George Younger beers 1940 - 1961

Bet you've been waiting for this with bated breath. Part two of my investigation of George Younger's beers. What makes it all the more exciting is that a couple of these beers still exist.

Much like William Younger, George Younger, despite leaping feet first into the Pale Ale trade, continued to brew Alloa Ales. The strong beer that was the source of Scotland's beery fame. It seems to have been similar to Edinburgh Ale. Which itself was much like Burton Ale. These strong Alloa Ales were once exported all over the world. After WW II the foreign market had shrunk to Belgium and little else.

Gordon Highland Scotch Ale and Gordon Xmas Ale. They were originally brewed by George Younger. (Note that Alloa, like Edinburgh where it was later brewed, is nowhere near the Highlands.) They were some of the beers that helped define Belgian-style Scotch Ale. Strong, dark Ales of 8% ABV or so. Though you'll notice that Gordon Highland Scotch Ale wasn't all that dark. Colour values of 55 and 60 are just about brown.

Interestingly, the Strong Ale produced for domestic consumption was darker, though at 6% ABV, quite a bit weaker. Now here's a thing. There wasn't much in the way of Strong Ale brewed in England after WW II. There were the odd ones like Bass No. 1, Colne Spring Ale or Gold Label, but they weren't a standard part of every brewery's range. Not so in Scotland. Strong Ale carried on much as it had before the war, except gravities had been pegged back a little.

Heavy Export Ale. There are a few examples of that in the table. What was it - Heavy or Export? Judging by the gravity, I'd say Export. If you can remember - and if you can't I'm going to keep reminding you - "heavy" is Scottish brewing parlance meant nothing more than "strong". I'd love to know when it became so closely associated with a specific type of Pale Ale. From what I've seen so far, definitely after WW II.

I've been saving the best until last. Scottish breweries had never been that enthusiastic about Stout. Yes, they brewed it, but in a fairly desultory way. And they moved from the older dry types to very sweet versions much earlier than English breweries, starting in the 19th century. To most eyes Younger's Extra Stout, with a mere 52% attenuation, would seem pretty damn sweet. Until they'd got a look at Sweetheart Stout with just 30-odd% attenuation. And at around 1.5% ABV, it counts as a low-alcohol beer.

What does it tell us about Scottish tastes that the only beer still to bear the George Younger name is Sweetheart Stout? I'd love to try it. It looks more like a Malzbier than a Stout. Anyone know where I can score a bottle (or a can)?

The more I think about it, the more these Younger beers demonstrate 20th-century trends in Scottish brewing. Pale Ales, Strong Ales and the odd very sweet Stout. Only Lager is missing. That was the speciality of another Alloa brewery - the Alloa Brewery.

Here's the table:

George Younger beers 1940 - 1961
Year	Beer	Style	Price	size	package	Acidity	FG	OG	colour	ABV	App. Attenuation
1940	Pale Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1007	1035		3.64	80.00%
1940	Pale Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1008.5	1033.5		3.24	74.63%
1941	Pale Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1012.5	1037		3.17	66.22%
1946	60/- Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1007.5	1029.5		2.85	74.58%
1947	80/- Ale	Pale Ale	16d	pint	bottled		1009	1039.5		3.96	77.22%
1947	India Pale Ale 120/-	IPA	14d	half pint	bottled		1010	1042		4.16	76.19%
1948	Heavy Export Ale	Pale Ale	1/5.5d	half pint	bottled	0.08	1014	1047.7	23.5	4.37	70.65%
1948	Extra Stout	Stout		pint	bottled		1017.5	1036.5		2.44	52.05%
1948	Heavy Export Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1016	1048.5		4.21	67.01%
1949	Heavy Export Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1016.5	1047		3.94	64.89%
1950	Gordon Highland Scotch Ale	Scotch Ale			bottled	0.90	1031.1	1091.2	1 + 40	7.81	65.90%
1950	Gordon Xmas Ale (bottled in Antwerp)	Scotch Ale			bottled	0.10	1032.3	1090.7	2 + 40	7.58	64.39%
1952	Gordon Highland Scotch Ale	Scotch Ale			bottled	0.08	1026.5	1081.8	2.5 + 40	7.19	67.60%
1953	Strong Ale	Strong Ale	14.5d	nip	bottled	0.06	1021.9	1067.6	13 + 40	5.93	67.60%
1954	Extra Stout	Stout	1/2d	half pint	bottled	0.05	1018	1037.5	1 + 30	2.51	52.00%
1954	Heavy Export Ale	Pale Ale			bottled	0.06	1011.1	1044.7	19	4.36	75.17%
1954	Gordon Highland Scotch Ale (purchased in Belgium)	Scotch Ale			bottled	0.06	1028	1090.9	60	8.20	69.20%
1955	Extra Stout	Stout	15d	half pint	bottled	0.05	1015.8	1038.5	575	2.93	58.96%
1955	Strong Ale	Strong Ale	15d	nip	bottled	0.05	1022.3	1067.6	100	5.87	67.01%
1955	Heavy Export Ale	Pale Ale	15d	half pint	bottled	0.06	1012	1043.9	27	4.14	72.67%
1955	Gordon Highland Scotch Ale (purchased in Belgium)	Scotch Ale			bottled	0.07	1029.9	1090.3	55	7.86	66.89%
1955	Treble Top Ale	Pale Ale	21d	16 oz	can	0.05	1006.6	1031.2	37.5	3.19	78.85%
1955	Sweetheart Stout	Stout	26d	16 oz	can	0.04	1024.5	1036.4	225	1.52	32.69%
1956	Sweetheart Stout	Stout	1/3d	half pint	bottled	0.04	1024.6	1037.6	225	1.66	34.57%
1959	Sweetheart Stout	Stout	14d	halfpint	bottled		1024.4	1036.4	275	1.53	32.97%
1959	Sparkling Ale	Pale Ale	10d	half pint	bottled	0.05	1006.6	1026.6	30	2.59	75.19%
1959	Sparkling Ale	Pale Ale	12d	half pint	bottled	0.05	1024.5	1031.8	45	0.93	22.96%
1961	Husky Heavy Export Ale	Pale Ale	15d	half pint	bottled	0.05	1013.8	1042.8	25	3.63	67.76%
Sources:
Thomas Usher Gravity Book document TU/6/11 held at the Scottish Brewing Archive
Whitbread Gravity Book document LMA/4453/D/02/002 held at the London Metropolitan Archives

Fermentation at George Younger in the 1880's

Time for another stroll through George Younger's Alloa brewery. This time to the fermenting department. What will we find?

But first let's make a slight detour to the cooling loft:

"Walking across the copper-house, we passed an immense tank measuring 40 feet by 15 feet, containing very cold water from one of the lesser wells, for cooling purposes, and then entered the refrigerator and cooling room, constructed a few feet below the level of the water tank referred to. This magnificent cooling loft measures 100 feet in length, and is divided in the centre by a louvred partition. The front portion overlooks the yard, and is covered by an open cooler, with central revolving fans, driven by steam power; the walls of the room are latticed all round. The back or brewhouse portion is the refrigerator room, and contains two of Morton's largest size horizontal refrigerators, capable of cooling together 130 barrels per hour. The walls and ceiling of the refrigerating room are lined with match-board, stained and varnished, and the room is lighted by numerous windows."
"Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 2", Alfred Barnard, 1889, pages 440 - 441.

This is a typical arrangement of the late 19th century. Go back to the early years of the 19th century and worts were cooled by open coolers alone. A system which worked well enough in the cooler months, but could be problematic in the summer when the ambient temperature was higher. The solution was the refirgerator. Where the wort was conducted through pipes over which cold water ran. The Morton refrigerator was the classic machine, used almost everywhere. You can see them nicely in the picture above. The big advantage of a refrigerator was that the ambient temperature was more or less irrelevant and worts could be cooled quickly no matter what the weather.

Another development was the addition of fans above the cooler to circulate air better and hence aid cooling. Like everything in a modern brewery, they were driven by belts and shafts from a steam engine.

Brewing science had come a long way since Pastuer's visit to Whitbread in the 1870's. They'd rushed out the next day and bought a microscope of their own. A couple of decades later and no self-respecting brewery would be without one:

"On one side of this apartment, fronted by a broad gallery, is the head brewer's room, which commands all the important proceedings in the brewery. It is a spacious office 40 feet square, having subsidiary lavatories and offices at the back, and being lighted by numerous windows. Around the walls are barley and hop-sampling counters, a testing sink, shelves filled with experimental jars and measuring apparatus, and a case of books. In the centre is Mr. Cooper's writing table, and, on one side, are desks for the use of his lieutenants, or under-brewers. At one corner there is a lofty grandfather's clock, of handsome appearance, more than a century old, which was purchased with the old brewery, and keeps splendid time. Here also is the microscope, without which no brewer's room is considered complete now-a-days, and also other scientific instruments considered absolute necessaries to the intelligent modern brewer."
"Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 2", Alfred Barnard, 1889, page 441.

Maybe Barnard had bladder trouble. That's my explanation for why he suddenly starts telling us where all the toilets are. He didn't do it in the first volume.

Finally were in the fermentation room, as promised:

"Leaving this interesting place behind us, we descended to the floor underneath, and proceeded to notice some of the rooms connected with the fermenting department, where the cooled wort from the refrigerators next makes its appearance. The No. 1 tun room, being the most important, first attracted our attention. It is both light and spacious, and measures 60 feet in length, with a 6-foot way intervening between the vessels. It contains fifteen fermenting tuns of various capacities, eleven of which are square, and four round. They all contain parachutes and attemperators, and possess a fermenting capacity of a thousand barrels. The object of the attemperators is to keep the temperature under thorough control, and to secure a necessary reduction of heat, before racking off the finished beers. On reaching the tuns, the cooled wort is inoculated — so to speak — with yeast, when fermentation immediately commences. The great consideration is to have sound and healthy yeast, a great desideratum with Messrs. Younger and Son, and to secure it they take infinite trouble, and exercise the greatest care.

Fermentation is certainly the most important process in the brewing, and the most difficult to conduct. Here again the thermometer plays an important part, and our guide informed us that he watches the operation with the closest attention, assisting the process when too languid, or controlling it when too violent. In this operation of the brewery, we are presented with some of the most pleasing and instructive phenomena of nature. The combinations that are formed during the process are interesting beyond comparison to the intelligent on looker. The elastic fluids and volatile principles that are extricated and escape from the liquor during fermentation, are now fully understood by the scientific brewer, and careful observation of these can alone secure continuity of character in the finished beers.

But we must keep to the practical, and enter into the matter of fact details connected with our two days' sojourn in this brewery. In the adjoining room, there are seven more squares of similar construction fermenting 500 barrels, and beyond, in course of construction, there is an extensive addition being made to this department, which will nearly double the fermenting capacity of the brewery. As will be seen from our sketch, the new building is two storeys high, and forms a continuation of the left wing of the brewery. It is being erected in the most approved style, and will contain fourteen square fermenting vessels, with a capacity of sixty-five barrels each, all fitted with the latest improvements, attemperators and parachutes. Beneath the Nos. 1 and 2 fermenting rooms, are two racking cellars and a store cellar, all paved with stone. The former contain the usual cleansing squares, racking pipes and fittings."
"Noted Breweries of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 2", Alfred Barnard, 1889, pages 441 - 442.

Now that's interesting. They had both round and square fermenters. Most breweries went for one or the other. Alloa being known as the Burton of Scotland, and being similarly renowned for its Pale Ales, a comparison with Burton breweries is appropriate. Remember how small the fermenters were at Allsopp and Bass? No? Then I'll repeat it. Allsopp had 140 fifteen-barrel fermenters, and seventy 110-barrel ones. Bass had 117 squares of 45 barrels. Younger's 15 fermenters had a combined capacity of 1,000 barrels, an average of 66 barrels each. The ones in the second hall were slightly larger on average - 71 barrels.

Confused by the reference to parachutes? They're not to be confused with the paratrooper kind. These parachutes were more like inverted umbrellas, used for removing yeast from the top of wort. And naturally the fermenters were fitted with attemperators. In case you've forgotten, these were a network of pipes inside the fermenter through which cold water was circulated to reduce the temperature of the wort, if necessary. Worts were pitched at around 60º F and allowed to rise to the mid-70's. If the wort was getting too warm, the attemperator was switched on. They were also used at the end of fermentation to drop the temperature down to 60º F again to get the beer ready for racking. Whatever the weather, the temperature of the fermenting wort could be controlled precisely.

I've just realised we can make a nice comparison of fermentation capacity. I make Allsopp's 9,000 barrels and Bass's 5,265 barrels. George Younger's, after the expansion, would have been 2,410 barrels. Remember that Bass and Allsopp were the second and third largest breweries in Britain. It gives a good impression of the size of George Younger's operation.

But, care is needed when comparing Younger with the Burton brewers. Have you noticed what's missing from the inventory at Younger? Union sets. At Bass, the beer only stayed in the fermenters for a couple of days before being transferred to the unions. As all the fermentation was completed in the fermenters at Younger, the wort would have remained in them longer, at least four or five days.

I'm surprised at the lack of unions at George Younger. William Younger, the other big name in Scottish Pale Ale, did have them. I wonder why George Younger hadn't bothered with them?

That's me alsmost done with George Younger. Only the bottling stores left to take a peek inside. Won't that be fun?

Borefts Festival

I'll be at the Borefts Festival tomorrow. Just in case any of you feel like pushing beer into my hands.

I'm eagerly anticipating the Thornbridge/Kernel Burton. You can never have too much Burton.

Fraser vs. Younger & Son

Industrial accidents. Not very nice. This one, at George Yonger's brewery in Alloa, was particularly nasty.

See what you think:

"FRASER v. YOUNGER AND SON. Reparation—Culpa—Unfenced Machinery. Verdict for defenders. In this case, in which the now deceased James Fraser, provision dealer and cowfeeder, residing at Candleriggs Street, Alloa, was originally pursuer, and in which Mrs Margaret Smart or Fraser, his widow and executrix, who has been sisted in his room and place, is now pursuer; and George Younger & Son, brewers in Alloa, are defenders, the issue was as follows :—

"Whether the pursuer's daughter, Ann, died in consequence of injuries sustained on or about the 10th of April 1866, from an unfenced shaft in the mash-house of the defenders' brewery at Alloa, through the fault of the defenders— to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer? "Damages laid at £1000."

It appeared from the evidence that the pursuer's daughter, who was thirty-four years of age, had entered the brewery in order to get a bag of draff, and that while there she was caught by a shaft and killed. It was said that she wore a large crinoline. The distance between the shaft and the wall was only ten inches, so that she was dreadfully mangled. The pursuer claimed damages on the ground that the shaft ought to have been fenced; while, on the other hand, the defenders maintained that the deceased had no right to enter that part of the brewery, and that they were therefore free from liability.

The jury, after an absence of an hour and a half, returned with a unanimous verdict for the defenders, but strongly recommending the widow to their consideration."
"The Scottish law reporter, Volume 3, (November 1866 - May 1867)", 1867, page 363.

I don't like to imagine what they mean by "dreadfully mangled". Sounds awful. The brewery's defence - that she shouldn't have been in that part of the brewery, so it was her own fault - wouldn't convince me. What about their employees? Wasn't the uncaged shaft just as dangerous for them?

"strongly recommending the widow to their consideration" this says that, despite finding in the brewery's favour, the jury still thought they had a moral obligation to the widowed mother of the dead woman. I wonder if they did give her any dosh?

George Younger beers 1906 - 1939

I'm going a little Alloa crazy. I'm unearthing lots of stuff about Britain's forgotten brewing centre. It seems a shame not to share it.

We've been around the brewery with Barnard. Now it's time to take a look at some of George Younger's beers. And what better place to start than at the beginning. At least the beginning of the analyses I possess. Which is 1906.

It's a funny one, that 1906 analysis. The date could be wrong. The question mark next to it implies it's just a guess. It comes from a piece of paper slipped inside a brewing log. Not a Scottish brewing log, but William J. Younger's personal notebook from his time at Evershed's Burton brewery in the 1890's. This is it:

I've just noticed Knox in there. That's another Alloa brewery. Oddly enough, the only one of which much survives. And the only one still connected to the drinks trade, it being owned by Diageo. But I digress.

On with the beers. They're a funny set. The high proportion of Pale Ales could just be the result of the specific areas of interest of those doing the analyses. The Whitbread Gravity Book is full of Milk Stout analyses, presumably because they were keeping a close eye on beers competing with their Mackeson brand. The overwhelming majority of the beers listed are standard strength Pale Ales, with gravities between 1035º and 1048º.

Barnard commented that George Younger was famous for two styles of beer: Pale Ale and strong Alloa Ale. There are certainly plenty of the former, but surprisingly few of the latter. Which is a a bit odd, as I've plenty from other breweries. Most have gravities of 1065º and 1085º. These are the beers that, while described by the breweries themselves as Strong Ale were sold in England as Scotch Ale. It's hard to read too much into these two samples. The last, from 1939, is very weak at just 1047º for the Strong Ale.

It's harder to find exact English equivalents for Scottish Strong Ales. The closest are the KKK or KKKK brewed in London, or beers like Bass No. 1 Ale from Burton.

I've two analyses of a Mild. They don't tell me much. At 1035º and 6d a pint, the one from 1922 is very much in line with London Milds of the same period. That there is only two analyses speaks volumes about the popularity of Mild in Scotland.

Seeing Table Beer in the 20th century is a surprise. London brewers had given up on it in the middle of the 19th century. It seems to have hung around much longer in Scotland. No idea why.

Malt Wine. I've classified those as Barley Wine, which seems fair enough. The ones listed below certainly have the right sort of strength. Though I wouldn't like to define what the difference is between Malt Wine and Strong Ale in this context. Just what the brewer decided to put on the label, I suspect.

And finally . . . the Stouts. Again, not many samples to work on. The later two look very typical of the way Stout developed in Scotland. Becoming very sweet and, because of the very low degree of attenuation, not very alcoholic. Here's a funny thing. One style that never gets mentioned in people's fantasies about Scottish beer styles is Stout. Yet sweet, underattenuated Stout is one of the most distinctively Scottish of all styles. I suppose it doesn't fit in with romantic notions of kilted Scots drying their malt over peat fires up in the Highlands.

 

George Younger beers 1906 - 1939
Year	Beer	Style	Price	size	package	Acidity	FG	OG	colour	ABV	App. Attenuation
1906	60/- PA	Pale Ale		pint	draught			1056.2	8
1922	Black Beer	Black Beer		pint	bottled		1004	1011		0.90	63.64%
1922	carbonated	??		pint	bottled		1008.5	1027	36	2.39	68.52%
1922	Mild	Mild	6d	pint	draught		1005.9	1034.5	95	3.73	83.04%
1923	Malt Wine	Barley Wine		pint	bottled		1016	1078		8.12	79.49%
1923	carbonated	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1007.3	1033.8	33	3.44	78.47%
1923	No. 1 Pale Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1008.2	1040.9	31	4.26	80.07%
1923	Malt Wine	Barley Wine		pint	bottled		1023.9	1083.4	69	7.76	71.34%
1924	Alloa Pale Ale	Pale Ale			bottled			1039.7
1924	Sparkling TB	Table Beer		pint	bottled		1004	1027.5	40	3.05	85.45%
1926	PA	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1009	1033	30	3.11	72.73%
1928	No. 1 Alloa Pale Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1008	1043.5	no. 9 (standard colour)	4.62	81.61%
1929	XXX Stout	Stout		pint	bottled		1012	1047.5		4.61	74.74%
1929	90/- PA	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1009	1039		3.90	76.92%
1929	PA	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1002	1035		4.31	94.29%
1929	PA 60/-	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1008	1037		3.77	78.38%
1929	Sparkling Pale Ale (carbonated)	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1004	1033.3	Between 7 - 8. Same as our Newcastle Pale.	3.80	87.85%
1929	Sparkling Pale Ale (carbonated)	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1007	1034	Between 7 - 8. Same as our Newcastle Pale.	3.51	79.41%
1929	Sparkling Pale Ale (carbonated)	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1008	1035.5	Between 8 - 9. Shade paler than our standard	3.57	77.46%
1929	Heavy Export Ale (carbonated)	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1013	1049	Between 11 – 12	4.67	73.47%
1929	Strong Ale (carbonated)	Strong Ale		pint	bottled		1018.5	1066.5	Between 13 - 14	6.24	72.18%
1929	Sparkling Pale Ale (carbonated)	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1007.8	1038	Between 7 - 8.	3.93	79.61%
1929	Sparkling Malt Wine (carbonated)	Barley Wine		pint	bottled		1013	1076	No. 14.	8.27	82.89%
1929	No. 1 Alloa Pale Ale (carbonated)	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1011	1044.8	No. 9.	4.38	75.42%
1930	Pale Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1011.5	1040		3.69	71.25%
1930	Pale Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1010	1039	50	3.76	74.36%
1931	Milk Stout	Stout		pint	bottled		1020	1044		3.09	54.55%
1932	Heavy Export Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1011	1048		4.81	77.08%
1933	Lemon shandy	Shandy		pint	bottled		1006	1014		1.03	57.14%
1933	Heavy Export	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1012	1048		4.68	75.00%
1933	Sparkling Pale Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1005.5	1035		3.84	84.29%
1933	Sparkling Table Beer	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1007.5	1021		1.74	64.29%
1934	Pale Ale	Pale Ale		pint	draught		1012	1038		3.36	68.42%
1935	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	8d	pint	bottled		1009.4	1041		4.10	77.07%
1936	90/- Pale Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1004	1036	7 – 8	4.17	88.89%
1937	Cream Double Stout	Stout		pint	bottled		1025.5	1045.5		2.56	43.96%
1937	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	5d	pint	bottled		1007.3	1032.3	13 – 14	3.24	77.52%
1937	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	6d	pint	bottled		1011	1039	13 – 14	3.63	71.79%
1939	60/- Ale	Pale Ale		pint	bottled		1007.8	1037.5		3.87	79.33%
1939	Light Ale	Mild	6d	pint	draught	0.06	1005.8	1033.6	40 + 1	3.61	82.74%
1939	Strong Ale	Strong Ale	10d	pint	draught	0.08	1005.2	1047.4	40 + 16	5.52	89.03%
Sources:
Thomas Usher Gravity Book document TU/6/11 held at the Scottish Brewing Archive
Younger, Wm. & Co Gravity Book document WY/6/1/1/19 held at the Scottish Brewing Archive
Whitbread Gravity Book document LMA/4453/D/02/001 held at the London Metropolitan Archives
Document WY/6/1/1/14 of the William Younger archive held at the Scottish Brewing Archive.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1868 William Younger Bg

I'm still on my Younger jag. Though we've swapped George for William, in our second Scottish recipe. Hope you enjoy it.

I'll start by saying I haven't a clue what this beer was sold as. I can only guess based on the ingredients. The grist of pale and black malt says Porter or Stout. Given the low gravity, Porter is more likely. What Bg might stand for, I'll leave you to guess. Best I can come up with is Bottling.

Now it's confession time. I'd missed this beer. Completely overlooked it. In my defence, amongst the hundreds of beers in the William Younger logs, I can find only one occurrence of Bg. So not one of their more popular beers. And it's only a partial brew. Just 55 barrels rather than the 80 to 90 barrels brewed of other beers.

Younger wasn't that big on Porter and Stout. They brewed two Stouts, BS and DBS, with gravities of 1046º and 1062º respectively. Though sometimes they seem to have called BS P, which I guess stands for Porter. One beer in the records has both designations used for it. P is also around 1046º. The big difference is that BS (or P) abd DBS both contained amber malt. Maybe I can get Kristen to do one of those recipes at a later date.

I've talked myself into this being the bottling version of Porter. I hope I'm right. Because that's me all out of words for now.





Over to Kristen . . . . .

Kristen’s Version:

So, this is going to be a very short one this week. This recipe is dead easy with very minimal amount of detail. It’s a simple infusion mash with no gyling at all. It very much reminds me of Guinness 250th anniversary beer than came out a few years ago. Pretty bloody nice indeed.

Ingredients

Grist – For the English pale malt I again chose the ubiquitous Maris Otter as it does such a nice job in dark beers. Fawcett’s Black patent is by far my favorite English black malt and I just got some more in house.

Hops –  Very boring hopping. A Fuggle-y type of hop in two simple additions. Beginning and one towards the end. Lends a great amount of hop bitterness and flavor. Any lower AA% hop would work equally as well.

Yeast – I really like the London III for types of beers like this. Does such a nice job of lending a bit more malt and fruit and doesn’t finish as dry as the other strains do.

I told you had something even worse

I did, didn't I? The excerpts below contain the most egregious error that's flapped in front of my eyes. See if you can guess what it is.

I'm sure you can guess the source. Good old Horst Dornbusch, man of a million unfounded claims.

"Pale ale originated in England about two hundred years ago when some brewers started to use cleaner, but more expensive, coke  — instead of coal or wood — to dry their malted barley. The higher-priced grain led to higher-priced brews. This helped to foster the British notion that pale beers are for the upper classes, while darker beers are for the toiling masses. Most of this new ale came from just one city — Burton-on-Trent.

British breweries have only been maintaining reliable brewing records since the beginning of the twentieth century, so we do not have the recipe of the original brew. From the perspective of authenticity, we have only a few vague hints as to what the original pale ale might have looked or tasted like. It ought not to come as a surprise, therefore, that pale ale has one of the broadest style definitions you can find in the world of brewing.

Early English beers brewed with these paler grains were mostly amber to copper in color. Today we might not even consider them pale, because we compare them to modern beers such as the golden-blond Pilsners, the brilliant Munich helles, and even American light lagers. By the standards of the staple brown ales and porters of two hundred years ago, however, these new beers were pale indeed."

Not too awful yet. Except for paragraph two, obviously. Unless all my archive visits have been some fantastic and fantastically-detailed dream. Naah. I went down the pub after every visit. They were always open and I can remember tasting the beer. Couldn't have been a dream. The street was even the same after I came out of the pub. Conclusive evidence against the dream theory.

What else has he got wrong? That there weren't any Brown Ales in the early 19th century. And that Mild - a working man's drink if ever there was one -was pale at the time. By 1800 pale malt was cheaper to brew with than other base malts. That's why Porter grists were changed to be mostly pale malt.

"Originally, in cask-conditioned “real” pale ales, the turbidity from the yeast was taken out of the drink with various finings. But in regular “running” beer — as draft beer was often called then — this was not the case. It was not until the invention of beer filtration in 1878 that pale ales could sparkle, too."

I'm not even sure what that means. What the hell were 'cask-conditioned “real” pale ales'? If he's saying what I think he is, he's got it arse about tit. I wouldn't trust that date for the introduction of filtration, either. The idea of Stock Pale Ales was that the long maturation allowed them to drop bright without fining. Read any description of Bass or Allsopp Pale Ale and they go on about how wonderfully pale and bright it is.

"The name “pale ale” is not without ambiguity, or even confusion. Initially, the beer was known as India Pale Ale (IPA) because it was being made mostly for shipment to the administrators, merchants and soldiers of the British Empire in India. This beer faced a six-week long, often rough, ocean voyage through the tropics and around the tip of Africa. To ensure that the beer would survive the trip without spoiling, Burton brewers made it almost twice as strong and twice as bitter as the standard ales of the day."

He's not the only one to claim that. Doesn't make it right, though.

"This India Pale Ale acquired a domestic British market only by accident when, after a shipwreck off Liverpool in 1827, casks of IPA were salvaged and sold for local consumption. Once the Liverpudlians had tasted the hoppy export ale, they clamored for more and the Burton brewers obliged. Because of the beer’s bittering levels, it became known domestically as “bitter.” However, because plenty of alcohol as a preservative was no longer necessary on the short transport routes for domestic sales, Burton brewers made their bitter in three strengths. They brewed an ordinary bitter (with an average OG in the mid-1.030s), a best bitter (with an average OG in the mid-1.040s), and a strong bitter (with an average OG in the mid-1.050s). The strong bitter also became known as special or extra-special bitter (ESB). As beer bottles entered the British market from the 1860s onward, the bottled bitters came to once again be called pale ales to distinguish them from the bitters in casks. At this time, however, the “India” prefix was dropped."

Domestic IPA was in reality higher gravity than the ones sent to India. I'll make no other comment. Except to point out the irony in this being the next sentence in the original:

"As brewers, we may be comfortable with the thought that styles are something fixed and lasting. But in reality, styles are born as an expression of their times and tend to change with them, sometimes even radically."

How true.

To top it all off, there's this brilliant recipe:

"British Nineteenth-Century Best Bitter
(5-gallon, all grain)
OG = 1.044
FG = 1.010
SRM = 11–13
IBU = 30  

Ingredients

    7.0 lbs. two-row pale ale malt (3° L)
    1.0 lb. crystal malt (40° L)
    6.75 AAU East Kent Goldings hops (bittering)
        (1.35 oz. of 5% alpha acid)
    0.5 oz. Fuggles hops (flavor)
    0.5 oz. East Kent Goldings (aroma)
    Wyeast 1028 (London Ale) or White Labs WLP026 (Premium Bitter Ale) yeast
    0.75 cup corn sugar (for bottling)"

You can read the whole article here:

http://www.byo.com/stories/beer-styles/article/indices/11-beer-styles/1239-pale-ale-style-profile

I rest my case.

Stout fantasies

As a light aside from my dour Scottish series, here's a strong Papazian Cup contender.

This one definitely falls into the category Fantasy History.

"The search for why the acidic, bitter-coffee nature of stout gained popularity over the rich, chocolate taste of porter has little connection to beer. In stout's case it leads to the insurance business.

That strange form of making money started when businessmen began underwriting the safe voyages of ships. They took a chance by guaranteeing a payoff when a ship encountered tragedy; in exchange for this promise they reaped a tidy profit if the cruise was successful. Obviously the key to making money hinged upon the underwriter's ability to assess accurately the risk inherent in any particular ship. To ensure they had an edge, many underwriters stayed close to the piers.

Entrepreneurs saw this steady pier side activity and responded by providing a place where the insurance agents could sit and conduct business while enjoying refreshment. What they provided was the origin of the coffee shop. Within their walls notable firms such as Llyod's of London amassed princely wealth, along with a taste for the acrid flavor of coffee. It was only a matter of time until a brewer latched onto the trend and developed a beer with similar characteristics. Doubt that? Look at what US microbrewers did in the mid 1990s. They won new customers who grew up on "soda-pop" by producing light fruit-flavored beers.

Fortunately, at the same time coffee grew popular, technological advances equipped malt houses with the ability to 'drum roast' grains. This was also essential to the development of stout, and it clearly dates the introduction of stout after porter. Whatever story about the development of stout you prefer, one part of its introduction remains unchallenged: the story of Guinness.

In 1759 Arthur Guinness closed what his peers considered a foolish real estate deal. He agreed to pay 40£ per year rent on an old idle brewhouse. The unusual or foolish part was the term of contract, a period of 9,000 years. As things turned out Guinness was far from foolish. At first the brewery promised nothing but struggle, but his fortune changed in the 1760s when he moved away from ale. The beer he switched to was stout. Guinness brewed his with high levels of roasted grain to emphasize the coffee character. Next, he intentionally added the unthinkable - sour beer - but in a controlled amount (approximately 1%) he found it pleasantly dried the finish. His modifications brought rising profits and a complete switch to 'porter-stout' in 1799. From then on stout was solidly linked to the Guinness family name.

Other brewers watched the influence of stout expand and joined the trend. William Beamish and his partner William Crawford sold their first stout in 1792. By 1800 they were the largest stout brewer in Ireland, a position they held until 1833. Another famous label came from the family of James, William, Jerome and Francis Murphy when, in 1856, they gave up on porter and made the switch to Murphy's Stout.

Why did porter decline and stout triumph? It had to do with politics and war. During World War I rationing and energy restrictions in England prevented malting companies from deeply roasting grains. But Ireland, poised on the edge of rebellion and leaning toward alliance with Germany, was treated with kid gloves. No restrictions of any kind were enacted. During the war, and after, England moved away from their dark beer while Ireland continued its love affair with stout."

. . . . .

"Foreign stout represents the first member of stout's extended family. As the name implies, it was brewed to ship beyond Ireland's shores. Although foreign stout retained the undiminished qualities of the original, it further emphasized elements that naturally preserve beer. To that end brewers fortified it with additional malt.

That modification significantly darkened the beer; moreover, it increased the alcohol which helped stabilize it during transportation. To ensure balance they matched the malt with a higher hopping rate, and it too extended the beer's life. However, raising the amount of malt inevitably led to a fuller body and production of 'fruity' esters, which were subdued in dry stout but blossomed in the foreign version. Along with the esters another by-product was introduced: diacetyl, which lent a touch of butterscotch. The changes bulked up the low alcohol of dry stout to a level of 5 to 6 percent and when this happened it infused the beer with a light scent of perfumey sweetness. "
By Gregg Smith http://www.northamericanbrewers.org/ShoutforStout.htm

That stuff on Irish brewers is just so wrong. Where do they get this stuff from? I suppose they just make it up because it sounds like a good story. Beamish & Crawford brewed Porter before Guinness. Murphy's were still brewing Porter in the 20th century. As were Guinness, a point that seems to have escaped the author. As has the fact that Guinness Foreign Extra Stout and Extra Stout used to have identical gravities.

And all that coffee-roasting shit. The development and use of black malt had nothing to do with its flavour. It was simply a colouring agent.

I'll let you discovcer the many other inaccuracies. I wonder if Gregg Smith was paid to write this guff?