Russian Stout and WW I

Just a random archive image today. Taken from the notebook of someone I assume was a brewer at Barclay Perkins. And a short explanation.

I always try to photograph something other than just brewing records when I'm in the archives. Just to get a feel of what else is available. This notebook has loads of handy stuff.


This particular page shows the cost price of Barclay Perkins' IBS, otherwise known as Russian Stout, for the period 1912 to 1920. Take a look:

Up until 1915 the tax on IBS, which was about exactly double standard-barrel strength, was about 15s 6d. If we take 36s as an average cost price, that makes the tax 43% of the total cost price.

In 1915 the tax per standard barrel increased to 23s, making the tax on IBS about 46s, or around 73% of the cost price. I don't think you can call that anything but a huge increase. Starngely the other costs had fallen. Non-tax costs dropped from 20s 6d to 17s. Not at all sure what that is telling us.

You can see that the gravity of IBS fell after July 1916 and that it was discontinued in February 1916. I'm surprised it lasted that long. Especially at what by then was the enormously high gravity of 1080º.

It wasn't gone for long, returning September 1919, albeit at a further reduced gravity of 1060º. In early 1920, the tax was 70s per standard barrel. Averaging the cost price to 117s, the 76s 6d tax paid had dropped to "just" 65% of the total cost price. The non-tax costs had risen considerably, to 40s 6d, refecting the increase in price of raw materials.

That's me done. I told you I'd be keeping it short

Brewing in the 1950’s – how to lay out your brewery (part one)

The surprising success of stuff about how to construct a brewery in the 1950’s has prompted me to continue. Ever the populist that I am.

Jeffery gives what looks like very sound advice about the layout of a brewery. Mostly concerned with eliminating possible sources of infection. Something that’s one of a brewer’s greatest fears.

I can’t help thinking of the sad end of Home Ales of Nottingham. I drank their beers a lot when I was younger. They were some of the most reliably sound in the country. I don’t think I can recall a single pint that was in poor condition. The company was well run and profitable. So they decided to build a brand, spanking new brewhouse.

That’s when the trouble started. Because there was a source of infection in the brewery. From that time on, their beer was never right. Try as they might they couldn’t track down the source of the infection. Eventually they gave up and sold up to Scottish & Newcastle. It’s a cautionary tale about the importance of a good brewery design.

“The danger of bacterial infection begins from the time when the wort leaves the copper, since no further sterilization is possible thereafter. It should, however, be comparatively easy to arrange subsequent departments, and the plant through which the beer passes, in such a manner that little pumping is necessary, and the minimum length of piping is involved. The copper, in order to carry out the advised system of gravitation, would be in the highest storey of the building. This arrangement makes it easier, also, to convey away the volumes of steam generated by boiling. Immediately below should be placed the hop-back, which should be an enclosed vessel with a steam chute leading from the top to outside the building. If the steam thrown off at this period is allowed to permeate the department, roof, walls and everything with which it comes into contact will in time become smothered by a sticky, sugary deposit, forming a breeding ground for bacteria and other undesirable organisms at the very place where it is essential to avoid them. Many breweries still have open coppers and hop-backs. Wherever possible these should be fitted with covers and steam vents. Where this is not practicable, special care should be taken to ensure that condensed water does not drop from the ceiling or rafters overhead into the hop-back. However, these expedients do not concerns us at this stage, as we are here considering the best type of plant for a new brewery.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 22 - 23.

The shorter the length of piping, the fewer places an infection can lurk.

That’s something I’d never considered: steam condensing on the roof and falling back into the hop-back. The ceiling isn’t likely to be the cleanest spot in a brewery. Steam sounds like quite dangerous stuff, beyond the obvious scalding risk.

“Immediately below the hop-back should be placed the wort receiver. In a modern brewery this will be a deep vessel. At one time the wort would have been discharged into a cooler—a large, open, shallow vessel - which was thought to be essential at this stage. The open cooler has passed into disfavour as a potential source of infection and is to be found only in a very few breweries.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 23.

Cooler. Remember that word. We’ll be getting to it again later. It’s replacement, the wort receiver, was a different shape and had a different function. It didn’t cool the wort, but merely held it and fed the refrigerator, where all the cooling was done.

We’ll be looking at that in more detail next time.

Bottled IPA in the 1950’s

Still can’t be arsed to take on draught Mild. Too much like hard work. So I’ve gone for a relatively easy option: IPA.

Though I know IPA is quite popular in some quarters. Also a thing known as English-style IPA, which has little in common with many of the beers we’ll see.

Talking of styles, I’ve split this bunch into three groups. Not a totally arbitrary exercise this time. I’ve chosen as a dividing line the spot where there was a big gap in gravities: 1036.6 to 1043.1; 1053.5 to 1058.7. Leaving us with weak IPAs: 1030 to 1036.6; mid-strength IPAs: 1043.1 to 1053.5; and strong IPAs: 1058.7 to 1063.7. It seems like they form these groups quite naturally.

You can see how much fun this is going to be. Because two of the three groups are totally unlike the “official” English IPA, which has a gravity range of 1050 to 1075. What’s particularly amusing are the Bass examples. The fit the guidelines pretty well, but were marketed as Pale Ale, not IPA.

It’s clear that IPA was a vague term, that meant different things to different brewers. The range of gravities is enormous, from 1030 to 1063.7. Do they form a single style? Are some of them mislabelled? Did anyone back in the 1950’s give a toss about any of that? I think not.

To anyone who says: “That isn’t an IPA. It’s a Bitter or a Pale Ale.” My reply is, don’t you think it’s a bit arrogant to impose your definition of IPA on a brewer in the past? And drinkers. If they were happy to call it IPA, who are we to call them deluded?

I knew this was a good topic. Lots of opportunity for ranting. Not done much of that of late. Mellowed or worn out? You decide.

Call me a traditionalist, but let’s start with the weakest first. The least IPA-ey, you could say.

Bottled weak IPA in the 1950's
Year	Brewer	Beer	Price per pint (d)	Acidity	OG	FG	ABV	App. Attenua- tion	colour
1958	Bernard	IPA (Bottling)			1030	1010	2.59	66.67%
1955	Wm. Younger	IPA	19	0.04	1030.2	1006.9	3.02	77.15%	22
1956	Barclay Perkins	IPA	20	0.04	1030.5	1007.3	3.01	76.07%	19
1958	Bernard	IPA	25	0.04	1030.6	1008.9	2.71	70.92%	50
1954	Barclay Perkins	IPA	19	0.05	1031.2	1007.5	3.07	75.96%	19
1959	Usher	IPA	20	0.03	1032.3	1008.4	2.99	73.99%	18
1955	Vaux & Co	IPA	18	0.05	1032.9	1008.2	3.20	75.08%	30
1959	Greene King	IPA	20	0.04	1033.3	1010	3.02	69.97%	25
1956	Whitbread	PA	22	0.05	1033.5	1005.8	3.60	82.69%	20
1954	Whitbread	Pale Ale	21	0.05	1034	1005.2	3.75	84.71%	22
1955	Whitbread	Pale Ale	22		1034.5
1959	Whitbread	Pale Ale	24		1034.7	1007.8	3.49	77.52%	18
1959	Whitbread	Pale Ale	24	0.04	1034.7	1008.4	3.41	75.79%	19
1956	Hope & Anchor Brewery, Sheffield	IPA	24	0.04	1036.6	1008	3.71	78.14%	18
	Average		21.4	0.04	1032.8	1007.9	3.20	75.74%	23.3
Sources:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/002.
T & J Bernard's brewing records held at the Scottish Brewing Archive

You’ve probably spotted something there: the Whitbread beer is called Pale Ale. But in their brewing records it’s called IPA. Up until 1958, when the name changes to WPA. So you can ignore the 1959 examples if you like. But it was the same beer.

What’s weird is that the analyses come from the Whitbread Gravity Book. And they called it a Pale Ale, even though they must have been able to read the label of the beer they were sampling. The answer probably is that they didn’t really differentiate between Pale Ale, IPA, Bitter and Light Ale. They were all flavours of Pale Ale for them.

You can see the eccentric relationship between Scottish brewing and colour. Edinburgh brewery Bernard’s IPA is way darker than any of the others.

The football is on so I don’t want to waste much time. You can read can’t you? Average attenuation, quite pale colour, not that strong.

Mid-strength:

Bottled mid-strength IPA in the 1950's
Year	Brewer	Beer	Price per pint (d)	Acidity	OG	FG	ABV	App. Attenua- tion	colour
1955	Hansons	IPA	22	0.04	1043.1	1007.8	4.60	81.90%	19
1955	Eldridge Pope	IPA	29	0.05	1044.1	1012.8	4.06	70.98%	20
1955	Flowers	IPA	28	0.05	1045.9	1009.7	4.71	78.87%	25
1957	McEwan	Export IPA	32.5	0.05	1046.4	1010.7	4.64	76.94%	22
1954	McEwan	India Pale Ale		0.05	1048.6	1008.2	5.27	83.13%	24
1954	Courage	John Courage IPA	28	0.05	1050.4	1011.2	5.10	77.78%	20
1959	Courage	IPA	32	0.05	1050.7	1010.8	5.19	78.70%	23
1959	Bass	Pale Ale	32	0.02	1050.7	1010.7	5.21	78.90%	17
1959	Worthington	India Pale Ale	32	0.02	1051.6	1011.5	5.22	77.71%	18
1956	Bass	Pale Ale (Blue Triangle)	34	0.04	1051.9	1012.4	5.14	76.11%	21
1956	Bass	Pale Ale (Red Triangle)	34	0.05	1053.5	1004.1	6.48	92.34%	20
	Average		29.1	0.04	1048.8	1010.0	5.06	79.39%	20.8
Sources:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/002.

Now I’m getting less certain of my classifications. Just noticed that the top four are versions of the Bass/Worthington strong IPA’s. They clearly dropped the gravities in the second half of the Sixties.

Odd that this set is paler than the last. But let’s keep moving along . . .

The strong set:

Bottled strong IPA in the 1950's
Year	Brewer	Beer	Price	Acidity	OG	FG	ABV	App. Attenua- tion	colour
1953	Bass	Blue Label PA	24	0.08	1058.7	1013.8	5.85	76.49%	18.5
1953	Bass	Pale Ale (Blue Triangle purchased in Belgium)		0.04	1060.8	1010.5	6.58	82.73%	21
1953	Worthington	India Pale Ale		0.04	1061.1	1013.5	6.21	77.91%	27
1955	Bass	Pale Ale (Red Triangle)		0.04	1063.2	1009.6	7.02	84.81%	19
1955	Worthington	India Pale Ale (Green Shield)		0.05	1063.3	1009.4	7.06	85.15%	18
1955	Bass	Pale Ale (Blue Triangle)		0.07	1063.5	1003.1	7.96	95.12%	19
1955	Worthington	India Pale Ale (White Shield)		0.05	1063.7	1002.9	8.02	95.45%	18
	Average		24.0	0.05	1062.0	1009.0	6.96	85.38%	20.1
Sources:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/002.

This is really a single beer. Blue Triangle was the pasteurised version of bottled-conditioned Red Triangle. And Green Shield was the processed version of White Shield. Just differently packaged and processed versions of one beer.

This lot is way the most highly attenuated. As you would expect of genuine Burton Pale Ales. Also the palest. Ponder on that while I watch the footy.

Brewing in the 1950’s – how to construct your brewery

You’re a weird lot. That’s what the popularity of my post on the ideal location for a brewery has taught me. And that I can get away with writing more in a similar vein.

So let’s have a look at how to build your brewery, once you’ve found the perfect site.

“To-day it is being realized more and more what an important part gravitation plays in the construction of a brewery. It means the saving of power and manual labour, and also eliminates the need for excessive pumping of worts. This latter procedure is not to be recommended, quite apart from the extra cost. Thus, we find many modern breweries built on what is known as the tower system. They have a flat roof, upon which are placed the various water cisterns and tanks. Considerable weight has to be carried, often in a small area. It is therefore essential that the building itself be of a substantial character, with walls of considerable thickness and solid foundations. A malt bin holding 1,000 quarters will have a weight of 150 tons due to the grain alone, plus the actual weight of the bin. A copper of 200 barrels' capacity, will hold, when filled, 32 tons of water or approximately 34 tons of wort; added to this is the very considerable weight of the copper itself. With massive plant of this nature, the need for a firm and adequate support is self-evident.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 20.

Pretty sure the Victorians were well aware of the importance of gravity. That’s why their classic brewery design is a tower. Surely it’s the other way around and in the 1950’s breweries started to abandon this classic approach?

Jefferey’s discussion of the weight of equipment in a brewery might explain why they stopped piling all the kit on top of each other: you needed a really robust building to take all that weight, especially if you were brewing on a grand scale. Most modern breweries I’ve seen are single storey. Essentially dirty great sheds. Without even proper cellars.

This next bit is definitely good advice. Have searched newspaper archives, I’m well aware of how susceptible breweries were to fire.

“A brewery should be constructed with the idea of being as fireproof as possible. The use of wood should be avoided so far as is consistent with the proposed methods of brewing. Lift shafts should be made fireproof, otherwise in case of fire they act as draught channels. Not only should wood be avoided in the construction of the actual lift, but also in that of the framework of the shaft and the doors on each floor. The latter should be made of sheet iron, and should close automatically when the lift leaves each floor. The lift shaft is thus practically sealed against flames. Particular stress is laid upon the importance of making a lift shaft fireproof as it is almost invariably by this channel that flames in a brewery make such rapid headway. Wooden floors are not only inflammable but difficult to keep clean and dry. Concrete or asphalt are much more commendable on both scores, being impervious to moisture and easy to keep clean. Many other attractive and durable floor materials with improved cement bases are now available. Wooden stairs and stairways should also be avoided. Stone steps in a brick stairway or complete concrete construction are perhaps the ideal, failing which, iron grid steps may be used. The latter, however, hold dirt rather badly, and so need constant attention. Such precautions add considerably to the cost of a building, but are undoubtedly worthwhile.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 21.

I’d tile as many surfaces as possible, myself. Nice and easy to keep clean, last for ages and look nice to boot. Many of the classic breweries made extensive use of tilework, often in really attractive designs.

Most breweries I can recall have the type of metal staircase Jefferey warns against. Not so sure about how easy concrete is to keep clean. It doesn’t have a perfectly smooth surface, leaving holes for dirt to hide in.

Draught Strong Ale in the 1950’s

I still can’t quite face going through all the Milds. There are so many of them and there aren’t really subtypes. Not unless I really force things. So I’m dodging the problem and looking at Strong Ales instead.

It’s another very London-heavy set. But at least that tells me what precisely most of these beers were: Burton. A couple are even specifically called KK, the usual brewhouse name for Burton in the capital. One exception is the Barclay Perkins beers with a gravity of 1077.2. That’s KKKK, a beer only sold in the winter. That was called Old Burton.

These were some of the strongest beers regularly available on draught. Which isn’t that impressive, what with them averaging a bit under 5% ABV. But British beer, especially on draught, was generally pretty weak after WW II. In fact, it’s only in the last decade or two that more strong draught beers have appeared. It’s weird to think that beers like Old Peculiar, Fuller’s ESB and Rutland County were for a long time the strongest around.

The two different methods of colour notation make it difficult to do any averaging. What I can say is that they’re all dark brown, starting at the colour of Dark Mild and ending close to Stout.

Once again, attenuation is all over the place. As far as I can see, there is no real pattern.

Draught Strong Ale in the 1950's
Year	Brewer	Beer	Price per pint (d)	Acidity	OG	FG	ABV	App. Attenua-tion	colour
1954	Charrington	KK	19	0.08	1048.1	1010.7	4.86	77.75%	21R+40B
1953	Barclay Perkins	Strong Ale	37		1077.15				120
1954	Barclay Perkins	KK	21	0.06	1043	1011.1	4.14	74.19%	19+40
1953	Charrington	Strong Ale	19		1039.85				144
1954	Courage	XXX	20	0.08	1046.2	1013.8	4.20	70.13%	31R+40B
1955	Hancock	Five Five			1055
1953	Ind Coope	Strong Ale	19		1042.98				112
1953	Lacons	Strong Ale	21		1046.8
1953	Mann	Strong Ale	24		1050.21				168
1954	Mann	Dragon Ale	24	0.07	1051.2	1019.1	4.15	62.70%	25R+40B
1953	Meux	Strong Ale	20		1045.79				152
1954	Taylor Walker	KKK	21	0.05	1049.1	1017	4.15	65.38%	17R+40B
1953	Truman	Strong Ale	22		1045.59
1954	Truman	SA	22	0.05	1049.1	1009.3	5.19	81.06%	17+40
1954	Watney	KKKK	24	0.10	1055.2	1013.5	5.42	75.54%	23R+40B
1953	Wenlock	Strong Ale	20		1043.36				176
1953	Whitbread	Strong Ale	23		1052.06				104
1954	Whitbread	KKKK	23	0.06	1051.2	1011.9	5.11	76.76%	15R+40B
	Average		22.3	0.07	1049.5	1013.3	4.65	72.94%
Sources:
Truman Gravity Book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number B/THB/C/252.
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/002.
“Cardiff Pubs and Breweries” by Brian Glover, 2005. pages 97-101

It’s interesting that the average price isn’t much more than for Keg Bitter. Take out Barclay Perkins much more expensive beer and it’s about exactly the same. While the average gravity of Strong Ales was much higher. Another example of keg’s poor value for money. Which is still the case.

I really can’t understand why people are happy to pay five quid for a murky pint of keg when you can get a top-class cask beer for half the price. More money than sense, as my mum used to say.

Not sure where we’ll be going next. I could chicken out on Mild again and opt for bottled beers. Depends on my arsing situation.

Beer, scientifically and socially considered (part one)

This fascinating article popped out of a newspaper archive search for “Berliner White Beer”. I thought it interesting enough to post it in its entirety. In two parts.

This part mostly covers the adulteration of beer. The year is significant: 1870. Because in the 1870’s health inspectors employed by local councils were increasingly checking food for adulteration, including beer. The result was a big improvement in the quality of foodstuffs for human consumption. Which seem to have brought about an end to widespread adulteration of beer (though not necessarily simple watering down.

“BEER, SCIENTIFICALLY AND SOCIALLY CONSIDERED.
The following extracts are taken from an article Mr. James Samaelson in the current number of the Quarterly Journal of Science :—During a visit which I paid last year to Germany, the Tyrol, and Switzerland, I was greatly struck with the fact that in countries where beer is the national beverage, the humbler classes are comparatively sober ; whilst in those parts where wine, even the thin wine of the country, and ardent spirits, usurp the place of the milder beverage, there is a nearer approximation to the habits of our own people — in other words, there is large amount of drunkenness. In publishing elsewhere a short account of my observations,* I ventured to express the opinion that the man who should succeed in introducing into Britain and bringing into general consumption a mild, brisk, sparkling beverage such as one gets abroad, it would be a greater benefactor than the most self-denying devoted advocate of teetotalism; and some of the most influential organs in the country, and notably three**, have more or less emphatically endorsed this view in their criticisms. What is still more satisfactory, I have received inquiries concerning the difference between the processes of manufacture of the English and German beer, from persons who have the will and ability to carry out my suggestion, whilst German beer is daily more sought after and in our large towns, such as London, Manchester, and Liverpool, may readily be procured, though the cost is rather high owing to the limited consumption. Instead, therefore, of having overestimated the importance of the beer question, I find that it is far more deserving of consideration than I had imagined ; and after having directed attention to it, and inquired further into its scientific and social aspects, I have arrived the conclusion that there are few subjects of greater national importance us as Englishmen.”
Liverpool Daily Post - Tuesday 05 July 1870, page 6.

It’s weird how many believed in the 19th century that Lager was almost a temperance drink. And that the health of the poor would improve if it were more widely drunk. Whereas today Lager has exactly the opposite image: as the cause of drunken binges.

German beer was expensive not because of the limited demand for it, but because it was expensive to brew and transport – it needed to be kept cold – and it was taxed on arrival in the UK. Right up until today, Lager is still more expensive than top-fermenting beer.

”One of the journals to which reference has been made***,has gone so far as to say that "wholesome beer and wholesome recreation are, for the most part, beyond the reach of our working men;" and although much the blame rests with the operatives themselves, who prefer to give 6d per quart for bad beer at a public-house, rather than the same price for the best Burton ale, which they could easily procure by combination, yet it is perfectly true that a large proportion of the beer now sold the masses is totally unfit for consumption. If any of my readers are disposed to doubt this, let them read the following paragraph, which I have extracted from the proceedings of the Liverpool Select Vestry, reported in the Liverpool Daily Post of January last :— "Poisonous Beer and Lunacy; A Brewer’s Testimony.—A conversation as to the cost of pauper lunatics arose, and Mr. Glover, addressing the committee, said he thought that, with regard to lunacy, they began at the wrong end. He had visited the lunatic asylums in Lancashire within the last three four months, and he had asked the masters of the institutions what was the cause the increase in pauper lunatics. The answer was drunkenness, and he (Mr. Glover) believed that that was the case. He thought the health committee ought to be asked to appoint some sort of inspector to look after the quality of the drink sold. They appointed inspectors of meat and fish, and they condemned bad fruit, but bad drink was ten times worse than all of them. There was law which, if put in force, punished people for using poisonous ingredients in the making of beer — preventing them from using grains of paradise, nux-vomica, oil of vitriol, ammonia, and other things that were used in making beer. That was in addition to malt and hops, but if only malt and hops were used there would no lunatics from drink. His impression was that all a working man could spend in honestly brewed beer would not kill him or drive him mad, if the beer were good. There were some dishonest publicans as well as dishonest brewers ; and there were some publicans who rode handsome chargers, and their wives were driven about in splendid equipages, and they were doing great injury to people and filling the workhouses. He believed the drink they sold was not honest drink, but contained some of the things he had described. When a brewer had beer that would not keep long, he said to his customer, when it got a little sour, that he would change it. It was taken back to the brewery when sour, and then the dishonest publican bought it for 10s or £1 a barrel. He then went to the druggist's shop, and got something that neutralised the acid; and, was not the poor creature who afterwards drank the beer likely to go mad. The health committee ought to attend to the matter, and see that good beer was given to the people.”

* “The German Working Man.” Longmans.
** "The Illustrated London News.” January 1 ; The Pall Mall Gazette” January 8: “The Gardener's Chronicle” March 12
*** "The Pall Mall Gazette"
Liverpool Daily Post - Tuesday 05 July 1870, page 6.

Was adulterated beer really driving the working classes insane? We’ll probably never know, but it would be interesting to find out if the number of lunatic paupers fell in the 1880’s when adulteration was less rife.

It’s worth remembering that, as this is before 1880, only water, malt, hops, yeast and sugar could legally be used in beer. Anything else could get a brewer fined if caught, whether it was poisonous or not.

To put that 10s or £1 a barrel into context, a standard-strength Mild cost 36s a barrel. Making the dodgy and doctored beer incredibly good value for an unscrupulous publican. The stronger and more expensive the beer, the more he stood to profit.

Next time we’ll look in more detail at what crap was being put into beer.

20% off my Lulu print books

Plus 50% off ground shipping until the end of tomorrow (2nd April).

All you need to do is to use this code when you buy:

FOOLME

just think of those juicy Mega Book Series volumes -   Porter!, Mild! plus, Bitter! and Strong! could all be yours.


Barclay Perkins Bookstore

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1932 Barclay Perkins Draught Lager

What an impressive run of Let's Brews this has been. Several weeks in a row, on Wednesday. And all Lager recipes.

I'm getting very close to telling you why I had all these Lager recipes to hand. I've booked my flights, so I'm pretty much committed. But funnily enough, this isn't one of those recipes. I've written it especially for this. Just to complete the set of pre-war Barclay Perkins Lager recipes.

On with the beer itself.  I'm not sure exactly when it was brought on as a sub, but it wasn't in the starting lineup. Sometime between 1928 and 1932. It's sign that demand for Lager was increasing, the fact it could be served on draught.

Trade price lists from WW II tell us something about how this beer was packaged and served:

The barrel sizes are revealing. 11 gallons is 50 litres. These are obviously of Continental design. But they're  also quite small. Most beer was delivered to pubs in 36-gallon barrels of 54-gallon hogsheads.

Then the prices. Lets say ten bob a gallon for Export and Dark. That comes to 360/- an Imperial barrel. No wonder they're priced by the gallon. Even Home Light - the beer we're looking at - was 306/- a barrel. And was about the same strength as XLK. As always in Britain, Lager was crap value on a price/ABV basis.

You see that they've now got three draught Lagers. Export and Dark, their original pair, had been added to the prosaic Draught.

I also know it was served on CO2 pressure, because "tubes of gas" get a mention on the flip side:

(Excuse the dirty fingernail. I'd been in the archive all day. You can't imagine the filth you're covered with after the sixtieth brewing book. I usually try to dress all in black.)

That's the contextual crap. Time to look more closely at the recipe. Not that there's much to look at. It's a near-smash recipe, with only Hallertau spoiling the show. I'm surprised by the diversity of Barclay Perkins Lager recipes.This is all malt. Unlike Export, their other pale Lager, whose grist was almost 25% corn grits.

This is how it compares with some of Barclay Perkins' other beers:

Barclay Perkins beers in 1932
name	description	OG
X	Ordinary Mild	1032.8
XX	Best Mild	1040.87
XLK	Ordinary Bitter	1043.88
PA	Best Bitter	1050.76
Source:
Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number ACC/2305/01/617.

Draught was around the same strength as Best Mild or Ordinary Bitter. Which is a bit different from the situation after 1960, when Lager was around the same strength as Cooking Mild.

That's more than I intended writing. Best stop now and switch off Nigella.




Over to me again . . . . .

1932 Barclay Perkins Draught Lager
lager malt	9.50 lb	100.00%	9.50 lb
Hallertau 90 min	0.88 oz
Saaz 60 min	0.67 oz
Saaz 30 min	0.67 oz
OG	1043.5
FG	1011
ABV	4.30
Apparent attenuation	74.71%
IBU	29
SRM	3
Mash at	155º F
Sparge at	160º F
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	48º F
Yeast	Wyeast 2042 Danish lager

Here's the original mashing scheme for the masochists amongst you:

Fed up with Lager recipes yet? I've a few more. Including some odd ones. Like the second Scottish Lager.