Vienna Lagers in the 1870's

We're back with Vienna Lager in the 19th century. Looking at some actual beers of the period. Sadly not drinking them, but you can't have everything.

The purpose of this post - god that sounds a bit pretentious - is to put some flesh on the bones of the output by degree Balling table. To tie in types of beer with those gravity ranges.

Starting with Abzugsbier, which is the same as thing as Schenkbier or Winterbier. It's the ancestor of modern Czech Výčepní Pivo, its country's most popular style. Which prompts me to ask this question: why (and when) did 10º beer fall out of favour in Vienna? Because there's bugger all in that category brewed now. A follow-up question would be: why did it remain popular in Czechoslovakia / the Czech Republic?

Getting back to the beer, this what Wahl and Henius have to say about it: lagered 6 to 8 weeks, bunged 1 or 2 weeks, cooled to about zero, CO2 content 0.32-0.39%, 200 to 260g hops per hectolitre*.

Wahl and Henius mention a stronger kind of Abzugsbier, with a gravity of 11.5º Balling. I've not seen any evidence of it in the analyses.

Moving up the gravities, one of only 12º beer is Dreher's Pilsener. My guess is that it's a style which wasn't much brewed in Vienna back then. Pilsener is still remarkably little-brewed in Austria.

Next Lagerbier which, judging by the number of examples, was also a pretty popular style. all are just over 13º, with the exception of two outliers, the 12º Lichtenthal and almost 15º Simmering. I'll turn or Wahl & Henius again for more details about Lagerbier: it had 320 to 400g of hops per hectolitre and was stored four to five months, bunged (if at all) max. 2 weeks**.

Note the low level of attenuation of all these beers. Only a couple creep over 70%.

I'm surprised to see so few Märzen samples. Both are just a touch under 14º, and are a similar gravity to modern takes on the style. Interestingly Schellenhof's is paler than Dreher's Pilsener. I'm not sure what scale the colour is measured in, but three analyses of Pilsen-brewed Pilsener are 3.5, 4 and 4.3.  To put that into context, German brewed Ale had a colour of 10, Porter 40. It seems to me that these Vienna beers are only a little darker than Bohemian beer. I would have guessed that Vienna Lagers were a similar colour to the Ale, 10 on this scale.

Wahl & Henius reckon Märzen had 380 to 420g of hops per hectolitre***.

The two samples of Export are pretty different, gravity-wise. And neither is very close to the 15.5º Wahl & Henius specified. 400 to 550g of hops per hectolitre was the hopping rate****.

Weirdly, the only Bock is weaker than one of the Exports. That makes no sense. In ascending order of gravity, it should go: Abzugsbier, Lagerbier, Märzen, Export and finally Bock. As I've been trying (mostly vainly) to explain for years, Märzen and Export aren't so much style designations as indications of strength. I'm certain that all the strengths of beer below would have been roughly similar in character.

Here's the table. Enjoy.

Vienna Lagers in the 1870's
Year	Brewer	Beer	OG Plato	FG Plato	OG	FG	Acidity	colour	ABV	App. Atten-uation
1870	Grinzing	Abzugbier	9.93	3.37	1039.6	1013.1	0.11	5	3.43	66.06%
1870	Hütteldorf	Abzugbier	9.74	3.78	1038.8	1014.7	0.09	5	3.11	61.19%
1870	Lichtenthal	Abzugbier	10.07	3.65	1040.2	1014.2	0.08	5	3.36	63.75%
1870	Nussdorf	Abzugbier	10.78	3.93	1043.1	1015.3	0.09	5	3.59	63.54%
1870	Ottakring	Abzugbier	10.43	2.53	1041.6	1009.8	0.11	4.8	4.14	75.74%
1870	Simmering	Abzugbier	10.17	3.83	1040.6	1014.9	0.1	5.9	3.32	62.34%
1870	St. Mark	Abzugbier	10.35	3.81	1041.3	1014.8	0.1	5	3.42	64.16%
1876	Schwechater	Bock	16.80	4.25	1068.8	1016.6			7.23	74.70%
1876	Liesinger	Export	17.08	6.35	1070.0	1024.9	0.28		5.83	62.82%
1876	Schwechater	Export	13.05	4.80	1052.6	1018.7	0.13		4.40	63.22%
1870	Grinzing	Lagerbier	13.39	3.93	1054.1	1015.3	0.12	4.6	5.04	70.65%
1870	Hütteldorf	Lagerbier	13.33	3.83	1053.8	1014.9	0.11	5	5.06	71.27%
1870	Lichtenthal	Lagerbier	12.23	3.60	1049.2	1014.0	0.11	4.8	4.56	70.56%
1870	Nussdorf	Lagerbier	13.20	5.02	1053.3	1019.6	0.13	5.2	4.35	61.97%
1870	Ottakring	Lagerbier	13.25	4.03	1053.5	1015.7	0.16	5.1	4.90	69.58%
1870	Schellenhof	Lagerbier	13.06	5.07	1052.7	1019.8	0.15	4.6	4.25	61.18%
1870	Simmering	Lagerbier	14.86	5.39	1060.4	1021.1	0.2	5.9	5.08	63.73%
1870	Schellenhof	Märzen	13.83	5.49	1056.0	1021.5	0.14	5.6	4.45	60.30%
1870	St. Mark	Märzen	13.80	4.92	1055.8	1019.2	0.11	6.7	4.74	64.35%
1870	Dreher	Pilsener	12.74	4.29	1051.3	1016.7	0.17	6	4.48	66.33%
1876	Nussdorfer	Schenk Beer	10.78	3.75	1043.1	1014.6			3.69	65.21%
Sources:
"Theory and Practice of the Preparation of Malt and the Fabrication of Beer" Julius E. Thausing, Anton Schwartz and A.H. Bauer, Philadelphia 1882, pages 748-751
Wahl & Henius, pages 823-830

* "American Handy Book of Brewing , Malting and Auxiliary Trades" by Wahl & Henius, Chicago, 1902, pages 780 - 792.

** "American Handy Book of Brewing , Malting and Auxiliary Trades" by Wahl & Henius, Chicago, 1902, pages 780 - 792.

*** "American Handy Book of Brewing , Malting and Auxiliary Trades" by Wahl & Henius, Chicago, 1902, pages 780 - 792.

**** "American Handy Book of Brewing , Malting and Auxiliary Trades" by Wahl & Henius, Chicago, 1902, pages 780 - 792.

10% off my Lulu books

Yes, it's another one of those random Lulu offers. At least this one is for a normal amount.

Until the end of August 5th there's 10% off my Lulu books, if you enter this code:

MPBM14

Can't be arsed to try and think of a joke.

Barclay Perkins Bookstore

Mann Porter quality 1922 - 1923

Don't worry. The torture will only last a few more weeks. Once we've dumped the vinegary Porters down the drain, there's just the Stouts left.

Mann was a brewery which ended the 19th century well and managed to survive the troubles which beset the brewing industry in the early decade of the 20th century. It helped that they were the originators of a hot new beer style, Brown Ale. Their relatively good performance is well illustrated by comparing their output with that of Barclay Perkins:

Beer output of Barclay Perkins and Mann 1900 - 1924 (barrels)
	1900	1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
Barclay Perkins	589,201	573,302	541,822	539,153	534,284	549,634	560,103	555,370	527,716
Mann	500,029	557,403	593,694	624,718	644,162	672,104	657,161	650,254	625,130
	1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
Barclay Perkins	525,854	500,205	549,841	589,543	587,547	582,263	511,870	438,242
Mann	601,363	590,608	630,417	619,058	611,704	609,623
	1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
Barclay Perkins	426,170	247,089	325,965	464,033	393,045	348,576	293,728	303,676
Mann	365,525	269,475		699,297				619,608
Sources:
The British Brewing Industry, 1830-1980 T. R. Gourvish & R.G. Wilson, pages 610-611
Document ACC/2305/1/711/1 in the London Metropolitan Archives
"Albion Brewery 1808 - 1958" by Hurford Janes, 1958, pages 87, 89 and 91.

Mann overtook Barclay Perkins in 1902 and stayed a little in front up until WW I. The war years were slightly more kind to Mann: Barclay Perkins produced 42% of their 1914 output in 1918. For Mann it was 44%. But it's what happened after the war that really tells a story. Barclay Perkins never got back to anywhere near their pre-war level and in 1924 brewed just over half what they had in 1914. While Mann brewed slightly more in 1924 than 1914. Unfortunately, I don't have figures for any other breweries. My guess would be Barclay Perkins were closer to the norm than Mann. The hard times of the interwar years saw most breweries production fall.

One little titbit from the Mann's brewery history. In 1924, 88,000 of the 619,608 barrel they brewed were bottled. (They produced 6 bottled beers: London Stout, Oatmeal Stout, Extra Stout, Family Ale, Brown Ale and Bitter Ale.) That's just over 14%. By 1958 that had increased to 70% of their output*. That's extremely high, even for the 1950's. I wonder how much of that was Brown Ale? Probably quite a bit as it was one of a handful of bottled beers - like Guinness, Bass and Worthington - which were regularly sold in other breweries' tied houses.

Now it's time to review Mann's season so far. In the Mild competition they topped the table of 17, with an average score of 1.33. Their Burton Ale came third of fourteen, averaging 1.25. But their Pale Ale let them down a little, coming tenth of fourteen, just staying positive with a score of 0.07.

Hoare's Porter is the strongest of the bunch, with the highest average OG, ABV and rate of attenuation. So good value for money for all you pisshead. But what about its quality?

Mann Porter quality 1922 - 1923
Year	Beer	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	Flavour	score	Price
1922	Porter	1009.6	1040.3	3.99	76.18%	v fair	2	6d
1922	Porter	1007	1034	3.51	79.41%	v poor	-3	6d
1922	Porter	1009.6	1041.1	4.09	76.64%	v poor	-3	6d
1923	Porter	1009.6	1039.6	3.89	75.76%	fair	1	6d
1923	Porter	1010.6	1038.6	3.63	72.54%	fair	1	5d
1923	Porter	1009.3	1039.3	3.89	76.34%	fairly good	1	6d
1923	Porter	1008.9	1039.9	4.03	77.69%	nasty flavour	-3	6d
1923	Porter	1009.2	1037.2	3.63	75.27%	v fair	2	6d
Average		1009.2	1038.8	3.83	76.23%		-0.25
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

Bit of a mixed bag, eh? Three real stinkers (literally, based on the descriptions) leave it with a negative average score of -0.25. But the other five score fairly well, five of eight having a positive score, including two twos. That would leave me to believe that the problem lies in the pub cellar rather than the brewery.

Time traveller advice? Choose your Mann's pub wisely if you're drinking Porter.




* "Albion Brewery 1808 - 1958" by Hurford Janes, 1958, page 91.

The decline of Vienna Lager

I was really pleased when someone on BeerAdvocate pointed me in the direction of some Austro-Hungarian beer statistics. Something I can never get enough of.

It's confirmed something I'd suspected: that the strength of Austrian beer - in particular that of Vienna - fell towards the end of the 19th century. Confirmation not so much of the fact but of the date. You just have to look at the gravity of modern Austrian Märzen. It's in the range 11.5º to 12.5º Plato. In the 1870's, they were closer to 14º Plato*.

A word of warning: this is going to be a table-heavy post. Just how I like them. Words are very overrated. That may sound a little odd coming from someone who's always dreamed of being a writer.  (Though I am the person with not one but two books without any complete sentences other than the copyright notice.) But some things - like the trends in beer strength we're looking at today - are much easier to explain through the medium of numbers.

The 1860's had been boom time for Vienna beer, with Dreher's Schwechat brewery leading the way. Vienna Lager became all the rage after it was exposed to a wider audience at the Paris International Exhibition of 1867. For a while it became dead trendy and was the first Lager to be regularly sold in London. But the good times don't seem to have lasted that long. There was soon competition in the form of first Bavarian and then Bohemian Lager.

The Schwechat beer that introduced London to Lager was quite strong, with a gravity of 1062º, which 15.2º Balling. It sounds more like an Export than a Märzen, if you ask me. This was probably stronger than the beer usually sold in Vienna.

I was surprised to see beer production falling in Vienna after 1874. But then I looked at the figures for the whole of Austria-Hungary and noticed the same downwards trend. So I thought I'd see what percentage of the total came from Vienna. It shows that proportional less was being brewed in Vienna, falling from just under 24% to almost 21%. I wonder what the reason was? Were Viennese breweries starting to come under pressure in export markets?

Here are the figures:

Austrian beer production 1870 - 1881
Year	Austria	Vienna	% Vienna
1865	7,295,000	1,423,142	19.51%
1870	9,304,000
1871	10,028,000
1872	11,445,000
1873	12,685,000
1874	11,744,000	2,777,403	23.65%
1875	11,536,000	2,740,314	23.75%
1876	11,671,000	2,494,981	21.38%
1877	11,101,000	2,251,150	20.28%
1878	10,815,000	2,424,361	22.42%
1879	10,707,000	2,230,791	20.83%
1880	10,530,000	2,253,688	21.40%
1881	11,530,000	2,393,319	20.76%
Sources:
"Jahresbericht über die Leistungen der chemischen Technologie 1882", Dr. Ferdinand Fischer, 1883, page 871.
“Bericht über der Welt_Ausstellung zu Paris im Jahre 1867, volume 7”, 1868, page 126.
European Statistics 1750-1970 by B. R. Mitchell, 1978, page 283.

Now onto the real point of all this: looking at the change in gravity of the beer brewed in Vienna. First broken down by degree Balling in hectolitres:

Beer production of the 25 breweries in the Vienna area by degree Balling (hl)
Year	9	10	11	12	13	14	15 and 16	total
1874	800	1,402,591	67,893	106,131	808,084	231,643	86,199	2,777,403
1875	780	1,442,171	68,928	89,259	776,354	239,718	76,164	2,740,314
1876	11,090	1,413,268	35,583	86,854	725,097	127,342	53,525	2,494,981
1877	3,025	1,283,028	67,092	97,007	625,943	99,224	40,590	2,251,150
1878	150	1,451,560	147,546	35,285	496,750	100,252	47,386	2,424,361
1879	630	1,324,738	173,814	15,486	517,127	106,260	56,166	2,230,791
1880	884	1,497,766	107,628	10,066	600,588	78,326	60,290	2,253,688
1881	85	1,546,523	124,448	42,458	564,576	74,339	52,290	2,393,319
Source:
"Jahresbericht über die Leistungen der chemischen Technologie 1882", Dr. Ferdinand Fischer, 1883, page 871.

Next by percentage:

Beer production of the 25 breweries in the Vienna area by degree Balling (%)
Year	9	10	11	12	13	14	15 and 16	total
1874	0.03%	50.50%	2.44%	3.82%	29.09%	8.34%	3.10%	97.33%
1875	0.03%	52.63%	2.52%	3.26%	28.33%	8.75%	2.78%	98.29%
1876	0.44%	56.64%	1.43%	3.48%	29.06%	5.10%	2.15%	98.31%
1877	0.13%	56.99%	2.98%	4.31%	27.81%	4.41%	1.80%	98.43%
1878	0.01%	59.87%	6.09%	1.46%	20.49%	4.14%	1.95%	94.00%
1879	0.03%	59.38%	7.79%	0.69%	23.18%	4.76%	2.52%	98.36%
1880	0.04%	66.46%	4.78%	0.45%	26.65%	3.48%	2.68%	104.52%
1881	0.004%	64.62%	5.20%	1.77%	23.59%	3.11%	2.18%	100.48%
Source:
"Jahresbericht über die Leistungen der chemischen Technologie 1882", Dr. Ferdinand Fischer, 1883, page 871.

Output of 13º beer fell from 29% of the total to 23.5%. 14º beer fared even worse, declining from 8.3% to 3.1%. Surprisingly, output of 12º beer fell by more than 50%. The big winners were 10º beer, up from 50.5% to 64.6% and 11º beer, which went from 2.4% to 5.2%.

(Yes, I realise the percentages don't add up properly. The totals in the original document aren't the sum of the columns. I've just used them as is.)

Grouping the beers into 9º to 12º and 13º to 16º is even more revealing:

Vienna output in two strength groups (hl)
Year	9 to 12	13 to 16	total
1874	1,577,415	1,125,926	2,703,341
1875	1,601,138	1,092,236	2,693,374
1876	1,546,795	905,964	2,452,759
1877	1,450,152	765,757	2,215,909
1878	1,634,541	644,388	2,278,929
1879	1,514,668	679,553	2,194,221
1880	1,616,344	739,204	2,355,548
1881	1,713,514	691,205	2,404,719
Source:
"Jahresbericht über die Leistungen der chemischen Technologie 1882", Dr. Ferdinand Fischer, 1883, page 871.

Vienna output in two strength groups (%)
Year	9 to 12	13 to 16	total
1874	58.35%	41.65%	100%
1875	59.45%	40.55%	100%
1876	63.06%	36.94%	100%
1877	65.44%	34.56%	100%
1878	71.72%	28.28%	100%
1879	69.03%	30.97%	100%
1880	68.62%	31.38%	100%
1881	71.26%	28.74%	100%
Source:
"Jahresbericht über die Leistungen der chemischen Technologie 1882", Dr. Ferdinand Fischer, 1883, page 871.

The stronger beers declined from 41.7% to 28.7% of the total.

I wouldn't have been surprised at that percentage of 10º being brewed in Bohemia and Moravia, but I hadn't expected it of Vienna. You learn something every day.

There will be more tables of Autro-Hungarian statistics to follow. How appropriate for the WW I centenary.









* "Theory and Practice of the Preparation of Malt and the Fabrication of Beer" Julius E. Thausing, Anton Schwartz and A.H. Bauer, Philadelphia 1882, pages 748-751

Oatmeal Stout murder

Here's a little more information about that Croydon murder case.

Murder by Oatmeal Stout - what a weird idea? I wonder if the current occupiers of 32 Churchill Road are aware of the double murder there just over 100 years ago? At the time of the poisoning, the house was pretty new. The 1890's large-scale OS map just reaches this far South - the sheet covering the location of Churchill Road is the most southerly. While there were some houses already on the Brighton Road, Churchill Road doesn't exist. On the site of the road there's just a row of trees.

The whole affair appears to have revolved around the estate of a certain Madame Blume

"MYSTERIOUS POISONING CASES CROYDON.
STORY OF LADY'S WILL
On Monday, Croydon, the hearing was resumed of the sensational case in which it is alleged that Richard Brinkley administered noxious drugs to Mr. and Mrs. Beck, of Churchill Road, Croydon. Daisy Kathleen Beck, their daughter, and Reginald C. Parker, a lodger in the same house. Added interest has been given to the case through the exhumation the body of Mrs. Johanna Blume, with whom the prisoner lodged at Maxwell Road, Fulham, and the contents of whose stomach are at present being analysed by Home Office experts. Mrs. Blume is supposed to have willed her effects to Brinkley, but at tho last hearing Parker, who mentioned in the will as one the witnesses, totally denied having signed the document knowing it to be a will. Mr. R. D. Muir prosecuted on behalf of the Treasury, Mr. W. Frampton represented the prisoner. Detective-inspector Fowler was in charge of the case for the police, and Mr. W. Hood was present on behalf the wife and relatives of Parker. The Misses Beck and other relatives of the deceased man and women were again in Court, attired in deep mourning.

Mr. Muir, in opening the case, said the allegation of the prosecution was that on the night of April 20 the prisoner put poison into a bottle of porter, intending thereby to murder Parker. The motive was connected with the will of Johanna Maria Blume, known as Madame Blume, who lived at Maxwell Road, Fulham, and had been an intimate friend of the prisoner for several years. Her grand-daughter, named Danvelo, said Brinkley had been a frequent visitor at her grandmother's house. In November these visits became much more frequent, extending to several times a week. The grandmother and Brinkley were on very friendly terms, so much that on parting they kissed one another. On December 14, Brinkley and a man named Hird were in the house ostensibly with the object of repairing roof, both men being carpenters. The grand-daughter, who is an actress, was in the habit of going up in the morning to a room to play the piano, and the prisoner was well aware of the habit of the household, and knew that the old lady was likely to be left alone. On the following Sunday Brinkley visited the house again, and on December 19 the old lady died suddenly half an hour after she had been left by her granddaughter. She died under circumstance which for the second time were being investigated. The result of that investigation in no way governed the result of the enquiry into the charge now before him. On the night of the day on which Mrs. Blume died the prisoner turned up at the house, and solicitor, who was engaged in looking through the deceased woman's papers, asked him if he knew of the existence a will. Brinkley thereupon produced out of his pocket a document, dated December 17, which left all the old lady's property, valued at about £800, absolutely to the prisoner. In the document the prisoner, a jobbing carpenter, was described a gentleman. It was signed by Hird and Parker, and it would be proved that the former had been associate of Brinkley. Parker denied ever affixing his signature to the document, knowing it was a will. The validity of that will depended upon the attestation of Reginald Parker. If be did not sign that will it was a bit of waste paper, and the prisoner's title to the deceased woman's property was nullified. One fact which should mentioned was that on the same occasion as he produced the will there was in the prisoner's pocket another document, prepared for the signature of the deceased woman, but never signed by her. It was a deed of gift of the whole of the property to Brinkley, and he told Caroline Blume, the daughter of the deceased, that he had brought it to get the deceased to sign. Counsel put before them the suggestion that not only was the signature of Reginald Parker obtained by a trick, but by precisely the same trick the signature of Mrs. Blume was obtained. Counsel described the circumstances under which Parker's signature was obtained, evidence of which was given last Week. On January 3, counsel continued, Brinkley called at the house of the deceased. During the interval between her death and that time. Caroline, the daughter, had disputed the will, and Brinkley had issued a writ. He called on the pretext that he had left his gloves at the house on the day of the funeral. In veiled language conveyed to her that it was the wish the deceased that he should marry her, Caroline Blume. The woman rejected his advances then, and on subsequent occasions. Brinkley's position thus became difficult. If the will were disputed and Parker still lived, his hopes of succeeding to the property were considerably affected, and also would lie in further difficulty, because he had already been disposing of the property. Mrs. Blume's signature, he suggested, was obtained in the same way as was that of Parker. She was got to sign the document in the belief that it was for the purpose of some social outing, whereas the document was in reality a will. Mr. Muir next dealt with Parker's evidence, given last week, referring to Brinkley's unsuccessful attempts to poison Parker and to his "providential escapes" from them. Leading up to the actual position. Mr. Muir dealt with Brinkley's attempt to induce Parker to visit them at Fulham and of Parker's refusals to do so. Then he spoke of the arrangements by which Brinkley visited Parker at Croydon with the object of buying a bulldog. That, counsel continued, was a sham. Prisoner did not want a bulldog. His one idea was murder. On the evening that visit. April 20th, the night of the tragedy, he was known to have purchased a bottle of stout, which was afterwards made the medium for administering the poison. The Landlady of the house could not identify the prisoner, but (counsel) would point out that Brinkley, who had a gray moustache, was in the habit of dyeing it a jet black, and from time to time used to wear a black wig. There was this case more detail than he had opened to Bench, but if the facts that he had opened could be proved to the satisfaction of the Bench evidence, who could deny that Brinkley had a motive in murdering Parker? He asked for the committal of the prisoner.

Evidence was then called. Reginald Parker said that on April 20 the prisoner tried to persuade him to take the dog already referred to to his house at Fulham. He tried twice, once in the morning and once the evening. On April 13 witness, the instigation his wife, visited Dr. Etherington, his wife accompanying him.

Mr. Bray suggested that the cross-examination of the witness should be reserved.

Mr. Muir replied that the witness had been brought to the court on purpose to be cross-examined, and it was not proposed to bring him to the court again.

Mr. Bray appealed the Bench, who, however, expressed the opinion that counsel should avail himself of the present opportunity."
Lichfield Mercury - Friday 10 May 1907, page 2.

It's strange no-one was suspicious of Madame Blume's death at the time. But that's one of the problems of being old - it's no big surprise when you die. Though you would have thought the will might have aroused suspicion.

I can understand the pickle Brinkley was in. If Parker proved the will to be invalid, Brinkley would be in financial trouble and possibly suspected of murdering Madame Blume. I suppose one more murder wouldn't make much difference. If he were caught one murder was enough to see him swing.

Notice how here they call it a bottle of Porter, not Oatmeal Stout? Perhaps they're using the term generically, as a catchall for every type of Porter and Stout.

There's no more about the relationship between Brinkley and Mrs. Parker in this article but we will discover more about that later.

Lion Porter quality 1922 - 1923

I'm still rolling around in the smelly slops of Porter that's gone off. Pity me.

I'll remind you that the Lion Brewery was an impressive neo-classical structure on the banks of the Thames in Lambeth. It really was an impressive building, looking more like a country house than industrial premises. The giant lion that stood atop it only added to the effect. Sadly, the lion is all that remains, the site now being home to part of the dismal South Bank complex.

Lion Brewery in 1921
http://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/download/EPW006152

I've just had another thought about why the Porter might be so crap. My guess is that Porter was the traditional destination of all recovered slops. For a couple of reasons: it was dark, it was cheap and poor people drank it. Having all sorts of dubious crap added to it couldn't have helped its quality. Especially when it was sitting around in the cellar too long anyway.

While we're on this topic, it connects with my theory (wild-arse guess, really) of why Mild started getting darker around 1900: publicans needed a dark beer to dump their slops in. Dark Mild starts to appear at the time when draught Porter was disappearing from large parts of the country. That the process of darkening Mild began in the provinces earlier than in London reinforces my theory.

Now it's time to look back at Lion's performance so far. Scoring an average of 0.40 and coming seventh from seventeen, their Mild did reasonably well. The performance of their Burton was slightly worse in terms of position, eighth from fourteen, but better in terms of score, a very decent average of 1. Bitter is where the problem lay. It came joint eleventh of fourteen, averaging zero.

In terms of specs, the beer is towards to the top end in terms of gravity and ABV. Though they are all much of a muchness. The gravity was determined by the retail bracket they chose to drop Porter into. Pre-WW I, Porter and X Ale had been around the same gravity and price. After the war, many London brewers had X Ale as a 7d beer, implying a gravity of around 1043º. Sometimes they also kept the weaker type of Mild which evolved during the war, which was a 5d beer, with a gravity of around 1028º. A few opted for 6d Milds. But Porters were universally 6d beers, with gravities of around 1037º. I'm not sure why they did this. Presumably because people expected Porter to be cheap.

Let's look at how Lion Porter fared:

Lion Porter quality 1922 - 1923
Year	Beer	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	Flavour	score	Price
1922	Porter	1009.5	1034.5	3.24	72.46%	good ??	2	6d
1922	Porter	1008.2	1040.2	4.16	79.60%	poor	-1	6d
1922	Porter	1009.2	1039.2	3.89	76.53%	v poor	-3	6d
1923	Porter	1009.8	1038.3	3.70	74.41%	fair	1	6d
1923	Porter	1010	1037	3.50	72.97%	fair	1	6d
1923	Porter	1010.8	1038.3	3.56	71.80%	fair	1	6d
1923	Porter	1009.6	1035.1	3.30	72.65%	v fair	2	6d
1923	Porter	1010	1039	3.76	74.36%	v fair	2	6d
Average		1009.6	1037.7	3.64	74.35%		0.63
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/001

The answer is not that badly at all. 75% of the eight samples got a positive score and three got a healthy score of 2. Leaving a good overall average of 0.63. It's not a fantastic score, but much better than most so far.

Time-traveller advice: Lion houses are mostly a reasonable bet and some of the few where I'd advise risking ordering Porter.