ZBF 2010 (part two)

"Can I have a sausage, dad?" "I suppose so." We'd sat temptingly close to the sausage vendor. The sausages were the main reason Andrew had come. That and the chance to be plugged into his brain-sucker (iPod touch) all day. "A bratwurst with ketchup, please." I've warned Andrew of the evil of ketchup (and most other sauces) but it's had no effect. No point pushing it. I had onions with mine.

The onions had been poaching in the grease at the bottom of the hot plate. As I took my first bite, an orange stream of it trickled down my hand. "That'll be great for my stomach." I thought. The bratwurst shot out some more grease onto my hand. I love health food.

My stomach fully coated with grease, it was time to explore. First stop was the SAS stand. No, there were no human killing machines there. Just an odd collection of quite old-fashioned beers, including Leroy Stout, one of the four Stouts at the festival. But I've had that one before. Bit sweet for my taste. So instead I went for a Christmas Scotch. It was crap. But, as there were only 15cls, it was soon dispatched to the grease pit.

Sugar-free Tripel. That caught my eye at the de Graal booth. I thought sugar was essential to get the light body (for the strength) of a Tripel? I bought one to see. And you know what? You don't really need sugar in a Tripel. It was a perfectly liquid example and it no way heavy or cloying. I'd never have known they'd passed on the sugar.


On the way back to my seat, I bumped into Jezza P of the Burgundian Babblebelt.  After we'd been chatting a couple of minutes, a gorgeous local girl inexplicably joined our conversation. Maybe she has a thing for dimensionally-challenged, old English blokes. Or maybe it was Jezza. Naaah, who could resist my beautiful face? I would have stopped to chat longer, but my glass was empty. Not even a blonde stunner can keep me from beer for long.

Sebastian dropped by with a couple of beers he's had brewed at Braustelle in Cologne. He's only a few years older than Andrew, but disturbingly well-drunk (I don't mean pissed, but the beery equivalent of well-read). They beers were different-strength versions of a sort of Lichtenhainer. That is, smoked, sour, wheat beers. Rather pleasant and definitely unusual. They are commercially available under the names Freigeist Abraxas and Freigeist Abraxxxas. Not sure where from, but you might be lucky.

All too soon our time was up. And I still had three token left. I hate wasting things. Even things I haven't paid for (the tokens were the free ones you get for being a member of and EBCU organisation). Fortunately, Andrew had finished off his bottle of water. Three Glazen Toren Tripels fitted perfectly in the empty. No need to look for cans of Gordon's Finest Gold in Antwerp.

I recognised a familiar face on the platform as we waited for our train to Antwerp: Fred Waltman. Our paths hadn't crossed inside the hall. We caught up as we stood in the crowded train. The slightly-behind-schedule, crowded train. Antwerp station, on three levels, is a bit of a 3-D puzzle. Too much of one for us and we missed our connecting train. Not a total disaster. Especially for Mike. He'd wanted to the bakery of Astrid Plein on the way out, but we hadn't had time. Now we had a full hour. I got myself a half baguette sandwich.

We still had 45 minutes to wait. I tried to drag Mike and Andrew into a noisy, grotty-looking pub just off Astrid Plein. "I'm not going in there, dad." "I'll take that as a maybe." The grand bar in the station was more to their taste. It's an impressive sight, with a 10 metre-high ceilng and, loads of marble and gilding. And they sell Westmalle Tripel. That and a couple of jenevers were exactly what I needed. So that's what I had.

Of course, we had to piss around changing in Rotterdam again. But the jenevers and the water bottle full of Tripel knocked the edges off any annoyance. And I was home in plenty of time for Match of the Day. I celebrated with a St. Bernerdus Abt.

ZBF 2010

I can't remember missing ZBF. And you have to go back a way to find a 24-Uur Festival (its predecessor) I didn't attend. No surprise, then, that I went this year.

Saturday. That's the day to go. Mostly because I don't want the threat of work the next day. Could limit my fun. And I wouldn't want that. I could stay at home and get bored.

I let Mike work out the travel arrangements. Amsterdam to Antwerp, then Antwerp to St. Niklaas. Une pièce d'urine, as the French say. It didn't work out quite that simple.

One of the very first things I read in Dutch, back in 1987, was an article about the HSL (Hoge Snelheids Linie or High Speed Train line). They were trying to decide whether it should go directly from Amsterdam to Rotterdam or if it should go via Den Haag. In typical Dutch fashion, it took about 10 years to come up with a decision. The line was finally finished a couple of years ago. But, inexplicably, trains have only recently started to use it.

Saturday there were no trains running on the old mainline between Amsterdam and Rotterdam. So no Amsterdam - Antwerp train. Instead, we had to take the Fyra* to Rotterdam and change there. How exciting. First time on the new high speed line. "Are we on the new track?" I asked. "Yes. Look it's got a different catenary." Andrew is very observant about stuff like that.

Despite the new line being years late, NS still hasn't got new rolling stock. Instead, they've painted some old carriages a revolting combination of pink, red and mauve. It doesn't make them go any faster.

That's enough about the journey. It wasn't that exciting.  Oh, one more thing I almost forgot. I bought a couple of cans for the train. They didn't have Gordon's Finest Gold so I had to make do with Navigator 8.6. It's a cheeky little number, perfectly suited to al fresco drinking on a park bench. It works on a train, too.

Our arrival in St. Niklaas was carefully timed. For half an hour after the doors opened. Late enough to miss the initial rush. Early enough to get a seat. I hate queueing. And standing. And waiting. I'm the impatient type.

Mike had a list of breweries to watch out for. I would tell you them all, but I wasn't paying that much attention. And, seeing as you had to pay for it, I didn't bother getting a programme. Mike had one. Waste of money getting two.

Glazen Toren. That was on his list. And the closest stand to our seats. Obvious place to start. I had a Scotch. Before we get any further, I'll warn you: don't expect any beer descriptions. I've given up on the anal geek bit, spoiling the day by obsessively making notes. Pushing my way through crowds. Yet another thing I hate. So once the place filled up a bit, my beer choices were limited to the closest stands.

The Glazen Toren Scotch was pretty nice. I don't know if it really bears much resemblance to a Scotch Ale as brewed in Scotchland, but I've given up worrying about that sort of crap. As long as my glass is half full of something pleasant, I couldn't really give a toss.

Name-dropping time. (These names probably won't mean a lot to you. It's not as if we're a bunch of celebs.) I always meet loads of people at the ZBF. Sebastian. Jim who was on a beer tour with me a couple of years ago. Mark and Sarah. Des de Moor. You might have heard of him.

My second beer was another from Glazen Toren. Their Tripel. Quite pleasant, too.  Then it was time to implement my plan. My beer drinking plan.

Randomly sampling hugely different beers sounds like fun. But it ends up just being confusing. That's why I have my plan. I call it my Stout and Lambic Plan. It's basically like this: first I drink just Stout, then switch to lambic, before returning to Stout to finish off.

I looked at Mike's programme. Bugger. Just four Stouts. And one of those was from De Dolle Brouwers. I'm not wasting my money on that again. Not after the sour, infected mess it was last year. Trying not to get too discouraged about my ruined plan, I picked a Stout off the list Troubadour Obscura, brewed at the Proefbrouwerij. Mmm. A nice enough beer. But almost completely unlike a Stout. That's when I abandonned the plan. For a new one. Tripel would replace Stout. Except when I fancied something strong and dark. Or when I couldn't be arsed to walk far. It wasn't much of a plan.

That's it for now. Part two will follow tomorrow.

* The fast train service within Holland.

Strong Ale ca 1955

No end in sight to what I can plunder from Andrew Campbell's excellent book. It'll be strange to have to go back to thinking up stuff for myself. What a disaster.

The following text gives some further clues as to the reasons behind the domination of the market by low-gravity beers. You can sense the frustration that the author must have felt when trying to discover what interesting beers might be on sale. Unfortunately, such experiences are still not unknown, even in these days of heightened consumer consciousness.

"Strong Ales
Strong Ales have a limited public, which is all the more reason that the seller should be fully informed and ready to tell his customer about them. Unfortunately, absolute ignorance is a much too general rule, and there is apt to be little or no choice between brews, even in the best-run bars. The barmaid at a large, well-run establishment in the East End of London, asked for a strong ale, proposed best bitter or Burton. It took quite some questionning to discover that the brewery had a barley wine. In the wine department of a large London department store the question, 'have you any atrong ale?' produced the offer of Double Diamond. When the customer placed a bottle of Benskins' Colne Spring Ale on the counter and said, 'Have you nothing similar to this?' there was much searching and ferreting in the rear part of the store and a bottle of Ind, Coope and Allsopp's Arctic Ale was eventually produced.

One can only suppose that strong ale is a line that sells rather slowly, costing rather a lot for beer, and therefore something in which the barman and counter-hand take very little interest. rarely does one see the display or really energetic promotion given to a strong ale that is devoted to light ale and stouts. Strong ale is a strong drink, strong enough to limit the average consumer to two or three half-pints at a sitting. It may be right and proper to drink mild and bitter by the pint for refreshment, but strong ale is to be sipped - the aroma, the flavour and substance enjoyed as wine. The publican can make more money, with less chance of inebriation among his customers, if they stick to the weaker beers. Nevertheless the strong ale is the king of all ales, and a bottle of the very should be treated with the care that would be given to the handling of a new-born baby."
"The Book Of Beer" by Andrew Campbell, 1956, pages 90-91.

So there we have it: publicans couldn't be arsed to promote strong ale because they made more from the watery stuff. Which had the added benefit of not getting the punters pissed. I wonder what the beer landscape would be like today if the the strong stuff had been more financially attractive?

Don't worry. The tables will soon be back. I'm asssembling a couple of really special ones. Or rather will be assembling them. I'm a bit busy at the moment.

I am a vampire

"Ron Pattinson...is that the vampire dude?

Parliament investigates beer grists (1899)

Parliament was so much more fun in the old days. When they discussed interesting stuff like Irish home rule and beer grists.

1880's Free Mash Tun Act was to blame. Many weren't too happy about brewers' new freedom to use pretty much whatever ingredients they chose. There were several attempts to pass legislation to impose new restrictions on brewers. All failed and, after a while, Pure Beer agitation as it was called, died away.

I've posted this text for a couple of reasons. One is the reference at the beginning of the move from aged to running beers. The last few decades of the 19th century saw a huge decline in the popularity of aged beer, driven by changing fashion.

Another reason is the discussion of the role of sugar, particularly in the brewing of running ales. The impression given is that the Free Mash Tun Act allowed better satisfaction of the public's new-found love of lighter beers. Were the brewers pulled by drinkers' preferences or did they push the beer that generated the most profit? Being realistic, there was probably a bit of both.

And, of course, there's the mention of AK. It's described as a Light Pale Ale. I won't argue with that.Its importance can be judged by the fact that it's one of only four types of Ale mentioned.

"My opinion is that if (1) a sufficiency of fine English barley were available, and if (2) the present public taste were in favour of a stock beer as against a fresh beer, the need for malt substitutes would cease to exist. But (1) the quantity of fine English barley is extremely limited, and (2) the present taste is practically entirely in favour of fresh brewed beers. Under these circumstances it is not practicable to brew ales without the assistance of malt substitutes. The taste for fresh ales as against stock ales set in some 20 years or more ago, and it has been steadily progressive without any tendency to reversion; and even within the past few years I have known brewers who previously brewed their pale ales on stock principles abandon stock beer brewing, and have found that the ales brewed on running ale lines have given greater satisfaction. There are about 1,600 or 1,700 wholesale brewers in this country, and of the ale brewers I do not think that more than six brew without the use of substitutes. Excepting these few firms, the all-malt brewers are the publican brewers, who brew simply for retail consumption, but such ale is not held to compare favourably with the ale produced by brewers for sale. A friend of mine who brewed entirely from malt sold his houses recently to a firm using about 20 per cent, of invert sugar in their brewings. Since the change, the trade in these houses has increased by 33 per cent. It has been stated in evidence that running beers may be successfully brewed from English malt only ; the most recent evidence to that effect is that of Mrs. Lovibond. I have had the opportunity, through a relation of Mrs. Lovibond, of tasting these ales. We have heard that they suit her customers j but they would not suit the customers of most of the brewers, I know, and in my opinion their character and palate compare unfavourably with those of beers correctly brewed with a small amount of substitute. Her heavy stock beer, on the other hand, is excellent; but she admits that there is only a small demand for it, and her evidence on that head entirely corroborates my experience. My opinion is that the public prefer a beer brewed with a small amount of substitute; and although Mrs. Lovibond has extensively advertised, for some time, that her beers contain no substitute, she admits that her trade is below the brewing capacity of her brewery. My experience of other private trade, as well as public trade, breweries is that, as a rule, the brewery plant is too limited for the demand. The object of using substitutes, then, is to produce a beer which shall mature or ripen quickly, and this, in my opinion, is the kernel of the matter. If a beer is brewed on stock principles, to ripen slowly, its flavour and character are different to those of a quickly-maturing beer, and such character and flavour are, at the present time, unpopular. In some breweries with which I am connected there is still some stock beer brewed, although only a small quantity, say 0.5 to 1 per cent, of the trade. In the brewing of such ales I use no sugar, or only a very minute quantity; but for the running ales in the same brewery I find it necessary to use an adjunct. The material for the different classes which I use in ordinary seasons are usually as follows:—

(a.) Stock ale, kept 4 to 12 months before delivery:—
Fine English malt - - 66 to 66
Fine foreign malt - - 25 to 34
No. 1 invert sugar or glucose - 9 to 0
100

(b.) Semi-stock pale bottling beers, kept about three months before delivery:-
Good to fine English malt - - -.,60
Good to fine foreign malt - - - 25
No. 2 invert sugar or glucose - - 15
100

(c.) Light pale ales (A.K.), kept about 2 to 4 weeks before delivery:—
Good to fine English malt - - -.,55
Good to fine foreign malt - - - 25
No. 2 invert sugar or glucose - - 20
100

(d.) Mild ale (X. or XX.—fourpenny) kept four to ten days before delivery :—
Good English malt - - - -50
Good ordinary foreign malt - - - 25
No. 2, invert or glucose - - - 25
100

If 10 per cent, flaked maize or rice were used in beers (c) and (d), 5 per cent, of foreign malt and 5 per cent, sugar would be displaced. It must not be assumed (and I must particularly emphasize this point) that because I recommend little or no sugar in the stock ales, and a fair proportion in the running ales, that the use of sugar depreciates the keeping properties of the beer. This is not the case at all. The keeping properties of the stock ales are due not to the absence of sugar, but to the high hop rate, the high qualities of malt and hops, and a system of brewing directed rather to keeping properties than early maturity. And, as I stated before, in spite of high gravity, high quality of malt and hops, and high hop rate, stock ales are unpopular, and becoming increasingly unpopular, and although it is to the brewers' pecuniary advantage to brew and push stock ales, the successful brewer of to-day is he who can turn out first-class mild and bitter ales which shall mature rapidly, and in this connexion I wish to emphasize the points (1) that it is more difficult, and requires far greater skill to turn out these fresh ales successfully than to produce a good stock ale ; and (2) that on the light fresh ales there is considerably less profit per barrel to be obtained than on the more expensive stock ales. Hence, although stock ale brewings carry (greater profits and require less skill, the brewer has to ignore these advantages and meet the public demand by brewing the less remunerative fresh ales requiring greater skill. I have advanced no theory as to why brewing sugar is desirable in the brewing of rapidly maturing beers, because, in my opinion, the theories available on this head are not exhaustive. Tho decrease in the soluble uncoagulable albuminoids doubtless explains much, but there are many other points to be considered, viz., the decrease in the acid phosphates, and the amount of unmodified starch in the malt, and other points. I prefer to base my statements upon what I find, and upon what practically all brewers for sale find, viz., that a running ale brewed with a certain percentage of sugar is a superior beer in palate, character, fineness, condition, and popularity than one brewed without. It is true that the finer the malt the less need for

sugar, but the amount of fine English malt is strictly limited, and it carries a price which would be prohibitive in the running ale trade, in which there is such competition and in which profits are cut very fine. In fact, the use of a small amount of sugar permits of the employment of our ordinary grade English barleys, and these barleys without that assistance would be unusable. The use of sugar is not so economical as has been made out by Mrs. Lovibond, for instance. In her comparison she takes fine malt on the one hand and the very cheapest sugar on the other. This is not quite fair, for between fine malt and cheap sugar there is no competition. Sugar only displaces ordinary mall, and in spite of the extreme cheapness of American glucose the bulk of the sugar used even in cheap beers is invert sugar—a much more expensive article. I can go further and say that the competition is principally between brewing sugars and cheap foreign malt. Taking ordinary English malt and a No. 2 invert, and allowing for the different extracts yielded by the two, and the grains given by the malt, and not by the sugar, the cost per pound of brewers' extract, in ordinary years, is 4d. to 4.5d. for malt, and 3d. to 3.5d. for sugar. In cheap foreign malt the cost per pound of brewers' extract may go down to 3.75d. to 4d. I have already pointed ont that it is really the commoner barleys (which yield the staple beer of the country, viz., mild ale) which require the assistance of sugars, and this is the experience of the brewers of this country. I have seen it stated by Mr. Schidrowitz, quoting from Professor Aubry and from a Dr. Doemens, that common English barleys, if properly worked up, make as satisfactory a malt as fine barleys, and that such malts can be brewed successfully without the use of sugars. Such views are absolutely theoretical, emanating from persons having no practical experience on the matter, and it is not difficult to show that they are fallacious. Any comparison of malts made from fine barleys and common barleys is out of the question. If, as implied by Mr. Schidrowitz's authorities, a properly adjusted malting system could remedy the defect of common barleys, it is quite clear that the great divergence of price existing between fine and common barleys would cease, and that all barleys of a season would tend to a fixed mean. There is no such tendency. It is no news to us in this country that common barleys require different handling in the malt-house to fine barleys; such different treatment is given in every malt-house in the country, and while under good manipulation a common barley will give a better malt than under bad manipulation, the best malt made from a common barley cannot compare with a malt well made from a fine barley. The German chemists quoted imply that all that need be done in the case of common barleys is to grow a longer root on them with the object of abstracting more nitrogen. But under the conditions under which a large root is encouraged there is a great transformation of insoluble nitrogenous matter (which is immaterial) into soluble nitrogenous matter (which is very material), and the amount of that transformation, for any given encouragement of rootlet growth, exceeds the extra amount of nitrogen abstracted by the root. So that if I grow a big root on a barley, the resulting malt, though showing less total nitrogen, contains a greater amount of soluble nitrogen. This constitutes one of the great difficulties in malting common barleys, viz., that in order to modify them properly conditions must be adopted which leave in the malt an excess of soluble albuminoids."
"Minutes of evidence taken before the Departmental committee on beer", 1899, pages 190-191.
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA190&dq=%22stock+ale%22&lr=&ei=F1J-S_a4LoTyyASvnJicCw&client=firefox-a&cd=22&id=ipgvAAAAYAAJ&as_brr=1#v=onepage&q=%22stock%20ale%22&f=false

My apologies for the terrible formatting. The original text doesn't bother with paragraphs.

Crazy

I must be. Otherwise I wouldn't do this. Propose a transaction so financially disadvantageous to myself. No, don't thank me. The inner glow of self-satisfaction is my only reward.
 Dolores has encouraged my philanthropy: "Ronald, if you don't move those stupid books I'll throw them in the bin." "Share your erudition with world" that's what she meant, wasn't it?

I'm going to make you an offer. One you could refuse. If you were crazy. Because it's hugely to your financial advantage. While stocks last. I'll be doing a book for a beer at the ZBF.

Just say the codeword "Can I buy you a beer, Ron?"and one of my shiny, numbered, limited-edition books will be yours. After I've got the beer in my hand. I'm not stupid. Just crazy.

Barclay Perkins sales by beer type 1956

It's still the mid-1950's here at SUABP. I can smell the the coal smoke and feel the smog settling around me. What fun.

Today I've got some surprising numbers harvested from the Barclay Perkins archives. Fascinating stuff about the relative sales of each of their products.

Barclay Perkins output by beer 1956
Beer	style	barrels	%
XX	Mild	45,043	19.63%
X	Mild	2,598	1.13%
DBA	Brown Ale	37,603	16.38%
PA FEST	Best Bitter	1,018	0.44%
PGA		9,308	4.06%
PA (T)	Best Bitter	23,608	10.29%
XLK	Bitter	13,562	5.91%
IPA	IPA	27,661	12.05%
KKKK	Strong Ale	872	0.38%
KK (B)	Old Ale	3,946	1.72%
KK (T)	Burton	2,715	1.18%
IBS EX	Russian Stout	686	0.30%
BBS EX	Export Stout	77	0.03%
LS	London Stout	14,327	6.24%
Lager	Lager	46,486	20.25%
Total		229,510
Source: Document ACC/2305/1/675 held at the London Metropolitan Archives Note: year ending March 31st

See what the big surprise is? The biggest seller is Lager, outselling even draught Mild. Brown Ale also makes an unexpectedly strong showing, only a little behind Mild. And the poor performance of XLK, long one of their mainstays, is a shock.

This was a pivotal moment for Barclay Perkins, being exactly when it merged (taken over, really) by Courage. What happened later to the brewery is less surprising. About a decade later Ale production ceased and it became a dedicated Lager brewery, churning out lots of luvverly Harp for London chavs. A sad end for a great Porter brewery.

The total number of barrels brewed tells its own tale. Those 229,000 barrels look pretty sad compared with Barclay Perkins output in their glory years:

1810    235,100   
1815    337,600
1850    397,360
1900    589,201
1914    582,263

That probably explains why they fell victim to a takeover: declining sales.

Smith Garrett aka Hodgson's of Bow

Zythophile has thankfully just corrected a grave error in my last post. One, I may add, that I had copied from Andrew Campbell. Mixing up London's two Hodgson's breweries. The one in Kingston was completely unrelated to the famous one in Bow. Where IPA was supposedly "invented". Apologies for any confusion.

As Zythophile commented, Hodgson's of Bow became Smith Garrett before being gobbled up by neighbours Taylor Walker in 1927. He should know, as he's written an article for the Brewery History Society on the brewery. This seems a  good excuse to post a couple of titbits about Smith Garrett.

This first is taken from an interview in the 1890's with a local policeman. He wasn't very impressed with their beer:

"Charrington´s is about the best beer in the neighbourhood. But a great deal of filthy stuff is sold. The Brewers put in as managers men to whom they have advanced large sums. These men must make money. To makemoney they must adulterate. If they don´t, they lose and the brewers foreclose. Some firms are very hard. Perhaps the worst are Brewers at the corner of the Bow Road just before you come to the Stratford Bridge;their name is Smith & Garrett and the beer they sell is bad. Taylor Walker in Limehouse used to be large brewers and do a great Indian trade as well as own the houses in Limehouse. But the India trade has failed them and trade has left Limehouse so they are in a bad way now compared to former years."
*Interview with Inspector Carter*
B346 pp100-107
http://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b346/jpg/101.html

Next are the details of some of Smith Garrett's beers, just before they disappeared:

Smith Garrett beers
Year	Beer	Style	Price	size	package	OG
1926	Porter	Porter	5d	pint	draught	1035.1
1926	Porter	Porter	5d	pint	draught	1031.7
1926	X	Mild	6d	pint	draught	1041.9
1926	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	7d	pint	draught	1044.4
1926	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	7d	pint	draught	1047.5
1927	Strong Ale	Strong Ale	8d	pint	draught	1055.68
Source: Truman Gravity Book

That's it. Just a little interlude, really.

Strong Bitter ca 1955

I love Andrew Campbell. All the material he's given me. I've virtually had a week off, as I pillage his book, Thanks, Andrew.

We've got as far as the strong Bitters. It's weird to see Double Diamond - for me the epitome of a shit, highly advertised, keg beer - lumped together with classy beers like Bass and White Shield. Just shows what a decade or two can do to a beer's image.

"There are many marks of national and higher-gravity bottled pale ales. They have their origin in the India pale ales said to have been conceived by Hodgson's of Bow (now merged with Courage & Co Ltd) for export to the British colonies and outposts in the Middle East and Asia. In 1825 it was stated that Hodgson's were the only brewers of I.P.A.; earlier brews had been made in Burton, but as the export trade there was concentrated on the Russian market, Burton I.P.A. was not developed until much later.

High-gravity bitters and pale ales are well hopped, have very good substance to the palate and clear appearance to the eye. They are the drinks of the moneyed customer and are important to the brewer, for they are favoured by folk who otherwise prefer spirits. They are usually the only beers on sale in American bars and cocktail bars of the more classy restaurants and hotels. At their head come the three national beers: Bass Pale Ale, Worthington India Pale Ale, and Ind, Coope and Allsopp's Double Diamond, which with Guinness Stout are to be found in most bars, even those of tied houses. Their draught equivalents are met less frequently, mostly in their own tied houses or in the big free houses or hotels owned by such groups as Trust Houses Ltd, Levy & Franks Ltd, j. Lyons & Co Ltd, and many others. Their gravity lies between 1047º and 1053º, approaching five per cent alcohol.

In competition with the national beers, many other breweries have introduced their own higher-gravity beers, pale ales with alcoholic strength resulting from gravities ranging from 1045º to well above 1057º. Some are slightly sweeter than the national beers. Intensive advertising campaigns are arranged to establish their names with the public, and extensive arrangements ensure their availability in many thousands of public houses and bars.

Another group of medium high-gravity pale ales are sold under the name of Export. As a rule they lie between the light ales and the national beers but sometimes are well up to the 1047º level. Finished with care and pasteurized, they have excellent storage qualities but may develop a distinctive, very slightly baked flavour. This is not unpleasant and makes these Export beers rather similar to the general run of Continental light beers."
"The Book Of Beer" by Andrew Campbell, 1956, pages 89-90.

This passage taught me something dead important. Something I'm embarrassed not to have already known. That the Hodgson's brewery in Kingston was the famous IPA one, just in a different location. [Not true - they are two totally unconnected breweries.] Why am I so embarrassed? Because I've photos of their 1886 brewing log. I really must get around to looking at it properly.