closings the author seems remarkably ignorant of what went on in the rest of Europe. Flip-top ceramic stoppers definitely never went out of use in continental Europe.

"The third, and so far as this country is concerned, the only present day survivor of the trio is the yet familiar screw stopper. It is used as we are well aware almost exclusively for the largest sized beer bottles. Its continued use is due to the fact that it provides a quick and efficient re-seal when only part of the bottle's contents have been consumed. Here again its beginning is rather obscure, although its prototype was clearly indicated in a patent of 1876 by one S. Walker. This would appear to be one of the first screw stoppers to have been applied to an interior thread formed in the glass and employing a rubber ring washer. It will be noted — Plate 3 — that a sharp thread was used, but this was modified in a later patent by H. Barrett, 1879, when the coarse pitched rounded thread as used to-day was introduced. Plate 3."
"Background to the Crown" by Cecil J. Parker.

Ah, more dating evidence. I can remember internal screw stoppers. Just. Last time I spotted them in the wild must have been about 1978 in Mr. Fisher's shop and offie on Brudenell Road in Leeds. Sealing quart bottles of something from the Whitbread brewery in Kirkstall. Which confirms what the author says about them being used for larger bottles. Both quart bottles and internal screw stoppers weren't common after the mid 1960's. Newly-revised date guess: late 1950's.

There's quite a bit more of this. I would say: "Tell me to stop when you've had enough." But we both know I wouldn't listen.

Natural vs. artificial CO2

Just because I've finally laboured my way through Hartley's piece on bottling, it doesn't mean you're off the hook. Far from it. I've just moved on to the next article.

It's from a particular favourite of mine H. Lloyd Hind and was written in 1922. I'm going to give the descriptions of the soaking and scrubbing machines a miss, at least for now. Because I want to look at CO2. And the difference between the stuff was given off during fermentation and that created artificially.

How many times have I seen the argument CO2 is CO2? Usually when someone was poopooing the idea of the CO2 in bottle-conditioned beer behaving differently from that in artificially carbonated beers.

"Of almost equal importance with brilliance is condition, and there are several points which must be considered both for naturally conditioned and carbonated beer. Two may be referred to, viz., natural versus artificial gas and temperature at filling, for both have been neglected in many directions in which their study would be well worth while. Purity of the gas and freedom from air is on essential, whether it is made from coke, chalk and acid, or collected from the square. In either case it can readily be obtained of 99.8 per cent, purity, and the bottler should always assure himself by test or otherwise that it is so. Air in the gas leads to troubles, greyness, development of organisms in the beer or poor condition.
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 29, Issue 3, March 1923, pages 121 - 122.

Contamination of your CO2 with air has the obvious downside of giving nasties something breather. Not a good idea if you preferred your beer uninfected.

There was one clear advantage of collecting CO2 from your fermenting vessels: you got it for free. Well, free other than the cost of collecting and storing it. And fermentation provided a superfluity: one barrel of beer produced enough CO2 during fermentation to carbonate several barrels.

"The production of the gas is a matter for the brewer and need not be discussed now, but the bottler is very much concerned in its quality and cost. It can be supplied to him at a price lower than that of artificial gas and at the same time give a good return to the brewer for outlay and upkeep. It is not only useful for carbonation, but much to be preferred to pumps or compressed air for moving beer from tank to tank, for the pressure required for the filter and other purposes. For all these there should be ample from the brewery as enough gas can be collected from one barrel of beer to carbonate eight barrels. With such a supply and so often going to waste its utilisation should be worth the closest attention from both brewer and bottler, and the more so when the superiority of the natural fermentation gas over the artificial is realised."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 29, Issue 3, March 1923, page 122.

I hadn't realised that they were using CO2 to move beer around the brewery this early. Obviously a good idea, gven the unpleasantness that could be communicated to beer through air.

The following passage brings up a point I had never considered. And the main reason I bothered to use this article. The flavour of COs, or rather the flavour of the impurities mixed with it.

"Carbonic acid from whatever source when perfectly pure is neutral in flavour, and this applies to fermentation gas just as muoh as to artificial gas, with this very important difference. The impurities in artificial gas, other than air which may occur in both kinds of gas, are definitely harmful and objectionable and have to be completely removed before the gas can be used. On the other hand, the impurities in fermentation gas, apart from tho air which must be removed, are not only harm less but the very substances which the beer requires to give it the snap and flavour of naturally conditioned beer. It is sufficient to smell the gas coming from the fermentation of a fairly strong beer to realise how very much superior it is to artificial gas for carbonation. The volatile constituents from the wort and the essential matters from the hops are very pronounced and impart their flavour to the beer into which the gas carrying them is injected. This in itself would be enough to stamp the fermentation gas as superior to the artificial, but when to this is added the experience that in practice it gives a beer with a more lasting and solid head and a beer which drinks fuller, the choice of fermentation gas is more than ever confirmed. Tasteless gas can be much improved by passing through a large cylinder packed with hops.
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 29, Issue 3, March 1923, page 122.

Now there's a turnup - the impurities in natural CO2 actually enhanced the flavour of the beer. Not just that, Lloyd Hind asserts that naturally-produced gas formed a better head and a fuller palate. Was that just when formed during bottle-conditioning or whenever naturally-produced gas was used? I think he means the latter. And what about passing the gas through hops - what would you call that? Gas hopping??

Remember that bit in the last article about CO2 getting "burned"? Lloyd Hind seems to agree that excessive pressure and heat damaged the flavour of CO2. Though he doewsn't explain why that might be the case.

"The bottler being in the position to command a supply of gas direct from the brewery he must assure himself that it is always of the desired character. It is quite simple to make sure that it contains no more than 0.2 par cent, of air and that it has no undesirabloe flavour or smell such as might arise through unsatisfactory conditions of fermentation which are quite outside of his control. Pure gas will keep indefinitely but to conserve the very desirable and delicate aromas of fermentation gas and make sure that no undesirable changes occur in them the gas must be used fresh, a week's stock at the most should be ample. There is no object in having the gas liquefied when the brewery is near at hand and the gas can be delivered down a pipe to a storage tank. Indeed, the liquefaction of the gas is more or less harmful, no pressures above 250 lb. to the square inch should be used in the storage tanks. Compression of gas means heating it, and however good the cooling arrangements on the compressor may be higher pressure than 250 lb. is to be avoided. Heat entirely ruins the flavour of the gas, and the user must assure himself that it has not taken place. The presence of oil and impurities of that sort must also be avoided, and if the supply pipe is under the bottler's control he should see that it is kept clean."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 29, Issue 3, March 1923, page 122.

Wow. I never knew there was so much to CO2. Especially not that there were different types.

Next time we'll be looking at naturally-conditioned bottled beer. Something the brewing professionals keep insisting is superior in flavour to force carbonated beer.

Bottling in 1914 - dry hopping

I've been promising you this for a while. And here it is, the final post spun from Arthur Hadley's 1914 paper on bottling. The bit about dry hops. I hope you're not too disappointed by it.

Reading between the lines, it sounds as if bottle-conditioned beers were always dry hopped. Non-deposit beers, as we learned last time, didn't hang around the brewery for long. They were stored for such a short length of time, they had little chance to have any effect.

"Mr, W. Scott said that the author had not dealt with the question of the dry hopping in tank of non-deposit beers. In his (the speaker's) opinion full value was not obtained from dry hopping, as when the hops were placed in the conditioning tanks loose for a limited period they simply floated on the surface, and when caged up, with a view of subsequent use in the copper, they swelled to such an extent that very little benefit was derived by the beer."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 20, Issue 6, November-December 1914, page 528.

This seems an ingenious way around the problem of dry-hopping effectively in a short space of time.

"With regard to dry hopping, the members might remember that seven years ago he read a paper before the section, in which he gave a diagram illustrating a very effective method of dry hopping these non-deposit beers in the tank, by suspending the hops in a bag in the tank and circulating the beer through them by means of a perforated pipe which was placed in the centre of the bag, and was suitably connected to the pump outside. That system he had employed for the past 12 years with perfect success."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 20, Issue 6, November-December 1914, page 529.

Here's Arthur Hadley's position:

"As to his practice with regard to dry hopping, they started some years ago dry hopping in the tanks, at the rate of half a pound per barrel. He found there was very little coming from the hop. He began to reduce it, and ended by reducing it entirely, and wiping it out, and for the last two years not a dry hop had gone into the beer. They had saved hundreds of pounds thereby, and he did not think anyone could tell the difference. The amount entering the beer was so infinitesimal that it was not of the slightest use, and there was really not the slightest need for it."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 20, Issue 6, November-December 1914, page 532.

A waste of time, basically. Half a pound per barrel is quite a lot. Whitbread's X Ale, had about 1.25 lbs of copper hops in 1914. FA, their low-gravity bottled Pale Ale, about 2 pounds*.

It's another confirmation, in a way, that flavour wasn't the top priority of bottled beer drinkers.






* Whitbread brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/01/079.

Bottled beer - some random stuff

I've a couple of texts related to bottling which are too small to merit a whole post of their own. Randomly nailing them together seems the best solution.

First it's a rather different application of the Merchandise Marks Act. I'm slightly surprised by the outcome, as I'm sure the practice condemned as illegal goes on today.

"BOTTLED BEER.
IMPORTANT CASE TO THE TRADE.
On Saturday, ease some interest to "the trade" was heard at the Dewsbury Police Court. Messrs. Findlater & Mackie, wine and spirit merchants, Dewsbury, were charged with four offences under the Merchandise Marks Act.

Mr. Warren, of Leeds, prosecuted on behalf the Yorkshire Mineral Waters Association (Limited), and Mr. G. E. B. Blakeley appeared for the defendants.

It appeared that the defendants had sold a quantity of bottled beer to William Evans, landlord the Bath Hotel, Dewsbury, and the secretary afterwards purchased from Evans two dozen bottles, of beer, and found that several them had impressed upon them the names persons who bottled beer in Leeds, Huddersfield, and Spen Valley, and therefore the defendants had sold goods to which a false description was applied.

Mr. contended at length that the defendants were not liable, and that the offences charged did not come within the meaning of the Act.

The Bench found the charges proved, and fined defendants 10s. and costs in each case."
Yorkshire Evening Post - Monday 30 May 1892, page 3.

If I read it correctly, Findlater & Mackie had refilled bottles from other bottlers, which had the other bottler's name embossed in the glass. I'm sure this goes on today, where bottles are returned and refilled. For example, Westvleteren in Westmalle bottles.

Why was the Yorkshire Mineral Waters Association so keen on taking Findlater & Mackie to court? Ti stop anyone ever re-using someone else's bottles? Doesn't seem like any great crime to me.


I've heard of Findlater & Mackie. They were a big bottler, whose name regularly pops up on labels. Hang on. It seems like they're still going. Isn't that a aurprise?

Part two of this post is about counterfeit Bass again. Only this time it's an American brewery committing the fraud. Even better, it's one I've heard of, Feigenspan. One of the big Ale brewers of Newark, New Jersey. Eventually they were bought out by their great local rivals, Ballantine.

"IMITATING BRITISH BOTTLED BEER.
A telegram from New York states that the Federal Court has issued an injunction restraining a Newark brewer, named Fegenspan, from using a label for his beers imitating that of English firm Bass and Co., on the ground that the imitation was used with intent to defraud. The Court ordered Fegenspan to account to the English company for all ales sold by him under their label."
Sheffield Evening Telegraph - Tuesday 08 August 1899, page 3.

Note they got the spelling of Feigenspan slightly wrong. It says much of Bass's worldwide fame that a brewer in another continent was passing off his own beer for it. At the time, Bass was one of the best-known brands in the world.

Bottling in 1914 - slow or quick chill?

We've finally got to the discussion after the paper had been read. How many weeks ago did we start this? It's so long ago, I can't remember.

There was a lively debate on the relative merits of slow and quick chilling. Some maintained it was important to let beer mature for a while before bottling:

"Mr. Robert D. Clarke said that he was rather astonished to hear the author advocate, for the sake of economy, the running of the beer into the chillers direct from the skimming vessels. That was how he (the speaker) began nine years ago, with almost disastrous results, because the resulting beer in the bottle was absolutely without palate fulness, and had no character whatever. He never got over that difficulty until he started storing the beer in the cask for from six weeks to two months. The advantage of that was most marked, and the result was that the bottled beer was full of character, and as nearly as possible equal to the ordinary beer, bottled in the old-fashion style, with the gas generated in the bottle. He would like to hear the author's remarks on that point, because that was a very important point.
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 20, Issue 6, November-December 1914, page 526.

It's clear that many brewers thought the old method of bottle-conditioning superior when it came to flavour. Just that it was too expensive to use for everyday beers.

It wasn't just the flavour that improved by storage before chilling - it didn't throw a sediment as quickly. Something very important for brewers, as it would have effectively determined the shelflife of the beer. No-one would be a bottle with sediment in it.

"The CHAIRMAN said that he would like to know especially how long the beer should be stored before chilling. He understood that it was run down from the fermenting vessel to the tank. With regard to the difference between slow chilling and quick chilling, he believed that it was generally admitted that the slow chilling gave less reduction in the fulness of the beer, and also a longer freedom from deposit in the bottle. He would like to know whether the author's experience agreed with that. He thought that, for the annual summer trip, they might perhaps visit Bristol and see the author's plant. Mr. Clarke had suggested storing beer a certain time before chilling it, but the question arose whether the present price at which these non-deposit beers were put on the market would permit of that long storage. He had heard of a firm which sent out on the Thursday the beer brewed on the Monday, i.e., in four days, including the brewing day, fermented, chilled, filtered, and bottled. But he was not suggesting that the author's products were similarly treated."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 20, Issue 6, November-December 1914, pages 528 - 529.

Money. That's what it was ultimately all down to. The margins were too small for maturing the beer for any length of time to be practical. Four days from mashing to bottling is incredibly short. Most beers spent at least 6 or 7 days fementing and cleansing.

Here the author, Arthur Hadley, has his say:

"With regard to the chilling of beers, it appeared to be agreed in the meeting that the slow process was slightly better. Until about 12 months ago, he would probably have agreed with that opinion, and especially on the ground that the deposit came much later than with a quick system, but at the present time they were operating a quick system, and they had found the best method to be the use of a double filter, and they had never had the slightest trouble with a deposit under the system which they adopted in allowing about six weeks.

Mr. Wilson, interposing, said that he was referring more to the flavour than to the deposit.

The Author said that the flavour would be slightly better. A very serious objection to the slow system was the higher cost, which was a very material matter."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 20, Issue 6, November-December 1914, page 530.

So a sort of endorsement for the slow system, except for its cost. It was just too expensive, point he reiterates:

"With regard to the running from the skimming vessels he had experienced no difficulty whatever. They kept beer in the skimming vessels a day or two longer than would be done for ordinary racking, and it was pumped from the skimming vessels after about nine days for bottling purposes. With regard to storage in cask before going to chilling tanks, the cost of such a system would in the case of their own firm be absolutely prohibitive. The margin was already so small that if they had to put it into casks and keep it there several weeks before putting it into the vessels they would certainly not be able to build the new store on which they were now engaged."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 20, Issue 6, November-December 1914, page 531.

I'm beginning to understand why non-dposit beer became the norm. It was because of demand by the public. They wanted crystal clear beer and they wanted it at a low price. They clearly weren't as worried about the beer's flavour. Had they been, they would have insisted of bottle-conditioning.

Bass's bottled beer

Bass - what a litigious bunch they were. Search the newspaper archive for "Bass's bottled beer" and you'll find almost as many court cases as advertisements selling it.

I like this article because it goes into more detail. More detail about how Bass uncovered fraudulent imitations of their beer. More detail of how that fraud was perpetrated and the excuses of the perpetrators.

Plus there's an appearance of Mr. Sullivan, legendary brewing chemist at Bass. Though hang on, wasn't he called O'Sullivan? I wonder if it's the same bloke and the newspaper has got his name wrong? Or maybe Bass really did have one chemist called Sullivan and another O'Sullivan.

"BASS'S BOTTLED BEER.
IMPORTANT PROSECUTION AT MIDDLESHROUGH.
Mr Robert Conway, grocer and ale merchant, of North Ormesby, appeared before the Middlesbrough County Magistrates this (Friday) morning to answer a charge of unlawfully using the trade mark of Messrs Bass and Co., the famous firm of brewers at Burton-on-Trent. The local agent of the firm (Mr Cox) attended, in company with Mr Burton, solicitor, to prosecute; and Mr George Barnley defended. — The circumstances of the case were almost identically tbe same as those elicited in the course of a similar prosecution at Stockton on Thursday, and reported in last evening's Gazette. — The first witness was William Layton, a workman employed at Messrs Bass's local stores. He said that on the 16th of May he went into Mr Conway's shop and enquired of the person in attendance whether Bass's bottled ale was sold there. Witness received an affirmative reply, and at once ordered a dozen and a half of half-pint bottles of pale ale. On obtaining the ale, witness securely sealed the whole of the bottles, and sent six of them to Mr Sullivan (analytical chemist to Messrs Bass) for the purpose of being tested in quality and constituents. Witness now produced the remaining dozen bottles for the inspection of the Bench. — Mr Sullivan, the chemist, was then called to give evidence with respect to tbe result of his analysis. He explained the process he had adopted in his experiments with the ale. He said that the result generally was the discovery of the fact that the ale sent for analysis did not contain the particular chemical constituents possessed by Messrs Bass's pale ale. The bottles bore the labels of Messrs Bass and Co. Witness said the ale in the bottles was probably worth about 42s per barrel, whilst the pale ale sold by Messrs Bass was worth 60s per barrel. — Mr Barnley, in addressing the Bench for the defence, said he was prepared to produce evidence to show that an assistant in Mr Conway's employ accidentally — or, rather, carelessly got some Burton ale mixed with Messrs Bass's beer in the process of bottling. The defendant could not be made responsible for such carelessness on the part of his men, because if a master were held responsible for every act of carelessness on his servants' behalf he might suddenly find himself before the Bench on a charge of manslaughter if a servant happened to put some poison in the beer. — George Broadbury, an assistant in the defendant's employ, was then called as a witness for the defence. He stated that when bottling off the ale it was usual to shift the syphon receivers from one cask of ale to another without drawing up the syphons. By this means a small quantity of the beer that was left in the receiver would be bottled with the first part of the other cask. Since he found out that it was needful to empty the receivers he had always been very careful to do so. — The Bench then retired, and, after about twenty minutes' consultation returned into Court. The Chairman (Mr Hustler) said the Bench thought there was not sufficient evidence to support the charge, and they, therefore, dismissed the case."
Daily Gazette for Middlesbrough - Friday 06 June 1884, page 3.

It sounds as if Bass sent their employees round to buy beer from those they suspected of selling counterfeit Bass. As Mr. Conway was bottling beer himself, presumably Bass would have been aware if he had bought beer from them. If someone was selling "Bass" but hadn't bought any barrels, that would look pretty dodgy. I suppose that's when Bass sent someone around to buy a few bottles. Or maybe they just checked all the bottlers they didn't have a good relationship with.

What was the chemist looking for? Gravity is the most obvious one. Bass would know the gravity range of their Pale Ale. If a weaker beer had been substituted - the obvious course if you wanted to get maximum profit - it would be pretty easy to spot. That the beer was valued at just 42 shillings implies that, in this case, it was weaker. In 1897, Fuller's XK cost a little more, 45 shillings, and had an OG of 1055º*. In 1887 Bass Pale Ale had an OG of 1064, according to an analysis** I have. Much higher than the 1052º or so of the counterfeit (according to my guesstimate).

The mineral content would be another item to check. Bass's brewing water had a pretty distinctive profile and, while it wasn't be identical in the finished beer, Bass knew how it changed. Because they analysed both their brewing water and their beer during the strychnine scare of the 1850's. The mineral content is probably what is meant by "particular chemical constituents".

The explanation that some other beer remained in the syphon receiver it was inadvertently mixed with real Bass sounds like bollocks to me. Surely that would have only affected a few bottles? I'm surprised Mr. Carter got away with it. Nice the way he blamed his employee for the "mistake".

This is unusual in being the only case I can recall Bass losing. It really was Carter's lucky day.




* Source: Fuller's brewing records.
** Wahl & Henius, pages 823-830.

Bottling in 1914 - Semi-rapid Chilling and Filtering Process

I don't know whether to be pleased or disturbed that any of you are still reading this stuff on bottling. Some of you masochists must be actually enjoying it. A scary thought.

I like this section because it shows exactly how all the bits of kit fitted together. Though unfortunately the image of the drawing isn't great.

"Semi-rapid Chilling and Filtering Process.
The diagram illustrates the working of this process. A is conditioning tank or tanks, usually constructed of tinned copper or glass-enamelled steel, wherein the boor is run from the fermenting vessels and conditioned, after which it is forced through the carbonator B, where sufficient quantity of CO2 is automatically injected into the beer, which then passes to the counter current chiller C, where the beer is rapidly cooled and the gas absorbed in its passage through the chiller. The beer then passes through the filters D und E, D being a primary or rough filter, wherein sponge is the filtering medium. E shows a pulp chamber filter of up-to-date type. The beer after passing through these filters enters the insulated vessel or vessels F, where the beer may be kept at a suitable temperature by means of a brine jacket or coil until ready for bottling. In many cases the beer is only chilled down to about 35º F. in the counter current chiller, and the remaining 5° or 6° are taken out in the chilling vessels F. Where the plant is worked in this manner, however, the beer is usually filtered after and not before entering these vessels, and this system entails a number of chilling vessels, varying according to the time taken in chilling."

Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 20, Issue 6, November-December 1914, pages 522 - 523.

It makes sense to carbonate after cooling as the lower the temperature, the more CO2 that beer will absorb.

"It is a system that is much in vogue in many of the large breweries in this country, and is a system that is worked with considerable success. For the majority of beers, however, we think that probably as good results may be obtained by chilling the beer down to, say, 30° on the counter current chiller, filtering it and running direct to the vessels F, which will then be utilised merely as receivers from which to draw the beer for the filling machines. In this case a lesser number of cylinders would suffice for most bottlers, as whilst the chilled and carbonated beer was being run into one cylinder, bottling would be accomplished from another cylinder, and the number of vessels necessary would practically depend upon the different classes of beer required to be bottled at one time. We would wish to draw attention in this diagram to the position of the automatic carbonator. This we have placed in front of the counter current chiller, although we are aware that it is not the usual custom in this country, but we would submit that in so far as the actual absorbent property of the beer is concerned, this is the same for all practical purposes, whether you carbonate and cool the gas and beer together or whether you cool first, and afterwards carbonate as is the usual custom in this country. Beers of identical composition at 32° F. under identical pressures will absorb the same quantity of carbonic acid gas in either case."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 20, Issue 6, November-December 1914, pages 523 - 524.

Or maybe it doesn't matter.

"Where a counter current chiller is fitted there is an advantage in charging the beer with gas first and then cooling the beer and gas together, because in carrying out this scheme the cooler acts as an absorbing chamber as well as cooler. It is important that no free gas, which has not been completely absorbed, should enter a beer filter or bottle, and I would therefore urge that wherever the counter current chiller is fitted it is preferable to carbonate the beer before passing through the cooler. The automatic carbonator here shown is one that has been fitted with considerable success in America, and has also proved very successful in this country. It is extremely simple in design, and the amount of gas admitted to the beer is regulated by the flow of the beer, and once adjusted requires little or no alteration. The gas is connected to the carbouator either from storage tank or one of the large steel cylinders. In the latter case the pressure should of course be reduced by means of a reducing valve."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 20, Issue 6, November-December 1914, page 524.

Right . . so it's actually best to carbonate then chill. I'm glad I've got that one straight.

Next time it really will be the turn of dry hopping. Honest.

The Merchandise Marks Act of 1887

Now is when we return to the legislation that Bass took great advantage of: the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887.

It replaced a similarly-named Act of 1862. I suppose it must have been deficient in some respect, otherwise why go to the trouble of passing a new act?

Note the very appropriate name of Bass's legal representative.

"BASS & CO'S TRADE MARK.
FIRST IMPORTANT PROSECUTION UNDER THE NEW MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.
At the City of York Guild Hall on Wednesday, the 22nd inst., before a full beach of Magistrates, Mr Joseph Halliwell, of 41 Skeldergate, York, bottled beer and porter merchant, was charged with having on the 18th November last, at the said city, a certain trade mark, the property of Bass, Ratcliffe, and Gretton, Limited, and without the assent of the said company did unlawfully, falsely, and deceitfully apply, and sell with the said trade mark so falsely applied, twelve bottles of beer, then and thereby unlawfully, falsely, and deceitfully representing that the beer contained in the said bottles was of the manufacture of the said Bass, Ratcliff, and Gretton, Limited. The defendant was represented by Mr Haliday Smith, solicitor, of York. Mr George Burton (Jennings, Son, and Burton), solicitor, Burton-on-Trent, who appeared to conduct the case on behalf of Messrs Bass and Co., stated that this was the first prosecution of the kind under the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887, in the reparation of certain clauses of which he had the honour of making certain suggestions which had been adopted and now formed a part of the Act which repealed the Merchandise Marks Act, 1862, under which he had conducted numerous prosecutions to success on behalf of his clients in different parts of the country. The present procredings were taken under section 2 of the new Act. which, on conviction or indictment, rendered a defendant liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour for not exceeding two years, or, on summary conviction, to imprisonment with or without hard labour for not Lexceediug four months, or to a fine not exceeding £20 for a first offence, while the defendant had the frignt before the charge was gone into to elect to be tried on indictment. The defendant's solicitor having stated that he was willing for the case to be dealt with summarily, Mr Burton proceeded to say that he was in a position to prove, beyond all question of doubt, that the defendant was guilty of the offence charged in the summons, and was about to do so when the defendant's solicitor said the defendant would plead guilty to the charge, and that he was instructed to express to the Court, and to Messrs Bass and Co., the defendant's unfeigned regret for what had been done. As defendant had an hotel in another part of the City his time was necessarily divided, and although he was not personally cognizant of the spurious beer having been put into the bottles with Messrs Bass and Co.'s labels applied, yet he was undoubtedly liable for the consequences. The Bench said the charge was definite, and clearly stated in the information, and I asked whether or not the defendant pleaded guilty. Mr Haliday Smith-Yes; I am bound to admit the offence, but I was about to say - Mr Burton-The defendant must either admit the offence without qualification or I shall at once put the witnesses into the box and prove the case conclusively. Mr Haliday Smith - I am sure my friend here would not say as a much unless he could so. I do not think I ought to occupy the time of the Magistrates unnecessarily, and therefore I candidly admit the offence, and on behalf of the defendant I offer his sincere apology to Messrs. Bass and Co., and am prepared to submit to the judgment of the Court. Mr Burton - As the defendant has pleaded guilty and made the apology in Court, I beg to be permitted to say that my clients have no vindictive feelings in the matter, but they felt bound in their own interests, as well as in the interests of the general public, to take these proceedings. The Bench - This is, we understand, the first case of the kind in York ? Mr Burton - It is, I and I hope it will go forth to all dealers in bottled beer that my clients are determined to protect their trade mark, and that if any case of the kind should occur again I shall feel bound to press for severe punishment. The Bench - The public ought to get a what the label is a guarantee of-the genuine beer of Messrs Bass. Mr Burton - Undoubtedly, and it is a fraud upon the public if they do not. The Magistrates, after having consulted together, fined the defendant in the mitigated penalty of £5 and costs, making together £14 9s 3d. Mr Haliday Smith - I am much obliged to Messrs Bass and Co. for their leniency in the matter, and to my friend Mr Burton for the favourable manner he has dealt with the case."
Aberdeen Journal - Wednesday 28 December 1887, page 7.

Two years hard labour? I think I'd plead guilty and apologise if it got me out of being banged up for two years.

So they'd let Bass's legal man help write the legislation. I can't imagine he'd have wanted to make it more difficult to prosecute fraudsters. Were they the only interestd parties to have a say? They couldn't have been the only ones to have their products counterfeited. Funny thing is, I can't remember seeing any prosecutions by  Allsopp or Guinness, owners of the two next most famous brands.

Talking of brands and Bass, what an absolute scandal that such a prestigious and universally known brand should have been run into the ground by its owners over the last 50 years. What does that tell us about postwar British brewing?

Bottling in 1914 - women workers and collecting CO2

I never realised just how much there was to bottling before I embarked on this series.  It's probably the most mechanically complicated activity in a brewery. Racking draught beer barrels is a piece of piss in comparison.

Whenever topics like women in the workplace come up in old texts, it's clear that attitudes have changed a fair bit. You can't fault the next section for honesty, even though it might make us moderns squirm a little.

"Some firms do not like female labour, preferring boys. In my experience both have their uses — girls for labelling are far better than boys, whilst for bottle washing I find boys preferable. In my part of the country it was possible to obtain boys some few years ago who were only too willing to commence at 5s. per week and advance, now it is impossible to get a boy at all for less than 9s., and that for a weakling just left school. Girls of 18 will willingly start at 8s., and are far stronger. I have never found any trouble from working with the sexes mixed. It is well to have a good foreman (a retired army sergeant by preference), but it is unwise to harass the workers as many foremen are apt to do, and it certainly pays to treat the workers with some consideration, but on the other hand not to let them get discouraged from lack of supervision.

Women always rise to the occasion when there is a rush of trade preceding a holiday, and I have found a cup of tea and a cake given about four o'clock when they are working at high pressure very materially stimulates their efforts. Further, I have never known them take advantage of a little latitude given when things are quiet. It has been really remarkable the improvement in the appearance of the girls after a few weeks' work in an airy bottlery."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 20, Issue 6, November-December 1914, pages 518 - 519.

Some odd stuff in there. Would male workers have reacted differently to a cup of tea and a piece of cake? Would they have ever drunk tea at work? A hundred years ago pretty much every brewery was "wet", with workers getting free beer. When I worked in a "wet" brewery, I don't remember ever having drunk a cup of tea. Why drink tea when there was free beer on offer?


Who wouldn't prefer an 18-year-old girl to weakling 14-year-old boy?

Presumably the women looked better after a few weeks because of the crap working conditions they'd enjoyed in their previous employment. I suppose breweries aren't that unhealthy places to work, as long as you keep your hands out of the machinery and don't get overcome by CO2

Which segues nicely into our next topic, collecting CO2. If you were artificially carbonating your beer, it made sense to collect the gas given off during primary fermentation.

"Collection of Carbonic Acid Gas.
The collection of CO2 in the brewery for use in the bottlery is a point of great importance. Considerable economy can be effected in the majority of bottling stores by the introduction of a gas collecting plant.

The matter of compressors is one of the most important things in this type of plant, as there is no question that gas compressed at from 150 to 250 lb. is likely to be burnt, even if the compressor in cooled by water. Hence there is always more or less danger of the beer getting that rank taste and flavour frequently noticed in carbonated beers. I should recommend that a low-pressure compressor be adopted, compressing the gas say at 100 lb. to the square inch or even lower, instead of the high-pressure machines installed; I am quite aware that storage vessels for low-pressure gas have to be made larger; at the same time, provided a sufficient number of fermenting vessels be connected up, very little storage capacity is required. This, in my opinion, is far preferable, as stored gas is likely to deteriorate when stored even for a short period."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 20, Issue 6, November-December 1914, pages 519 - 520.

I'm not sure I follow that. How on earth can you burn CO2? Why would the pressure it was stored at affect it? And why would stored CO2 deteriorate? Just about the whole of that paragraph has me scratching my head.

This is a bit easier to understand:

"The following are the data of the average quantity of gas obtained from "English top-fermentation beers":—

A wort usually gives off 1 lb. of carbonic acid gas per barrel for every 1 lb. fermented, therefore the average beers usually produce 0.12 lb. per barrel per hour, and the amount of gas produced from a 100-barrel fermenting tun would therefore be about 12 lb. per hour. For practical purposes, however, we may reckon about one-tenth of a pound per hour per barrel of fermenting wort, or, say, 10 lb. of gas per hour on a 100-barrel vessel.

It is advisable to collect the gas about 15 hours after pitching, when the richest and purest gas commences to be given off. Collection usually continues for about 24—30 hours after this, so that the quantity of gas given off from a 100-barrel vessel in 24 hours would average about 240 lb. weight. A barrel of beer usually requires about 0.5 lb. of gas for carbonating, therefore the quantity of gas collected from a 100-barrel vessel should be sufficient to carbonate about 400 barrels of beer after allowing some margin for leakage, etc. Of course, if CO2 be used for top pressure this quantity will be materially reduced."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 20, Issue 6, November-December 1914, page 520.

10 lbs of CO2 and hour sounds like quite a lot. It's a fascinating fact that in 24 hours you could collect enough CO2 from 100 barrels of fermenting wort to carbonate 400 barrels of beer. A brewery could easily have been self-sufficient in CO2, even if they bottled a large percentage of their output.

I've been promising you some exciting stuff about dry hopping for a while. We will get to it eventually. Probably this year sometime.

Fake Bass

Bass had terrible problems with faked bottles of their beer in the 19th century, we gone into that before. But the problem continuied into the 20th century, with Bass frequently taking offenders to court. Mostly it seems to hve been publicans who were the culprits.

I wonder how many prosecutions they started each year? It was certainly no challenge to find these examples in the newspaper archive.

"BASS'S BOTTLED ALES.
High Court Chancery Division to Saturday before Mr Eve an action Baas and Co., a perpetual injunction granted with costs against Richard Wilson, licensee the Black Swan Hotel, Coney Street, York, restraining him. his servants and agents from selling or offering for as "Bass" or "Bottled Bass," ale not of the plaintiff's manufacture."
Aberdeen Journal - Monday 16 June 1913, page 7.

I'd be interested to know when these forgeries ended. It must have been far easier in the past when there were many bottling on a tiny scale. Presumably buying in some cheap Pale Ale and sticking it into Bass bottles. I doubt many publicans woould have the eqiuipment or knowhow to biottle beer themselves today.

What I have wondered is whether any fakery goes on in modern beer geek circles. Faking Westvleteren wouldn't be hard, if you had some of their crown corks. Then there are those weird, short run, barrel-aged things - sucker juice, as Alan at A Good Beer Blog calls them. Has anyone faked those? If you had an empty bottle of the stuff, how hard would it be to fill it up again with something vaguely similar? Some of these beers are worth silly prices. Would it be so surprising if someone had spotted a way of earning some dishonest cash?

"Bass's Bottled Beer.
In the Chancery Division in Dublin yesterday, an action, Bass, Ratcliff, and Gretton. Limited, v. Mrs Annie Hamilton, and Wilson's Court, Belfast, licensed victualler, an injunction was granted restraining the defendant from selling as "Bass" or "Bottle of Bass," ale not the plaintiff's manufacture.

The defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the action."
Aberdeen Evening Express - Tuesday 24 April 1917, page 2.

Have you noticed the similar wording of the injunctions? "Bass" and "Bottle of Bass"or "Bottled Bass" seem to come up each time. No doubt their legal department worked fulltime chasing dodgy publicans.

"BASS' BOTTLED BEER."
In the Sheriff Court Fife Kinross, Kirkcaldy yesterday, Andrew Stein, of the Railway Tavern, Buckhaven, was charged at the instance of Bass, Ratcliff, and Gretton, Ltd., with selling on the 13th and 18th April certain bottles of beer to which the trade mark of Bass, Ratcliff, and Gretton, Ltd., was falsely applied, contrary to the provisions the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887. The defendant was fined and ordered to pay expenses.
Aberdeen Journal - Thursday 28 June 1917, page 4.

Note the date of the last two. WW I doesn't seem to have slowed down the fraudsters.

"BASS'S BOTTLED BEER.
In the Sheriff Court at Dundee on the 10th inst. R. A. Wilson, Hawkhill, Dundee, was charged at the instance of Bass, Ratcliff, and Gretton, Ltd., with selling the 5th and 21st August, and the 6th September last, certain bottles of beer to which the trade mark of Bass, Ratcliff, and Gretton, Ltd., was falsely applied, contrary to the Provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887. The defendant pleaded guilty, and judgment was passed accordingly."
Aberdeen Journal - Wednesday 15 October 1919, page 3.

 We'll be returning to the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887. A piece of legislation in which Bass seem to have had a hand.

Bottling in 1914 - bottles and labelling

If this series seems never-ending to you, think about me - I have to write this stuff. You only have to read this stuff once at most. I've gone through it several times. It's a wonder I can keep awake. Don't despair. The end is almost in sight. At least for this source. There are still those two complete books I own on the subject.

Right. Let's crack on or we'll never get finished. Labelling:

"Labelling.
Hand work is rapidly being superseded by power labelling, and with the very excellent machines now on the market there is very little excuse for any brewer turning out bottles with the labels put on at any angle and with an unsightly appearance. In these competitive times very much depends upon the get up of bottled beer, and what is more aggravating to the housewife than to have a bottle of beer or stout with a crooked label and a muddy bottom placed upon the clean table cloth — whatever the contents of the bottle may be, it is damned in advance."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 20, Issue 6, November-December 1914, pages 516 - 517.

It's a universally-accepted truth that housewives dislike muddy bottoms on their kitchen tables. The number of times that's got me into trouble. Joking aside, making sure the bottles are clean and the labels on straight is pretty basic stuff. Though I've had beers with crooked labels. Ones with two labels, one over the other. Admittedly, from Belgian breweries. They're an anarchic lot, the Belgians.

Now for the machinery that put the labels on:

"The labelling machines most favoured put on the two or more labels in one action, they put them on straight, and they put them on to sweating bottles straight from the machines; and, further, provided the proper mucilage be used, they do not drop off with the subsequent shaking they get before the bottle dries off. The machines I am speaking of have been in use some two years and have cost practically nothing for repairs, they do 180 dozen per hour comfortably, and, I find, replace six girls. So far, I have not heard of a machine which will put on a capsule at the same time as the body label, though doubtless this will come in time."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 20, Issue 6, November-December 1914, page 517.

Mucilage? That sounds disgusting. I think he means glue. And by capsule something that went over the stopper and neck of the bottles. Like the foil things beers that are trying to look posh have.

Now let's look at the bottles themselves:

"Of bottles used for chilled beers I find the amber colour the most suitable: the beer looks best in it and the breakage is considerably less, the bottles stand rather more pressure than the black or dark green. The price is rather higher, but I think it is more than recovered. I have come to the conclusion that the dark green bottle is more brittle, owing to the bottle makers buying cullet and using it somewhat freely with the new metal in their furnaces."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 20, Issue 6, November-December 1914, page 517.

That first sentence could be interpreted to mean that he preferred another type of bottle for naturally-conditioned beers. But I don't believe that he means that. I'm not going to argue with him, though. And history has proved him right. Amber has been by far the commonest colour for beer bottles over the years. Because of the UV protection it offers. I can't comment on whether green bottles were more brittle. It probably depended on who made them.

Now there's a discussion of my new favourite word, cullet:

"The cullet account is one of the black spots in most bottleries, and many brewers consider themselves lucky who have no sale for it, consequently it gets thrown away or buried, after a more or less conscientious attempt to estimate the amount. Many attempts have been made to keep the accounts for cullet to their separate departments, that which arrives on the drays from the public, that caused in washing, that in filling, and, lastly, the bursts after filling; but, at best, these are not reliable, depending, as they do, largely on the honesty of the man in charge of the department making the return.

. . .

Care must be taken that stoppers are not swept up with the cullet, and it is only by careful supervision that this and many other losses can be avoided. A little care in washing, paying particular attention to the temperature of the soaking liquor that it is not too hot, and, again, in filling bottles which are cool, will greatly reduce the breakage, as bottles filled when warm burst at a great rate on the machines."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 20, Issue 6, November-December 1914, pages 517 - 518.

It sounds like breakages were a real problem. And there were loads of opportunities for bottles to break during the process: during soaking, washing, filling, sealing, packing and transporting. I imagine it crunching with every footstep. It still happens today, obviously. The sound of breaking glass is sometimes heard in every bottling hall.

We've still quite a way to go until we get to the bit that might interest one or two of you: dry hopping. Lots in the discussion at the end of the presentation about that.

Overcharging for beer at Culter

The price controls on beer initiated during WW I outlived the war by several years. I'd wondered to what extent they could be, or were, enforced. It seems they were taken very seriously indeed. As this article demonstrates.

It seems the landlord was confused about the rules - or at least that's what he claimed.

"IN THE COURTS.
OVERCHARGING FOR BEER AT CULTER.
A prosecution under the Beer Prices Order was dealt with by Sheriff Laing Aberdeen yesterday.

Adam Marr, hotelkeeper, Gordon Arms Hotel, Culter, was charged with having, on 20th May, sold two bottles of Bass' bottled beer at the price of 1s a bottle, being 2.5d in excess of the maximum price allowed under the Order in regard the quantity in one of the bottles and 3d in excess in the case of the other bottle.

Accused pleaded guilty. Mr G. A Wilson, advocate (Messrs Mackenzie and Wilson), who appeared for accused, said the only excuse he could offer was that Marr acted in good faith, and what he did was in ignorance of the proper changes in the recent Order issued the Food Controller. And it was not to be wondered supposing these licence holders should fall into mistakes because of the extraordinary number of Orders issued from time time by the Controller. In fact, one would require to have a skilled lawyer sitting on the doorstep to keep the licencehoider right (Laughter.)

The Sheriff—That is an opportunity for you. (Laughter.)
Mr Maclennan, the fiscal — A fine opening for the lawyer. (Laughter.)

Mr Wilson — The only difficulty is that they would require lawyer for every licenceholder — there would hardly be enough to go round. (Laughter.)

The Sheriff — Where would you sit, Mr Wilson?

Called to "the Bar."

Mr Wilson — On the doorstep — just take the orders as they come in. (Laughter.)

The Sheriff — I thought perhaps in the bar. (Laughter.)

Mr Wilson explained that the last Order was issued on 20th April.

Mr Maclennan — This is a fresh Order account of the Budget.

Mr Wilson said the authorities were prepared to allow a sliding scale of an ounce up or down, and took the average about 13 ounces. In this complaint, in the one case it was 12oz. and in the other 12.5. One would require a chemist sitting with a measure to measure every bottle. (Laughter.)

The Sheriff — A chemist as well as a lawyer. (Laughter.)

Mr Wilson — And a fiscal. (Laughter.)

The Fiscal — And a Sheriff. (Laughter.)

Mr Wilson — And we must not forget Mr Connor, the Sheriff-Clerk Depute.

The Sheriff —There would not be much room for the general public. (Laughter.)

Not Behind the Bush.

Mr Wilson said Marr really committed the offence in ignorance, and had boldly set up in the smoke-room bar — "Beer and stout 1s 1d per reputed pint," so that he was not going behind the bush. He had been a licenceholder for 13 years, and this was the first complaint against him.

Mr Maclennan said tho inspector went to the Gordon Arms Hotel and asked for two bottles of Bass, and the girl charged him 2s. Marr replied — "The charge is correct; this is a private bar." The inspector told him it was under the provisions of the Order applying to sales in private bars that he was charging him. The contents of the bottles were measured out. In the city of Aberdeen the traders were all supplied with the schedule of prices at which reputed pints might be sold, and had no doubt the same thing had been done in the country. If the licence holders would take the trouble to read them, they would see at a glance what they were entitled to charge.

The Sheriff said from what the fiscal had stated it seemed as if the practice that was dealt with on the previous occasion had been stopped, and was glad hear it. He trusted this case would be a warning to those in the country and that the prices fixed under the more recent Order issued in April would be rigidly observed. In the circumstances, he would impose penalty of five guineas."
Aberdeen Journal - Wednesday 19 May 1920, page 6.

The rules were quite complicated. There were two tables of prices: one for the public bar and off-sales, and one for all the other bars in a pub. The price was determined by the gravity of the beer. This was, as far as I am aware, the first time drinkers would have been aware of the strength of the beer they were drinking.

Here are the public bar prices from the Beer (Prices and Description) Order, 1920:

First Schedule.- Sales of Beer by Retail in a Public Bar or for Consumption off the Premises.
Beer by gravity	Non-bottled	Bottled Price per
	price per pint	half pint	pint	quart
Under 1020º	3d.	3d.	6d.	10d.
> 1020º < 1027º	4d.	3.5d.	7d.	11d.
> 1027º < 1033º	5d.	4d.	7.5d.	1/1d
> 1033º < 1039º	6d.	4.5d.	8d.	1/3d
> 1039º < 1046º	7d.	5.5d.	9d.	1/5d
> 1046º < 1054º	8d.	6.5d.	11d.	1/7d
> 1054º	9d.	7d.	1/1d	1/9d
Source:
Taken from "The Brewers' Almanack 1928" pages 100 - 101.

But that's not the one we're interested in, because the offence was committed in a private bar (which, despite the name, was one of the public rooms in a pub) , where these prices applied:

Second Schedule.-Sales of Beer by Retail for Consumption on the Premises Elsewhere than in a Public Bar
Beer by gravity	Non-bottled	Bottled Price per
	price per pint	half pint	pint	quart
Under 1020º	4d.	4d.	8d	1/-
> 1020º < 1027º	5d.	4.5d.	9d.	1/1d
> 1027º < 1033º	6d.	5d.	9.5d.	1/3d
> 1033º < 1039º	7d.	5.5d.	10d.	1/5d
> 1039º < 1046º	8d.	6.5d.	11d.	1/7d
> 1046º < 1054º	9d.	7.5d.	1/1d	1/9d
> 1054º	10d.	8.5d.	1/3d	1/11d
Source:
Taken from "The Brewers' Almanack 1928" pages 100 - 101.

It's possible to work out the gravity of Bass Pale Ale from the amount of the overcharging. The bottle which sold for 3d over the maximum price contained 12 fluid ounces, or 60% of an imperial pint. The price should have been 9d, which is 60% of 15d, or 1s 3d. Meaning it was in the highest strength band of above 1054º. Isn't that interesting.

There would be little point in having a beer with a gravity of much over 1054º as it would make the beer less profitable. I'd guess Bass Pale was about 1055º, a very respectable gravity for the day. As the fact that the weakest band was under 1020º demonstrates.

But I don't need to guess. I've got real figures:

Bottled Bass Pale Ale 1921 - 1922
Year	Beer	FG	OG	colour	ABV	App. Atten-uation
1921	Pale Ale (bottled by Whitbread)		1055.2
1922	Pale Ale (bottled by Whitbread)		1055
1922	Pale Ale (bottled by Aldridge)		1055.1
1922	Pale Ale (Belgian sample)	1010.9	1055.1		5.76	80.22%
1922	Pale Ale	1011	1054.73	20	5.70	79.90%
Sources:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001
Younger, Wm. & Co Gravity Book document WY/6/1/1/19 held at the Scottish Brewing Archive

Just as predicted, the gravity was around 1055º.

It's going to be really strange when I get tired of bottled beer and have to think of something else to write about.