Tied houses in the 1890s (part two)

I intended a single post based on the parliamentary debate on tied houses. Too many words.

Bite-sized is my aim with blog posts. Not much more than a screenful. That's about as much as I can be arsed to read. I'm guessing not many of you have a much longer attention span.

But I digress. To sum up what's going on: MPs arguing the toss about tied houses:

"Mr. G. Russell said his hon. friends, the members for Newcastle-under-Lyme and Leicester, were to be congratulated upon having elicited from a most competent judge, the hon. member for Burton, emphatic testimony in favour of the virtue of beer sold in free houses as against that of beer sold in tied houses. That testimony, however, was contradicted by no less an authority than the hon. member for Essex. Who should decide when brewers disagreed?"
The Brewers' Guardian 1895, page 132.

Bit of vested interests going on there. Most of the trade becoming tied buggered the big Burton brewers, who had relied on quality and reputation to sell their beer, rather than owning the pubs. Bass and Allsopp got into the tied trade too late and suffered the financial consequences.

Though it seems that certain famous brewers could get their beer into some "foreign" houses:

"Mr. Usborne denied that the beer supplied in free houses was much superior to the beer supplied in tied houses. As to the number of tied houses, he believed that quite 95 percent, were practically tied. He meant that the brewer or wholesale tradesman supplied the publican or retail tradesman with the capital with which he conducted his business. The number of publichouses was so large, and the competition consequently so keen, that it was easy for a publican to leave one house, if he was dissatisfied with the quality of the beer supplied, and to remove to another. Country brewers did not compel their tenants to sell their own beers exclusively. Any tenant of the firm with which he was connected could keep Allsopp’s ales or Guinness’s stout in stock if he chose to do so. He hoped a committee would be appointed to inquire into the question, because he was satisfied, and the trade were satisfied, that then the already often-contradicted and refuted statements made with reference to the tied-house system would be absolutely and completely exploded."
The Brewers' Guardian 1895, page 132.

Guinness managed to continue the pub-free model of business right through the rise and fall of the brewery-owned pub model. No-one else did. Bass sold a lot of beer through the pubs of others, but had a tied estate of their own. 

Those two breweries had products so desirable that even Whitbread sold considerable quantities through their pubs - all bottled by Whitbread, of course.

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

A bit later, I know. But 8% of Guinness or Bass? That's a lot of beer. Forty or fifty thousand barrels.

Let's Brew - 1879 William Younger 50/-

Yes, I've found a recipe in a book that I haven't published yet. And one of an unknown shilling number in the current bollocky designations.

The Scots brewed to a much larger range of gravities than English brewers. From super strong to super watery.

You might have found beers with gravities as low as 1040º in the English countryside, but not in London. A small provincial brewery wouldn’t have been brewing stuff at Imperial strength as well. Younger spanned the both. From the modestly-strengthed drinking Ales of the sticks, to the headiest beers of the capital.

At the lower end of the Shilling Ales, this would have been considered a Table Beer. More of a refreshment than an intoxicant. It’s a very straightforward beer, with a reasonable bitterness for its strength.

1879 William Younger 50/-
pale malt	8.25 lb	100.00%
Cluster 90 min	1.00 oz
Goldings 20 min	1.00 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.75 oz
OG	1036
FG	1007
ABV	3.84
Apparent attenuation	80.56%
IBU	35
SRM	4
Mash at	154º F
Sparge at	170º F
Boil time	105 minutes
pitching temp	59º F

 
The above is an excerpt from my excellent book on Scottish brewing:

Which is also available in Kindle form:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07Q8XHBL2

Tied houses in the 1890s

Boak & Bailey conveniently got the full version of the 1895 Brewers' Guardian available in Google books. Very useful for my book after next.

A quick flick through its pages resulted in me finding an interesting report on a House of Commons debate about tied houses. Which weren't very popular with some politicians

The debate kicked off with a tied house opponent:

"Some twenty or thirty years ago there were comparatively few tied houses in the country, but statistics now showed that at least 70 per cent, of the licensed houses were held in that way, and the rapid growth of the system was, no doubt, the result of keen competition between brewers. A return published in 1890 showed that in Liverpool some five or six brewery companies held between them no fewer than 504 publichouses, while the tied houses in St. Helens numbered 126, and in Portsmouth 212. In Birmingham one firm alone owned as many as 155, whilst one firm in Bristol headed the list with 287. Quite as bad a state of things prevailed in the country licensing districts. And not only were publicans tied in regard to the sale of beer and spirits, but in many cases the restrictions were applied to mineral waters, matches, and even the sawdust which was used in the spittoons. In some cases the publicans were only monthly tenants of the brewers, and as the licences were granted for a year he claimed that that tenure constituted an evasion of the licensing laws. The system bore very hardly upon the publicans, and in some of the agreements he had seen it was distinctly specified that the brewer or his agent should have the right to inspect the cellars of the house at any hour of the day or night. They were obliged, too, to sell whatever liquor was supplied, whether it was good, bad, or indifferent. In some cases he had to pay from 15 to 20 per cent. more for his liquor than the owner of a free house, with the result that he was compelled to force his trade by illegitimate means very often, so as to get a bare livelihood out of the house. Licences for the sale of drink were granted for the general well-being of the community; but it certainly was contrary to the interest of the public that in a very large number of licensed houses the only beer that could be obtained was the beer which some single firm of brewers choose to sell. In most cases it was bad beer made from the substitutes for malt and hops; and he therefore appealed for support for his motion to the hon. gentleman opposite, who strongly upheld the other night the use of pure beer and of the English barley-grower."
The Brewers' Guardian 1895, pages 130 - 131.

The percentage of houses which were tied was thrown around by a few speakers. Not always the same number. 70% seems to have been the most popular.

Why were tied houses so much more common than 20 or 30 years earlier? That's an easy one: the 1869 Licensing Act, which made it very difficult to obtain new licences and had provisions for actively reducing the number.

At a time when the population was increasing, the number of pubs was falling:

Pubs in England and Wales 1870 - 1895.
Date	Full	Beerhouse	Total Pubs	population	pop. per pub
1870	68,789	49,396	118,185	22,783,541	193
1875	69,184	43,884	113,068	24,045,385	213
1880	69,112	49,597	118,709
1881	68,632	38,309	106,941	26,046,142	244
1885	67,822	37,278	105,100	27,220,706	259
1890	67,315	36,498	103,813
1893	67,028	35,809	102,837
1895	66,750	35,351	102,101	30,451,528	298
Source:
Brewers' Almanack 1912, page 162.

With the number of potential outlets in decline, brewers increasingly tied pubs, either my outright purchase or by loans.

Tying pubs on matches and sawdust? That sounds very Sam Smiths

Beginning of the end for Barclay Perkins

The 1950s were troubling times for UK brewers. Beer consumption was falling and as a reaction mergers and takeovers were occurring at an increasing pace.

Early in 1955 a proposed merger between Courage and Barclay Perkins was announced.

"Big brewery merger in prospect
Courage and Barclay Perkins
Notes from our City staff — Friday Evening
The preliminary stages of an important brewery merger were announced today. The boards of Courage and Co. and of Barclay Perkins and Co. state that they have agreed in principle to the desirability of a merger by the formation of a holding company to acquire the share capitals of the two companies. An independent firm of chartered accountants, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co. has been instructed to prepare a report with a view to advising the respective boards as to a suitable basis for such a merger.

Issued capital of Barclay Perkins is £2,911,000 and of Courage £2,540,000. At December 31, 1953. assets of the last-named group £13,417,000, and at March 31, assets of Barclay Perkins amounted to £12,948,000. The two groups, whose headquarters are in London, have a large trade there and in the home counties."
Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Saturday 12 February 1955, page 7.

What surprised me is how similar in size the two breweries were. Both has assets of around £13 million. Though, with £2.9 million in issued capital compared to £2.5 million, Barclay Perkins was slightly larger in that respect.

With the two breweries so close together on the south bank of the Thames, it doesn't take a genius to work out the likely outcome.

"Both companies earned trading profits of more than £1,000,000 in their last accounting years, and in each ease they were higher than a year before and both increased their distributions. The motive for merging two such strong units is probably the familiar one that the big brewers are all trying to extend the area in which they can sell, in particular, their bottled beers — and amalgamation is a simple way of doing so. In addition. there are several districts in which both companies operate and, therefore, substantial saving in operating costs could be effected."
Birmingham Daily Post - Saturday 12 February 1955, page 15.

The obvious way to make a "substantial saving" was to close one of the breweries.With their trading areas pretty much identical, supplying both sets of pubs from one site wasn't going to be much of a logistical problem.

Yes, Barclay Perkins was profitable, but it was only making a net profit of just around £200,000 - less than it had in the 1930s. And it was operating at well below capacity. In 1955 it produced 228,343 barrels - less than half the 485,431 barrels it churned out in 1946. While it 1912 589,543 barrels were brewed.*

Did the Barclay directors realise what was going to happen? You think it would be pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain. But, having read Anthony Avis's book, it seems many brewery owners were blind to what selling up entailed long-term.  

* Document ACC/2305/1/711/1 in the London Metropolitan Archives

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1837 Whitbread KXXXX

The strongest of Whitbread’s Stock Ales, KXXXX, was real loony juice at around 11% ABV. You wouldn’t be drinking eight pints of it in a session.

The recipe is as simple as that of its weaker siblings: base malt and English hops. But that’s just the way things were in the first half of the 19th century. Crazy strong beers with uncomplicated recipes.

London brewers didn’t stick with the strongest Ales for very long. Both XXXX and KXXXX had been discontinued by 1845. Not that very much of them had ever been brewed. No more than a couple of hundred barrels a year, at most.

I've lowered the FG from the racking gravity given in the brewing record as, after a year or so with Brettanomyces slowly chewing its way through the sugars Saccharomyces couldn't ferment, it would have been much lower when the beer was sold.

1837 Whitbread KXXX
mild malt	22.50 lb	100.00%
Goldings 120 mins	3.50 oz
Goldings 30 mins	3.50 oz
Goldings dry hops	1.50 oz
OG	1099
FG	1025
ABV	9.79
Apparent attenuation	74.75%
IBU	65
SRM	9
Mash at	154º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	59º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread Ale

This recipe is in my two new books, Strong! vols. 1 & 2 and Strong! vol.2.

Beers sweetened with sugar (Karamelbier)

It's been far too long since I posted anything from Schönfeld's "Obergärige Biere und ihre Herstellung". Having been rather distracted by working on the forthcoming book on WW II.

Today we'll be looking at another type of sweetened beer, Karamelbier. One sweetened with sugar rather than artificial sweetener. It's a type of beer which is still produced, I believe, though in tiny quantities.

I'm surprised to discover that the original production method left yeast in the beer. Which seems awfully dangerous in a beer containing lots of highly-fermentable sugar.

"c) Beers sweetened with sugar (Karamelbier)
If sweetener-sweetened beer owes its origin to the war, sugar-sweetened Malzbier (Karamelbier) appeared around 16 years earlier. The original method of production, which is still used, consists, if it is bottled beer, of adding sugar to the beer after fermentation (vat fermentation), then it is filled into bottles and, after sufficient sediment has formed, further fermentation is prevented by pasteurisation.

The formation of sediment can be accelerated by the application of heat, which is often done, and can easily be carried out in such a way that the bottles are either brought into warm rooms or straight into the pasteurisers, which have been appropriately warmed up.
"Obergärige Biere und ihre Herstellung" by Dr. Franz Schönfeld, 2nd edition, Verlag von Paul Parey, Berlin, 1938, page 135 - 136.

I guess pasteurisation would effectively avoid any bottle bombs. Newer methods of making Karamelbier sought to remove yeast from the equation:

"Soon, however, the goal became apparent to fill the sugar-sweetened beer into bottles and containers without yeast. Some proceed in such a way that they transfer the beer into a storage barrel after the sugar has been added and stop the secondary fermentation early when the beer is sufficiently saturated with carbonic acid, and then filter it. Others first filter the lagered beer and transfer it onto tanks into which the sugar solution has previously been poured. Still others add the sugar solution to the shipping barrel before the beer is drawn off.

By means of cold storage and careful filtration, the beer can be made

to contain so little yeast that,

despite its high sugar content, it can still be kept for 8 to 10 days as a draught beer, so that for customers not too distant from the brewery can be supplied without it being pasteurised, without the risk of it becoming "wild" through a vigorous secondary fermentation. Of course, the landlord also has to ensure that it is kept cool. He must not have the barrel lie under the tap for too long. He must be careful to pour the beer quickly. In accordance with sales, he should order the appropriate sizes of barrel and order smaller barrels from the brewery rather than larger ones.

The unpasteurised beer is not suitable for shipping over long distances or for longer storage at the pub. The high sugar content, provides favorable conditions for the growth of yeast, and with increasing growth the attack on the easily-fermentabe sugar increases. It is therefore one of the most important measures to bring the beer to the shipping barrel as bright as possible and thus with as little yeast as possible. But not only this, but also to transfer it with the highest possible carbonic acid content, since the carbonic acid counteracts the yeast's growth; though it is unable to stop it completely."

"Obergärige Biere und ihre Herstellung" by Dr. Franz Schönfeld, 2nd edition, Verlag von Paul Parey, Berlin, 1938, page 136. 

I'm surprised that Karamelbier was sold on draught. Especially given what sounds like an inherent instability. I've never heard of it as anything other than a bottled beer.

Does CO2 really inhibit yeast growth? Never heard of that one before. Wouldn't that bugger bottle conditioning in a beer like Duvel?

"It is therefore necessary, especially with bottled beer, whether it contains yeast or not, to ensure shelf life by pasteurisation. A sufficient level of safety is achieved by a temperature of 70-72º C, which must be maintained for one hour. Rapid cooling is not required. Experience has shown that it is more expedient and more advantageous for the beer to cool slowly, which is why certain devices, e.g. the vapour pasteuriser dispense with water cooling, but rather pull the cart loaded with the bottles out of the chambers shortly after the pasteurization and let the air in the room do the cooling.

The slow cooling has a beneficial influence on Malzbier in that it enhances the roasted, malty, bready taste that is valued in Karamelbier."

"Obergärige Biere und ihre Herstellung" by Dr. Franz Schönfeld, 2nd edition, Verlag von Paul Parey, Berlin, 1938, pages 156- 137.

I wonder why slow cooling enhanced the malt flavours? Is that why UK pasteurised beer tasted so bad? Was it cooled too quickly.

Dodgy crown corks

Court case often give a brief glimpse into one aspect of the brewing industry. This article provides several insights. I'll explain exactly what later. 

First read the article:

"DUNDEE FIRM
CLAIMS CORKS SPOILED BEER  
Alleged faulty corks, resulting in beer being spoiled, are the subject of action by Dundee firm against the cork suppliers in the Court of Session.

Alexander Graham Dunn, bottler, sole partner of Messrs William Smith, bottlers, 160 Nethergate, claims £475 12s 2d from the Defiant Crown Cork Co., Thames Iron Works, Lewisham, London.

Dunn states that in September 1948 customers said bottled beer he supplied was defective, because it had musty smell and flavour, and was undrinkable. They rejected the beer.

On inspection the corks were found to defective, and the beer was spoiled. Beer returned was as follows:—290 dozen bottles Guinness, valued at £159 10s; 25 dozen bottles Barclay Perkins Red Label stout, valued at £15; and 172 dozen half pints of bottled Bass beer, valued at £107 10s.

He alleges that the defective state of the corks was due to breach of contract by the London firm. The corks after use were discoloured, blackened, with musty smell. Dunn believes and avers that the corks were of inferior quality and contained pitted holes when delivered. It is also believed that the holes contained bacteria which were invisible to inspection, but which caused mould and caused the bad taste.

Dunn also states that his suppliers did not sterilise or pasteurise the corks before delivery, the normal and proper practice. Had they done so the corks would not have become mouldy and discoloured.

NOT IN DAMP
It is denied that the cases of corks were deposited on the floor of a damp cellar. They were stored in a dry cellar. Other corks from the same suppliers, stored in the same cellar, were perfect for at least year. In any event, the corks were not damp when put in the bottles, and would not have been used had they been damp. Prior to being used in the bottles they were clean and normal in colour, and had no visible defect or bad smell.

The sum claimed represents the value of the beer and stout returned, cost of carriage of the bottles to and from the customers, and loss of profit.

The Defiant Crown Cork Co., who deny liability, state that corks returned to them by Dunn were affected by mould, caused by the corks being stored in damp conditions. Corks in a full and unopened case also returned were in perfect condition. They explain that cork is a natural product, and all corks contain pitted holes which are inherent in their nature. When the corks were delivered to Dunn they did not contain bacteria.

The corks underwent a heat treatment in manufacture, and were thoroughly sterilised. These corks form only a small fraction of a batch made on the same day, and no complaints have been received from other users. If the contents of the bottles became unusable it was not caused by any defect in the corks.

It is also denied that any discoloration, blackening or mustiness arose in the corks only after use in the bottles. The case of corks complained of was at least six months old and cases sent to Dunn after the one complained of had been used, before it.

CASE ON FLOOR
When examined by their Glasgow agent, the case was deposited on the floor of a damp cellar, and appeared to have been there for some time. It was lying opposite a wide door through which dampness could come.

The defect in their condition was due to being kept in the damp cellar since February 1948. Dunn knew that corks should be stored in a dry place, and that dampness encouraged the growth of various moulds. Moreover, he failed to use the corks in the order in which they were sent to him. Further, he or his servants ought to have inspected the corks within a reasonable time after delivery, and in any event prior to using them.

It is believed that any discoloration or blackening was due to iron sulphide and iron tannate, and could not have communicated a foreign odour or flavour to the contents of the bottles, but the presence of such discoloration or blackening should have attracted their attention prior use, and have caused them to make the further simple examination by smelling them. This would have revealed at once that the corks had a musty smell.

Proof will be heard on October 31."
Dundee Courier - Wednesday 04 October 1950, page 3.

 Where to start? With the beers themselves.

Guinness and Bass are exactly the type of beers you'd expect to be seeing bottled by a third party. But Barclay Perkins? Unlike Bass and Guinness, it wasn't a brewery which got its beers into lots of other breweries pubs. And Scotland is an awfully long way away from their usual London market.

But I'd already found several advertisements for Barclay's Stout in Scottish newspapers.  I expect that they had to pull out of it due to zoning during WW II. Only a select few brewers - such as Bass and Guinness - were allowed to distribute nationally. Everyone else was only allowed to sell beer within a certain distance of the brewery. Distant tied houses were supplied by brewers closer by.

Clearly, Barclay's Scottish trade did return after the end of zoning. Though I could have surmised that from their brewing records. As one of their post-war beers had the brew house name of IBSt Sc. That is a version of Russian Stout especially for the Scottish market. In 1950, weak enough to count as a session beer.

We also get to see what the wholesale price of the three beers was. I'll spare you the maths, but the Guinness works out to 11 shillings per dozen, Barclay's Stout 12 shillings and Bass 12 shilling and sixpence. It says something of its perceived quality that Barclay's was more expensive than Guinness, itself not a cheap beer.

Third-party bottlers - companies whose sole business was bottling other breweries' beers. It was quite a big thing in the first half of the 20th century, but slowly petered out in the 1960a and 1970s.

This case illustrates the danger for a brewer. By farming out bottling to another company they lost control of the quality. You could end up with undrinkable beer through no fault of your own. That's probably one of the main reasons the practice died out.

William Younger Holyrood Beers in 1938

William Younger’s second brewery, Holyrood, was built in the 1860s.  Intended to be a Pale Ale brewery, it was fitted with union sets.  

On the eve of WW II, Holyrood was, indeed, almost exclusively churning out Pale Ales of various descriptions. The only exception being an occasional batch of No. 3.

Only three Pale Ales were produced at both breweries: XP Btlg, XXP Btlg and XXPS. LAE, XXPS Btlg and Pale XXPS were exclusive to the Abbey Brewery. While P, P Btlg, Pale 3 (IPA Pale), XP and XXP only emanated from Holyrood. Simple, isn’t it?

Once again, the OGs fit quite well into the 4d, 5d, 6d, 7d and 8d per pint gravity bands. Ext – which I assume stands for “Export – was about as strong as UK Pale Ales got in the 1930s. At least ones intended for domestic consumption.

Don’t be fooled by the apparently poor degree of attenuation. That’s a cleansing gravity rather than a real FG or even a racking gravity. I know from analyses of beers as sold that the rate of attenuation was really higher.

At under 5lbs per quarter (336 lbs) of malt, the hopping rate is feeble. In London Pale Ales were hopped at a rate 7.25 - 10 lbs per quarter by Whitbread  and 7.5 lbs by Barclay Perkins.

Dry hopping is on the low side, too, just 2-3 ozs per barrel. In 1939, Barclay Perkins Pale Ales received 3-6 ozs. 

William Younger Holyrood Beers in 1938
Date	Beer	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	lbs hops/ qtr	hops lb/brl	dry hops (oz / barrel)
17th Oct	P	1033.5	1011	2.98	67.16%	3.00	0.38	1.93
5th Jul	XP	1037	1012	3.31	67.57%	3.00	0.42	2.14
19th Oct	XP Btlg	1037	1012	3.31	67.57%	4.81	0.67	1.99
20th Oct	P Btlg	1042	1010	4.23	76.19%	4.83	0.75	1.98
18th Oct	XXP	1043	1013	3.97	69.77%	3.18	0.52	1.99
20th Oct	XXP Btlg	1043	1011	4.23	74.42%	4.83	0.77	2.03
17th Oct	XXPS	1048	1015	4.37	68.75%	3.29	0.69	2.31
5th Jul	Pale 3 (IPA Pale)	1055	1017	5.03	69.09%	4.25	0.89	3.03
6th Jul	Ext	1055	1017	5.03	69.09%	4.84	1.00	2.55
8th Jul	3	1055	1018	4.89	67.27%	3.25	0.69	2.05
Source:
William Younger brewing record held at the Scottish Brewing Archive, document number WY/6/1/3/77.

Paperback edition of Decoction available again

For some reason, the paperback edition of Decoction! has been set by Lulu to "private access". Which means only I can order it.  And I haven't been able to find a way to set it to general access.

As a short-term measure, I've set up a way you can order it via me. You just need to click this button:

Let's Brew - 1879 William Younger No. 2

Of Younger’s four numbered Ales, No. 1 and No. 3 had the most legs, stretching past WW II. No.2 didn’t quite manage such a long run, being discontinued during WW I.

It’s another very simple recipe. It includes two types of pale malt. That’s about all I can say about the malt, as the description is an unreadable squiggle. If you were to hold a gun to my head, I’d guess that some was from foreign barley.

The hops are listed as Spalt, American, Californian and Kent. The quantity of Spalt, however, is so small that I’ve combined it with the Goldings. As in the recipe below, the bulk of the hops were from the USA.

Lasting 8 days, the fermentation was longer than most at Younger. Fairly warm, too, as most of it was in the high 60’s F.

The finished beer looks to be very pale and very bitter. It probably tastes like a modern DIPA.

1879 William Younger No. 2
pale malt	19.50 lb	100.00%
Cluster 90 min	3.50 oz
Cluster 60 min	3.50 oz
Goldings 30 min	1.75 oz
Goldings dry hops	1.50 oz
OG	1084
FG	1035
ABV	6.48
Apparent attenuation	58.33%
IBU	135
SRM	6
Mash at	156º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	55º F
Yeast	WLP028 Edinburgh Ale

This recipe is in my wonderful book, Let's Brew!:

Good news and bad news

Things didn't go back to normal immediately after the end of WW II. In some ways they got worse.

Below is a circular letter from Barclay Perkins to their tenants announcing the good news that some draught KK (Burton Ale) would be available in the the winter of 1946/47.

1/5 per pint was a bit steep - it's more than double the pre-war price of 8d. But at least pubs could get some Burton Ale.

Except for every 3 barrels of KK they ordered, a pub was entitled to four fewer barrels of draught Mild or Bitter. Not exactly great.

The surprising thing is that Barclay Perkins continued to brew Burton Ale right through the war. Though its gravity had fallen from 1057º to 1044º. So to about the same strength as XX, their Best Mild, had been in the late 1030s.

The three for four wasn't such a bad deal, as both XX and XLK were less than three-quarter of the strength of KK, as they were both around 1031º.

The difficult choices a publican had to make in the hard years of post-WW II austerity.

KKKK revelation

As part of my research for my upcoming book on Barclay Perkins in WW II, I've been OCR'ing their circular letter. Checking the text keeps revealing stuff I missed when just glancing at the images.

Until, well, 15 minutes ago, I'd assumed Barclay Perkins Old Burton Ale, KKK was a winter seasonal. Then I saw this:

DRAUGHT BEER ORDERS - EASTER 1944.
In order to ensure delivery of the above, will you kindly order at least two thirds of your requirements for the 2 weeks including Easter, of KKKK., KK., and XLK, so that they may be delivered during the week March 27th to April 1st.

The Ales (A., X., and X.X.,) required for Easter should be ordered for delivery during the week April 3rd to 7th.
Barclay Perkins Circular Letters held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number ACC/2305/01/521/1.

That explains why I've found brews of KKKK in January and February as well as September and October, as you would expect.

I've seen other references to the Easter trade, which imply that it was one of the peak periods of demand for beer, along with Christmas and New Year.

Note that the Burton Ales and Bitter needed to be ordered a week earlier earlier than the Mild Ales.Which implies that the production of these beers took longer.

Still learning so much from looking just a little bit closer at the material I already have. And in some cases have had for ages.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1906 Barclay Perkins KK

A decade and a half later and the trend to darken Burton Ales has reached its endpoint. With KK now very firmly in the dark camp.

The dark colour is mostly courtesy of a very healthy dose of caramel added to the copper. That and the No. 2 sugar. Strangely, there’s no crystal malt in this one. Though there are two base malts: pale malt and SA malt. I’ve substituted mild malt for the latter. SA (Strong Ale) malt was designed to produce a less fermentable wort, presumably to leave more for the Brettanomyces to munch on during secondary fermentation.

I know for certain that this beer was aged as there’s a note in the brewing record saying: “Oct. 28/06, Very Grey”. Which was 5 months after it was brewed.

Despite being fairly strong, this wasn’t a small speciality side-line: this batch was 1,027 barrels. As I’m pretty sure it was aged in trade casks, it must have taken up considerable cellar space in the brewery

A mix of English and American hops were use. Specifically, East Kent from the 1905 harvest, American from 1904 and Mid-Kent from 1904. And more East Kent from 1905 as dry hops.

1906 Barclay Perkins KK
pale malt	6.75 lb	45.38%
mild malt	4.00 lb	26.89%
flaked maize	1.50 lb	10.08%
No. 2 invert sugar	2.50 lb	16.81%
caramel 2000 SRM	0.125 lb	0.84%
Cluster 120 mins	1.50 oz
Fuggles 120 mins	1.50 oz
Goldings 60 mins	3.00 oz
Goldings 30 mins	3.00 oz
Goldings dry hops	1.75 oz
OG	1073
FG	1020.5
ABV	6.95
Apparent attenuation	71.92%
IBU	107
SRM	23
Mash at	153º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	60º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread Ale

This recipe is in my two new books, Strong! vols. 1 & 2 and Strong! vol.2.

Reading between the lines

Another document I'd never realised the importance of on first glance is the one below.

 It's a fairly mundane letter, informing tenants that Barclay Perkins will be supplying them with all their draught beer from Park Street.

The implication being that they hadn't been able to supply every draught beer. Taking in conjunction with my earlier post about the bomb damage to Park Street in September 1940, it all makes sense. Damage to the brewery had left Barclay Perkins unable to fully supply their pubs. At least for a couple of months.

"14th February, 1941.

Dear Sir or Madam,

We are glad to inform you that as from MONDAY, 3rd March, we shall, unless unforeseen circumstances arise, be able to supply you with all DRAUGHT BEERS from the Brewery here, at Southwark.

It is necessary, however, to lay the STRONGEST EMPHASIS on the fact that your orders MUST reach the Brewery (by TELEPHONE if possible) BEFORE 11 a.m. on the DAY PRIOR TO THAT ON WHICH BEER IS REQUIRED, AND THAT YOUR DAY OF DELIVERY WILL BE THE SAME AS THAT UPON WHICH DRAUGHT BEERS WERE SUPPLIED TO YOU BEFORE OUR OUTPUT WAS TEMPORARILY RESTRICTED. YOUR DAY OF DELIVERY WILL BE        ONLY.

The success or failure of resuming deliveries from Southwark in these difficult times is entirely dependent upon your strict adherence to this arrangement.

Please note that the following Beers have been deleted from our List:-

XX (Dark)
X (Light)
P.A.

Yours faithfully,
BARCLAY PERKINS & CO. LTD.

SPECIAL NOTE.
ALL BEERS DELIVERED TO YOU BY OTHER BREWERS MUST BE USED UP BEFORE COMMENCING UPON THOSE SUPPLIED BY US PROM SOUTHWARK."
Barclay Perkins Circular Letters held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number ACC/2305/01/521/1.

 The "Special Note" confirms that other brewers had been supplying draught beer. It sounds like Barclays wanted a clear distinction between other brewers' beers and their own by insisting that the foreign beers be used up before tapping those from Park Street.

Good news that Park Street appeared to be fully up and running again.