Thursday, 20 February 2014

Mother and daughter give evidence

With Mrs. and Miss Charrington taking the stand we learn more about the domestic situation. It doesn't seem to have been the happiest of homes.

All had not been well between the Charringtons for a while. The root cause of the trouble appears to have been Mr. Charrington's liking for a drink.
"MRS CHARRINGTON IN THE WITNESS-BOX.
When She Attempted to Strangle Herself.
Mrs Charrrington again went into the witness-box in the Divorce Court to-day to deny the charges brought against her her husband, who is petitioning for divorce.

. . . . .

In further examination her counsel, Mrs- Charrington told change in her husband's attitude about June, 1924. She was not allowed to give orders. The cook was doing the housekeeping. Her husband called her "d------ liar" at meals much so that she had to take her meals in her room. She was not able to get into touch with him.

The Parting.
One morning when she went up to her husband, the nurse-companion came out of the bathroom and a threw bottle at her daughter Eileen. Her husband was in bed, and she asked what was the cause of the servants going see a solicitor. Reggie (the son) said she was to leave the room, as she was not to see her husband, on the solicitor's instructions.

"I said I would not leave the room until he had answered me," Mrs Charrington continued, "and my husband said 'I don't see why I should not tell my wife — it's divorce.' I never saw him again."

Tried to Strangle Herself.
Asked if had assisted Harrison financially, she said not actually with money, except that she gave him £2 when, at the end a month, he was hard up, and helped him as regards clothes and a tutor. She made him birthday and Christmas presents.

Counsel recalled her wire to her husband after the proceedings had commenced, "Give me another chance. Don't break the home up.—Love, Millie."

She explained that she wished for the sake of the children that the home should not broken up, especially as Eileen was then leaving school.

At a Covent Garden ball she saw him turning cartwheels, and a woman sat him when he fell down. She saw him in one of the boxes with a woman on his knee.

All this had an awful effect upon her.

Counsel - I think your people were Quakers? — Yes.
When you got home what did you do ? — I was upset and I tried to strangle myself with a stocking.

Alleged Violence.
Once when witness was in delicate health he knocked her into the fireplace. He would go into public-houses and leave her outside. On a motor trip to Brighton, a gentleman friend behaved improperly to her. She complained to her husband, but he took the friend to the races with them next day.

In 1908 the doctor told her husband he would not be alive in six months if he continued to drink. Later he went into a home. Once he threatened to commit suicide with a razor."
Evening Telegraph - Thursday 26 November 1925, page 9.

Sounds a bit of a rotter, Mr. Charrington. Leaving her outside pubs, knocking her down, cavorting with other women, letting his mates touch her up. I'm surprised Mrs. Charrington put up with it as long as she did.

I'm not quite sure what relevance the question about being a Quaker had. The suicide attempt is a bit vague, too. How exactly did she try to strangle herself and why did it fail? That six months to livwe prediction wasn't very accurate. Because Mr. Charrington certainly didn't give up the booze.

Now it's time for the medical evidence and daughter Eileen's testimony.


"CHARRINGTON DIVORCE PETITIONS.
Medical Evidence.

. . . . .

Medical evidence was called to day, Dr Victor Fry that he was consulted in May, 1921, by Mr Charrington, who was then residing at the New Hampton Court Club, East Molesley. He was suffering from neuritis. Witness diagnosed later that the origin of the trouble was excess alcohol. He attended him down to April, 1922, and during the time he was suffering from alcoholism.

The doctor added that several attempts cure Mr Charrington by suggestion unsuccessful. At the present moment Mr Charrington was very much improved in health. He had come to the conclusion that besides drink Mr Charrington was worrying because his wife wanted to get control of his money, which he declined to allow.

Mrs Charrington said he was inclined to waste his money, and therefore she ought to have control of it.

Did she mention any sum ? — Yes, think she said he gave £500 to an attendant who went away with him.

Like Mother and Son.
Mrs Catherine Hyde, Mrs Charrington's aunt, asked how she would describe the relations between Mrs Charrington and Harrison, said, they were like mother and son. When Mr complained about his wife he said she had not been playing the game, that she had been indiscreet and foolish, but not immoral. Subsequently he mentioned that he had altered his will to the detriment of his wife, but said she would not starve. This very much upset Mrs Charrington.

Daughter and the Co-Respondent.
Miss Eileen Charrington, the 19-year-old daughter of the parties, was called, and was asked regarding her father-

Was he a sober or a drunken man ? — I am afraid I have never seen him sober.

Her mother was always unhappy and miserable and crying because she was so upset by her father. Harrison and she played together as children, and their friendship grew in time and developed into affection. Her mother told him not to make love "because I was too young. I always looked upon him as a brother."

Witness described how Harrison and she would have breakfast in her mother's bedroom, and how he hid under the eiderdown, jumping up and upsetting the tray she was carrying.

He also gave a humorous turn to a visit paid to her her mother's Keswick home. He arrived two o'clock in the morning, and she thought when he threw stones at the window that it was a burglar."
Evening Telegraph - Tuesday 01 December 1925, page 9.

See - Charrington was still a pisshead. I love the daughter's claim to have never seen him sober.

Another newspaper report included this gem from Eileen:

"Have you got any good to say about your father?— Yes. He has always been very kind to me and just and very generous. She said she had lunched recently with her father. "He was sober, but not as an ordinary man," she said.

Mrs Florence Doland, formerly a housemaid Jermyn Street, whose evidence was taken on commission, deposed to two occasions when she saw women leaving Mr Charrington's flat late at night.

Mr Charrington then re-entered the witness box and denied ever committing adultery. He also denied ever telling his wife that he had been court-martialled in France for drunkenness. He was discharged from the army with the rank of lieutenant. "
Dundee Courier - Wednesday 02 December 1925, page 3.

Not sober as an ordinary man - what could that mean?

The testimony of Mrs. Doland seems to have been about all the evidence they had of Mr. Charrington's adultery. Pretty thin stuff.

I'm confused about Eileen and Harrison. Earlier it was said that Harrison became acquinted with the family through son Reggie when they were both preparing to join the Navy. Yet here Eileen claims to have known him as a young child.

I still can't get Eileen's relationship with Harrison. She claims to have been in love with him, yet was undisturbed by her mum kissing and hugging him, or even being in her mum's bed. Had the mother warned Harrison off Eileen because she wwanted him herself? It's all as clear as mud.

Wednesday, 19 February 2014

Kindle version of The Home Brewer's Guide to Vintage Beer

It seems that there is a Kindle version of The Home Brewer's Guide to Vintage Beer.

http://www.amazon.com/Home-Brewers-Guide-Vintage-Beer-ebook/dp/B00I56GAPU/

The publisher seems to have forgotten to tell me about it.

Charrington Burton Ale quality 1922 - 1923

I guess you realise what I'm up to. I'm going to grind through the styles brewery by brewery, pointing out which breweries were selling the shittiest beer.

But to liven it up a bit I'm throwing in a random newspaper article about the brewery from the 1920's.

There is one other reason for this series. I've a very busy time coming up, what with all my book-promoting events and countless other projects. It's an easy way of rattling off a couple of dozen posts.

Breweries and fires go together like barbecues and petrol. With just as much risk of everything going up in smoke. Often it was the maltings that caught light.  I don't think that was the case here as I'm pretty sure there were none at the Mile End brewery.

It's not clear what was the cause. It sounds as if it started in a fermenting room. Which is a pretty unlikely place for a fire to start.


"BREWERY FIRE.
GALLONS OF BEER THROWN AWAY

Shortly after five o'clock yesterday morning an outbreak of fire was discovered at Anchor Brewery Messrs. Charrington and Company, Mile End-road, London, and before was put out considerable damage was done to the stock of malt and to beer in the process of brewing.

A night watchman noticed a smell of smoke, and found it came from the third floor. He promptly raised an alarm, and within a few minutes five fire appliances arrived to find a dense volume of smoke filling the building. The seat of the fire was at the rear of some huge vats, 20 feet in height and 12 feet in diameter. These contained beer partially brewed. The fire had spread upwards to the fourth floor, where a big stock of malt was stored, and from the smouldering malt a dense volume of smoke arose and made the task of the firemen extremely difficult.

One vat of nearly eleven dozen barrels of beer in the final stages of fermentation was ruined. The vat was burned, but the reason the beer was thrown away was that it was too much diluted, water having got into the vat. The beer was almost ready for putting into barrels, and every drop four thousand gallons was turned into the drain."
Western Morning News - Tuesday 15 November 1927, page 3.

The author has a different concept of huge to me when it comes to vats. A 100-odd barrels doesn't sound that big to me. The Porter brewers had vats holding thousands of barrels. And, given the size of Charrington, I'd have expected them to have batch sizes of around 1,000 barrels.

Onto the beer. You may remember that Charrington's Mild was disappointingly poor. All the more so because Ale was their speciality. Let's see how their Burrton fares.

Spec-wise, both the OG and FG are on the high side and the attenuation is consequently a little low: a bit under 75%. Leaving the ABV about standard at 5 and a bit.


Charrington Burton Ale quality 1922 - 1923
Year Beer FG OG ABV App. Atten-uation Appearance Flavour score
1922 KK 1016 1053.5 4.86 70.09% cloudy fair 1
1922 KK 1016 1055.9 5.23 72.09% bright American cask -2
1922 KK 1014 1054.4 5.20 73.53% v bright good 2
1922 KK 1015 1055.3 5.26 73.24% bright good but sweet 2
1923 KK 1014 1055.9 5.39 74.24% brilliant v fair 2
1923 KK 1015 1054.6 5.20 73.26% brilliant fair 1
1923 KK 1013 1053.7 5.27 75.42% fairly bright only fair 0
1923 KK 1013 1054 5.33 75.93% fairly bright fairly good 1
1923 KK 1015 1053 4.93 71.70% bright good 2
Average  1015 1054.48 5.19 73.28% 1.00
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

Six of the nine samples were bright, and another two almost bright. I'd call that pretty good. But look at the flavour scores - only one negative. And that's only for the flavour from the cask. I think that's a pretty damn good showing. The average score is a very decent 1. That's a big improvement over their Mild.

Next it's the turn of the City of London Brewery.

Tuesday, 18 February 2014

Brewer's petition for divorce

We're back with Mr. Charrington's messy divorce.

Today we're learn more about the bizarre relationship between the young sailor and a married woman old enough to be his mother.

"BREWER'S PETITION FOR DIVORCE.
Housemaid and Notices Posted on the Door.

The petition for a divorce by Mr Ernest, Charles Charrington, of Cornvale Gardens, Kensington, London, formerly a director of Charrington's Brewery, against his wife Mildred on ths ground of her alleged adultery with Lieutenant, Richard John Harrison, the twenty-three-year-old naval officer, was resumed to-day. The allegations were denied, and Mrs Charrington countercharged her husband with cruelty and adultery and cross-petitioned.

These charges were denied. Florence Rumbell, housemaid, who gave evidence yesterday of having seen Mr Harrison taking breakfast in Mrs Charrington's room, was cross-examined to-day Sir Ellis Hume Williams. K.C., on behalf Mrs Charrington. Witness denied that she and the cook ever took Mr Charrington to bed when drunk. She had never seen him actually drunk. She agreed with Sir Ellis that her mistress had nerve storms — very bad headaches — and on those occasions she went to bed, as she was quite incapable of doing anything. On the occasions the bad headaches she posted notices outside her bedroom door saying she was not to be disturbed.

Mistress' Headaches.
Asked if during her four years' service with Mrs Charrington her mistress did not always hang up a notice when she had headaches, witness replied — "Always when Mr Harrison was there they were on the door. Sometimes the notice was on the dressing-room door."

Mr Harrison when at Cornvale Garden slept in the dressing-room with a communicating door with Mrs Charrington's room. She did not recall any other visitors the dressing-room. Mrs Charrington used to treat Harrison rather more than a son.

Counsel —Was not Reggie, (the son) - little jealous of Dicky, the sailor lad? — Not that I am aware of. He used to sleep the dressing-room and have breakfast in Mrs Charrington's bedroom in his dressing-gown, as also would the daughter Eileen."
Evening Telegraph - Wednesday 25 November 1925, page 6.

That he was like a son to her was the line Mrs. Charrington took. Was it true? She doesn't seem to have gone in for hugging and kissing her own son. I can't help thinking there was nmoreto their relationship, even if Mrs. Charrington wasn't aware of it consciously.

It keeps getting weirder. A bit creepy, even. Because Mrs. Charrington, her daughter and Harrison all had breakfast in bed together. What a bizarre threesome.

"BEDROOM BREAKFASTS FOR THREE
"ALWAYS KISSING."
MAID'S EVIDENCE IN DIVORCE PETITION.
. . . . . . .

Florence Rumble, housemaid at Cornwall Gardens, in cross-examination, said she knew Mr. Charrington drank, but she had never seen him drunk. Witness said Mrs. Charrington used suffer from very had headaches — what she called nerve storms. On such occasions she used to retire her bedroom and often put a notice on her door: "Do not disturb me till I ring."

Witness agreed that when Eileen Charrington, the daughter, was home from school, the only spare room was the dressing-room next to Mrs. Charrington's room.

"THOUGHT IT UNUSUAL"
On these occasions, and when Harrison was there, breakfast for three used to be taken up Mrs. Charrington's room. Eileen would come to her mother's room in her dressing gown, Harrison would come in his dressing gown, and the three would have breakfast together. Mrs. Charrington sitting up in bed in her dressing gown.

Witness did not at the time think there was anything wrong it but thought it was unusual for Mrs Charrington always to be kissing Mr. Harrison. She did not think there were any immoral relations. Mrs. Cherrington and Harrison were always kissing.

Witness declared she was confident that Harrison was in bed with Mrs. Charrington on an occasion in the summer of 1923.

Freda Burke, formerly employed by Mrs. Charrington as companion and governess, said she had seen Harrison in pyjamas and dressing-gown having his breakfast in Mrs. Charrington's room. She had also seen the notices "Not to be disturbed" on Mrs. Charrington's door.

Harrison used to call Mrs. Charrington "Mummie." and dhe called him "Dick." They kissed each other when came and when he went. Whan Mrs. Charnngton was staying at her bungalow at Brackenrigg, Cumberland, Harrison came there for week, and afterwards paid week-end visits. He had a room adjoining, or opposite. Mrs. Charrington's.

"NO SUSPICION."
In cross-examination, witness said other guests stayed at the bungalow at the same time. Witness said she had no suspicion that there was anything wrong between Mrs. Charrington and Harrison. She had seen Harrison sitting on the bed having breakfast with her.

She added that this was at Brackenrigg. Eileen was there at the time. Harrison and Eileen were very fond each other, but she did not know anything about them being likely to become engaged.

Mr. Reginald Chamngton said did not like his mother and Harrison always kissing and going about together, and gave up seeing his mother in the morning because of Harrison's presence in her room. At, first his complaint was that Harrison usurped his place, but afterwards he realised that things were different."
Yorkshire Evening Post - Wednesday 25 November 1925, page 9.

It's odd the way everyone claims that they didn't find Harrison hanging around in Mrs. Charrington's bedroom suspicious. Even when he was in her bed. Were thay all incredibly naive, stupid or deliberately ignoring the obvious?

I'm still puzzling over Eileen's relationship with Harrison. Were they really courting? If so, wouldn't she have been pissed off by Harrison frolicking in her mum's bedroom?

Monday, 17 February 2014

Camden Brewery's independence under threat

After their jitters and near-bankruptcy on the eve of WW I, Camden Brewery seem to have emerged from the war with their finances in decent order.

By 1923, they were making a decent profit:

"Camden Brewery Co., Ltd., report that during the twelve months to September 30th, the profit including rentals, interest, etc.. was net £149,177, as against net £32,375 in the preceding year. After providing for income tax, etc., interest on mortgages and debenture stocks, the net balance is £21,658. The balance brought forward was £96,032, making, with certain adjustments, the present balance of £130,422. The time has now arrived when the directors are able to make for this year a payment to the Income Bondholders, and they propose to make a distribution during January of 2s. 8d. in the £ on the full redemption value of the income bonds. This sum has been provided partly out of the surplus profits of the year under review and partly from provisions made in past years for risks which in the directors' opinion have now run off and are available for release. The above distribution must not be taken as a basis for possible future payments of this nature. The directors have recently learned that a substantial block of shares acquired in the names of two nominees, are for the account of a competitive London Brewery, and they have received a request that upon the footing of this purchase one of the directors of the Camden Brewery Co., Ltd., should retire in favour of a representative of the brewery referred to. The only directors eligible for retirement are Messrs. Whitaker and Grimwood, two of the original proprietors of the business, and they represent a shareholding which at one time was of the Value of £100,000. Their colleagues are unanimously opposed to sacrificing either of these gentlemen, who desire, and offer themselves for, re-election. The present directors, who have conducted the business during the difficult times following the reconstruction to its present strongly improved position, do not view with favour the admission to intimate knowledge of their business of a representative of a rival concern except on a mandate from the general body of shareholders."
"The Brewers' journal, 1923", page 63.
If you remember, Camden's profits were around £40,000 at the end of the 1890's. The price of standard Mild had about trebled in the meantime, meaning that £149,177 was the equivalent of around £50,000 in 1890's prices.

The Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Grimwood referred to must have been the original owners of the limited company (founded 1889) rather than the brewery (founded 1859). A Whitaker and a Grimwood had been among the initial partners, but they surely must have been long dead by 1923. I assume the Whitaker and Grimwood were from a generation or two later.

The "at one time was of the Value of £100,000" is significant. Because after the company's restructuring they were worth considerably less. At one time the value of the £10 shares was as low as 6d.

The competitive London brewery was Courage. Had they got hold of some ordinary shares? If so, from Whom? The Ordinary Shares were all held privately by the family of the original partners.

Courage didn't give up trying to get a seat on Camden's board:

"The Camden Brewery.
Some light is thrown upon the rise the shares of Courage and Co. in the directors' report of the Camden Brewery Co. This report recommends in the first place a distribution to the income bondholders during January of 2s 7d in the £ the original redemption value of the Income Bonds. The report further states that arrangements have been made for the sale of the company's licensed properties to Courage and Co., and that the latter have secured a large interest in the capital of the Camden Brewery, which makes it desirable that they shall have a representative on the board of the latter company. The Ordinary capital of the Camden Brewery is privately held, but the 1,100,000 Ordinary shares of Courage and Co. are officially quoted, and stand at around 1.75."
Aberdeen Journal - Tuesday 18 December 1923, page 11.

If they'd decided to sell the pubs to Courage, they must already have decided to get rid of the brewery. Without the pubs, there was no point - and no money - in having the brewery.

Sunday, 16 February 2014

A brewer's domestic woes

A nice, juicy, acrimonious divorce. Evreyone likes them. Or at least reading about them. Except for the participants.

This is a weird story that has nothing to do with beer, other than the fact that one of the parties belonged to the Charrington family and had been a director of the brewery


WIFE OF 45 AND YOUNG OFFICER.
Brewery Director's Petition for Divorce.

The hearing was begun the Divorce Court to-day of the petition of Mr Ernest Charles Charrington, formerly a director of a brewery company, for the dissolution of his marriage with his wife, Mildred, on the ground her alleged adultery with Lieut. Richard John Harrison, R.N.

The respondent and co-respondent denied the allegations, and it was alleged that the husband had been guilty of gross cruelty towards her, and admitted adultery With women, whose names were unknown. These charges the petitioner denied.

The petitioner is 48 years of age, his wife 45, and the co-respondent 23. The parties met during the South African war, the husband having served with distinction in that campaign. They were married on January 8, 1902. I here were two children. Mrs Charrington had not been blessed with a great amount of this world's goods, and she was anxious to have a settlement made upon Her. That was the cause of the first trouble. Carrington would not consent, and from that time — 1906 — onwards the parties were never on the same terms of affection. Mrs Charrington, said counsel, was given to rather violent temper.

Back from Scotland.
In 1906 the petitioner became very fond of golf, and his absence playing golf was not to the liking of his wife. Mr Charrington, unfortunately, now and then took a  little more than was good for him, and the wife had made a great deal that in her charges of cruelty. In September, 1915, Charrington joined as private in R.A.S.C., obtaining a commission in France. His wife was having allowance of £220 month.

In April, 1920, after a visit to Scotland, for fishing and shooting, he returned to London to Cornvale Gardens, and the reception from his son was that was not wanted, and was to away. The petitioner sent for his daughter, who brought the same message. His wife permitted him to sleep in the drawing-room. Next day he left.

Week-End Visits.
Now it was said that there was children's party at the house that night and the petitioner came home drunk. That, said counsel, was alleged after the husband's petition was filed. In August, 1920, he went to live at Hampton Court. For two years he suffered acutely from neuritis, and had male nurse.

The co-respondent met Mr Reginald Charrington, the son, while both were preparing for the Navy. In June, 1921 Harrison became a very frequent visitor to Cornvale Gardens. He was there practically every week-end, and the evidence regarding misconduct was that he was in the wife's room with the door locked and that frequently a notice would be posted on the door, "Don't disturb me," in the handwriting of Mrs Charrington or Mr Harrison.

Husband's Objections.
The evidence also was that meals were taken up to these people, and that Mrs Charrington would have her breakfast in bed, and Mr Harrison would be with her in his pyjamas. They thought nothing of embracing and kissing each other, said counsel.

In 1924 Mr Charrington, who trusted his wife implicitly, and knew nothing of all this, got rather tired of seeing Mr Harrison always in the house, and spoke to his wife about it. Apparently Mrs Charrington desired to bring about a marriage between her daughter Eileen and Mr Harrison. Mr Charrington thought his daughter too young, and took advice and made his daughter a ward of Court, which she was at present, when, said counsel, he objected to Mr Harrison lounging about his wife made use of the curious expression that she wanted keep him pure for Eileen.

His wife must have been aware that things were moving in the direction of a divorce, and desired to occupy his room again. She was refused. Later she filed the charges of cruelty against him. The petitioner was bombarded with letters from relatives, begging him to overlook his wife's indiscretions. She said she was willing for a mutual separaion.

Mr Charrington, in the witness-box, was questioned regarding a New Year's ball in 1904. Counsel asked if was so drunk that he was turning cart wheels the ballroom. "I may have been merry." replied, " but if I was capable of turning cart wheels I could not have been very drunk."
Evening Telegraph - Tuesday 24 November 1925, page 8.

Mmmm. Mr. Charrington doesn't seem to have paid a great deal of attention to his wife. But, as we'll learn later, he had other activities to keep him occupied. This is a huge understatement: "Mr Charrington, unfortunately, now and then took a  little more than was good for him". A bit like saying Hitler could get a little angry every now and then.

I'm none the wiser about how Harrison came to know the Charringtons. The story about him meeting the son in the Navy is contradicted in later newspaper reports.

Kissing, being locked up together in Mrs Charrington's bedroom, having breakfast in bed? I think I would have reacted a little more quickly than Mr. Charrington.

There's lots more to come on this story.

Saturday, 15 February 2014

Me talking

The title says it all. Me doing what I enjoy most - boring not just the pants but the undercrackers, too, off people droning on about beer history.



If you'd like to see me do this sort of thing live, I am available for hire.

Buy my book.

Cannon Brewery Burton Ale quality 1922 - 1924

It's the same drill as last week, just with dogy Burton replacing dodgy Mild.

Would I expect Burton to be in better condition than Mild? It's hard to say. Being stronger and more heavily hopped, you'd think Burton would have had a longer shelf-life. On the other hand, Mild sold a lot more. I suppose we're going to find out over the next week. My money is on Burton.

I'll start with a random newspaper article mentioning the brewery.

The former Nag's Head

"LOAN CLUB VICTIMS.
MAGISTRATE AND BREWERS.

Arthur James Barrett, (42), a licensed victualler, of Hackney-road, Bethnal Green, E., was charged remand at Old-street police Court with converting to his own use £581 belonging to the Nag's Head Mutual Loan Club.

The magistrate (Mr. Clarke Hall,) said that he had received two heartrending letters from unfortunate people who had lost their money which they had paid into the club that they might have a happy Christmas.

Mr. W. G. Jenkins, prosecuting, said that the amount involved was £1,095.

Mr. H. V. R. Hayne, who appeared for the Cannon Brewery Company, said that such clubs were run independently of the brewery company, who had no control of any sort over them. They did not know anything about the rules of the club that the banking was to be done with the company.

Mr. Clarke Hall said that for six years the brewery had allowed their name to appear on the rules, and that influenced people in putting their money into the club.

Mr. Hayne said they had not seen the rules.

Mr. Clarke Hall said there was moral responsibility on the brewery company, but he had experience of the great generosity brewers and he thought this was a case in which the company might come forward.

An further remand in custody was ordered."
Gloucester Citizen - Friday 13 December 1929, page 5.
The magistrate is clearly hinting that the brewery should reimburse those who had been defrauded.

The Nag's Head was at 324 Hackney Road and closed in 1991*.

Funnily enough, the Nag's Head was virtually opposite a brewery:

West's brewery Co. Ltd.
313/315 Hackney Road,
Bethnal Green E2.

West's was bought by Hoare in 1929 with 60 pubs**.

Nag's Head and West's Brewery in 1896
Right. On with Cannon's Burton. In terms of specs, it's straight down the middle: OG in the low 1050's, about 5% ABV, 75% attenuation.

Now onto beer quality. Only five of eleven were clear. That's not very good. But better than flavour, where only three have positive scores. And there are four scores of -2 or less. It's all very disappointing. Especially as Cannon got a decent score, 0.54, for its Mild Ale.

What was the cause of their Burton being in such poor condition? It's very hard to say from this distance. But, as their Mild scored reasonably well, it probably wasn't the beer itself where the problem lay. More likely it was how quickly - or how slowly - it sold.


Cannon Brewery Burton Ale quality 1922 - 1924
Year Beer FG OG ABV App. Atten-uation Appearance Flavour score
1922 KK 1011 1052 5.34 78.85% fairly bright fair 1
1922 KK 1015 1054.4 5.06 71.69% not bright no head v poor -2
1922 KK 1015 1053.3 5.00 72.23% v bright v fair 2
1922 KK 1015 1053.3 5.00 72.23% bright mawkish -1
1923 KK 1015 1053.5 5.00 71.96% brilliant good 2
1923 KK 1011 1054.9 5.72 79.96% juicy too new -1
1923 KK 1013 1052.6 5.20 76.05% hazy v poor -2
1923 KK 1013 1051.7 5.00 74.47% bright poor palate -1
1923 KK 1014 1053.4 5.06 73.03% not bright Poor & thin -1
1924 KK 1012 1051.3 5.15 77.19% hazy going off -2
1924 KK 1013 1050.4 4.90 74.80% brilliant gone off -3
Average  1013 1052.8 5.13 74.77% -0.73
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

Next time it's the turn of Charrington, whose Mild was rather disappointing.



* http://pubshistory.com/LondonPubs/BethnalGreen/NagsHead.shtml
** "A Century of British Breweries Plus" by Norman Barber, 2005, page 86.

Friday, 14 February 2014

Extra March US book tour date

Another change to my book-tarting tour schedule. There's been another event added in New York City on 9th March.

It's at Jimmy's No. 43 in the East Village. Funnily enough close to where I did some of my drinking when I lived in New York. If only I could remember the name of that basement bar on St. Mark's Place.

There's also probably going to be an event at a Boston liquor store in the afternoon of Saturday 8th March

This is the revised schedule:

Saturday 8th March Boston Pretty Things event
The Independent
75 Union Square,
Somerville       
http://www.theindo.com


Sunday 9th March
Jimmy's No. 43   
43 E. 7th St.,
New York, NY 10003.



Monday 10th March NYC Event
Brouwerij Lane   
78 Greenpoint Ave,
NY 11222,
Brooklyn.
http://brouwerijlane.com/
The special Pretty Things beer and hopefully some others from the book should be avilabale.
   

Tuesday 11th March Philadelphia Event
Wednesday 12th March Philadelphia Event   
Yards Brewing Company
901 N Delaware Ave,
Philadelphia,
PA 19123
http://www.yardsbrewing.com/‎
Yards should be brewing one of the recipes from the book.



Friday 14th March Colonial Williamsburg Event
talk on 18th-century English brewing
5:30 pm – 6:30 pm
Location: Hennage Aud., Art Museums
http://wwws.colonialwilliamsburg.com/plan/calendar/beer-ale-malt/


Saturday 15th March Washington Event with BURP
3 Stars
6400 Chillum Pl NW,
Washington,
DC 20011
http://www.threestarsbrewing.com/


Sunday 16th March Baltimore Event with Free State Homebrew Club Guild
Maryland Homebrew,
6770 Oak Hall Lane,
Suite 108,
Columbia, MD 21045
http://stores.mdhb.com

Barclay Perkins Burton Ale quality 1922 - 1924

You must have guessed what's happening. The title has given that away. I've moved on to Burton Ale.

This will take a while so I'd make yourself comfortable. Once again we'll be trundling through the breweries in alphabetic order because, er, I can't think of anything better. And the tables are already in that order. Makes it easier for me to keep track of who I've already done.

We begin with my fave, Barclay Perkins.

They did seem interested in doing up their pubs:

"Public-House Improvements.
At the annual meeting of the Barclay Perkins Brewery Company the chairman stated that the best way to defeat the prohibition and local option movements was by the improvement of the public-house. According to this representative of the liquor trade, the Trade can do as well or better than the Government in improving the public-houses. This deliverance is an admission that there is room for improvement of the public-houses and also that the Trade can do something for the ensuring of improvement. As matter of fact, prohibition and local option movements are making progress because the Trade has not succeeded in improving the public-houses or the conditions of the working of the liquor traffic. The Trade lavishing money on opposition to the local option movement, and this means opposition to freedom to the full majorities of citizens declaring for or against the maintenance of unimproved public-houses in their areas."
Evening Telegraph - Tuesday 29 June 1920, page 2.

So why was their beer often in shit condition? "Local option" was a system where an area would vote for or against having licensed premises. In never became law in England. In Scotland it did, but suppression of pubs only ever happened in a few places.

As you'd expect, Barclay Perkins Burton had a gravity in the 1050's. In contrast to before WW I, when it was 68-70%, the rate of attenuation is quite high, around 80%. Then again, the gravity had been over 1070º in 1914.

The example at 1046.3 looks wrong. My guess would be that it had been watered or slops of another beer added to it. It doesn't sound very appetising.

Barclay Perkins Burton Ale quality 1922 - 1924
Year Beer FG OG ABV App. Atten-uation Appearance Flavour score
1922 KK 1012 1056.2 5.80 79.18% cloudy fair 1
1922 KK 1011 1052.3 5.41 79.35% not bright yeast bitter -1
1922 KK 1013 1052.5 5.20 76.19% not quite bright fair 1
1922 KK 1011 1054.1 5.67 80.41% bright fair 1
1923 KK 1010 1051.9 5.41 79.96% almost bright fair 1
1923 KK 1010 1050 5.21 80.00% brilliant rather bitter -1
1923 KK 1010 1050 5.21 80.00% hazy v poor -2
1923 KK 1011 1051.4 5.21 77.82% not bright full 1
1923 KK 1009 1046.3 4.88 80.99% very thick very sour -3
1924 KK 1012 1055.5 5.64 78.02% brilliant good 2
1924 KK 1010 1056.5 6.02 81.59% bright going off -2
Average  1011 1052.43 5.42 79.41% -0.18
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

They're having problems with clarity again. Only four of eleven are bright. Really poor. Six get positive scores for flavour, but only one is higher than a one. There are three pretty bad ones. I'd take them back.

I'm very disappointed by my heroes. I'm starting to think I won't rush into their pubs when I'm back in 1923. Maybe the brewery tap. The beer would have to be in good nick there. Wouldn't it?

Thursday, 13 February 2014

League table of London Milds in the 1920's

So here we are. At the end of a marathon series of posts about London Mild Ale quality in the 1920's. I've laughed, you've cried, we've all forgotten why I started this in the first place.

But to start off I thought I'd summarise the vital statistics of the London Milds we've been looking at. I've averaged out the values for each of the beers. I think you'll agree that they give us some fascinating insights. No? OK, they tell us one thing. London brewers kept a very close eye on each other.

Why do I say that? Because the OG's of Milds in the same class are all very close to each other. I've used the price per pint in 1922 to divide them up: 5d, 6d and 7d. The three 5d Milds have a variation of less than 1 point. If you leave out Watney, the spread across the 7d Milds is exactly 1 point. There's slightly more variation in the 6d Milds - 2.4 points altogether, but the majority are 1034-1035º.

Attenuation is in the high 70's or low 80's for the vast majority of the Milds. Only Hoare X and Truman X were significantly lower.

Here's all the information in handy table form:

Average values for London Mild Ales in the 1920's
Brewery Beer OG FG ABV App. Atten-uation Price per pint
Meux MA 1028.1 1005.9 2.88 78.93% 5d
Whitbread MA 1028.7 1005.1 3.06 82.04% 5d
Truman MA 1029.0 1007.5 2.79 74.31% 5d
City of London X 1033.7 1006.4 3.55 81.04% 6d
Hoare X 1033.8 1009.8 3.11 71.16% 6d
Courage X 1034.5 1007.3 3.53 78.76% 6d
Wenlock X 1034.6 1007.2 3.57 79.21% 6d
Cannon X 1035.1 1008.1 3.53 77.11% 6d
Huggins X 1036.0 1008.1 3.63 77.57% 6d
Charrington X 1040.8 1008.7 4.17 78.63% 7d
Lion Brewery X 1040.9 1007.6 4.33 81.37% 7d
Meux X 1041.2 1008.2 4.28 80.02% 7d
Truman X 1041.2 1011.8 3.82 71.44% 7d
Whitbread X 1041.2 1007.6 4.38 81.62% 7d
Mann X 1041.3 1008.2 4.26 79.96% 7d
Barclay Perkins X 1041.8 1010.7 4.01 74.38% 7d
Watney X 1043.6 1008.8 4.50 79.65% 7d
Sources:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001.


Let's get on with what I'm sure you've all been waiting for, the London Mild Premier League Table for 1925. It's a bit surprising for anyone who started their drinking in the 1970's, like I did:

League table of London Milds in the 1920's by score
Brewery Beer No. examples no. bright % bright no. good flavour % good flavour average score
City of London X 12 4 33.33% 3 25.00% -1.25
Charrington X 10 3 30.00% 5 50.00% -0.70
Barclay Perkins X 14 1 7.14% 5 35.71% -0.64
Truman MA 8 4 50.00% 2 25.00% -0.63
Meux MA 7 4 57.14% 2 28.57% -0.57
Whitbread X 5 3 60.00% 2 40.00% -0.2
Meux X 11 6 54.55% 6 54.55% 0
Huggins X 10 6 60.00% 7 70.00% 0.20
Hoare X 10 7 70.00% 7 70.00% 0.30
Courage X 16 15 93.75% 11 68.75% 0.38
Lion Brewery X 10 5 50.00% 6 60.00% 0.40
Truman X 14 11 78.57% 9 64.29% 0.5
Cannon X 14 9 64.29% 9 64.29% 0.54
Whitbread MA 3 0 0.00% 2 66.67% 0.67
Wenlock X 12 8 66.67% 10 83.33% 1.17
Watney X 17 16 94.12% 15 88.24% 1.25
Mann X 15 10 66.67% 11 73.33% 1.33
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

Yes, it's true: Watney and Mann (in my young days combined into one evil conglomerate) come out on top. As they were two of the beers for which there were the most samples, I don't think it's a freak result. Just shows how dangerous it is to project the future into the past. That their beer was shit in the 1970's tells you nothing about its quality pre-war.

Wenlock is a surprising third with a very respectable score. Whitbread MA at number four is even more surprising, but that is based on just three samples. The X Ales of Huggins, Hoare, Courage, Lion Brewery, Truman and Cannon all come out with modestly positive scores.

It was saddening to see so many of the great Porter breweries with negative scores - City of London, Charrington, Truman, Meux, Whitbread and my own favourite Barclay Perkins. The one other brewery with a negative score was Charrington, one of London's most renowned Ale brewers. All very odd.

One last table. These are the beers rated by clarity:

League table of London Milds in the 1920's by clarity
Brewery Beer No. examples no. bright % bright no. good flavour % good flavour average score
Whitbread MA 3 0 0.00% 2 66.67% 0.67
Barclay Perkins X 14 1 7.14% 5 35.71% -0.64
Charrington X 10 3 30.00% 5 50.00% -0.70
City of London X 12 4 33.33% 3 25.00% -1.25
Truman MA 8 4 50.00% 2 25.00% -0.63
Lion Brewery X 10 5 50.00% 6 60.00% 0.40
Meux X 11 6 54.55% 6 54.55% 0
Meux MA 7 4 57.14% 2 28.57% -0.57
Whitbread X 5 3 60.00% 2 40.00% -0.2
Huggins X 10 6 60.00% 7 70.00% 0.20
Cannon X 14 9 64.29% 9 64.29% 0.54
Wenlock X 12 8 66.67% 10 83.33% 1.17
Mann X 15 10 66.67% 11 73.33% 1.33
Hoare X 10 7 70.00% 7 70.00% 0.30
Truman X 14 11 78.57% 9 64.29% 0.5
Courage X 16 15 93.75% 11 68.75% 0.38
Watney X 17 16 94.12% 15 88.24% 1.25
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001.

Slightly different results, but Watney still does very well.