Georges again

Time to return to Georges of Bristol to hear some more from their chairman.

First a little about the brewery’s history. Founded in 1730, it was registered as a limited company in 1888. Courage bought it up in 1961 with 1,459 tied houses. That number of pubs means it must have been one of the largest regional breweries. It closed in 1999, more than a decade and a half after Horsleydown, the original Courage brewery*.

I drank their beer many times when I lived in London. After the closure of Horsleydown it was the source of Courage Best and Directors. They were OK, if nothing special, I recall. I had a few pints of Best a couple of years ago in Folkestone. Presumably brewed by Charles Wells. It was much the same: alright, but unspectacular.

The war years saw breweries starved of investment. Meaning considerable sums needed to be invested after war’s end, if a company wanted to have their brewery up to scratch:

“During the past two years over £261,000 has been expended on additions to fixed assets.

Of this sum £132,000 represents purchases of valuable licensed houses when opportunities arose. The balance consists of expenditure incurred additions to and modernisation of the brewery and plant particularly to deal economically with the very large increase in output of bottled beers.

Substantial further outlay will be necessary over the next few years to complete this programme in respect of which contracts had been placed September 30, 1949, amounting to £90,000 approximately. “
Western Daily Press - Friday 27 January 1950, page 4.

£132,000 would have been a decent number of pubs – several dozen. You need to remember that for most breweries the only realistic way of boosting output was to control more pubs. The vast majority of beer was drunk in pubs and there were very limited free trade opportunities.

And here’s the recurring theme of a surge in bottled beer sales. Bottling requires far more machinery than merely racking into barrels. Investment in new plant would have been needed to keep up with demand.

“Progress in Repairs
Capital expenditure will also be required to meet the cost of building licensed premises on the Corporation new housing estates. We are pleased to report that negotiations with the planning authorities connection with this matter are proceeding on a satisfactory basis, as stockholders will no doubt have noticed In the Press.

Considerable progress has been made in carrying out repairs which had been deferred on account of war conditions. A survey of outstanding repairs of this nature has been made. In the absence of a further rise in costs it is estimated that the provision made in this year's accounts will be sufficient to cover work still to done.”
Western Daily Press - Friday 27 January 1950, page 4.

In an attempt to fill the housing shortage whole new suburbs, or even complete new towns were built after the war. These were a great opportunity for brewers, offering them the chance to build a large, modern pub in an area with little competition.

Civilian building work came to pretty much a complete stop during the war. Ad in addition to routine maintenance work that had been delayed, many pubs were affected by bombing. George, based in a major port would have had more than their share of pubs damage or even destroyed by German bombs.

I’ll finish with some of Georges beers from the 1950’s:

Georges beers 1949 - 1960
Year	Beer	Style	Price per pint d	package	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	colour
1949	IPA	IPA	17	draught	1037.1	1008.9	3.66	76.01%	29 B
1952	Home Brew	Home Brewed	22	bottled	1043.3	1009.9	4.34	77.14%	1.5 + 40
1953	Glucose Stout	Stout	28	bottled	1045.5	1017.6	3.60	61.32%	1 + 11
1954	Barley Wine	Barley Wine	40	bottled	1078.2	1026	6.78	66.75%	95
1956	Brown Ale	Brown Ale	24	bottled	1035.2	1010.8	3.16	69.32%	90
1958	Glucose Stout	Stout	30	bottled	1045.3	1019.3	3.25	57.40%	225
1959	Glucose Stout	Stout	28	bottled	1045	1018.7	3.39	58.44%	225
1959	Light Ale	Light Ale	24	bottled	1033	1008.7	3.15	73.64%	18
1960	Export Port Ale	Pale Ale	30	bottled	1043.4	1012.8	3.83	70.51%	18
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001.

The chairman hasn't finished speaking yet.

* “Century of British Brewers plus” by Norman Barber, 2005, page 118.

Bottled Stout in the 1950’s

I’ve finally pulled my finger out and ordered my bottled Stout analyses. No, I didn’t shout at them to go and make some tea. I’ve divided them up into groups. Otherwise there are just too many to make sense of.

As with the Pale Ales, I sort of made up my own styles for this purpose. Or at least classes. They aren’t very complicated. I’ve used two criteria: gravity and attenuation. This what I’ve come up with:

Type	OG	Apparent attenuation
Strong Stout	>1050	>65%
Strong Stout	>1050	<50%
Standard Stout	1040 - 1050	>70%
Standard Stout	1040 - 1050	65 - 70%
Standard Stout	1040 - 1050	60 - 65%
Standard Stout	1040 - 1050	50 - 60%
Standard Stout	1040 - 1050	<50%
Weak Stout	1030 - 1040	>70%
Weak Stout	1030 - 1040	65 - 70%
Weak Stout	1030 - 1040	60 - 65%
Weak Stout	1030 - 1040	50 - 60%
Weak Stout	1030 - 1040	<50%

Why am I using attenuation as well as OG? Because there’s so much variation in the degree of attenuation. Way more than with other styles. The lowest is 33% the highest 95%. I think it’s pretty obvious that beers with such differing attenuation have little in common.

Obviously, my dividing lines are totally arbitrary. But I’ve a decent number of examples in each of my categories. Why did I split 60-70% into two categories? For no real reason. I feel justified by the fact that for both standard and weak Stout unsplit this level of attenuation would have been by a long way the largest group.

These are the numbers of each type:

Type	OG	Apparent attenuation	no. examples	% of total
Strong Stout	>1050	>65%	19	4.17%
Strong Stout	>1050	<50%	11	2.41%
Standard Stout	1040 - 1050	>70%	62	14.04%
Standard Stout	1040 - 1050	65 - 70%	47	10.31%
Standard Stout	1040 - 1050	60 - 65%	48	10.53%
Standard Stout	1040 - 1050	50 - 60%	64	14.04%
Standard Stout	1040 - 1050	<50%	13	2.85%
Weak Stout	1030 - 1040	>70%	43	9.43%
Weak Stout	1030 - 1040	65 - 70%	42	9.21%
Weak Stout	1030 - 1040	60 - 65%	36	7.89%
Weak Stout	1030 - 1040	50 - 60%	57	12.50%
Weak Stout	1030 - 1040	<50%	12	2.63%
total			456	100.00%

What’s the point of all this? To demonstrate again that not all English Stout was sweet. The fact that for both standard and weak Stout there are about as many examples with attenuation above 65% as there are below 65% vindicates my assertion.

But I’ll be making that point at much greater length in what follows.

Let’s Brew Wednesday – 1933 Oranjeboom Bok

Loving Lager. Apparently none of us snobby beer writers do. That’s why we never write about it. Guess I don’t count as a proper beer writer, then, because I spend quite a bit of my time banging on about Lager.

Not just that. I’ve published quite a few recipes, too. We’ve another today. From one of Holland’s less fashionable breweries Oranjeboom.

When I lived in Rotterdam in the 1980’s, the Oranjeboom brewery, on the south bank of the river, was still operational. At the time it, along with Drie Hoefijzers in Breda, was owned by the British group Allied Breweries. The brewery was a purpose built Lager plant, which opened in 1885, though the business dated back to the 17th century. It closed in 1990.

I’m trying to remember if I ever drank their beer. Possibly. I definitely had stuff from Drie Hoefijzers. I may have tried Oranjeboom Bok. And that pub around the corner from where I lived. Did that sell Oranjeboom? If it did, I must have drunk their Pils. Just shows how memorable a beer it was. Didn’t register at all.

A reasonable number of Dutch brewing records have been preserved. If I weren’t so busy with other stuff I might have attacked them more systematically. I really should find time one weekend to revisit the Amsterdam archive and finish off the Heineken and Amstel records they have there.

Form the look of it, this beer doesn’t differ much from a modern Dutch Bok. About the same gravity and colour. Just the attenuation is a bit lower. What else can I say? Nothing really.





So . . . . welcome back Kristen . . . . .

Kristen’s Version
Notes: Wow. These logs are b.o.r.i.n.g. and bloody sparse. Everything uses different amounts of pale malt, caramel malt, roast malt and ‘caramel’. Very little in the way of temps, times, heats, etc etc. So we make some assumptions, just to make something like this. The gravities are correct, same for the grist and hops, so we are pretty damn close already.

Malt: Pretty simple. Pale pilsy malt, 200EBC (100L) caramel or there abouts and a touch of caramel. Not sure why, doesn’t really add much but go ahead. I’d use some MFB pilsner malt as a nice mix, probably 50:50 of CaraMunich80 and 120, got get near enough 100L and keep the Be-Ne-Lux love going.

Hops: Something nice, doesn’t have to be something Germanic but it’s hard to argue Hallertauer aren’t pretty damn great. Really, just choose something nice please. Something that doesn’t smell like a hobo or ‘lemon wash up liquid’ as Ron always complains about…

Yeast: Any solid lager yeast. W34/70 is easy. I prefer 833. You want that gravity, 833 is what you want. If not, it’s a bastard to keep from drying out.

Cask: Standard procedure… Seriously guys, not this time…

John Smiths beers 1960 - 1967

This is a totally unscheduled post. Something that sort of created itself out of a Facebook conversation.

It started when someone posted this John Smiths price list from 1971:

I remembered that I had a wealth of analyses of John Smiths beers from the Whitbread Gravity Book.

John Smiths beers 1960 - 1967
Year	Beer	Style	Price	size	package	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	colour
1960	Pale Ale (sold in Belgium)	Pale Ale			bottled	1055.5	1013.7	5.22	75.32%	17
1961	Golden Keg Ale	Pale Ale	22d to 24d	pint	draught	1039.1	1009	3.76	76.98%	19
1964	Double Brown	Brown Ale	24d	pint	bottled	1047.3	1016.7	3.82	64.69%	80
1964	Milk Maid Stout	Stout	16.5d	half pint	bottled	1042.2	1022.2	2.50	47.39%	325
1964	Golden Keg	Pale Ale	24d	pint	draught	1039.1	1009.4	3.71	75.96%	23
1964	Draught Magnet	Pale Ale	20d	pint	draught	1043	1007.4	4.45	82.79%	35
1964	Bitter	Pale Ale	18d	pint	draught	1038.3	1007.6	3.84	80.16%	23
1964	Mild Ale	Mild	15d	pint	draught	1030.9	1008.5	2.80	72.49%	30
1964	Magnet Pale Ale	Pale Ale	14.5d	half pint	bottled	1043.5	1007.2	4.54	83.45%	16
1964	Light Ale	Light Ale	10.5d	half pint	bottled	1031.9	1009.6	2.79	69.91%	29
1965	Pale Ale (sold in Belgium)	Pale Ale			bottled	1056.1	1011.8	5.54	78.97%	13
1967	Magnet Pale Ale	Pale Ale	24d	pint	draught	1043.5	1008.7	4.35	80.00%	33
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001.

There's a personal connection with one of these beers. Milk Maid Stout was a Warwick & Richardson brand. And the beer my Mum used to drink. The label appers prominently on the cover of  The Home Brewer's Guide to Vintage Beer.

There's not a huge difference between the prices in the two lists. Take Golden, for example. 24d = 10p, meaning it had gone up 4p between 1964 and 1971. But that would soon change. The early 1970's were a time of high inflation.

That's it. Just a pile of random crap. Oh, except one last thing. Golden and Bitter were probably the same beer. Note how much worse value the keg beer is.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1950 Adnams DS Stout

I know. It isn’t Wednesday. But I’ve a good reason for posting early, as you’ll discover on Wednesday.

To tie in with my look at Adnams beers after WW II, I’ve decided to publish recipes, too. Starting at the same place, DS Stout.

It’s typical of a certain type of post-war English Stout. A kind of beer everyone seems to have forgotten about. A gravity of 1040-45, 65-70% attenuation, a bit under 4% ABV. Too strong and too highly-attenuated to be a Sweet Stout, but less attenuated than Guinness. I’ve dozens of examples. Though as the 1950’s progressed, some did turn sweeter. Presumably to put a clear distance between them and Guinness. Or simply because there was a demand for Sweet Stout.

I was intrigued to see that in the 1920’s the attenuation of Stouts had been greater – mostly over 70%. I think I know the reason why it had fallen by 1950. They were deliberately leaving the FG high to give the beer some body, albeit at the expense of ABV.

Moving on to the beer itself, the grist is a combination of four malts: mild, chocolate, amber and crystal. I can’t recall seeing that mix before. Most breweries had ditched amber malt before chocolate malt became very common. Looking through some older Adnams records I noticed that they switched from black to chocolate malt quite early, back in 1914. For the simple reason of that juxtaposition of malts, I’d love to try this beer.

The hopping is total guesswork. All I know for certain is that the hops were English. But as Fuggles accounted for around 75% of the British crop at this date, choosing Fuggles seems pretty safe. Especially as most of the other 25% were Goldings and you wouldn’t usually use those in a Stout. They were meant for Pale Ales and other posh beers.

It looks as if a fair bit of the colour comes from caramel so it may come out a little pale if you don’t use any.




That’s all I can think of to say. So over to me with my other hat on . . . . .

1950 Adnams DS
mild malt	6.50 lb	73.24%
chocolate malt	0.625 lb	7.04%
amber malt	0.625 lb	7.04%
crystal malt 60 L	0.625 lb	7.04%
no. 3 sugar	0.375 lb	4.23%
caramel	0.125 lb	1.41%
Fuggles 90 min	1.00 oz
Fuggles 30 min	1.00 oz
OG	1040
FG	1012.2
ABV	3.68
Apparent attenuation	69.50%
IBU	30
SRM	40
Mash at	148º F
Sparge at	170º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	60º F
Yeast	WLP025 Southwold

Georges of Bristol

I’ve just found another juicy company report. One of the most informative I’ve come across, especially in conjuring up the atmosphere of the immediate, difficult post-war years.

Brewery chairmen loved to whinge at their annual general meetings. Mostly about the meddling government and excessive taxation. Georges’ chairman makes some rather more telling points. Though obviously he moans about government policy and tax.

“You will have noted that your board, after careful consideration faced with decrease the net profit of £57,168, being £211,034 as compared with £268,202, decided to recommend the appropriation of £16,560 to contingencies reserve, and £8,000. as for many years past, to the pensions and benevolent fund, leaving the carry-forward £165,213, about £500 less, compared with September 30, 1948

Decrease in Dividend
We also recommend a final dividend on the ordinary stock of 13 per cent., making with the interim dividend of per cent., 18 per cent free of tax, for the year, being 4 per cent. net lower than year ago.

Your directors much regret having to recommend a lower rate of dividend. Possibly you will have noted that we are now back to the normal rate of dividend paid in pre-war years.

Stockholders who heard my remarks at the annual meeting last year, may remember that I said then that, especially since October 1948, there had been decreases in output every month, especially in our sales of draught beers. We hoped, that there might be some improvement last summer, and this was so to certain extent, owing to a fine summer, but gains in the bottled beers were more than counterbalanced by losses in the draught sales. There has been a steady swing back to bottled beers.

The quality of the company's beers have been well maintained in spite of all difficulties. The early years of the war, though full of anxiety and sorrow for the nation, were, from the money earning and money spending point of view, prosperous years, and this was reflected in this company's sales.”
Western Daily Press - Friday 27 January 1950, page 4.

I get three main points from that. First that the war years had been surprisingly good for brewers. Lots of demand and customers with cash in their pockets meant breweries earned good profits.

Something similar had occurred during WW I. At the start of that war many breweries had been teetering on bankruptcy. The war was the saving of them, returning them to profitability and raise their capital back up to pre-1910 levels. (Many breweries had to mark down their capital after the 1909 budget that greatly increased the financial burden on pubs, hence reducing their value. As pubs formed the overwhelming majority of a brewery’s assets, most ended up with share capital far greater in excess of the true value of the company.)

The second point is about falling sales. Beer production peaked in 1946 at 32.65 million barrels, then went into decline. It didn’t start rising again until 1960 and only exceeded the 1946 figure in 1970. You can see why there were so many brewery takeovers and closures between 1950 and 1970. There was considerable overcapacity in the industry.

Here are some numbers to demonstrate the trends:

Production, tax and average OG 1945 - 1959
Year	Production (bulk barrels)	Production (standard barrels)	Duty per standard barrel	Average OG	Net excise receipts (pounds)
1945	31,332,852	19,678,449	286s 5.5d	1034.54	278,876,870
1946	32,650,200	20,612,225	286s 5.5d	1034.72	295,305,369
1947	29,261,398	17,343,690	286s 5.5d	1032.59	250,350,829
1948	30,408,634	18,061,390	325s 5d	1032.66	264,112,043
1949	26,990,144	16,409,937	364s 4.5d	1033.43	294,678,035
1950	26,513,997	16,337,315	343s 4.5d	1033.88	263,088,673
1951	24,891,746	16,739,464	321s	1036.99	249,146,244
1952	25,156,489	16,958,628	321s	1037.07	248,165,812
1953	24,883,227	16,681,119	321s	1036.87	243,372,425
1954	24,582,303	16,525,316	321s	1036.97	242,031,712
1955	23,934,215	16,161,698	321s	1037.13	237,452,121
1956	24,551,158	16,618,162	321s	1037.22	243,682,807
1957	24,506,524	16,674,001	321s	1037.42	245,473,441
1958	24,647,978	16,799,108	321s	1037.48	246,077,234
1959	23,783,833	16,226,433	321s	1037.52	238,722,997
Sources:
Brewers' Almanack 1955, p. 50
Brewers' Almanack 1962, p. 48

The final point is the surge in popularity of bottled beer. Even in a declining market it was showing an absolute increase in sales. The usual explanations for this are on the one hand unfulfilled demand for many years due to government restrictions and shortages of things like bottles. On the other, lots of dodgy draught beer due to very low gravities, a shortage of good quality raw materials and poorly trained landlords.

It could also have been fashion. Some of the most popular styles of the 1950’s – Brown Ale, Milk Stout and Light Ale – were exclusively bottled products. If you wanted to drink them, you had no option but to buy bottles.

There will be more to follow about Georges.