X Ale grists in the 1860's

While I'm on the topic of grists, I may as well do the ones for the Milds I've been boring you with. They aren't all that exciting, one or two unexpected ingredients excepted.

19th-century grists can be a great disappointment to those hoping to find exciting recipes. Porter and Stout aside, most beers had very simple grists with nothing other than base malt. It's not what I'd expected to find. But, after looking at the odd few thousand brewing records, it's clear that this is just how they brewed back then.

Over-complication is a modern failing. How many current beers have recipes that are more complicated than they need to be? My guess is quite a lot. I don't want to bore you with this, but one of my favourite beers of all time, Pretty Things XXXX Mild*, has just four ingredients. That's including water and yeast.

The London X Ales definitely have the edge in terms of grist complexity. Only Barclay Perkins ones were 100% pale malt. That these beers were pale in colour is attested by the use of white malt in some. That was the palest kind of pale malt.

The Courage grists really are unusual. I'd forgotten that they included brown malt. The percentage is pretty small so I wonder what the point was. It would have added a little colour, but also flavour. I wonder which was the prime reason for its use?

The limited amount of sugar used is also worth highlighting. Sugar had been a legal ingredient since 1847, but it wasn't immediately hugely popular. Whitbread was the first of the big London brewers to adopt it in a big way, coincidentally about exactly at this time. This is when these brewers began using sugar regularly:

Whitbread 1865
Truman 1876
Barclay Perkins 1880

When we finally get to the next instalment in this series, you'll see just how much Barclay Perkins grists were transformed by the Free Mash Tun Act.

What can I say about the provincial grists? Very little as they are, with a single exception, 100% base malt. The only exception is the Medway X Ale with its small amount of crystal malt. This is a very early sighting of crystal malt. But that's another topic we'll be learning more about later.

Almost forgot my other point: the differing gravities. You can see that London X Ale was over 1060º, the provincial ones around 1050º. There's a similar gravity gap all the way up the strength scale

That's me done. I'll leave you with the tables.

London X Ale grists in the 1860's
Date	Year	Brewer	Beer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	pale malt	brown malt	white malt	sugar
14th May	1867	Barclay Perkins	X	1061.2	1018.6	5.64	69.68%	9.85	2.77	100.00%
2nd Oct	1868	Barclay Perkins	XX	1078.9	1024.7	7.18	68.77%	12.89	4.47	100.00%
2nd Oct	1868	Barclay Perkins	XXX	1092.8	1030.2	8.28	67.46%	14.21	5.90	100.00%
8th Jul	1867	Whitbread	X	1061.2	1020.2	5.42	66.97%	10.12	2.95	86.07%			13.93%
16th May	1867	Whitbread	XL	1071.2	1026.0	5.97	63.42%	9.01	3.05	85.25%			14.75%
3rd Jun	1867	Whitbread	XX	1082.3	1031.3	6.74	61.95%	9.09	3.21	85.96%			14.04%
3rd Jul	1865	Truman	X Ale	1067.3	1013.9	7.07	79.42%	9	2.78	64.71%		35.29%
4th Jul	1865	Truman	40/- Ale	1072.6	1020.8	6.85	71.37%	9	3.00			100.00%
22nd Aug	1865	Truman	XX Ale	1081.2	1020.5	8.03	74.74%	11.0	7.17			100.00%
22nd Aug	1865	Truman	XXX Ale	1088.9	1022.7	8.76	74.45%	11.0	10.15			100.00%
23rd July	1867	Courage	Ale X	1065.9				10.00	3.10	97.82%	2.18%
30th July	1867	Courage	Ale XX	1078.9				10.00	3.71	91.90%	3.05%		5.05%
Sources:
Whitbread brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives document numbers LMA/4453/D/01/032 and LMA/4453/D/01/033.
Barclay Perkins brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives document numbers ACC/2305/1/572 and ACC/2305/08/275.
Truman brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives document number B/THB/C/147.
Courage brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives document number ACC/2305/08/275.

Provincial X Ale grists in the 1860's
Date	Year	Brewer	Beer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	pale malt	crystal malt	white malt
1st Oct	1868	Tetley	X	1047.4	1020.8	3.52	56.14%	6.00	1.11	100.00%
2nd Oct	1868	Tetley	X1	1055.4	1019.4	4.76	65.00%	6.00	1.30	100.00%
5th Oct	1868	Tetley	X2	1062.0	1017.7	5.86	71.43%	8.00	2.00	100.00%
19th Oct	1868	Tetley	X3	1066.5	1022.2	5.86	66.67%	9.96	3.93	100.00%
17th Oct	1868	William Younger	X	1053	1023	3.97	56.60%	6.30	1.36	100.00%
24th Aug	1868	William Younger	XX	1057	1024	4.37	57.89%	9.58	2.25	100.00%
26th Aug	1868	William Younger	XXX	1068	1028	5.29	58.82%	8.00	2.55	100.00%
18th Jun	1869	Medway	X	1051.5				8.00	1.75	96.88%	3.13%
2nd Jun	1869	Medway	XX	1066.8				9.00	2.63	100.00%
	1864	Lovibond	X Ale	1050.4	1015.5	4.62	69.23%	10.50	3.15	100.00%
	1864	Lovibond	XX Ale	1065.6	1015.0	6.70	77.20%	2.73	0.81	100.00%
	1864	Lovibond	XXX Ale	1074.2	1016.6	7.62	77.61%	6.50	1.04	100.00%
	1864	Lovibond	XXXX Ale	1085.3	1019.9	8.65	76.62%	10.50	2.01			100.00%
Sources:
Tetley brewing record held at the West Yorkshire Archive Service, Leeds document number WYL756/16/ACC1903
William Younger brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive document number WY/6/1/2/21
Medway brewing record owned by me
Lovibond brewing record owned by me

* Dann has promised he'll be brewing it again soon. I can't wait to get my hands on some more of it.

William Murray goes public

If you've been paying attention, you should remember that William Murray was the first to build a brewery at Duddingston on the outskirts of Edinburgh. Several others would later follow.

Murray's launch was a modest affair, raising just £75,000. That's nothing compared to other brewery launches of the time.

"William Murray & Company (Limited), has been incorporated with a capital of £75,000 in £10 shares divided into 4000 Five per cent, Cumulative Preference shares and 35,000 Ordinary. The prospectus explains that the company has been formed, for the purpose of acquiring, carrying on, and extending the business of brewers and maltsters of William Murray & Company, Craigmillar Brewery, Edinburgh, and business incidental thereto. The Craigmillar Brewery was erected by the firm of William Murray & Company in 1887-8, and it is thought that its development may be further increased if members of the public and present and prospective customers of the brewery become shareholders in the incorporated company now proposed. The brewery is situated on ground (held in feu) adjoining the Duddingston Railway Station of the City of Edinburgh Suburban Branch of the North British Railway. There are railway sidings leading directly into the brewery. The extent of the ground (2.5 acres or thereby), admits of large extensions of the work. The brewery has an excellent supply of water from a well on the ground, and this water has been found well suited for brewing purposes. The assets to be acquired exclusive of goodwill are valued at £42,154, and the present issue of capital leaves £10,000 for new maltings to be erected by the company. It is certified that since April, 1895, the net profits, after making allowance for repairs, renewals, depreciation, and bad and doubtful debts, have annually averaged £6718, and that the sales up to the last balance on 30th June showed an increase of over 18 per cent. in the sales over the corresponding period of last year. The Ordinary shares are taken by the vendors, and all the Preference shares are offered for subscription. The lists open tomorrow (Wednesday)."
Glasgow Herald - Tuesday 14 December 1897, page 6.

£6718 is a pretty decent return on capital of £75,000, almost 10%. If the level of profit remained the same, there should have been plenty left to pay dividends to the shareholders. Unlike some of the dodgier flotations, that was the case a Murray. As we can see from their first  annual general meeting:

"Wm. Murray & Co., Limited. - The first annual general meeting of the shareholders of William Murray & Co., Ltd., was held at the company's brewery, Craigmillar Park, Edinburgh, today - Mr Wm. Murray presiding. The secretary read the directors' report, and submitted the balance-sheet and profit and loss account as at 30th June. It was recommended, after providing for a dividend on the Preference shares, to pay 10s per share on the Ordinary shares, being at the rate of 10 per cent, per annum; to place £1000 to the reserve fund, and to carry forward the balance amounting to £876 10s 10d. The report was unanimously adopted. The retiring director, Mr Wm. Murray, was unanimously reelected, as were the auditors, Mesrs Robertson & Carson. C.A.
Edinburgh Evening News - Thursday 28 July 1898, page 4.

Let's work out how much profit they needed to pay those dividends. 5% on the 4,000 £10 Preference shares is £2,000. 10s per Ordinary share I reckon should be £1,750. (I'm assuming that 35,000 Ordinary shares is a misprint and that it should really be 3,500. Otherwise the share capital doesn't add up.) Add to those the £1,000 carried over and the £876 balance and you get £5,526. Reasonably close to the average of £6718.

This looks a much better investment that many of the other breweries. At least in the short term.

Licensed grocers and opening hours (part two)

The more I read about this case, the more the absurdity of restrictive hours becomes apparent. And I can't help wondering what rules apply now.

Remember my recent trip to Folkestone. My mate with the car, Mikey, put an order in with Asda to be delivered to our hotel. It included alcohol. Well most of it was alcohol, in the form of cider. Could it only legally be delivered during permitted hours? Admittedly, these hours are quite generous now, but there are still times of the day when it's illegal to sell booze like, for example, Sunday morning.

"Criticism of the Decisions.

There can be no doubt that the judgment of Lord Alness in Valentine v. Bell has been the parent of what, fortified by the weighty opinion of Lord Clyde, one may venture to suggest is an erroneous interpretation of the Act. The grounds of his opinion, if analysed, are seen to be of little cogency. He begins by saying that it would be absurd in one section to prohibit a sale and in the next section to permit it. But why? What is more usual and customary than to lay down a general rule and then to state the exceptions? In any case, the Legislature, having prohibited sale in Section 4, has explicitly been guilty of the absurdity of permitting it in Section 5 (a), which provides that "nothing in the foregoing provisions of this part of this Act shall be deemed to prohibit or restrict the sale or supply to . . . any person of intoxicating liquor in any licensed premises where he is residing." It is to be observed that the rubric to Section 5 is " Exemptions and saving provisions," and that in Section 4 the general prohibition of sale otherwise than during the permitted hours is made " subject to the provisions of this part of this Act." The general prohibition in Section 4 is subject to the exemptions of certain classes of transactions specified in Section 5. One class of exception is sale to a person resident in the licensed premises, and another is a sale to a person of liquor for off-consumption which he does not carry away but desires to be delivered to his address.

The Report of the Royal Commission on Licensing (England and Wales) exhibits the same erroneous reasoning. Commenting on the exemption of ordering and dispatch, the Report says : "It is not, of course, the sale itself but certain elements in the transaction which are exempted : and it appears to us that this provision is not so much an exemption as a declaratory provision which makes it clear that the ordering or dispatch of the liquor, which are mere steps in the transaction, can lawfully take place during non-permitted hours. . .        Having first begged the whole question of interpretation by the "of course," the Report is compelled to assume that in describing the provision as an exemption the Legislature did not know what it was doing. But no sane person could assume that the ordering of intoxicating liquor was struck at by anything in the first four sections of the Act. A prohibition of the ordering of liquor would be manifestly absurd. To send a postcard asking a wine merchant to dispatch a bottle of whisky to one's address would be an offence not in itself, not according to the time at which the postcard was posted, but according to the time at which it reached the trader's establishment. There was no need, therefore, to exempt the ordering as an element of a transaction of sale from the provisions as to permitted hours, for there was not, and could not be, anything to suggest that it was prohibited. To give the words any sensible meaning at all, "the ordering of intoxicating liquor to be consumed off the premises, or the dispatch of the liquor so ordered," must be read not as referring disjunctively to two separate elements of a transaction, but as a description of a kind or class of transaction, of nature which in these days of telephones, mail-order systems, and cash-on-delivery facilities, is tending ever more largely to supersede the practice of personal attendance at the establishment of the retailer.

The Remedy.

The High Court decisions leave the off-licensed traders, and particularly those who conduct a substantial order and delivery business, as, for example, the great stores in London and the large provincial towns, in considerable doubt as to their legal position. They are told that the Act exempts order and dispatch from the provisions as to permitted hours, but that sale is not exempted, and the ingenuity of the learned Judges has been expended to show that every transaction in which liquor is ordered and dispatched is a transaction in of sale! The loophole described by Portia in Shylock's bond was creditable to her ingenuity, and in the circumstances of the case it served the cause of substanial justice. But in this matter of the application of permitted hours the reduction of the exemption of sales by order and dispatch to a nullity is much less laudable. The Legislature must have meant something by the exemption,  and  its history shows that what it was intended to continue and enlarge was the right to receive, accept and fulfil orders for liquor by the dispatch of the goods without reference to the permit hours, which even the Liquor Control Board had recognised as being reasonable and in no way inconsistent with the maintenance of the system of permitted hours and the accomplishment of its purposes.

The decision of the King's Bench Division on a case stated by magistrates is, of course, final, and unless the ruling of the High Court can be tested by an indirect proceeding by means of a friendly test action, alleviation of the present embarrassing situation must be sought in legislation. The most satisfactory course would seem to be to exclude off-licensed establishments from the operation of the permitted hours altogether and to make them subject to the provisions of the Shops Acts, 1912 to 1928. This would render impracticable such evasions as were practised by the promoters of "bottle parties"  and "At homes," and would enable traders who sell for off-consumption only and, particularly, mixed traders in liquor and other commodities, to transact their business in a more convenient manner."
Brewers' Journal 1934, page 250.

The final proposal, to free off-licences from the restriction of licensing hours and to treat them like any other shop is a very sensible one. So obviously that never happened. How well I remember the little blinds that used to come down over the booze shelves in supermarkets on a Sunday afternoon. What a total pain in the arse that was. One of the reasons I hated Sundays so much. That and the shityuy religious programmes on the telly.

Barclay Perkins 1859 Porter and Stout grists

That title isn't a mouthful, is it? No, I didn't think so. Never mind. By popular demand (one person requested it) here are the grists for the Barclay Perkins Porters and Stouts mentioned in my 1859 EI recipe post.

What do they tell us? That Barclay Perkins had two types of Porter/Stout grist. The first, used for TT (Running Porter) and Hhd (Keeping Porter) was about 85% pale malt, 12% brown malt and 4% black malt. The second, used for all the Stouts and EI Porter 75%, 15% brown malt, 2% black malt and 8% amber malt. OK, I know some of the Stout grists have more brown and less pale malt, but I'm trying to generalise here.

It tells me that EI was a relatively classy beer, because it used a Stout-like grist including amber malt. And that, in general, the posher beers in the range got more brown and amber malt. Just look at the IBS. That's the top of the range Stout. Not just for Barclay Perkins, but for the whole world and the whole of time. Because that's Russian Stout. The original one, first brewed by Thrale.

The loyalty of London brewers to brown malt is also demonstrated. By this time in many regions - Ireland for example - Porter and Stout grists had been simplified to just pale and black malt. London brewers stuck with brown malt to the bitter end. Whitbread were still using it at Chiswell Street in the 1960's. Who would have guessed that Mackeson contained it?

Here's the table. Or rather tables. I've given the grists in both percentages and quarters. I suspect that in the 1850's Barclay operkins were using volume rather than weight quarters. Which means that a quarter of brown malt isn't the smae as a quarter of pale malt, because it's lighter. But, so you can make up your own minds, I've included a table with the raw number of quarters.

Barclay Perkins Porter and Stout grists in 1859 %age
Date	Year	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	Pitch temp	pale malt	brown malt	black malt	amber malt
14th Oct	1859	TT	Porter	1060.1	1017.0	5.70	71.72%	16.79	4.06	68º	84.58%	12.03%	3.40%
19th Oct	1859	Hhd	Porter	1062.3	1016.5	6.06	73.53%	18.43	4.03	68º	82.65%	13.88%	3.47%
7th Oct	1859	FS Expt	Stout	1064.3	1016.5	6.32	74.32%	17.88	4.66	66.5º	74.02%	18.68%	3.19%	4.12%
10th Nov	1859	EI	Porter	1064.5	1016.5	6.36	74.43%	20.15	4.93	68º	73.02%	18.79%	3.52%	4.66%
5th Oct	1859	BS	Stout	1092.5	1028.5	8.47	69.20%	16.17	8.15	60.5º	66.38%	18.64%	2.64%	12.33%
21st Oct	1859	BS PU	Stout	1093.9	1029.0	8.59	69.12%	14.31	7.41	58.5º	63.73%	21.86%	2.84%	11.57%
9th Nov	1859	BS K	Stout	1094.2	1028.0	8.76	70.27%	19.93	9.40	58º	73.82%	15.78%	2.05%	8.35%
2nd Nov	1859	BS ex	Stout	1095.3	1029.0	8.77	69.57%	19.31	8.82	59º	73.82%	15.78%	2.05%	8.35%
25th Oct	1859	IBS	Stout	1105.3	1033.0	9.56	68.65%	15.19	9.60	57º	63.50%	22.56%	2.75%	11.19%
Source:
Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives document number ACC/2305/1/544.

Barclay Perkins Porter and Stout grists in 1859 in quarters
Date	Year	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	Pitch temp	pale malt	brown malt	black malt	amber malt
14th Oct	1859	TT	Porter	1060.1	1017.0	5.70	71.72%	16.79	4.06	68º	265.83	50	14.125
19th Oct	1859	Hhd	Porter	1062.3	1016.5	6.06	73.53%	18.43	4.03	68º	180	40	10
7th Oct	1859	FS Expt	Stout	1064.3	1016.5	6.32	74.32%	17.88	4.66	66.5º	179.75	60	10.25	10
10th Nov	1859	EI	Porter	1064.5	1016.5	6.36	74.43%	20.15	4.93	68º	235	80	15	15
5th Oct	1859	BS	Stout	1092.5	1028.5	8.47	69.20%	16.17	8.15	60.5º	161.50	60	8.5	30
21st Oct	1859	BS PU	Stout	1093.9	1029.0	8.59	69.12%	14.31	7.41	58.5º	165.25	75	9.75	30
9th Nov	1859	BS K	Stout	1094.2	1028.0	8.76	70.27%	19.93	9.40	58º	265.25	75	9.75	30
2nd Nov	1859	BS ex	Stout	1095.3	1029.0	8.77	69.57%	19.31	8.82	59º	265.25	75	9.75	30
25th Oct	1859	IBS	Stout	1105.3	1033.0	9.56	68.65%	15.19	9.60	57º	170.25	80	9.75	30
Source:
Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives document number ACC/2305/1/544.

Licensed grocers and opening hours

I've been waiting to post this for ages. My intention was to chop the article up into digestible chunks, spiced with pithy and aposite comments from me. But I never quite got around to it.

Not that I really have today. I've just chopped it in half. I'm having arsing issues with anotating it properly for you. Just a few simple comments will have to suffice.

The theme of the article is the new licensing legislation after WW I, which made permanent most of the wartime restrictions on pub opening times and the permitted hours of off-licenses. There was a particular problem with the way the off trade operated in Scotland. Many off sales were through grocers, who delivered alcoholic drinks along with groceries. The tricky point was what constituted a sale? Was placing an order for later delivery a sale? And could alcohol be delivered outside licensing hours?

"Scottish Decisions.
The Royal Commission on Licensing (Scotland) in paragraph 210 of their Report, pointed out that "From the earliest times the licensed grocer has occupied a istinctive place in the licensing system of Scotland, and his business has always been recognised as a separate and distinct branch of the Trade particularly suited to the needs of the people." They added that: "There was little support before us for a policy of substituting for the licensed grocer a form of trade which may be called the off-licence pure and simple, that is to say, trade carried on by one who is not a victualler, but keeps a shop for the off-sale of excisable liquors only," The practice of placing orders for liquor for delivery together with other commodities is in Scotland widespread, and it is clear if the acceptance of orders for a particular class of goods and the dispatch of the goods in satisfaction of the order are restricted to a limited period during the day that the business of the licensed grocer will be seriously hampered. The Scottish Courts have, however, taken the view that the Licensing Act. 1921. does impose such a restriction, and their decision was mentioned with approval in the "bottle party" case and its reasoning was followed.

In 1930 the High Court of Justiciary considered the matter on a case stated by a magistrate (Valentine v. Bell 1930, J.C. 51). The appellant, a licensed grocer, had been convicted of selling liquor outside the permitted hours, and it appeared that two customers had entered  his shop at 1 p.m., the period of permitted hours having terminated at 11.30 a.m., and had ordered and paid for supplies of liquor. The grocer put up the liquor and handed it, with the relative invoices, to his messenger-boy, instructing him to deliver the parcels at the purchasers' addresses. The boy was relieved of the liquor by the purchaser in each inscance, in the first at a distance of 15 yards and in the second at a distance of 30 yards from the grocer's premises. The Court upheld the conviction, but there was some divergence of view on the part of the judges as to the grounds of the decision. Lord Hunter thought that, in fact, the goods were handed directly to the customer. The licence-holder went through what his Lordship could only regard as the farce of getting a message-boy to carry the liquor a distance of a few yards. Lord Anderson was also of opinion that the liquor was delivered to the customers in the premises, for he regarded the message-boy as being the agent of the purchasers and not of the vendor, "The whole circumstances of the case," said Lord Hunter, "are such that while the licence-holder may have thought he was not committing an offence under the Act, it is clear that what he did was a scheme to evade the Act."

The Lord Justice Clerk  (Lord Alness) was not content to rest his judgment upon the circumstances of the particular case, and the fact that the ordering and dispatch of the liquor were a mere pretence. He pointed out that Section 4 of the Licensing Act, 1921, prohibits the sale in licensed premises of intoxicating liquor to be consumed on or off the premises, except during the permitted hours, and continued : "At the outset it occurs to one to say that it would be absurd in one section to prohibit a sale and in the next section to permit it. Nothing so contrary to good sense and reason has, I apprehend, been enacted by the Legislature. Section 5 (b) permits not a sale but ordering, and ordering, I think, is something quite different from a sale. The section permits what in England has been termed 'an agreement to sell/ but still, in my judgment, sale remains prohibited under Section 4, Section 5 permits an order to be given for liquor during prohibited   hours,   but   the   word   1 ordering 9 appears to have been carefully chosen by the Legislature. It is in marked contrast to the word sale which is used in Section 5. A grocer may take an order within the prohibited hours, but may not, as I read it, take the order and complete the sale within those hours."

In the case of Sinclair v. Beattie (1934). S.L.T.40, a customer entered the shop of Beattie, a licensed grocer, at 9.45 a.m. and gave an order for half-a-dozen eggs, half a gill of whisky and three bottles of beer, for which she paid. Beattie's messenger conveying the goods to the customer's address, was stopped by the police in the street at 9.55 a.m. The magistrate held that the facts disclosed no offence and did not convict. When the case came before the High Court of Justiciary the majority held that there should have been a conviction. Lork Blackburn held that a verbal order for a supply of liquor, coupled with immediate payment, was a completed sale, and therefore, following the reasoning of Lord Alness in Valentine v. Bell, a contravention Of the Act. Lord Morison took the same view ; but it is not quite clear that he regarded payment as essential and there are passages in his judgment which suggest that an agreement to sell would be an offence irrespective of immediate payment. Lord Clyde, the Lord Justice General, dissented, and held that there was no offence. His view was that the Act prohibits an act of sale or supply completed in the licensed premises, and he held that the acceptance of an order and the dispatch of the goods in implement thereof was not such an act. " I do not believe," he said, " that the Act of 1921 was intended to prevent a wine merchant from accepting in his licensed premises a customer's order for a bottle or bottles of wine given outwith the permitted hours (whether the customer passes his cheque for the price at the time or whether the wine merchant gives him the usual credit), or from dispatching the wine so ordered to his customer's house outwith those hours."
Brewers' Journal 1934, pages 249 - 250.

You can see class issues rasing their ugly head again here. Who would place orders at a wine merchant? Not miners or dockers. Posh bastards. Obviously you wouldn't want to incovenience them with legislation primarily aimed at keeping drink out of the hands of the working classes. That's probably why the judges had so much trouble agreeing. Some didn't want to inconvenience people like themselves.

Next time we'll be looking at a criticism of these decisions.

Grätzer lives!

Finally. I finally got to try Grätzer. A proper one brewed from the right malt, hops and yeast. I wasn't disappointed.

Last night was the launch of the Grätzer and Grodziskie I've been involved with. It all hapeened remarkably quickly, this project that's so dear to me. It's just a few months ago that the idea of brewing an historic beer together popped up at a chance meeting in Bierkoning between me, Michiel (of Jopen) and Sebastian (of Freigeist and Monarchy of Musselland). And now here they are. Real living, frothing beers.

I couldn't be more happy with them. The Grätzer combines smoke and hop in just the way the old texts describe. Light and refreshing, but full-flavoured, too. A knockout session beer that you can drink and drink and drink. You'd never think it was just 3.3% ABV from the taste. The Grodziskie is ismilar, but the willow bark somehow cancels out part of the smoke, making it seem hoppier. But another great slurper.

 The launch in Wildeman yesterday was a lot of fun. Especially the drinking bit. Lots of familiar faces showed up. I even got a round of applause for my talk, all 6 minutes of it. Yes, just 6 minutes. That's uncustomarily brief for me. (Anything under an hour is brief. I'm very hard to stop, once I get going.)

You'll have to be quick if you want to try them. There wasn't a great deal brewed and all of it has already been sold to shops and distributors. Wildeman currently has both on tap, but I've no idea how long they will last.






Disclosure time. Obviously, as I was involved in the making of this beer, I have an interest in it. I had a few free beers at the launch; one free beer and a hamburger at Jopen when it was brewed. 

Let's Brew special - 1859 Barclay Perkins EI

My apologies for posting just the brewing record of a Barclay Perkins EI. It made me realise that I hadn't ever posted a recipe for EI. Time to put that right.

As this is a spontaneous and unscheduled Let's Brew, you're going to have to put up with my crappy recipe. No time to call in Kristen.

EI stands for Export India. This is the Porter that Barclay Perkins produced for the Indian market. It's the Porter equivalent of IPA. As I keep reminding anyone who will listen, there was probably more Porter exported to India than Pale Ale. But for some reason that seems to have been forgotten, with everyone focusing competely on IPA. It's most likely a class thing, IPA having been drunk by officers and officials, Porter by the ordinary soldiers.

This beer had legs. Most likely it had its origins in the 19th century. The first one I've found is from 1805 and the last 1910. That last date is long after IPA had finished making the long journey east.

The recipe is pretty much what you would expect: a standard-strength Porter with a shitload of hops. Hang on. I think I feel a table coming on.

Barclay Perkins Porters and Stouts in 1859
Date	Year	Beer	Style	OG	OG	FG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	Pitch temp
14th Oct	1859	TT	Porter	21.7	1060.1	6.1	1017.0	5.70	71.72%	16.79	4.06	68º
19th Oct	1859	Hhd	Porter	22.5	1062.3	6.0	1016.5	6.06	73.53%	18.43	4.03	68º
7th Oct	1859	FS Expt	Stout	23.2	1064.3	6.0	1016.5	6.32	74.32%	17.88	4.66	66.5º
10th Nov	1859	EI	Porter	23.3	1064.5	6.0	1016.5	6.36	74.43%	20.15	4.93	68º
5th Oct	1859	BS	Stout	33.4	1092.5	10.3	1028.5	8.47	69.20%	16.17	8.15	60.5º
21st Oct	1859	BS PV	Stout	33.9	1093.9	10.5	1029.0	8.59	69.12%	14.31	7.41	58.5º
9th Nov	1859	BS K	Stout	34	1094.2	10.1	1028.0	8.76	70.27%	19.93	9.40	58º
2nd Nov	1859	BS ex	Stout	34.4	1095.3	10.5	1029.0	8.77	69.57%	19.31	8.82	59º
25th Oct	1859	IBS	Stout	38	1105.3	11.9	1033.0	9.56	68.65%	15.19	9.60	57º
Source:
Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives document number ACC/2305/1/544.

Mmmm. Every one of those beers is hopped like crazy. 19 or 20 pounds per quarter is IPA level. That really is insane. I wouldn't like to guess about the IBU's. Probably as many as you can cram into a beer.







Just a quick post. That's me done. Time to hand you over to  . . . . me . . . . .

10th November 1859 Barclay Perkins EI
malt	type	pounds	%
pale malt	HP	4.25	41.06%
pale malt	SP	3.25	31.40%
brown malt	HB	2	19.32%
amber malt	HA	0.5	4.83%
black malt		0.35	3.38%
total		10.35	100.00%
	gallons	water temp	init. Temp	mashed (mins)	tap temp.
mash 1	2.5	156			146
mash 2	1.75	179			162
mash 3	2.25	156			158
total	6.5
type	year	oz.
MK	1859	11
total		11
start of boil	6 oz
after 60 mins	2.5 oz
after 90 mins	2.5 oz
boil time (hours)	2
dry hops	1 oz
pitching temp (ºF)	68
gravity (OG)	1065
gravity (FG)	1016.5
ABV	6.42
apparent attenuation	74.62%
Source:
Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives document number ACC/2305/1/544.

Publicans moaning again

This time it isn't the increase in tax that they're moaning about, it's competition from an army canteen.

I can see their point. Soldiers are banned from going into pubs in the evening and at the same time the army opens effectively its own pub. With publicans already worried about the loss of trade caused by the 50% increase in the price of a pint, losing a reliable thirsty bunch like soldiers must have been a blow.

"DUNDEE PUBLICANS ARE AGGRIEVED THAT AUTHORITIES, AFTER ORDERING RESTRICTIONS, SHOULD OPEN REGIMENTAL CANTEEN.
Dundee publicans consider that they have grievance in regard the restrictions. The latest regulation imposed upon them was that after six o'clock no man in uniform could be supplied with intoxicating liquor of any kind, the publichouse being, as the phrase has it, "out of bounds."

Synchronising with that scheme, a canteen was opened in connection with one of the Territorial regiments in Dundee. By the opening of this canteen the men in uniform have, according to the "trade," just as good facilities for taking liquor as they had with the free run of the public-houses. Under military regulations men of rank under sergeant can have beer from 12.30 till 1.30, and from 6 p.m. till 9.30. Sergeants and other non-commissioned officers have special canteen of their own, and can have beer, spirits, &c., from 6 a.m. till 11 p.m. They have also the right to introduce friends, on the understanding that the latter do not pay.

Inquiry shows, however, that these canteens are carried on with great care and apparently not with a view to securing great profit from the drink consumed. The intention of the authorities is that when drink is indulged it should be of a most moderate supply, and particular care is taken that no drink is sold to man who shows the slightest tendency towards being affected. The supervision is very strict, and is in the hands of non-commissioned officers."
Dundee Courier - Thursday 24 December 1914, page 6.  

I can't help thinking that assuming the canteen would be run strictly because NCOs were in charge is a bit naive. Being in an army camp, it wasn't as if anyone could see what was going on there.

Had I been unlucky enough to be in the army in 1914, I'd have been shovelling as much booze down my neck as I could. You didn't know how much longer you'd have a neck to throw drink down.

What beer did they drink in army canteens? I know that beer was specially brewed for the military in WW I. I also know that Scottish breweries were the main suppliers of the British armed forces. So it was probably Scottish beer the squaddies were drinking in the Dundee canteen.

Firefly

"See what someone's written here, Andrew. That Porter and Stout were exported to cold, northern countries and IPA to hot, tropical ones."

"And?"

"It's bollocks. They exported stacks of Porter to India. And Stout to the West Indies. That and Strong Scottish beer. Even that wasn't strong enough for the planters. They'd throw in a shot of rum."

"We've Guinness and Havana Club. Why don't you try it?"

"You know something, Andrew? That's not a bad idea. I'm not that keen on the Havana Club straight."

"What's it like, dad?"

"Try it yourself."

"It's like Guinness. You can hardly taste the rum at all."

"I know. Great isn't it? Almost no rum flavour, but all the fally-over goodness."

"What's it called, dad?"

"No idea. What about Ruinness?"

"Sounds like a toilet-related illness."

"Stoum?"

"That sounds like a lumpier form of the last stuff."

"I know. Firefly."