Random Dutch beers (part fourteen)

Yes, I'm continuing this crap into 2016. Why not? It saves me having to do any difficuly crap, like research. I just crack open a bottle and write some rubbish about it.

We'll begin with a beer for an outfit in Utrecht that started more than a decade ago, disappeared for a while, then reappeared. I can't remember the exact story. But they do have their own brewery. I drank their beers a bit the first time around

De Leckere Gulden Craen 6% ABV
A rounded golden colour with a white head much like Andrew's - worryingly pale. A pleasantly fruity smell, like a wholesale market in the early morning, but without all the noise. Doesn't taste like I expected. Quite a lot of hop bitterness in a twig sort of way. Like chewing birch twigs on a crisp autumn morning. Pretty well made and enjoyable to drink. A winner. It's a Blond, in case you're wondering about the style.

"Do you want to try my beer, Dolores?"

"If it won't make my mouth taste all horrible."

"No, this is a nice one."

Dolores takes a couple of sips. "Mm. That isn't bad."

Praise indeed.

Next, another from De 7 Deugden, an Amsterdam outfit, located in one of the least fashionable parts of the city.

De 7 Deugden Stout + Moudig 7% ABV
Black as a moonless midnight at the bottom of a well. Topped by a cream-coloured cumulus of foam. It certainly looks the part. The aroma is as roasty as an espresso bar's dustbin. In a a good way. That's rather nice. Roast bitterness dances on the tongue while a slug of chocolate slopes by.


It's been a good start to the year (it's the 1st January as I write). Two new Dutch beers that are more than drinkable - actually quite pleasurable. And I've already knocked off three blog posts today. What a dilligent Ronald I am.

Bottled beer in the 1950’s – Bright Bottled Beers (part two)

Conditioning tanks – a topic to truly make the spirits and the heart sing.

How many nights have I lain awake wondering about the construction of conditioning tanks in the 1950s? This should save you from a similar torment.

“The conditioning tanks are usually of glass-lined steel, or more recently of stainless steel. Copper was used at one time and such tanks are still in use, but it is unlikely that copper would be used for constructing new tanks; copper tanks should not be tinned, as this metal can be responsible for haze. Considerable pressures develop and for this reason steel tanks are preferable. They are usually of about 20-50 barrels in capacity. Glass-lined tanks need special care in cleaning. The glass is easily scratched or chipped, and in this condition it is difficult to keep clean and free from deposit. Only bristle brushes should be used for cleaning, on no account should wire brushes be used. Workmen entering the tank should have rubber overshoes and no one should be allowed to enter with nailed boots; they should be cautioned against letting spanners or other tools drop into the tank.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 332 - 333.

Presumably this where the march to all stainless steel breweries began. Obviously, tanks of unlined ordinary steel wouldn’t work. And glass seems a rather fragile lining. Especially as any imperfections in the surface were likely to harbour sources of infection. Sounds like they were a pain the the arse to keep clean and undamaged.

I can see one big problem with copper tanks: the expense. And, of course, during wartime copper was urgently required by the munitions industry.

As with all brewing equipment cleanliness was vital. And there were plenty of spots that were tricky to keep clean.

“Conditioning tanks of whatever material should be thoroughly cleaned out with a stiff brush followed by liberal swilling with hot water as soon as they are empty. No deposit must be allowed to dry on. Particular care must be given to the fittings and washers connected with beer mains, sampling cocks, gauge glasses, thermometer pockets and so on, as deposits which harbour infection collect very readily at these spots. We have mentioned that wire brushes should not be used in glass-lined tanks, and even with copper tanks it is inadvisable to use them or to employ abrasives such as pumice. Small abraded particles of copper can be readily trapped in the crevices of the fittings and may oxidize and dissolve in the beer. A slight staining of the copper surface is of no account provided no scale is formed. Conditioning vessels must be provided internally with an efficient rouser, usually in the shape of a propeller fitted near the bottom of the tank, its shaft passing out through the side, top or bottom as most convenient, through a packing gland and driven from a pulley or by a separate electric motor. Special attention must be paid to the packing gland as a possible source of infection. The vessels may be cither vertical or horizontal.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 333.

Simple things like the fittings connecting pipes and other equipment could cause havoc in a brewery, if they became a source of infection. Brewers have been driven crazy by infections they couldn’t track down. One weak spot in all the miles of piping contained in a brewery was all it needed to big a brewery to its knees. The cases where the source couldn’t be found, usually ultimately led to a brewery’s closure. As in the sad case of Home Ales.

We’ll learn later of the essential role played by the rouser. There’s a lovely table I’ll be sharing that documents the process of conditioning a beer in a tank. It was all news to me. And more complicated than I’d anticipated.

Guinness’s Park Royal Brewery in 1949

Let's start the New Year with a real treat. Or a new interminable series, depending on how you look at it.

You may have spotted my obsession with Guinness. Not sure where it comes from. Maybe fond memories of bottle-conditioned Guinness Extra Stout. So I as dead happy when I found a long article about the Guinness brewery at Park Royal, London.

Why did they build the brewery in the first place?

“The construction of Park Royal was an event in the history of English brewing in that it was the first time in this country that a large brewery had been built on a clear site— one might even say, a green field—with nearly 200 years' experience of an existing brewery to draw upon and the difficulty overcome of starting up a completely new plant for a process which depends so much upon carefully conditioned vessels and other equipment. The operations of the Company and the Dublin Brewery are well known to the Brewing Industry, and as for some years it had been apparent that, since so large a proportion of the output from Dublin was being sent to England it would be economical to establish a brewery here for that trade, in 1933 it was decided to do so. Once the capacity of the English brewery had been determined by considerations of trade and distribution, the design of it was commenced and at the same time a survey made of probable sites.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 55, Issue 5, 1949, page 278.

I don’t totally believe the argument about why they built a brewery in London. Irish independence I believe was the key factor. It left Guinness in a vulnerable position, with the bulk of what had been its domestic market suddenly a foreign country. Should a British government decide to whack a hefty tariff on beer imported from Ireland, they’d be totally screwed. Having a plant in England removed this possibility.

Had the argument about shipping from Ireland been true, then you would expect all of the UK requirements to have been brewed in London. But they weren’t. Park Royal supplied the South, but the North of England and Scotland still got their Guinness from Dublin.

This explains the choice of site:

“The site selected was convenient to the Great Western Railway (now British Railways, Western Region) and the Grand Union Canal, and had excellent road connections, being adjacent to two of the main arterial roads in north-west London. The site was planned with a view to developing it on modern lines not only from the point of view of factory operational efficiency, but also to provide those amenities and facilities for the staff which have always been a feature of the Company's activities. The area of the site selected was about 137 acres, the eastern portion of about 45 acres being allocated to the brewery proper and the remainder of the land north and west to playing fields, employees' houses and other amenities. A feature of the site is the fall of the land contour from south to north, and the main brewery buildings were arranged with a view to the maximum use being made of this fall, the process flow following it as far as possible. ”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 55, Issue 5, 1949, pages 278 - 279.

Interesting that even in the 1930’s access to the rail network was still considered to be important. That’s an enormous site. Not sure anyone could afford so much land in London now. Which is probably why Guinness closed the brewery and sold off the land.
This lets slip that the brewery wasn’t intended to provide for all the UK’s supplies of Guinness:

“The brewery was designed for a normal production of 650,000 barrels per annum, with an overload production capacity of just over 1,000,000 barrels per annum with all plant in operation. The wisdom of this latter decision was manifest during the War, when with so many difficulties affecting materials, fuel, and transport from Eire, the ability of the Park Royal plant to produce this additional output was invaluable. Construction was commenced in November, 1933, and the first trial brew was run through in February, 1936. By the time War broke out in 1939 production had begun to approach the design figure as more and more plant was conditioned and brought into operation.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing Volume 55, Issue 5, 1949, page 279.

If you look at the sales of Guinness in the UK before WW II, you can see that it was only designed to produce about half of the UK’s needs. Even running full tilt, it wouldn’t produce enough:

Guinness sales 1930 - 1939
Year	Britain	Ireland	FES/Export	total
1930	1,380,718	784,863	31,352	2,196,933
1931	1,260,587	733,810	18,240	2,012,637
1932	1,056,670	668,326	14,735	1,739,731
1933	1,076,436	680,179	18,610	1,775,225
1934	1,143,271	689,194	22,717	1,855,182
1935	1,190,741	724,032	18,843	1,933,616
1936	1,200,751	726,741	21,430	1,948,922
1937	1,223,524	741,423	26,472	1,991,419
1938	1,166,782	757,827	20,419	1,945,029
1939	1,159,136	754,655	24,053	1,937,844
Source:
"A Bottle of Guinness please" by David Hughes, pages 276-279

Next time we’ll start looking at the different sections of the brewery in more detail.

Branded Odds and Sods in 1953

These are the beers which didn’t fall neatly into any of the other style categories. Or I just missed. It’s a bit of both.

Some are in recognisable styles: Golden Ale, Honey Beer, Black Beer. Others – Dark Ale, Dark Beer, Dark Heavy Ale – are extremely vague. Are they bottled Mild? A type of Brown Ale? One certainly was, Trubrown. I know that was Truman’s Brown Ale brand.

And I should have had Tuborg Export in the last set. I just missed it when I pulled out the Lager set. I’m pretty sure Tuborg Gold was/is in the Export style. Tuborg Guld (as it’s called in its homeland) is still brewed by Carlsberg. It’s the only one of these brands to survive. And, typically, it’s the one non-UK brand.

It’s sad to see how few British beer brands have survived. Even ones from successful breweries like William Younger. Even the mighty Bass struggles everywhere except North America.

Brown Bracer is my favourite. Conjures up all sorts of images, not all of them salubrious. While Kentish Beer could easily be used for comic purposes by someone with a coarser sense of humour than I.

Golden Mead Ale, to give it its full name, intrigues me. “The original and genuine honey ale” it says on the label. Which implies it did indeed contain honey. Though how much is the question. Having seen hundreds of barrels of Oatmeal Stout brewed from a grist contained just a few pounds of oats, I know how they took the piss. Honey was often appears in domestic beer recipes from the 18th and 19th centuries, but for most of that period wasn’t legal in commercial beer.

Hope & Anchor, you may recall, was where Eddie Taylor began on his merger spree. A spree which eventually led to the creation of Bass Charrington, Britain’s largest brewing group. Even before Taylor arrived, Hope & Anchor had been ambitious, trying to get their bottled beer – in particular Jubilee Stout – into other brewers’ pubs. No surprise someone like them would come up with a gimmicky Honey Ale.

Branded Odds and Sods in 1953
Brewery	Brand	Type
J. E. Mather & Sons	Jem	Black Beer
South Wales and Monmouthshire United Clubs Brewery Co.	Brown Bracer	Dark
Cairne's	Vat 25	Dark Ale
Truman	Trubrown	Dark Ale, bottled
Benskin's	Jubilee	Dark Beer
Wm. Murray	Wee Samson	Dark Heavy Ale
Andrew Buchan's Breweries	Chestnut	Dark, bottled
John Richdale	Brit	Dark, strong, draught
T. & J. Bernard	Grouse Brand	Export
Tuborg	Tuborg Gold Label	Export Beer
Wm. Hancock	Five Five	Export Pale Ale
Fremlins	Kentish Beer	Export Quality
Wm. Younger	Monk	Export, bottled
South London Brewery	Jenners	Golden Ale
Robert Younger	Old Edinburgh	Heavy Ale
Hope & Anchor	Golden Mead	Honey Beer
Source:
Brewery Manual 1953-1954, pages 382 - 394.

I’m finally done with this crap.

Bottled beer in the 1950’s – Bright Bottled Beers (part one)

We’re starting with the most common type of bottled beer in the 1950s: filtered and artificially carbonated.

It was still the standard type of bottled beer when I started drinking in the early 1970s. Which is probably why I rarely drank bottled beers. With modest gravities and hopping, little flavour was left after the heavy processing required to produce it. There was one big exception: Guinness Extra Stout. There was a bottled beer I drank regularly. Usually because there was either no cask beer or it was crap.

The occurrence of the word "bright" in the name of many of this type of bottled beer indicates how important clarity was for drinkers. Haze would make such beers unsaleable. As we look at this type of beer more closely you'll see how vital producing haze-free bottled beer was for the brewer.  As we look at this type of beer more closely you'll see how vital producing haze-free bottled beer was for the brewer.

Jeffery starts with a slightly odd assertion.

“Bright Bottled Beers

The necessary conditions for brewing a beer suitable for bottling have already been dealt with in Chapter 5 and little more need be added here. As to the advisability of making separate brews for draught and bottled beers, this will depend upon the brewing conditions. Many brewers consider that on no account should a beer for bottling be brewed in the same gyle as draught beer, but, on the other hand, many breweries successfully combine the two and, providing the quality of the malt, the mashing conditions and so on are suitable, this can be done quite successfully. The mistake should not be made of thinking that fine filtration will remove all danger of haze and compensate for poor materials or carelessness in brewing. On the contrary, such defects in the beer will increase the chances of haze formation in bottle.”

"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 332.

Let’s just say that I’ve seen plenty of brews from which both bottled and draught beer were produced. Whitbread, for example, parti-gyled all their Porters and Stouts, whether they were to be sold on draught or in bottles. As did Barclay Perkins. IBST, the original Russian Stout, was usually parti-gyled with their draught Porter.

Reading between the lines, it looks as if some brewers used lower-quality materials for their draught beers. Which definitely wasn’t the case at Whitbread.  They seem to have been careful to use good-quality ingredients for all their beers.

Something about conditioning vessels next:

“Bright bottled beers are almost always now conditioned in bulk, chilled and carbonated. Bulk conditioning has many advantages in ease of handling and control as well as lower losses.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 332.

What does that mean? It’s referring to the older practice of conditioning beer in either hogsheads or vats. Bass Pale Ale, for example, was filled into hogsheads which were delivered to bottlers or other brewers. I’m pretty sure this continued up until at least WW II. Probably finally dying out when Bass took all bottling in house. The advantage of a large tank over wooden hogsheads is pretty obvious.

Next we’ll be looking at the different types of conditioning tank.

Let's Brew Wednesday – 1950 Lees Bitter

Time to head off up North for some honest. A lovely, straightforward Bitter.

Lees brewed two Milds in the 1950’s, but only one Bitter. Called, er, Bitter. With an OG of 1041, it was a pretty decent strength for an Ordinary Bitter. I’m not sure of the ABV, because Lees couldn’t be arsed to fill in racking gravities in this period. I’ve guessed that attenuation was around 75%, which seems reasonable enough.

Older Bitter recipes are mostly very simple. As is this one – just pale malt, the tiniest touch of black malt and sugar. Oh, and a dash of enzymatic malt. Not sure if you can still get that. It was a big deal in the 1950’s, when brewers saw it as a wonder ingredient. Feel free to just use more pale malt.

The sugar is the problem. In the original, it’s a combination of an unspecified invert, CWA and something called proteinex. I’ve simplified it to all No. 2, though you could use a combination of No. 1 and No. 2.

Nothing is revealed about the hops in the brewing record, other than that they’re English. Fuggles and Goldings seem a reasonable assumption. As this is a Bitter, you could also go with all Goldings. I’d be amazed if the dry hops were anything other than Goldings.

As for the mash, I’ve simplified that a little. There was an initial mash at 148º F for 20 minutes, then an underlet to raise the temperature to 150º F, at which it was held for 100 minutes. Given how common this form of mashing was in the 20th century, I’m surprised how little I’ve seen it mentioned. It was bog standard in London, but was used elsewhere, too.

As it’s so simple, there’s not a great deal to say. Except give the recipe a try and imagine the glamour of Manchester in 1950 as you drink it.

1950 Lees Bitter
pale malt	7.75 lb	87.25%
black malt	0.008 lb	0.09%
enzymic malt	0.125 lb	1.41%
No. 2 invert	1.00 lb	11.26%
Fuggles 90 min	1.00 oz
Goldings 30 min	1.00 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.25 oz
OG	1041
FG	1010
ABV	4.10
Apparent attenuation	75.61%
IBU	27
SRM	7
Mash at	150º F
Sparge at	170º F
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	60º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1318 London ale III (Boddingtons)

Branded Lager in 1953

There are indeed a couple of more types I’ve not done yet. Isn’t this fun? Just you and me a pile of dead beer brands. Well, mostly dead.

Because this set contains rather more survivors than the others. Why? Because they were already big international brands. You’ll be wondering which they are. I count seven: Amstel, Carling Black Label, Heineken, Graham’s Golden Lager (now called Skol), Pilsner Urquell, Carlsberg and Tuborg. Though, as you may have noticed many of these are just the name of the brewery rather than a real brand name.

Most of the British-brewed examples come from Lager pioneers, brewers that had a dedicated Lager brew house or only brewed Lager: Ind Coope, Red Tower and Wrexham Lager Brewery. This is an interesting point in the history of British Lager. When it was about to move from being a niche product to a mainstream one. A few years later at the end of the 1950’s many regional brewers started to market their own Lagers, though how many of them were actually bottom-fermented and lagered is anyone’s guess.

Oddly enough, Lager has come full circle. The Lagers from regional brewers have mostly disappeared, replaced either by national brands such as Carling or international brands like Carlsberg and Heineken. So very much like the early 1950’s. Isn’t that a strange turn of events?

Branded Lager in 1953
Brewery	Brand	Type
Amstel	Amstel	Lager
Anglo-Dutch Brewers (Distributors)	Golden Tree	Lager
Brading Breweries Ltd., Canada	Cincinnati Cream	Lager
Canadian Breweries (International)	Carling's Black Label	Lager
Castletown Brewery Ltd.	Anchor	Lager
Dyer Meakin Breweries	Golden Eagle	Lager
Heineken	Heineken's	Lager
Ind Coope & Allsopp	Graham's Golden Lager	Lager
Ind Coope & Allsopp	Jacob's Lager	Lager
Pilsner Breweries	Pilsner Urquell	Lager
Red Tower Lager Brewery	Red Tower	Lager
South Australian Brewery	Regal	Lager
Wurzburger Hofbrau, Bavaria	Wurzburger Hofbrau	Lager
Charles C. R. Walker (Export)	Wyvern Brand	Lager Beer
Carlsberg Byggerierne	Carlsberg	Lager Beers
Backus & Johnston's Brewery	Maltina	Lager Stout
Tuborg Breweries	Tuborg	Pilsener
Wrexham Lager Beer	Ace of Clubs	Pilsener
Bryggeriet Stjerhen	Danish Star	Danish Pilsner
Source:
Brewery Manual 1953-1954, pages 382 - 394.

Only odds and sods left. Those next, then.

Random Dutch beers (part thirteen)

Christmas over, I can return to cheaty posts with nothing more than my random burblings about random Dutch beers.

Starting with one from the first of the new crop of Amsterdam breweries, De 7 Deugden. One that, unusually, had its own kit right from the go.

De 7 Deugden Scheepsrecht 7% ABV, €1.90 for 33 cl.
 "Tripel with a touch of cloves" it says on the label. I hope it is just a touch. It's a slightly mucky golden colour. That's my fault. I wasn't watching closely enough when the yeast appeared. I usually make a better job of it. Mmm. Don't know about a touch: I can smell the cloves without even putting my nose into the glass. And I've got a bit of a cold. Speculaas. That's what it smells like. I get orange in the aroma, too. I suspected this is what it was going to taste like: cloves with a bit of beer flavouring. Tastes like there's nowt wrong with the beer underneath. And they brewed it themselves. Which is more than can be said of a lot of the new Dutch beers I've tried. I'll be finishing this one.

It's one of the beers I picked up in Deen, one of the supermarkets nearby. They had an impressive range of beers from new Dutch breweries for Christmas.

Looking more closely at the very informative label, it says: "made from honest dune water". Or Amsterdam tap water, as it's more prosaicly called. Not that there's anything wrong with brewing from it. Quite the opposite. It's top-quality stuff without added chemicals. And a very low mineral content. Perfect for brewing. I wouldn't ever bother buying bottled water here. Whereas in Britain, I struggle to force it down. Like drinking from a swimming pool.

Next is another from Deen. But from a brewery-less brewer again. The label says it was brewed at 't Hofbrouwerijke in Belgium. That's good. Very transparent.

Tongval Zware Tongval 8% ABV, €2 for 33 cl.
I tried really carefully to pour this clear, but it still ended up full of floaters. Not my fault, this time. Grass and spice is all I get from the nose. Quite fizzy. Rather too fizzy, for my taste. My defizzing efforts leave it with a plump head, as tempting as a well-rounded bottom. Not too nasty, but not quite right. Beer shouldn't taste like turnip, should it?

This is a general point, drawn from my experiences of the last couple of weeks, not these two beers. Can't help thinking some of the new Dutch breweeries aren't going to be around long, if they don't get quality sorted.

Bottled beer in the 1950’s – the main types

It time to take a look at the three main different types of bottled beer, each of which had its own specific characteristics and process of manufacture.

We start with the most common type: filtered, artificially carbonated bottled beer.

“1. Carbonated and filtered bright beers; light ale and brown ale, together with stronger special ales. These are usually conditioned in bulk and carbonated. Fine filtration is usually relied upon to give a product which although not always completely sterile has a reasonable shelf life. In some cases the beer is pasteurized as an additional safeguard against biological haze, but this may have the effect of accelerating the onset of non-biological haze.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 331.

You’ll note that they specifically mention two of the most popular bottled beers down the pub – Light Ale and Brown Ale. There may have been stronger Brown Ales that were bottle-conditioned at some point, but I’m pretty sure Light Ale was always filtered and carbonated. I’m surprised that these beers weren’t always pasteurised by the 1950’s. Though bottled beers sold through pubs weren’t in a very long supply chain and wouldn’t have needed a shelf life measured in months.

Next is a fairly similar type:

“2. Stouts produced in a similar way to the above, that is conditioned in bulk and carbonated. These will either not be filtered at all or will be only roughly filtered, so that they will contain yeast and possibly other organisms. If they are of the non-sweet variety they may have a reasonable shelf life without pasteurizing, but there is always the liability for yeast growth to cause excessive condition, or growth of bacteria to affect the soundness. Sweet stouts, however, almost invariably need pasteurizing, as otherwise fermentation will occur in bottle, giving excess condition.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 330 - 331.

Much the same as type one, except not filtered so much. It’s pretty obvious why this would be dangerous in a Sweet Stout – it was likely to start fermenting again in the bottle. A good way to produce bottle bombs. Interesting that this is mentioned as being a method specifically for Stout. In an opaque beer like Stout, there wasn’t the same need for cosmetic filtering as in a pale beer.

And finally the proper way of making bottled beer:

“3. Naturally conditioned ales and stouts. These are first matured in cask or in bulk, or first in cask followed by further maturation in bulk, then bottled off with sufficient yeast and enough slowly fermentable matter to give some further fermentation in bottle, thus producing the necessary condition. These require further cellar storage of from three to four weeks after bottling and they require careful handling to ensure that they reach the consumer in satisfactory condition. As already mentioned, relatively few breweries produce their own beers of this category, preferring to bottle well-known brands. We shall deal with the three categories in order.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 332.

This method was already becoming limited to a few specific brands. By the time I started drinking in the early 1970’s just six naturally-conditioned bottled beers remained: Guinness Extra Stout, Worthington White Shield, Eldridge Pope Hardy Ale, Gale’s Prize Old Ale, Bass Red Triangle (actually the same beer as White Shield) and Own Ale, a beer from the first new brewery for decades, brewed on pretty much a homebrew scale. Amazing to see how much of a comeback this type has made. I’m sure it would have surprised Jeffery.

The process he describes - maturation in casks, then bottling with live yeast and allowing the beer to carbonate naturally – is much the same method as employed by Bass from the mid-19th century onwards.

Next we’ll be looking at artificially-carbonated beer in more detail.

Playing live

Live music. The real thing.

That's what I always thought. The purest, most real form of music.

Then I got my electronic music toys to play with. And my opinions mellowed.

Writing - the crap I spew our with way too much regularity here - is studio work. I splatter words on the page then squish them into a recognisable image. A lonely struggle between me and my ungrateful child words.

Lecturing. That's the writer's live show. When you're not holed up behind your PC, but (metaphorically) with your kecks off in front of a crowd. I love it.

The unscripted, powerpointless shows I love the best. The sheer terror of standing up, looking an audience in the eye without a single sentence prepared in your head. The sheer joy when the words tumble from your mouth without prompting. An avalanche or words that never stops. At least so far.

If you'd asked 12-year-old skinny me, what fat, old Ronald would be doing in the 21st century, standing in front of a crowd talking wouldn't have been his first guess. Or twentieth.

I never imagined being where I am now. 



Ronald Pattinson, renowned beer historian, is available to talk on a variety of topics. Pretty much anything. As long as there's some money in it.

Doctor Feelgood. 

Random Dutch beers (part twelve)

After some of the stinkers I've had recently, I'm playing it safe today.

Which is why I'm kicking off with a beer from Jopen. Should be no danger here.

Jopen Gerstebier 4.5% ABV, €1.75 for 33 cl.
Very pale yellow colour, with a washing-up style head. Bit cloudy, but that's my fault for not pouring it carefully enough. Minty and peppery hop aroma.  Malt, wort and more peppery jop in the gob. Interesting. It's based on an old Dutch top-fermenting style. Strangely lemony, with more peppery hop at the end. Not sure I'd drink it regularly, but tasty enough and slightly different.

A riskier one next. The last beer I had from De Vrienschap wan't great. Though, to be fair, I'd drunk their beer several times and that was the first duff one.

De Vriendschap Puike Pale Ale 6%
Mucky copper colour. I did try quite hard to pour it clear, but didn't quite manage it. An American hop thing going on in the aroms, plus a bit of something I think might be malt. Tastes old - has the raisiny mustiness of oxidation. Though according to the sell by date - June 2016 - it can't have been brewed that long ago. Ends with some marmaladey jaminess and a fair amount of bitterness. Slightly odd, but drinkable.

Phew! I escaped alive.

Loads more to come. Especially during Krimble. A sign of the times is the number of special beer for Christmas in our local Deen supermarket. They've around 20 beers from small breweries from Noord Holland. I'll be ploughing my way through them during the holidays.

Drinkalongathon 2015 - Aunt Florrie

13:59
I'm drinking a toast to Aunt Florrie. She had some great childhood Christmas stories.

"I always got a clout every Christmas." Is how they every tale ended.

Miss you.

Drinkalongathon 2015 - homemade blackberry thing and Carry on Loving

13:43
Moving down market, I'm now on a homemade liqueur that was the product of a blackberry glut and a harvest of cheap schnapps Dolores brought back from Germany.

The photo demonstrates why I always take an Imperial pint glass to the Borefts Beer Festival. Supposedly a beer glass, it's perfect for spirits.

The blackberry thing is really good. It's mellow sweetness and touch of sharp sourness helps me appreciate the coarse humour of the film.

A kid just appeared (Andrew). Didn't expect to see either before nightfall.

Drinkalongathon 2015 - smoked salmon and sherry

12:57
First proper food course of the day. With the first wine.

I'm a big sherry fan. Especially because it's so effing cheap. It's ridiculous really how little a decent sherry costs. Even our cheap supermarket job is pretty damn tasty. The smoked slamon we picked up at the Neighbourfood Market last weekend.

It's a cracking pairing, sherry and smoked salmon. If only because everything starts with as "S". That is the way these thyings work, isn't it?

I had some supposedly professionally assembled pairings at the beer hacks dinner earlier this month. Chocolate Porter with the venison was a particularly shite combination. Really shite. Everyone on our table kept it to drink with the dessert. My random lumpings together have never been as crap.

Drinkalongathon 2015 - Abt and Jamie

12:06
Time to flip the top off the first Abt of the day. Dolores is still busy fiddling with the first food in the kitchen. Only vicarious food, courtesy of Jamie Oliver.

What can I say? Abt goes with everything from cheese to divorce. Its essential Abtiness is the perfect counterpoint to anythingness. So why shouldn't it go with Jamie?

We're having gammon for Christmas din. What goes with that? Bitterness and recriminations? Or maybe a nice dry sherry. Or Abt. That goes with anything.

Drinkalongathon 2015 - coffee and carols

11:19
When to open the Isay? Now. Dolores has insisted on putting some religious stuff on the telly. Something spritual. What better to accompany it than s spitit. Lagavullin 16-year-old, to be precise.

The coffee snuggles up nicely with the raw smokiness of the whisky. And the fuzziness in my head is perfect for annoying the god-bothering in the background.

"It's a bit early for whisky, isn' it, Ronald?"

Well, it's your fault, really. I don't say. Some things are best kept to yourself.

Wondering if we'll see the kids today. Andrew went to bed just before 8 AM. Alexei just as me and olores were getting up.

Drinkalongathon 2015 - bacon sarnie and Ij IPA

10:43
Dull, I know. I've gone for the same breakfast combo as last year.

Pacing, that's what Christmas day drinking is all about. Don't shoot yout bolt to early, is what I say. Or is it Dolores?

The bittery hoppiness of the IPA compares and contrasts with the salty baconiness of the, er, bacon. And co,plements perfectly the camp junkiness of Celebrity Come Dine With Me. It's the perfect start to a very special day.

Must nip off now to start sharpening my string. Remember it needs to be sharp at both ends. Schoolboy error to just sharpen one end.

Big question of the day: when do I open the Islay. Lagavullin this year, by the way. Bought it myself. Just as well, because none of the other bastards in my family bothered.

Drinkalongathon 2015 - prepare your egg and string

10:06
It's time to start preparing for today's big event. Time to sharpen your string and boil your egg.

 Note that you'll be needing a longer piece of string this year. All will become clear later.

Been a strange year, 2015. Who would have thought that my name would appear in the official BJCP style guidelines?

Must have some breakfast. What goes with bacon? I'll have a think. The classic 'Spoons option would be a pint of cask London Pride. Sadly not possible in Amsterdam.

Drinkalongathon 2015

It's almost that time of year again. When I share my Christmas Day drinking with you.

If you'd like to join, you'll need all the usual things: a crate of St. Bernardus Abt, a bottle of good Islay whisky, sherry, port, wine and, obviously, a boiled egg and a piece of string.

It should be lots of fun. I'm not totally sure because I normally can't remember anything after 11 AM.

Random Dutch beers (part eleven)

Back again with this bullshit. Not been feeling that great.

Another brewery without a brewery. Evidently, the beer is brewed at De Fontein in Stein.

The Sisters Brewery Drone Porter 5.8%
Fairly dark brown. Smells like beer and nothing obviously nasty. Not too bad up front - bit of sweetness, touch of cream - but after that there's a wave of vegetable nastiness, with a touch of roast lurking in shame at the back. Literally leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. Mr. sink here it comes. And only €3.10 for 33 cl. Nice label.

Next is one from another non-brewery, but whose beers have mostly been OK.

Pampus Seeheld Pale Ale 5.5%
I always open beer next to the sink. This beer reminded me why. It exploded out of the bottle, all over my hand, on the work surface, down the sink. I doubt I got 10 cl. in the glass. The few drops there are, have a mucky orange colour. From the aroma, I'd guess Warrior and Citra hops. But there's something else? What is that? Something older. Bramling Cross? Only joking. They've helpfully listed the hop varieties on the label. Quite nice and bitter. Is citra the one that has the disinfectant edge to it? Quite fruity underneath the bitterness. Just a shame it pre-emptively threw itself down the sink. I'd quite liked to have drunk it all. Unlike the first beer.

The address on the label isn't far from where I live. And I worked somewhere even closer, on the same street, Johan Huizingalaan.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1850 Truman Double Stout

You may have spotted a slight 1850’s theme going on. There’s a good reason for that.

The plan is for a book of the recipes I mostly publish every Wednesday. I’ve sort of assembled most of it. And I noticed that there were recipes from every decade 1800 to 1970. Except for the 1850’s. Basically it’s a hole we’re attempting to fill.

That was dull, wasn’t it? Best crack on with the recipe. Or at least my bit of bullshit that precedes the recipe.

Nothing about this beer is particularly odd. It has the standard mid-19th century Stout grist of pale, brown and black malt. Some brewers through in some amber malt, especially for the posher Stouts, but by no means all. The percentage of black malt generally increased as the century progressed.  By the 1890’s, it was up to around 10% of the grist, while brown malt was down to around 14%.

I’m a bit reluctant to draw too many conclusions from that. Black malt wasn’t just one thing. They varied, depending on the maltster and the requirements of the customer. The one Truman used in the 1890’s might have been less roasted and paler than the one they used in the 1850’s, hence the need to use more to achieve the same effect. On the other hand, the black malt might have remained similar and the beer become darker and roastier.

Interestingly, Truman didn’t include the black malt in the total for malt. Meaning they assumed minimal extract from it.

This is quite a strong beer for a Double Stout, and probably closer to a Triple or Imperial Stout. They brewed a weaker beer just called Stout that was around 1080º, while their standard Porter was 1065º. See how that compares to the Brown Beers of other London brewers:

London Porter and Stout 1849 - 1850
Year	Brewery	Beer	OG
1850	Whitbread	P	1063
1850	Whitbread	S	1075
1850	Whitbread	SSS	1092
1849	Barclay Perkins	TT (Porter)	1061
1849	Barclay Perkins	BSt	1092
1850	Barclay Perkins	IBSt	1109
Sources:
Whitbread brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/09/044.
Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number ACC/2305/1/540.

IBSt, or Imperial Brown Stout, is the original Russian Stout. You can see that the terminology of the three doesn’t match. Truman Double Stout is about the same strength as Whitbread Triple Stout and Barclay Perkins BSt, which was their base level Stout. Complicated, isn’t it?






On that happy note, I’ll throw you over to Kristen . . . . .

Kristen’s Version:
Notes: It’s winter. Cold. Grey. Raining. At least if you are in the upperly hemispherical lattitudes… In the winter, I want dark beer. Specifically stout. Loads of it. Then again, in the summer, I want stout too. Merry Christmas/Summer, depending on where you lay your head.

Malt: Per most old schooly stouty stout recipes, this one is dominated by brown malt with some kick of black malt. Pick some good ones. I really like the Fawcett stuff. Don’t use ‘carabrown’ or whatever other poor ideas out there for making brown malt. If you can’t get it or use it, make something else as this beer will be very different. Two pale malts. Pick two…or one. Make it nice, it’s Christmas after all.

Hops: This beer is massively chuck full of hops. Loads of them. Loads and loads of them. I usually say make sure and use the low AA% stuff but, to me, this one can really do for a bit less greenery…like your mum’s garden. Anyway…high AA% will let this be drunk sooner for sure. Something citrusy, spicy or earthy plays well with the brown malt. Grapefruit not as well and dank and garlicky not at all.

Yeast: Same as the last one… You should have no problem with the beer finishing too dry with this one. The high mash temp, along with no sugar, should be easy to have a nice, rich finish. Just make sure it doesn’t finish too sweet!! A nice London ale yeast that lends some nice fruit but also will ferment this thing where it needs to finish.
 
Cask: Standard procedure:
1) let the beer ferment until finished and then give it another day or so. For me right around 5-7 days.
2) Rack the beer to your vessel of choice (firkin, polypin, cornie, whatever).
3) Add primings at ~3.5g/L
4) Add prepared isinglass at 1ml/L
5) ONLY add dry hops at 0.25g/l – 1g/L.
6) Bung it up and roll it around to mix. Condition at 55F or so for 4-5 days and its ready to go. Spile/vent. Tap. Settle. Serve at 55F.

Bottled beer in the 1950’s – what type to make?

There was no doubt that a brewery of any size needed to produce bottled beer. But How? There were several options open to the 1950’s brewer.

Really, it was the brewer’s customers who would decide what was made.

“To-day practically every pleasure party goes out with a supply of bottled beer. All these considerations contribute to a greatly increased demand for bottled beers. Having definitely established the fact that a trade in bottled beer is to be commended, it becomes necessary to decide the system and conditions under which bottling is to be carried out. If character and fullness of palate are to be the governing factors then no further discussion is necessary. In spite of every endeavour, it cannot be denied that chilling, filtering and carbonating do reduce those characteristics. It is not to be wondered that, for a long time, well-known firms stipulated that their beers were bottled under normal conditions only, that is to say, without being chilled, filtered or carbonated.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 331.

Interesting that “normal conditions” once meant bottle conditioned. By the 1950’s artificially carbonated were the norm, but by no means universal. In particular, some of the most famous brands of bottled beer – Bass, Guinness and Worthington – continued to be bottle conditioned, not just in the 1950’s but to the 1970’s and beyond.

Brewers were in no doubt that bottle conditioning, if performed correctly, resulted in a superior-tasting product. But that wasn’t necessarily the drinker’s main concern. They were more interested in a nice clear beer and no wasteful sediment.

“If, on the other hand, it is found that the customers care little for these attributes, and prefer bottled beers which have been subjected to artificial processes, then it is useless to endeavour to force upon them anything else. In fact there is no doubt that the overwhelming demand is for bright bottled beer. It has been said that nowadays 'the public drink with their eyes', and demand brilliance. This may be illogical, for a hazy beer can be as wholesome as a bright one and a naturally conditioned beer will certainly have a fullness of palate to which a carbonated, filtered beer cannot attain. Again, of course, naturally conditioned beer requires careful storage, handling and pouring if the sediment is not to be disturbed and it is to be drunk at its best. These points have reacted in favour of bright filtered beers. As a result the number of brewers who brew their own naturally conditioned beer has decreased and most breweries produce filtered beers of their own brewing, and are content to bottle a few well known brands of naturally conditioned beers.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 331.

Some of that sounds like modern hipster barman talk: “a hazy beer can be as wholesome as a bright one“. Though I’m sure Jeffery would be appalled by the orange juice masquerading as beer nowadays.

To sum up: the public didn’t really appreciate naturally conditioned bottled beer, it was more trouble to make, harder to store and needed to be poured carefully. That’s why everyone brewed carbonated beer.

The last phrase refers to the beers mentioned above, Bass, Guinness and Worthington. As I’ve repeated many times, the way they got other brewers to sell their beer in their tied houses was to let them bottle themselves, so getting the profit from bottling.

These figures from before the war show that this beer from other brewers could add up to a considerable amount:

Whitbread sales of Porter & Stout 1929 – 1938 (barrels)
	total Whitbread production	Guinness & Bass	total	% Guinness & Bass
1929	481,663	45,595	527,258	8.65%
1930	492,605	50,064	542,669	9.23%
1931	466,218	45,245	511,463	8.85%
1932	416,623	37,977	454,600	8.35%
1933	437,102	39,192	476,294	8.23%
1934	476,205	41,528	517,733	8.02%
1935	494,715	41,773	536,488	7.79%
1936	510,260	41,344	551,604	7.50%
1937	528,725	41,353	570,078	7.25%
1938	538,914	39,077	577,991	6.76%
Sources:
Whitbread archive document number LMA/4453/D/02/16
Whitbread brewing records

More details about the different types of bottled beer next.