Bottled Beers 1900 - 1909

I'm very surprised that Bottled beers in the 1870's was one of the most poular posts in September. No idea why, but it's had four times the views of any other post in this series. The best I can come up with is that you're a weird lot.

I have a lot more examples for this time slice. And it's not just a question of having found more price lists for this period. A much higher percentage of the price lists include bottled beer. There's a simple enough explanation: by this time a large percentage of breweries had started bottling themselves. It doesn't mean their beers weren't available in bottled form before. Before 1880 most beer was bottled by independent bottlers. The price lists I've used as sources were mostly advertisements placed by breweries. When they weren't producing and selling it themselves, why should they bother including bottled beer in an advert?

In the case of the Young's beers in the table, these were the first produced by the brewery. Which seems a little late to me.

This time I decided to lump the Light Bitters in with Dinner Ales. It's a bit arbitrary, but what the hell. My reasoning was to show the different strands of Pale Ale establishing their own identity. Those were IPA, Pale Ale and Light Bitter/Dinner Ale. It would be neat to say I've listed them in descending order of strength and price, but that isn't necessarily so. Light Bitter/Dinner Ale was always the weakest of a brewery's Pale Ales, but the position of IPA and Pale varied from brewery to brewery. For example, Whitbread's IPA was weaker than their Pale Ale.

style	no. examples	%
Stout	38	37.62%
IPA	18	17.82%
Dinner Ale	16	15.84%
Ale	9	8.91%
Pale Ale	8	7.92%
Lager	2	1.98%
Mild	2	1.98%
Porter	2	1.98%
Strong Ale	2	1.98%
Cooper	2	1.98%
Low Alcohol	1	0.99%
Brown Ale	1	0.99%
Total	101	100.00%

There are the most examples of Stout by a street, more than double the second best represented style, IPA. But, if I lump together all the Black Beers (Stout, Porter and Cooper) and all the Pale Ales (IPA, Pale and Dinner Ale) it's a dead heat, with 42 of each. This is a fairly random selection of examples, but I believe it does show general trends in bottled beer. Pale Ales and Stouts were far and away the most popular styles in bottle.

style	no. examples	%
Stout	38	37.62%
Porter	2	1.98%
Cooper	2	1.98%
subtotal	42	41.58%
IPA	18	17.82%
Pale Ale	8	7.92%
Dinner Ale	16	15.84%
subtotal	42	41.58%
Total	101	124.75%

You may have spotted that, for the first time, there's a Brown Ale. I confess that I'm not 100% sure that Maxim Ale was a Brown Ale at this point. That's just a guess on my part. In my defence, 1909 is about a decade after the first appearance of Brown Ale. So it's not a totally unreasonable assumption.

One word about pricing. At first I thought 1s 4d for 4 quarts of Truman Family Ale or Oatmeal Stout must be wrong. It sounded far too cheap. But it only works out to 4d a quart - the equivalent of 2s per dozen Imperial pints. Cheap, but not unreasonably so. And quarts were the cheapest format to produce. It looks like crates of 4 quarts were competing directly with draught beer fetched in a jug from the local pub. 4d a quart is the same price X Ale sold for in the public bar.

I'm pretty sure that I can match up Truman Family Ale with a beer in their brewing records. LK - London Keeper - appeared sometime between 1900 and 1905. It had a very low gravity for a London Pale Ale of the period: just 1046º at a time when their X Ale was over 1050º

I feared that I would struggle to spot the Oatmeal Stout. Turned out to be a piece of piss. As there was a thing called "Bottling" in the only brews that contained oats. It was parti-gyled with Country Runner, a Porter. So while it was marketed as a Stout, it was really a Porter. And the weakest one of Truman's Porters at that. It just shows how arbitrary the distinction between Porter and Stout was.

There were a few Milds this time, including Rogers' Imperial Mild Ale. Judging by the price - 3 shillings for a dozen reputed pints - it truly was Imperial. That's the equivalent of 4s 6d for a dozen Imperial pints. The only other beers in the table costing that much were Bass Pale Ale and Guinness Extra Stout, both beers that were sold at a premium. My guess would be that the Imperial Mild had an OG between 1090º and 1100º.

This time around, I've got brewing records for two breweries: Tetley and Truman. Which means another two tables. Aren't you lucky.

Truman Family Ale and Oatmeal Stout
Year	Beer	Style	OG	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl
1909	Bottling	Porter	1052.6	7.5	1.82
1909	LK	Pale Ale	1045.7	6.2	1.30
Source:
Truman brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, documents numbers B/THB/C/112 and B/THB/C/190.

I suppose I should decode the Tetley beers for you. I think K is the Dinner Ale, PA is definitely the East India Pale Ale, P is definitely the Family Porter and S definitely the Extra Stout. Special Mild Ale, Imperial Ale and Strong Ale are probably X2, X3 and XX respectively. It would be easier to work out if they all had come in the same size bottle.

Tetley beers in 1904
Year	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	barrels
1904	K	Pale Ale	1045.4	1007.8	4.98	82.93%	7.72	1.45	211.25
1904	P	Porter	1050.4	1017.2	4.40	65.93%	4.91	1.03	41.75
1904	PA	Pale Ale	1059.8	1010.8	6.49	81.94%	11.13	2.96	333.25
1904	S	Stout	1066.8	1020.5	6.12	69.29%	4.91	1.36	28
1904	X	Mild	1038.8	1010.0	3.81	74.29%	4.01	0.61	273.25
1904	X Pale	Mild	1042.1	1008.3	4.47	80.26%	5.71	0.96	56.25
1904	X1	Mild	1046.3	1010.5	4.73	77.25%	4.24	0.78	163.5
1904	X1 Pale	Mild	1047.9	1012.2	4.73	74.57%	5.71	1.12	28
1904	X2	Mild	1056.8	1013.3	5.75	76.59%	7.18	1.59	280.75
1904	X2 Pale	Mild	1056.2	1013.3	5.68	76.35%	5.71	1.31	53
1904	X3	Mild	1061.4	1017.7	5.77	71.11%	8.06	1.99	113.75
1904	XX	Mild	1071.7	1017.2	7.22	76.06%	8.06	2.33	112.25
Source:
Tetley brewing record held at the West Yorkshire Archive Service Leeds, document number WYL756/51/ACC1903.

And finally, here's the full table:

Bottled beers 1900 - 1909
Brewery	Place	year	beer	style	price per dozen	size	source
Barbe, H.J. & Co.	Ashton Clinton	1900	Ale	Ale	2s 6d		Bucks Herald - Saturday 03 November 1900, page 1.
Godsell & Sons	Stroud, Gloucs	1909	Imperial	Ale	2s 6d	pint
Rochdale & Manor Brwry.	Rochdale	1909	Star Ale	Ale
Rogers' Ales	Bristol	1900	Bristol Ale	Ale	2s	reputed pint	Western Daily Press - Saturday 15 December 1900, page 3
Rogers' Ales	Bristol	1900	Bristol Ale	Ale	1s 3d	imperial half pint	Western Daily Press - Saturday 15 December 1900, page 3
Rogers' Ales	Bristol	1900	Monarch Ale	Ale	2s 6d	reputed pint	Western Daily Press - Saturday 15 December 1900, page 3
Rogers' Ales	Bristol	1900	Monarch Ale	Ale	1s 6d	imperial half pint	Western Daily Press - Saturday 15 December 1900, page 3
Tetley	Leeds	1904	Imperial (non-deposit) Ale	Ale	2s 2d	pony bottles	“Quality Pays . . the Story of Joshua Tetley & Son” by Clifford Lackey, 1985, page 99.
Walker & Homfray	Salford	1908	Comet Ale	Ale
C. Vaux & Sons Ltd	Sunderland	1909	Maxim Ale	Brown Ale
Breeds & Co	Hastings	1905	Cooper	Cooper	2s 6d		Kelly's Directory of Sussex, 1905
Headington & Son	Wokingham	1903	Cooper	Cooper	2s	half pint	Reading Mercury - Saturday 21 March 1903, page 10
Allsopp	Burton	1900	Light Dinner Ale	Dinner Ale	2s 6d	pint	Gloucester Citizen - Monday 04 June 1900, page 1.
Allsopp	Burton	1900	Light Dinner Ale	Dinner Ale	1s 6d	half pint	Gloucester Citizen - Monday 04 June 1900, page 1.
Aylesbury Brewery	Aylesbury	1900	ABC Light Dinner Ale	Dinner Ale	2s 6d	pint	Bucks Herald - Saturday 03 November 1900, page 1.
Aylesbury Brewery	Aylesbury	1900	ABC Light Dinner Ale	Dinner Ale	1s 6d	half pint	Bucks Herald - Saturday 03 November 1900, page 1.
Bailey & Tebbutt	Cambridge	1908	Light Dinner Ale	Dinner Ale	2s 6d	pint
Daniell & Sons	Colchester	1900	Sparkling Dinner Ale	Dinner Ale	2s 6d	pint
Godsell & Sons	Stroud, Gloucs	1902	Light D. A.	Dinner Ale	2s 6d	pint	Kelly's Directory of Somerset, 1902
Headington & Son	Wokingham	1903	Light Bitter Ale	Dinner Ale	2s	half pint	Reading Mercury - Saturday 21 March 1903, page 10
Heavitree Brewery	Exeter	1909	AKK Light Bitter Ale	Dinner Ale	2s 6d	pint	Exeter and Plymouth Gazette - Monday 05 July 1909, page 2
Heavitree Brewery	Exeter	1909	AKK Light Bitter Ale	Dinner Ale	1s 6d	half pint	Exeter and Plymouth Gazette - Monday 05 July 1909, page 2
Seth Senior and Sons	Huddersfield	1900	Light Bitter	Dinner Ale	2s 6d	pint screw	Huddersfield Chronicle - Saturday 22 December 1900, page 1
Seth Senior and Sons	Huddersfield	1900	Light Bitter	Dinner Ale	1s 6d	stoppered half pint	Huddersfield Chronicle - Saturday 22 December 1900, page 1
Tetley	Leeds	1904	Dinner Ale (Light Bitter)	Dinner Ale	1s 6d	small bottles	“Quality Pays . . the Story of Joshua Tetley & Son” by Clifford Lackey, 1985, page 99.
Tetley	Leeds	1904	Dinner Ale (Light Bitter)	Dinner Ale	2s 6d	large bottles	“Quality Pays . . the Story of Joshua Tetley & Son” by Clifford Lackey, 1985, page 99.
Threlfall's	Salford	1905	XX Dinner Ale	Dinner Ale
Truman	London	1908	Truman's Family Ale	Dinner Ale	1s 4d	4 quarts
Allsopp	Burton	1900	East India Pale Ale	IPA	3s	pint	Bucks Herald - Saturday 03 November 1900, page 1.
Allsopp	Burton	1900	East India Pale Ale	IPA	1s 9d	half pint	Bucks Herald - Saturday 03 November 1900, page 1.
Allsopp	Burton	1900	East India Pale Ale	IPA	3s 6d	pint	Gloucester Citizen - Monday 04 June 1900, page 1.
Allsopp	Burton	1900	East India Pale Ale	IPA	1s 9d	half pint	Gloucester Citizen - Monday 04 June 1900, page 1.
Bass	Burton	1900	India Pale Ale	IPA	4s 6d	pint	Bucks Herald - Saturday 03 November 1900, page 1.
Bass	Burton	1900	India Pale Ale	IPA	2s 3d	half pint	Bucks Herald - Saturday 03 November 1900, page 1.
Bass	Burton	1903	India Pale Ale	IPA	4s	pint	Reading Mercury - Saturday 21 March 1903, page 10
Bass	Burton	1903	India Pale Ale	IPA	2s 6d	half pint	Reading Mercury - Saturday 21 March 1903, page 10
Bass	Burton	1904	India Pale Ale	IPA	2s 3d	small bottles	“Quality Pays . . the Story of Joshua Tetley & Son” by Clifford Lackey, 1985, page 99.
Breeds & Co	Hastings	1905	India Pale Ale	IPA	3s		Kelly's Directory of Sussex, 1905
Headington & Son	Wokingham	1903	India Pale Ale	IPA	3s	half pint	Reading Mercury - Saturday 21 March 1903, page 10
Heavitree Brewery	Exeter	1909	East India Pale Ale	IPA	3s 3d	pint	Exeter and Plymouth Gazette - Monday 05 July 1909, page 2
Heavitree Brewery	Exeter	1909	East India Pale Ale	IPA	1s 9d	half pint	Exeter and Plymouth Gazette - Monday 05 July 1909, page 2
Rogers' Ales	Bristol	1900	East India Pale Ale	IPA	3s	reputed pint	Western Daily Press - Saturday 15 December 1900, page 3
Rogers' Ales	Bristol	1900	East India Pale Ale	IPA	1s 9d	imperial half pint	Western Daily Press - Saturday 15 December 1900, page 3
Tetley	Leeds	1904	East India Pale Ale	IPA	2s	small bottles	“Quality Pays . . the Story of Joshua Tetley & Son” by Clifford Lackey, 1985, page 99.
Threlfall's	Salford	1905	India Pale Ale	IPA
Young's	London	1905	IPA	IPA		First bottled beers.
Allsopp	Burton	1900	Lager Beer	Lager	3s 6d	pint	Gloucester Citizen - Monday 04 June 1900, page 1.
Allsopp	Burton	1900	Lager Beer	Lager	2s 3d	half pint	Gloucester Citizen - Monday 04 June 1900, page 1.
Rogers' Ales	Bristol	1900	Hop Ale (Non-Intoxicating)	Low Alcohol	1s	imperial half pint	Western Daily Press - Saturday 15 December 1900, page 3
Bailey & Tebbutt	Cambridge	1908	Strong Ale	Mild	4s	pint
Bardsley Brewey	Ashton-Under-Lyne	1908	Best Mild (light Mild)	Mild
Rogers' Ales	Bristol	1900	Imperial Mild Ale	Mild	3s	reputed pint	Western Daily Press - Saturday 15 December 1900, page 3
Tetley	Leeds	1904	Special (non-deposit) Mild Ale	Mild	3s	large bottles	“Quality Pays . . the Story of Joshua Tetley & Son” by Clifford Lackey, 1985, page 99.
Breeds & Co	Hastings	1905	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	2s 6d		Kelly's Directory of Sussex, 1905
Godsell & Sons	Stroud, Gloucs	1902	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	3s 6d	pint	Kelly's Directory of Somerset, 1902
Godsell & Sons	Stroud, Gloucs	1909	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	3s 6d	pint
Headington & Son	Wokingham	1903	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	2s 6d	half pint	Reading Mercury - Saturday 21 March 1903, page 10
Icon Heppenstall	Goole	1902	SBA Ale	Pale Ale	1s 6d	half pint
Seth Senior and Sons	Huddersfield	1900	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	3s	pint screw	Huddersfield Chronicle - Saturday 22 December 1900, page 1
Seth Senior and Sons	Huddersfield	1900	Pale Ale	Pale Ale	1s	stoppered half pint	Huddersfield Chronicle - Saturday 22 December 1900, page 1
Young's	London	1905	PA Pale Ale	Pale Ale		First bottled beers.
Tetley	Leeds	1904	Family Porter	Porter	1s 6d	small bottles	“Quality Pays . . the Story of Joshua Tetley & Son” by Clifford Lackey, 1985, page 99.
Tetley	Leeds	1904	Family Porter	Porter	2s 6d	large bottles	“Quality Pays . . the Story of Joshua Tetley & Son” by Clifford Lackey, 1985, page 99.
Allsopp	Burton	1900	Stout	Stout	4s	pint	Bucks Herald - Saturday 03 November 1900, page 1.
Allsopp	Burton	1900	Stout	Stout	2s	half pint	Bucks Herald - Saturday 03 November 1900, page 1.
Bailey & Tebbutt	Cambridge	1908	Oatmeal Stout	Stout	2s 6d	pint
Bailey & Tebbutt	Cambridge	1908	Nourishing Stout	Stout	2s 6d	pint
Barbe, H.J. & Co.	Ashton Clinton	1900	Stout	Stout	3s		Bucks Herald - Saturday 03 November 1900, page 1.
Bardsley Brewey	Ashton-Under-Lyne	1908	Double Stout	Stout
Breeds & Co	Hastings	1905	Single Stout	Stout	2s 6d		Kelly's Directory of Sussex, 1905
Breeds & Co	Hastings	1905	Double Stout	Stout	3s		Kelly's Directory of Sussex, 1905
Breeds & Co	Hastings	1905	Oat Malt Stout	Stout	2s 6d		Kelly's Directory of Sussex, 1905
Combe & Co.	London	1900	Stout	Stout	3s	pint	Bucks Herald - Saturday 03 November 1900, page 1.
Combe & Co.	London	1900	Stout	Stout	1s 9d	half pint	Bucks Herald - Saturday 03 November 1900, page 1.
Daniell & Sons	Colchester	1900	Creamy Stout	Stout	2s 6d	pint
Godsell & Sons	Stroud, Gloucs	1902	Nourishing Stout	Stout	3s 3d	pint	Kelly's Directory of Somerset, 1902
Godsell & Sons	Stroud, Gloucs	1909	Nourishing Stout	Stout	3s 3d	pint
Guinness	Dublin	1900	Stout	Stout	4s 6d	pint	Bucks Herald - Saturday 03 November 1900, page 1.
Guinness	Dublin	1900	Stout	Stout	2s 3d	half pint	Bucks Herald - Saturday 03 November 1900, page 1.
Guinness	Dublin	1903	Stout	Stout	4s	pint	Reading Mercury - Saturday 21 March 1903, page 10
Guinness	Dublin	1903	Stout	Stout	2s 6d	half pint	Reading Mercury - Saturday 21 March 1903, page 10
Guinness	Dublin	1904	Guinness	Stout	1s 11d	small bottles	“Quality Pays . . the Story of Joshua Tetley & Son” by Clifford Lackey, 1985, page 99.
Guinness	Dublin	1904	Guinness	Stout	3s 6d	large bottles	“Quality Pays . . the Story of Joshua Tetley & Son” by Clifford Lackey, 1985, page 99.
Headington & Son	Wokingham	1903	Nourishing Stout	Stout	2s 6d	half pint	Reading Mercury - Saturday 21 March 1903, page 10
Headington & Son	Wokingham	1903	Double Brown Stout	Stout	3s	half pint	Reading Mercury - Saturday 21 March 1903, page 10
Heavitree Brewery	Exeter	1909	Oatmeal Stout	Stout	2s 6d	pint	Exeter and Plymouth Gazette - Monday 05 July 1909, page 2
Heavitree Brewery	Exeter	1909	Oatmeal Stout	Stout	1s 6d	half pint	Exeter and Plymouth Gazette - Monday 05 July 1909, page 2
Icon Heppenstall	Goole	1902	Double Stout	Stout	1s 6d	half pint
Rochdale & Manor Brwry.	Rochdale	1909	Oatmeal Nourishing Stout	Stout
Rogers' Ales	Bristol	1900	Bristol Stout	Stout	2s	reputed pint	Western Daily Press - Saturday 15 December 1900, page 3
Rogers' Ales	Bristol	1900	Bristol Stout	Stout	1s 3d	imperial half pint	Western Daily Press - Saturday 15 December 1900, page 3
Rogers' Ales	Bristol	1900	Monarch Stout	Stout	2s 6d	reputed pint	Western Daily Press - Saturday 15 December 1900, page 3
Rogers' Ales	Bristol	1900	Monarch Stout	Stout	1s 6d	imperial half pint	Western Daily Press - Saturday 15 December 1900, page 3
Rogers' Ales	Bristol	1900	Imperial Double Stout	Stout	3s	reputed pint	Western Daily Press - Saturday 15 December 1900, page 3
Seth Senior and Sons	Huddersfield	1900	Family Stout	Stout	1s 6d	stoppered half pint	Huddersfield Chronicle - Saturday 22 December 1900, page 1
Seth Senior and Sons	Huddersfield	1900	Extra Stout	Stout	1s 9d	stone bottle	Huddersfield Chronicle - Saturday 22 December 1900, page 1
Tetley	Leeds	1904	Extra Stout	Stout	1s 9d	small bottles	“Quality Pays . . the Story of Joshua Tetley & Son” by Clifford Lackey, 1985, page 99.
Truman	London	1908	Truman's Oatmeal Stout	Stout	1s 4d	4 quarts
Young's	London	1905	Oatmeal Stout	Stout		First bottled beers.
Young's	London	1905	Double Stout	Stout		First bottled beers.
Young's	London	1905	Stout	Stout		First bottled beers.
Rogers' Ales	Bristol	1900	XXXXX Strong Ale	Strong Ale	1s 9d	imperial half pint	Western Daily Press - Saturday 15 December 1900, page 3
Tetley	Leeds	1904	Strong Ale	Strong Ale	2s	small bottles	“Quality Pays . . the Story of Joshua Tetley & Son” by Clifford Lackey, 1985, page 99.

I'm not sure if I'll continue this further into the 20th century. I start getting information overload after WW I when I have Whitbread's and Truman's Gravity Books to play with.

Mild - er, - Mild, Mild

I meant to do something dead subtle. But there's Tatort tonight.

Er, buy this please. I just got my copy. Coolerific. The hard backiness of it.

Buy it please. The kids. They'd like shoes.

Bottling in 1914 - bottle washing

No, I haven't forgotten my thromise to thrill you with bottle washing. I just got distracted by the Borefts Bierfestival last weekend. OK, I spent Staurday getting pissed up and didn't have the time, or the sobriety, to get on with my work. Someone has to uphold the proud tradition of pint-drinking, whatever the personal cost.

Do you know what has really surprised me abiout this series on bottling? That anyone is still reading the posts. I'd expected resders to be defecting in droves after the first one or two. Perversely, the audience has, if anything, increased. You really shouldn't encourage me if you ever want me to move on to Whitbread's post WW II beers. If bottle washing doesn't get you flicking blog channels, what will?

There were two or three phases to the process of making bottles ready for fresh beer: soaking, washing and (optionally) drying. Not sure why the drying was optional. I can see that a damp bottle would help prevent fobbing, but presumably that wasn't a problem when using a counter-pressure filler.

"Bottle Washing.
The golden rule in selecting a machine for soaking and washing bottles is to seek for a simple type of plant; indeed, there is no doubt that the machines of real use — machines that can be relied upon to do their work continuously and efficiently — are of very simple design and construction. There is no need to urge upon the brewer the necessity for efficiency and care in this department of a bottling store, as the use of unclean bottles will spoil the best article and ruin the brewer's reputation. And yet one often sees soaking appliances which do not ensure the emptying of the bottles as they rise, the consequence being that any dirt or sediment which happens to be in the empty bottle, on its being placed in the soaker, will remain there probably until the bottle has been placed on the brush and rinser. I prefer to have a rinser on the edge of the soaking tank, and to drain all bottles, and then rinse out the dregs (in most cases very acid), before putting the bottles into the soaker. Then, instead of the soaking liquor becoming acid and putrid, it is possible to keep it always slightly alkaline by the addition daily of an alkaline solution, to which I shall refer later on."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 20, Issue 6, November-December 1914, page 512.

It's pretty obvious that inadequately-cleaned bottles weren't going to do your reputation or your business much good. There's not much point making lots of effort to brew a decent beer and then ruin it by filling it into a dirty bottle. The public being what they are, I'm sure bottles came back with all sorts of crap in them: dregs, fag ends, dirt, muck and all kinds of filth. I'm a good boy me, I always rinse the dregs carefully from my bottles of St. Bernardus Abt immediately after I've filled my glass. I'm definitely in the rinse out the dregs before soaking camp.

I'm not sure I believe this:

"Neither efficient soaking nor excessive brushing will clean and sterilise a bottle, but a combination of the two methods will do so as nearly as is possible, particularly as I am dealing with chilled beers which should have no deposit."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 20, Issue 6, November-December 1914, page 512.

Surely that isn't the best way to "as nearly as possible" sterilise a bottle. Properly sterilising at a temperature above boiling point must be better.

"I do not intend to touch upon the various soaking and washing machines on the market, but will merely remark that after years of experience with hand washers my firm adopted automatic soakers and brushing machines, and these in a new bottlery which they are building they propose to scrap entirely and return to the hand-washing method, but with many improvements. I ought, perhaps, to give my reasons for scrapping the automatic soakers after so short a trial. They are these: in a mixed trade such as ours, it is practically impossible to keep one soaker for one sized bottle for any length of time, consequently a machine used for flagons one day may be used for half-pint cork bottles on another, or pints on another, and as with our soakers the bottles enter the soaking trays neck down, there is a decided variance in the jar produced by the falling of a half-pint and a, flagon respectively, this jar soon causing the cup bottoms to give way. On this account they all had to he renewed with gun metal cages. These, though they last better, cause great loss from chipped necks, and in the case of long-necked cork bottles the shock causes the bottle to part at the shoulder. To sum the whole case up, the breakage or cullet increases enormously, whilst the renewal expenses of the automatic soakers, even with efficient engineers constantly in attendance, is a source of much trouble."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 20, Issue 6, November-December 1914, pages 512 - 513.

What a great word cullet is. One of which, to my shame, I was unaware before embarking on this series. I must try to find a way to drop it into a conversation. "What a pain in the arse New Year's day is in Amsterdam. The streets are strewn with cullet. Just as well I don't ride a bike." That would do. Just a couple of months until I can use that one.

My guess is that a brewery today would use fewer different types of bottles. Back in the day, they'd be filling pints, halves, quarts and possibly nips, too. In addition, they might well be using three different ways of sealing the bottles: screw stoppers, crown corks and corks.

"As I have said previously, we are now adopting an improved form of hand washer, two tanks and four automatic brush-heads. One which we have had in use some four months does 180 dozen bottles per hour quite comfortably with five or six operators. This allows the bottles 15 minutes' soaking, which I find ample to remove or soften any deposit."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 20, Issue 6, November-December 1914, page 513.

Ah, I'd been wondering what the point of the soaking was. When I soak bottles, it's to remove the labels. But I guess that would have happened as well as the deposit softening (that sounds vaguely obscene). The joy of the water-soluble glue used on returnable bottles today is that a few minutes in hot water will leave the glue dissolved and the label floating serenely. Whereas American labels can only be removed with the help of a pneumatic drill.

"The unit system, so admirable in every way, has one weak spot, and that is the filling of dripping bottles, and though possibly 90 per cent, of practical brewers will tell you that to fill a wet bottle makes absolutely no difference in the case of a chilled and filtered beer (and to some extent I must agree), still how many of those brewers would not prefer the absolutely dry bottle were it as easily obtainable? It was to meet the desire for a dry bottle that Mr. Adlam and I adopted a system by which the bottle may now be rinsed, dried with an air blast, and conveyed to the fillers by one simple operation."
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 20, Issue 6, November-December 1914, page 513.

What's your preference - wet or dry? Me, I could never be a dry.

Making bottle washing fascinate. Or at least entertain, that was my mission. Not sure I succeeded. Maybe I'll have more luck with stoppers, out topic next time.

Bottled beer and WW II

Between the wars, the rise of bottled beer seemed unstoppable. At some breweries over 50% of output was in bottled form, much of it consumed in pubs. Than along came WW II.

The war had made life difficult for brewers in many ways: shortages of material and labour, limited amounts of fuel and power, not forgetting much more direct impacts such as bombing and the destruction and disruption that caused. In such circumstances. waste couldn't be tolerated. The government ran campaigns to stop the public wasting food and resources. Breweries had to do their bit, too.

It's pretty obvious that bottled beer consumes far more resources than draught. From the extra equipment and manpower needed to produce it to the extra fuel needed to transport it. Brewers struggled to keep themselves supplied with sufficient bottles and crates and that alone was enough to force them to reduce supplies to their pubs. That and keep begging their publicans to return the empties.

That's why you got stories like this:

"BOTTLED BEER MAY DISAPPEAR
DRAUGHT INSTEAD
The time when bottled beer is unobtainable was foreshadowed at the sitting of the Essex Licensing Committee at Chelmsford on Wednesday, when Mr. F. L. Mullis applied, on behalf of Mr. Alec William Spouse, for the continuation of a conditional "on" licence in respect of Jerrard's Restaurant, High Road, Ilford, for a further 5.25 years. Mr. Mullis said that the chairman of the Licensed Victuallers' Association had just stated that it was possible that quite shortly there would probably be no bottled beer — because of the shortage of bottles and the shortage of labour. Under the present licence granted to Mr. Spouse, he was unable to sell draught beer. In the circumstances, Mr. Mullis asked the Committee to grant a variation entitling the applicant to sell draught beer while bottled beer is unobtainable.

The Chairman (Mr. H. L. Usborne, J.P.) said the licence would be confirmed and alteration asked for approved, subject to the consent of the Licensing Justices at Becontree.

Mr. Christmas Humphreys, counsel: If the time does come when bottled beer is unobtainable, it is obvious that there must be some legislation to allow all "off" licensees who are restricted to bottled beer to sell draught beer.

WHERE IS THE GARAGE? 
Clr. Win. Owen White applied for confirmation of conditional "off" annual licence in respect 225 Clay hall Avenue, Ilford.

Mr Christmas Humphreys, for the applicant, said the original premises for which the licence was intended had been wrecked by a bomb. There was, at the rear of the premises, a large double garage, and the applicant asked that, in the peculiar circumstances, the licence should apply to this building, where adequate construcuon and supervision would be made. There was, said Counsel, a demand few this licence in the district.

Opposition to the licence was forthcoming on behalf of the owners and tenant of the Dr. Johnson Public-house, who were represented by Mr. C. B. Catnach. who observed: I think this application is put forward under a misapprehension. I was at the site this morning and the garage was not there. The whole site Is just rubble: there was only one badly cracked wall standing. In these circumstances, the Committee have no power to grant this licence.

Mr. Christmas Humphreys called a witness who said that on Sunday the two walls and the roof of the garage were standing.

A witness called by Mr. Catnach said when he visited the site that morning it was "perfectly flat." with the exception of a small piece of wall. There was no sign of a garage.

Mr. Catchnach. urging the Committee to refuse the licence, said much of the trade of the Dr. Johnson was its off licence. Over £31,000 had been spent on the premises, and the monopoly value was £4,250. Surely, they were entitled to some measure of protection from undue competition?

The Committee refused to confirm the licence."
Essex Newsman - Saturday 24 May 1941, page 4.

I left in the second part of the article just for a laugh. What a cheek trying to get a pile of rubble licensed.

Interesting to see that some licences only allowed the sale of bottled beer. I wonder why that was? Were some others, conversely, only allowed to sell draught beer?

By the middle of the war, bottled beer was effectively being rationed:

"LESS BOTTLED BEER
Supplies of bottled beer have been reduced by ten per cent with the result that Derby's public houses may soon have to restrict their sales.

Mr. A. E. Butler, secretary to Derby and District Licensed Victuallers' Association, said that it was unlikely there would be a general reduction in ordinary draught beer supplies within the next few months.

Many licensees had already experienced difficulty in supplying their customers, but by restricting opening hours they had considerably eased the situation.
Derby Daily Telegraph - Wednesday 14 January 1942, page 2.

From the circular letters Barclay Perkins sent to their tenants, I know that they strictly limited supplies of bottled. And would only continue the supply as long as the empties were returned. Opening fewer hours might help an individual pub's stocking levels, but was really just another form of rationing.

It irked the temperance nutters greatly that beer wasn't rationed when bread was. But there wasn't enough beer to go around, with brewers having access to limited quantities of raw materials and only being allowed to produce a specific volume of beer. I see that as being quite different to the way the temperance campaigners portrayed the situation: bread rationed and grain being wasted on supplying as much beer as was wanted.

Bottling at Eldridge Pope in 1934 - the beers

And here we finally are. After all that messing about with whirry bits of machinery and shiny things we've finally arrived at the business end of the process, the beers themselves.

Remember me saying I think I could guess which beer wasn't pasteurised? Not really that challenging when you look at their price list. That "matured in bottle" really gives it away. It's worth reminding you that at one time in the 1970's Eldridge Pope was one of only a handful of breweries that brewed a bottle-conditioned beer. (I was going to say "produced a bottle-conditioned beer" until I remembered that virtually every bottling operation in the country produced one: Guinness Extra Stout.) And, unusually, it wasn't a legacy brand but a relatively new beer: Hardy Ale, which was first brewed in 1967.

"HUNTSMAN BRAND" BOTTLE BEERS (Abridged) PRICE LIST
	PER DOZEN
	HALF PINTS	PINTS	PER 4-QT. CRATE
"Huntsman Brand" Crystal Ale	4/-	7/-	4/4
"Huntsman Brand" Oat Malt Stout	4/-	7/-	4/4
"Huntsman Brand" Dorset Brown Ale	4/-	7/-	4/4
"Huntsman Brand" Strong Old Ale	5/6	9/6	-
"Huntsman Brand" India Pale Ale	5/6	9/-	-
Bitter Ale, matured in Bottle	4/6	8/-	-
Source:
"A Modern West Country Brewery" by H.C. Vickery, 1934, page 16.

Peter Symons has very usefully sent me a snap of a log for BAK (known to the public as "Crystal Ale") so I know what OG that was: 1037.5º. I think it's safe to assume that the Oat Malt Stout and Brown Ale, which retailed for the same price, were a similar strength. Through some earlier records Peter sent me, I know all the gravities of these beers for 1964. And I can see how much Crystal Ale cost per gravity point (in lbs per barrel) - about 3.5d. Using these pieces of information I've come up with some gravity guesstimates for the other beers in 1934.

Peter Symons has, even more usefully, sent me the gravities for  the missing beers from 1912 and 1934. All except IPA, which doesn't seem to appear. Unless it's the beer called PA. I've assumed PA is the Bitter Ale, though I could be wrong. Based on the cost per gravity point (in lbs per barrel) of Crystal Ale - about 3.5d - I've come up with a guesstimate for the price of the IPA.

Also included are the gravities for 1912 and 1964, again taken from Eldridge Pope's brewing records. Oddly, The gravity of Crystal Ale in 1934 was almost exactly midway between the 1912 and 1964 figures.

Eldridge Pope gravities in 1934
	1912	1934	1964
"Huntsman Brand" Crystal Ale	1044.5	1037.5	1030.3
"Huntsman Brand" Oat Malt Stout	1047.3	1035.6	1030.3
"Huntsman Brand" Dorset Brown Ale		1033.6	1025.6
"Huntsman Brand" Strong Old Ale	1076.5	1056.7	1051.4
"Huntsman Brand" India Pale Ale		1052.8	1043.4
Bitter Ale, matured in Bottle	1051.2	1047.5	1042.3
1934 IPA gravity estimated
Sources:
Eldridge Pope brewing records
"A Modern West Country Brewery" by H.C. Vickery, 1934, page 16.

Mmmm. I just bothered to check and found that I have details of a few Eldridge Pope beers from the 1930's. Courtesy, as usual, of the Whitbread Gravity Book. Sadly the only beers matching those on the price list are Crystal Ale, which I already had the gravity for, and Dorset Brown Ale, one where I could make a pretty informed guess.

Eldridge Pope bottled beers in the 1930's
Year	Beer	Style	Price	size	FG	OG	colour	ABV	App. Atten-uation
1934	Crystal Ale	Pale Ale	7d	pint	1007.3	1037		3.86	80.27%
1935	Double Stout	Stout		pint	1013.5	1044.2		3.98	69.46%
1938	Crystal Ale	Pale Ale	4d	half	1005.9	1036.7	26	4.01	83.92%
1938	Dorset Brown Ale	Brown Ale	4d	half	1009.5	1038.2	40 + 13	3.72	75.13%
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

Not quite sure what I'm trying to prove with this, other than that I'm hopelessly enamoured of numbers.

Was Vienna Lager really that weak?

One of the features of Lager most praised when it first arrived in Britain was its relative lack of alcohol. Some even rashly declared non-intoxicating, which was clearly rubbish.

This is a follow-up to the series in the British Medical Journal on the Malt Liquors Sold in the United Kingdom. And throws doubt on the claim of the weakness of Vienna LAger.

"COMPARATIVE STRENGTH OF VIENNESE AND LONDON ALE AND BEER.
Some misapprehension prevails, we find, as to the real strength of the Viennese beer now being sold here at the very high price of sixpence per pint. It is presumed to have all the other qualities of good beer, but to be comparatively innocent of alcohol, and far less "heady", for example, than porter or what is called "fourpenny ale" (the quart). This is not so. The two samples of Vienna beer referred to in the report published in this Journal of the 23rd of January last showed an alcoholic strength amounting to about 4.45 per cent, by weight, or 5.55 by volume, of absolute alcohol, corresponding to an alcoholic content of 1.14 fluid ounce per pint of the beer. This is rather higher than the alcoholic strength of the best kind of London porter, which contains about 3.76 per cent, by weight, or 4.7 by volume, of absolute alcohol. The generality of what is called fourpenny ale (the quart) has much the same alcoholic strength. The better kinds of ale, such as Crowley's Alton ale and bitter ale, contain from 4.48 to 6.16 per cent, by weight, or from 5.6 to 7.7 per cent, by volume, of absolute alcohol; and old Burton ale contains as much as 8.32 per cent, by weight, or 10.32 per cent, by volume, of absolute alcohol. In point of alcoholic strength, therefore, the Vienna beer sold in London is somewhat superior to good porter; but in this respect it stands below the average of the ale commonly sold, and it is not much more than one-half as strong as the best kind of old Burton ale."
"British Medical Journal, Volume I 1869 January - June", 1869, page 148.

Was Vienna Lager really stronger than Porter and Four Ale (or X Ale as it was known within breweries)? You can probably guess what's coming. Because if there's one thing I have in abundance it's brewing records of London brewers. Let's take a look at some London Porters and X Ales, shall we?

First Porter:

London Porter 1867 -1870
Date	Year	Brewer	Beer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Attenuation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl
19th Oct	1869	Whitbread	P	1052.1	1013.9	5.06	73.40%	12.56	2.87
21st Jul	1869	Whitbread	P	1050.4	1014.4	4.76	71.43%	13.44	3.03
3rd Aug	1869	Whitbread	P	1050.1	1013.9	4.80	72.38%	13.87	3.08
5th Jul	1870	Truman	Runner	1056.8	1016.6	5.31	70.73%	10.3	2.64
4th Nov	1870	Truman	Runner	1055.4	1012.2	5.72	78.00%	11.1	2.62
10th Apr	1867	Barclay Perkins	TT	1054.0	1016.3	4.98	69.74%	5.47	1.42
24th Apr	1867	Barclay Perkins	TT	1054.8	1016.6	5.06	69.70%	9.41	2.43
average				1053.4	1014.8	5.10	72.20%	10.89	2.59
Sources:
Whitbread brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/09/063.
Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number ACC/2305/1/572.
Truman brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number B/THB/C/072.

Now X Ale:

London X Ale 1869 -1871
Date	Year	Brewer	Beer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Attenuation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl
14th Jan	1869	Whitbread	X	1052.1	1010.2	5.53	80.32%	6.42	1.61
31st Jul	1869	Whitbread	X	1054.3	1016.1	5.06	70.41%	9.67	2.50
5th Jul	1871	Truman	X Ale	1063.7	1011.1	6.96	82.61%	9.0	2.46
6th Jul	1871	Truman	X Ale	1063.4	1010.5	7.00	83.41%	9.0	2.45
18th Aug	1869	Barclay Perkins	X	1060.4	1015.2	5.97	74.77%	8.63	2.40
20th Aug	1869	Barclay Perkins	X	1060.1	1014.7	6.01	75.58%	12.45	3.55
30th Aug	1869	Barclay Perkins	X	1059.8	1018.3	5.50	69.44%	11.88	3.13
average				1059.1	1013.7	6.00	76.65%	9.58	2.58
Sources:
Whitbread brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document numbers LMA/4453/D/01/034 and LMA/4453/D/01/035.
Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number ACC/2305/1/579/1.
Truman brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number B/THB/C/152.

The tables confirm what I suspected: London X Ale was a bit stronger than Porter. You can see that the X Ales averaged almost 1% ABV more than the Porters. Which brings us back to the original question - was Vienna Lager stronger than X Ale and Porter?

The answer is yes and no. Spookily, it was exactly half-way in strength between the two.

Whitbread in Bottle

Here's something else I found while searching for the title of a book about bottling that I own.

It's an advert, but it did teach me something. Or rather confirm something I've suspected. What FA stood for. No, not Football Association. Nor Fanny Adams.

"BEER IN BOTTLE.

WHITBREAD AND CO.'S

LONDON COOPER, STOUT, & ALES.

OPINIONS OF THE MEDICAL PRESS.

"To get a good sound beer in bottle we want two things—absolute cleanliness and good material—to begin with. We lay especial stress on the former, for it ia that, simple though it be, which is too often neglected. And if you put ever so good beer in dirty bottles, the result will be the reverse of satisfactory. We have been induced to make these observations & propos of certain specimens of bottled beer submitted to us. The beer is Whitbread's, and it is bottled by Mr. Robert Baker, of 277, Gray's-inn-road, W.C. We have since visited the bottling premises, and can say this, that there cleanliness rules and reigns. And the product is good ; the beer fairly tested is excellent. Six kinds of beer altogether is bottled. Two of these—the extra stout and old ale—are very fine ; but it is of the former we mainly desire to speak. It has often been our desire to prescribe stout for a patient who could digest it, and we had only Guinness's to fall back upon. Now, without derogating for a moment from the admirable qualities of the Dublin product, we can obtain here in London a beer—if you know where to go for it—which, in the estimation of many, is far superior. Such a beer we have frequently desired to obtain in bottle, but never could until we came across this, which is Whitbread's best, duly matured in wood and bottled with all proper precautions when fully ripe. This beer we can fully commend to our readers, though even the inferior quality—ordinary stout—is very much better than that usually obtainable. The price, too, is most moderate : the ordinary stout is sold retail at the rate of threepence per pint ; the extra stout costs a halfpenny more. It is, moreover, to be noted that the bottles are all imperial pints, no 'reputed' measures being used. We should say, ' Give it a trial.' "—Medical Times and Gazette, June 1, 1872.

"We have received samples of several varieties of malt beverage—as pale ale, family ale, and strong ale, London cooper, and extra stout—from Messrs. Whitbread and Co.'s stores, 277, Gray's-inn-road. These beverages, being bottled on their own premises, possess a guarantee of genuineness that has long been desired, and is worthy of recognition. We have so far tested the samples as to be in a position to pronounce an opinion upon them. We believe them to be perfectly genuine, well-brewed, and of excellent quality. They are free from acidity, well-up, and in first-rate condition."—The Lancet, March 16, 1872.

"Dr. Paul, the principal English authority on this subject, says—' I have examined the six samples of bottled beer received from Mr. Baker, of Gray's-inn-road. All these samples were of excellent quality, and the original gravities of the worts from which they were brewed showed that the full proportions of malt had been used in each. The pale ale was remarkable from being almost wholly destitute of acid, and on this account would probably be specially adapted for invalids.' "—British Medical Journal, March 9, 1872.

Prices and full particulars can be obtained at the Stores, 277, Gray's-inn-road (W.C).

ROBERT BAKER,

SOLE AGENT.
"The Era Almanack" by Edward Ledger, 1871, page 112.

I'm slightly confused as to the status of Mr. Baker's bottling stores. The first quote implies that it's an independent operation, the second that the stores belong to Whitbread. I believe the former to be true. It would have been exceptional for a brewery to be bottling itself at this date.

Better than Guinness? Praise, indeed, for Whitbread's Stout. And cheaper, too. Guinness Extra Stout cost 4d an imperial pint*. Not just cheaper. It had a higher gravity, too.

The great thing about Whitbread is that I have details of their beers for pretty much the whole of the 19th century. Here are those from 1871:

Whitbread's Ales in 1871/2
Date	Year	Beer	Style	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl
30th Nov	1871	KK	Stock Ale	1075.1	1027.1	6.34	63.84%	15.11	5.29
27th Mar	1871	KKK	Stock Ale	1085.0	1035.5	6.56	58.31%	13.51	5.97
10th Dec	1872	FA	Pale Ale	1051.2	1011.6	5.24	77.30%	10.09	2.44
24th Mar	1871	PA	Pale Ale	1063.7	1019.4	5.86	69.57%	17.30	5.57
6th Oct	1871	P	Porter	1058.2	1017.7	5.35	69.52%	13.28	3.07
16th Oct	1871	XP S	Stout	1070.4	1023.8	6.16	66.14%	17.33	5.88
13th Jul	1871	SS	Stout	1077.6	1027.7	6.60	64.29%	13.39	5.04
25th Sep	1871	SSS	Stout	1099.7	1041.0	7.77	58.89%	13.81	6.17
19th Jul	1871	X	Mild	1061.8	1022.2	5.24	64.13%	8.99	2.61
28th Jul	1871	XL	Mild	1067.9	1020.5	6.27	69.80%	9.95	3.26
3rd Apr	1871	XX	Mild	1080.3	1032.7	6.30	59.31%	8.53	3.33
13th Mar	1871	XX xpt	Mild	1080.6	1033.2	6.27	58.76%	14.08	5.90
Sources:
Whitbread brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document numbers LMA/4453/D/01/036, LMA/4453/D/01/037, LMA/4453/D/01/038 and LMA/4453/D/09/065.

I assume that SS = Ordinary Stout and SSS = Extra Stout as XP S was an export beer. Both have very respectable gravities. In 1870 Guinness Extra Stout had an OG of 1078.1**, so about the same as Whitbread SS.

It's a shame not more was said about the Old Ale. Then I might have been able to narrow it down a bit more. But it was definitely either KK or KKK. My guess would be KKK.

Let's see if we can identify some more of Whitbread's bottled range.  The first quote mentions that they bottled six of their beers, but only names Stout, Extra Stout and Old Ale. The second mentions five: Pale Ale, Family Ale, and Strong Ale, London Cooper, and Extra Stout. My guess is that the Strong Ale and Old Ale were one and the same. Was the sixth beer the ordinary Stout? Or was that another name for Cooper? I usually assume that, by this date, what's called Copper is bottled Porter.

FA and PA are clearly Family Ale and Pale Ale. FA was a weaker version of PA, though they weren't parti-gyled. While KK/KKK and SS/SSS were.

Have you noticed what's odd about the list of bottled beers? Whitbread's second best-selling beer, X Ale, is missing. It accounted for almost a third of Whitbread's total output in the year ending July 1871***.

The advert has also taught us that Whitbread matured their bottled beers in wood. I would have assumed that, but it's nice to have it confirmed. In the case of the Stouts, that would probably have been vats. The others were more likely matured in hogsheads.

One last point. It's noteworthy that in the first quote there's surprise expressed at finding a Stout brewed in London that's better than Guinness. Fifty years earlier it would have been the other way around. It's a sign of how even in the 1870's Stout, whose origins lay in London, was being associated with Ireland and specifically Dublin. Quite an impressive achievement for Guinness.




* Source: an advertisement in the Lincolnshire Chronicle of Friday 22nd December 1876, page 1.
** "A dictionary of chemistry and the allied branches of other sciences", Volume 6 by Henry Watts, 1872, page 256
*** Whitbread brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/09/064.

Pint pot

"Next time I'm taking my own glass." That's what I said after the 2011 Borefts Bierfestival. I didn't go last year, being otherwise detained in Canada. But I hadn't forgottten my promise to myself when I was getting ready to head off to Bodegraven on Saturday. I carefully wrapped a Nonic imperial pint in a teatowel and put it in the bag with my camera and lumps of bread.

I hate drinking beer from small glasses. An imperial half pint is the smallest acceptable measure to me. 10 cl? That's just taking the piss. My glass is likely to be empty before I've got back to my seat. Getting two glasses helps a little, but the best solution is more radical: taking a proper glass with me.

In the train from Utrecht, when I was surrounded by young enthusiasts* chatting excitedly about Whales, I knew I wasn't going to fit the festival's demographic very well. Not at all, more like. I'm pretty sure my attitude to the beers on offer was unique amongst the attendees. For I had a very simple plan: drink cask beer by the pint.

Let me explain why that wasn't as reactionary as it might sound. The two British breweries present - Fynes Ales and Thornbridge - brew some pretty decent stuff. Especially in cask form, and they'd both brought several with them. I like cask beer. Love it. I'm not going to apologise for that. I know it's trendy to sup craft keg nowadays, but there's something about cask no other form of beer can replicate. That soft, enticing drinkability. One pint makes you lust for another. And another. It never gets tired, tiring or dull as long as your legs are still up to their job and your lunch isn't threatening a return. Fun and easy to drink -what could beat that?

I don't get to drink cask beer very often. Amsterdam's only regular cask outlet is Wildeman and, let's be honest, they're a bit clueless as how to handle it. They keep the firkin somewhere too cold, then plonk it on the bar when they want to serve it. Pretty much guaranteed to produce a pint that's hazy and lacking condition. I've just about given up on it. Especially as it costs 7 or 8 euros a pint. Which leaves trips to the UK my only chance to drink cask. Three or four times a year. That's how often I can drink my favourite drink. Not much. I'll struggle to knock back a couple of hundred more pints of it in my lifetime. Now there's a depressing thought.

Note all the beards

With the brewers manning the stalls, I was sure there would be no quality problems. Poor handling is cask's Achilles heel. An idiot can turn the best beer in the world into a foul mess. Then again, and this is one of the big points in cask's favour, the opposite is also true. Handled by an expert, the dullest beer in the world can shine and sing. With cask you really can polish a turd.

Sadly neither brewery had brought a Mild with them. Or a Burton. Fyne Ales did have a dark four-and-a-bit ABV dark beer (Vital Spark) that could possibly have been hammered into the Mild category, if you ignored the New World hops. But it didn't fool me, pleasant as it was.

I did make a few notes. A very few notes. Not really enough to have been worth the bother. Sitting next to Beer Nut, a very dilligent note-taker, highlighted what a rubbish job I was doing. He was also being much wider in his choice of beers than me. In comparison, I was an amateurish bumbler, sticking to just a handful of beers.

This festival report is a bit like my festival experience. Narrow, incomplete and





* Bizarrely, I recognised one American from his BeerAdvocate avatar, a picture of himself and his Dutch girlfriend. I would have introduced myself, but what would have been the point? "Hello, I'm the shouty Englishman who annoys Americans on the interweb."

Sabotage

"You use alcohol as a crutch". Is an accusation that's been lobbed at me more than once in my beer-ridden life. It's not true. Though wood* is tied to my realtionship with booze.

Bad times, like birth, death and going to the toilet, are experiences we all share. But life is like The Who. All about contrast.

Why were they known as the loudest band in the world? Not because they had the biggest, baddest PA. Live at Leeds will explain. Light and shade, That's what it's all about. Full on thrash then near whisper. The noise sounds noisier because of the silence inbetween.

We all share depressing times. And, let's be honest, we've all imposed bad times on others. Sometimes accidentally, others with the sharp intent of a cobra's strike.

Unlike the pogoing concert-goer, I prefer the slow. Emotions? I'd like them to remain quiet.

"Why do you drink?" is the most annoying - and awkward - question. Stock replies abound: to be sociable, because my friends do, for the flavour, for the buzz, to relax, to loosen my inhibitions, to dare talk to that girl, to make me puke and awake swimming in a pool of my own wee. All reasonable enough reasons. They've all applied to me.

"I enjoy the effect on my head and it tastes quite nice." is the most honest answer I can conjour up. I don't have to drink beer. (I worked that out recently by having 3 or 4 beer-free days a week.) But I'd be a liar if I denied that, health and belly aside, I'd drink four or five Abts every day.

But there are special times. Sad times. When the wheels in my head won't stop spinning.

Alcohol isn't a crutch. It's a clog to hurl into the gears of runaway thought.






* Defintely not in the naughty film sense.