Brewing waters

I'm working away furiously at my new Scottish book. And I rec ently noted a huge gap in my knowledge of Scottish beer: the makeup of brewing water.

I'm pretty sure that I have searched for analyses of Edinburgh water in the past, but without much luck. I vaguely thought that it was similar to Burton water, but wasn't sure, not having any real numbers. Ed Wray helped me out with a scan from Lloyd Hind. Which prompted me to look in my own copy of the book. Where I found the handy table below.

It sems my assumption was well far off the mark. Edinburgh water is quite different to Burton's. More sodium, but less magnesium, calcium and way less sulphates and carbonates. Though you'll note that there are far fewer minerals in the third Burton sample. As I delight in pointing out - probably to everyone else's great annoyance - there's no such thing as Burton water, as every well produces water with a different set of minerals.

That said, the sulphate content of Edinburgh water is high compared to most others, Burton excepted, of course. Was it enough to help Pale Ale brewing? I don't really know, to be honest. I'm not that up on water chemistry, if I'm honest If you are, feel free to share your expertise.

Classification of Hard Brewing Waters (parts per 100,000)
	Carbo- nate ratio	Total solids	Na	Mg	Ca	NO3	CI	S04	C03	Geological formation
GROUP A.
1, Burton-on-Trent	13	219.2	4.6	8.2	51.2	4.3	6.7	130.1	141	Keuper marl
2. Burton-on-Trent	25	122.6	3	6.2	26.8	3.1	3.6	65.8	141	Gravel beds
3. Burton-on-Trent	39	81.1	4.3	5.8	15.6	5	7.3	29.3	13.8	"        "
4. Bedfordshire	49	78.8	6	0.9	19	4.8	3.1	30	15	Lias
GROUP B.
5. Co. Durham	54	76.5	7.4	3.5	14.4	1.2	11.4	21.1	16.5	Magnesian Limestone
6. Dortmund	60	101.2	6.9	2.3	26	—	10.7	28.3	27
7. Gloucestershire	60	67.8	4.5	4	13.6	0.3	3.6	23.5	18.3	Magnesian Limestone
8. Bedfordshire	66	55.5	4.6	0.8	13.9	0.6	3	17.6	15	Oolites
GROUP C.
9. Lancashire	68	61.5	3.9	4.5	12.1	0.3	6.7	14	20	New Red Sandstone
10. Lincolnshire	69	45.8	3.4	0.4	12.2	4	3	9.6	12.2	Lower Oolite
11. Edinburgh	70	80	9.2	3.6	14	3.1	6	23.1	21	Old Red Sandstone
12. Yorkshire	77	41.2	2.3	1.7	10.5	1.8	3	6.6	15.3	New Red Sandstone
13. Lancashire	78	24.7	1.6	1.4	5.5	1.7	2.4	2.9	9.2	"              "
14. Berkshire	80	30.3	0.5	0.9	10	0.5	3.6	0.6	14.2	Chalk
GROUP D.
15. Gloucestershire	85	27.7	0.9	0.6	8.8	1	1.6	2.4	12.4	Lias
16. London M.W.B.	85	32	2.4	0.4	9	0.3	1.8	5.8	12.3
17. Nottinghamshire	85	24.6	1.2	3.2	3.6	0.2	1.6	3.4	11.4	New Red Sandstone
18. Surrey	86	29.7	1.6	0.2	9.3	2.6	2.3	1.4	12.3	Chalk
19. Hertfordshire	92	44.6	3.8	7	11.8	3.2	3.5	4.5	17.1	"
GROUP E.
20. Munich, Dublin	97	27.5	0.1	1.9	8.1	0.3	0.1	0.5	16.5
21. Lancashire	100	23.9	2.7	1.4	4.4	0.9	1.7	2.7	10.1	New Red Sandstone
22. Lancashire	100	38.4	1.9	3.4	8.4	-	1.7	1.8	21.2	"              "
Source:
Brewing: Science and Practice 1: by Herbert Lloyd Hind, 1940, page 458.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1938 Maclay’s IPA

For the first time in what seems like years, Kristen is back with a recipe. All I can say is: welcome back Sonic.

We’ve chosen one of my favourite styles. Well, favourite since I invented it a couple of weeks age. English Watery IPA. It’s amazing how many more beers fit my definition than the official BJCP English IPA guidelines.

Maclay’s records are some of the dullest around. Because they mostly only had one recipe, from which they’d parti-gyle four beers. In the 1930’s these were IPA 5d at 1032º, IPA 6d at 1036º and IPA 7d at 1042º and Strong Ale at 1075º. They were still brewing the first three 50 years later, to a similar recipe, just with the gravities 2º lower. Though by then they were marketed as 60/-, 70/- and 80/-. Effectively this is a pre-war 70/-.

Maclay are typical of every Scottish brewery I’ve looked at, with the exception of William Younger. They all had three different strength Pale Ales and perhaps a Strong Ale, depending on the period. After WW II, virtually nothing but Pale Ale was brewed in Scotland. And Lager, I suppose. Scottish brewing was much less interesting than it appeared from the outside.

The attenuation is pretty crappy, but that’s Scotland for you. The Scottish practice of having the FG of all Pale Ales very similar, whatever their OG is partly to blame. In general, the stronger the beer, the greater the degree of attenuation. I suppose that it’s all about body.

If you want to go full Scottish, you split up the batch and colour each up differently with caramel. Then get friends to try them without saying it’s the same beer and see which they like best. You can colour up from as brewed to around 25 SRM maximum.




And with that, it’s over to Kristen . . . .

Kristen’s Version:
Notes: Holy crapfilled buckets. Talk about a busy year. I moved, got thinner, then fatter, then thinner, and many other excuses kept me from doing more of these last year. Not just kept from writing, but kept from bloody making! Seriously. I only made a handful of historic beers at the brewery last year which is damn sad. But it changes now. Today. I mean yesterday. Just made a version of this beer yesterday. It felt good. It will be on tap in the next few weeks. Should be fun. Why this beer? Well, frankly, we gotta start somewhere and this beer is weird, for an IPA. The Scots, always the weird ones. Such a small dose of dry hops. When I said I brewed a version of this for the brewery, this is what I meant. I’ll probably end up adding more dry hops in but we’ll see. Its your beer, you do as you like, but don’t be silly. Actually, I’m turning over a new leaf. Be silly and put in the dumbest things you want. Dry hop with 8g/L. Use a Belgian yeast. Make a batch, open a brewery, use this beer. Make sure and say its traditional, no matter what you do to it. I’m sure it will be great. Actually, I’m turning over a newer leaf. I’m going to be fueled by rage, caffeine and alcohol this year. 2017 is the year of the Rage-O-hol…and rye, in whiskey, not beer, don’t be silly. Wait, be silly. I don’t listen to myself often. Seriously though. Yous gonna need to drink an awful lot of this beer to get that alcohol fuel…which is perfect for getting your maladjusted expletive-strewn sense of self-righteousness aligned (e.g. temet nosce)…and plenty of room for some nice Rittenhouse.

Malt:  An American malt, English, Scottish and Egyptian. Yes, Egyptian. So if you have some Egyptian, use it, as it would be sweet and I don’t know anyone that has every used any. Most important, is choose a nice blend of whatever you’d like. This one isn’t so much about the malt as it is about the invert. Most of you haven’t used as much invert in this small little recipe in a whole year, let alone one recipe. Buy it if possible. If not, make it using the dilution method (http://www.unholymess.com/blog/beer-brewing-info/making-brewers-invert). I suggest the dilution because I’m frankly sick of people coming up to me and arguing that a beer is supposed to taste a certain way when they’ve cocked it up completely by trying to make invert sugar and then convincing all their friends it tastes great and having them email me to yell at me. Again, do what you’d like, it’s gonna be great.

Hops: To keep the same tannic grip this will have make sure and use some lower AA hops in the kettle to get your ‘greens’ up. You see the tiny amount of dry hops. Follow it…or don’t. I wouldn’t do more than 1lb/bbl (~4g/L) though. I’d suggest half that if you want to make it bright without destroying the balance of the beer. I like Styrian goldings for this. Nice and bright ones…or any of their variants…Celeia, Bobek, etc etc. Have fun with it. Also, please note that there are these things called scales. You can buy a certain unit (1oz, 5kg, etc) and not have to use it all. You’ll be surprised home many brewers, including pro-brewers, that add hops based on ‘units’ and never even think about how the beer would change if they stopped using whole numbers. Do so, use bits of a number. I can tell you from experience, a beer I do with 2.7g/L dry hop is completely thrown out of balance at 3g/L. It’s the little things. Care about them. Or don’t. I’m sure it will be fine.

Yeast: Really any mostly neutral yeast will do. If you want to play around with a newly offered not POH+ yeast, do so. I’m using a nice Courage yeast. I really like the fruit and the 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 55º F.

Scottish beer exports between the wars

I recently bought an academic tome with the snappy title of "The Dynamics of the international Brewing industry since 1800". All I wanted it for were some statistics on Scottish beer exports.

I need the information for the book on Scottish brewing I’m currently writing. It’s something I often do: buy a book for specific pieces of information. What else can I do if it isn’t available anywhere else?

The book is a series of articles on various related topics, written by well-known academics. The one I was interested in, called “Following the Flag”, was written by Ian Donnachie, author of the seminal “A History of the Brewing Industry in Scotland” (an excellent book, from which I’ve nicked loads of statistics).

This section in “Following the Flag” caught my eye:

"Certainly, compared to the period before 1914, export volumes from the United Kingdom halved during the inter-war years, falling to an average of 290,000 barrels per annum in the years 1924-28 and 270,00 barrels in 1934-38. Although there is no  corroborative data Scottish brewers probably continued to account for about a quarter of the total in the immediate post-war years."
"The Dynamics of the international Brewing industry since 1800" edited by Richard George Wilson and Terence Richard Gourvish, 1998, page 130.

It’s the final sentence that made me feel all weird. Because although Donnachie might not have the corroborative data, but I do. Or just about. Because, in addition to beer exported the figures also include other beer exempt from duty. The last column give the real figures for exports, which you can see are 10-20% less than the UK total for all types of duty free beer.

Scotland wasn’t responsible for 25% of UK exports between the wars. It was more like 50%. In some years, such as 1927 and 1928, even more than that.

Beer Exported on Drawback and Free of Duty
	England and Wales	Scotland	Ireland	United Kingdom	UK exports
1916	581,947	174,595	46,371	802,913
1917	314,333	73,896	30,095	418,324
1918	174,408	30,379	16,185	220,972
1919	470,794	195,995	33,821	700,610
1920	312,868	146,726	16,698	485,292	390,248
1921	215,719	92,193	12,648	320,560
1922	207,882	117,978	10,239	336,099	260,914
1923	176,913	108,544	2,270	287,727	257,454
1924	158,373	132,889	753	292,015	264,003
1925	180,731	145,603	415	326,749	290,824
1926	178,155	168,609	305	347,069	283,033
1927	156,258	179,242	232	338,732	287,445
1928	170,728	193,255		363,983	328,029
1929	176,381	223,638		400,019	352,942
1930	173,988	204,345		378,333	328,524
1931	159,278	147,527		306,805	289,516
1932	136,231	133,240		269,471	244,525
1933	117,363	126,254		243,617	217,981
Sources:
Brewers' Journal 1919, page 65.
Brewers' Journal 1922, page 71.
Brewers' Journal 1925, page 83.
Brewers' Journal 1928, page 87.
Brewers' Journal 1934, page 162.
Brewers' Almanack 1928, p. 115
Brewers' Almanack 1955, p. 57

Weird that I should have more data than the academics.

Random Dutch beers (part fifty one)

It's the weekend and I'm short a few blog posts. Must be time to sample some more random Dutch beers.

I had a great morning at Ton Overmars. I was able to buy three different beers made from my recipes: Rose AK, Lees Strong Ale and Whitbread X Ale. I just need to get a Stout brewed then there'll be an example of every style.

The first beer today is from Amsterdam's oldest brewery, 't Ij. They're a funny bunch, straddling the worlds of old and new microbrewery*. There older range of beers is very Belgian influenced, while their newer efforts are firmly in the craft camp. I'm trying one of the latter today.

't Ij Mosaic Pale Ale, 5.2% ABV
It's a lovely golden colour and heavily carbonated. I'll soon fix that. The aroma peach, mango and toilet cleaner. I remember that smell. And why I don't care much for beers brewed with mosaic hops. Don't really get the mosiac in the mouth. Just tobacco and a harsh bitterness.

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

"Er, OK."

Takes a sip. "It's OK, Bit of a watery aftertaste"

"Can I try some of your beer, Dad?"

"Of course, Alexei."

"Do you what it tastes like, Dad? It tastes like weed."*

"Modern hops often do. Did you that marijuana and hops are related?

"No, I didn't."

I booked my flights for my trip to Asheville this morning. I'm going for the beer week at the end of May. I'll be doing my talking thing. Not totally sure what about at this point. Only that it will include The Damned.

Next a beer from one of Holland's most esteemed new breweries.

[I couldn't remove the label nicely]
Brouwerij Kees Barrel Project #04/2016., 10.5% ABV (€4.95 for 33 cl. from Ton Overmars)
Black and treacly with a fine tan head. It looks great. Good enough to take home and introduce to Mum. It smells like treacle, too. Or is that just the power of suggestion. Best ask the kids.

"Do you want to try by beer, kids?"

"It's bitter. OK."

Andrew: "Mm. What's in that, Dad? It's something that normally isn't in beer."

"Do you like it?"

"It isn't really a beer I'd choose to drink."

There's diplomatic.

It tastes winey and burnt, to me. Like an overenthusiastically toasted wine gum. So viscous I feel it's staining my teeth as brown as a 60-a-day man's. I quite like it. Molten treacle, without burning the skin off your mouth.


* They've managed the same with their labels, keeping the original theme but crafting it up for the newer beers, Like this one.

** Why does Alexei know the smell of weed? He's lived in Amsterdam his whole life. He'd need terminal hayfever never to have smelled the stuff. 

Courage buys Barclay Perkins

There’s no such thing as a brewery merger, no matter how it’s spun at the time. One party is always effectively the buyer.

You can see that the deal between Courage and Barclay Perkins was reported as a merger. But within 15 years Barclays Perkins’ brewery was closed and their name had been dropped from the company’s title.

“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 £3,540,000. At December 31. 1953, assets of the last-named group totalled £13,417,000, and at March 31, 1954, the 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.

I’m interested to see that, on paper, the two companies were of a very similar size, especially in terms of assets where there was only half a million quid difference.

Not only were the two companies both headquartered in London, their breweries were less than a mile apart. No surprise then that one was closed. Probably more surprising that part of Barclay Perkins stayed open as long as it did. The main brewery closed in 1958, but the Lager plant continued brewing into the 1970’s*.

This is the deal they agreed:

“Brewery Merger.
Courage Co. and Barclay Perkins announce that report of independent accountants has been received which provides for formation of holding company to acquire capitals of companies on following basis:- Courage For £l00 5 per Cent. Cum. Pref. stock, £l07 10s in per Cent. Cum Pref. shares; for £l00 5 per Cent, 2nd Red. Pref., £l05 in 5 per Cent. Pref.; and for £3 of Ord., seven £1 Ord. shares. Barclays - For £l00 10 per Cent. Pref. stock. £215 in 5 per Cent. Pref. shares; and for each £1 Ord. stock, one £1 Ord. share. Recommendations have been approved by boards.
Dundee Courier - Friday 27 May 1955, page 2.

Interesting that the Barclay’s preference shares were worth double Courage’s, but their ordinary shares were worth far less.

It seems that the deal didn’t proceed that smoothly:

“Brewery merger to proceed
Amalgamation of the two big London brewery businesses of Courage and Co. and Barclay, Perkins and Co. will now be completed according to plan. This merger is to be effected through a new holding company formed under the title of Courage and Barclay, whose shares were offered in exchange for the shares of the two constituent concerns. The offer was made at the end of last May but early in August acceptances were well below the minimum 90 per cent, required to make it unconditional and the date was accordingly extended to October 29. This move has had the desired effect, as the announcement was made this evening that acceptances have now been received from holders of more than 90 per cent, of each class of capital of the two companies. Thus the offer becomes binding and allotment letters will be posted next Tuesday.
Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Wednesday 19 October 1955, page 13.

I wonder which company’s shareholders held up the deal? Or was everyone just on holiday?



* "A Century of British Breweries plus" by Norman Barber, 2005, page 85.

Let's Brew - 1959 Ushers (Trowbridge) IPA

This is really odd. I’d just started putting together a recipe for this beer when I realised that I’d already written one. A plunge into the murky waters of my blog archive failed to find an associated post.

I never published it. At least I can’t find it. Do you think I can remember every post I’ve written? There are more than 4,500 of the things. It’s only natural that a few should have slipped through the grate of my memory like ashes. I do wonder why it didn’t make the blog before. Probably just me being distracted by a new shiny thing.

Did I mention that I’d created my own new style? English Watery IPA I’ve called it. I needed a new definition because the standard BJCP definition of English IPA doesn’t really fit any IPA brewed in the UK before 1996. Unfortunately, Usher’s IPA doesn’t fit either mine of the BJCP’s definition of an English IPA.

What it looks most like to me is a classic post-war Best Bitter. But who really cares? IPA has been used to describe beers of very different characters in the past. So much so that the term is essentially meaningless, unless limited to beers like Worthington White Shield and Bass Red Triangle. Beers which retained some similarity to the IPAs from before WW I.

Returning to Usher’s IPA, the grist is simplicity itself, consisting of just one type of malt, sugar and malt extract. Not sure exactly what type of invert sugar was used, as the log isn’t specific. No. 2 is just my guess, but it could just have easily been No. 2 invert. Use whichever suits you best.

The caramel is there for colour adjustment. Without any crystal to darken it, the finished beer would have been pretty pale otherwise. Not sure what the point of the malt extract is. Probably for the enzymes. Though that does seem odd in a beer with no unmalted adjuncts in the mash.

Not sure what purpose the ginger serves. It’s a tiny amount, about a fifth of a gram for the 6 US gallons, 5 UK gallons that’s the batch size of the recipe below.

The hop varieties are again guesses. All I know is that the copper hops were from Kent and the dry hops from East Kent. Bramling Cross or Northern Brewer would be just as appropriate. But do please stick with English hops.

1959 Usher (Trowbridge) IPA
pale malt	9.25 lb	91.29%
No. 2 invert	0.75 lb	7.40%
malt extract	0.125 lb	1.23%
caramel	0.01 lb	0.08%
ginger	pinch
Fuggles 75 min	2.00 oz
Goldings 30 min	2.00 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.25 oz
OG	1044
FG	1013
ABV	4.10
Apparent attenuation	70.45%
IBU	53
SRM	13
Mash at	154º F
Sparge at	160º F
Boil time	75 minutes
pitching temp	61º F
Yeast	White Labs WLP099 Super High Gravity

Macbeth update

Looks like there will be a British leg to my Macbeth thingy. Which is dead groovy. Especially if the one in Scotland goes ahead.

Since plucking the digit from my lazy arse after a bout of Christmas sloth, I've been cracking on with the new Scotland book. Time is ticking. Not that I've a publishing deadline. No publisher is lined up yet*. The book just needs to be finished.

Not because I want to flog it at the events. For purely technical reasons. It's the skeleton I hang the flimsy skin of my talk over. 

Though, pulling my commercial head out from under the settee, I may flog a white label version of the book. If I think I can make a few quid.





* Are you a publisher with a perverse desire to publish a ridiculously detailed book on a pretty obscure topic aimed at a subculture of a couple of other subcultures? Get in touch. If you're quick you may be able to secure the rights.

Horses who like Stout

More Whitbread fun from the newspaper archives. What a treat for you.

“THESE HORSES ARE FOND OF A PINT OF STOUT
HORSE-DRAWN carts are not very common sight these days, so the appearance in Burnley this week of a pair of thoroughbred Shire horses pulling a dray and accompanied by a gaitered driver and his assistant has caused passers-by to give them more than a casual glance.

The horses and dray are owned by Whitbread and Co., Ltd., brewers, of London. Ever since 1742 Whitbread’s have been brewing beer and ever since that time their brightly coloured drays, which deliver the beer to public houses, have been drawn by Shire horses. Whitbread’s, incidentally, own the only brewery which is actually in the City of London.

Shire horses, noted for their pulling power, are bought by the firm at the age of five years, and some of them give from 15 to 20 years’ service. At first a “newcomer" is paired up with an older horse until it is accustomed to the work and the traffic, then later it is paired up with a horse of the same age. As a reward for their work these horses are often given the opportunity to sample their load, and anyone in the vicinity of Gunsmith-lane on Thursday morning may have seen Burnley’s unusual visitors enjoying a pint of stout!

MR. STRICKLAND (left) and his assistant, Mr. Jack Turkentine, with the horses.

UNCLE AND UMPIRE
Altogether Whitbread’s own about 30 horses which are usually employed in London. From time to time they are sent out to carry on their work in provincial towns, as have “Uncle” and Umpire,” who are staying in Burnley for three weeks.

Both horses are five years old and each weighs about 18cwt. and stands 17 hands high.

Driver of the pair is Mr. Jack Strickland, who has been employed the firm for 29 years. Last year, at the Coronation, Mr. Strickland was the driver of the Speaker’s coach, which is drawn on such occasions by a pair of the firm’s horses.

The privilege of horsing the Speaker’s coach on great State occasions has been enjoyed by Whitbread’s since 1839, when Charles Shaw Lefevre, a partner in the brewery, became Speaker of the House of Commons.

During their stay in Burnley “Uncle” and “Umpire” are being accommodated at the Co-operative Society’s stables near Mitella-street."
Burnley Express - Saturday 23 October 1954, page 13.

Why would Whitbread be sending their dray horses so far outside their normal trading area? Their pubs were pretty much all in the Southeast at this time. I think what’s on the dray says a lot: crates of bottles. Whitbread were national when it came to bottled beer. And what better way to gain publicity for your bottles beer than by parading a horse and dray through town?

I knew that dray horses were given beer, but I’m surprised it was Stout. I’d have thought horses would prefer Brown Ale or Mild.

Macbeth tour

The final arrangements are falling into place for my Macbeth tour of the Midwest. Just a few more flights and hotels to book.

So naturally my thoughts start sturning to the trip after that. Which, if you're wondering, is a weird punk-themed excursion to the Asheville Beer Week in May. It's very soon after the Midwest treip, I'll only be back home for a couple of weeks before flying out again. What a jetsetter I am.

I'd like to set up some Scottish-themed events in the UK this year. Along the same lines as the ones I've arranged in the US. It starts with home brew clubs or professional brewers who would like to take part getting in touch with me. I'll send them some histroc Scottish recipes, which they brew. A couple of months later I troll up and give a talk about Scottish beer in general and the beers that have been brewed in particular. During which we get to sample the beers.

It's lots of fun. If you can put up with me droning on for 45 minutes. I love giving talks. Mostly because people have to listen to me. If you have kids you'll understand what a relief that is. For you to finally have your say.

Anyway, if you'd like to participate, send me a message via the gadget at the top left of this page.

The best of the light ales

More Whitbread advert fun. This time it’s Light Ale they’re plugging.

Or rather Pale Ale. It’s all rather confusing. I blame Whitbread for marketing their bottled Pale as the best Light Ale. Which is it then? A Pale Ale or a Light Ale? Technically it was neither in 1954. Because the Brewhouse name for this beer was IPA until late 1959.

Whitbread were heavily into newspaper advertising in 1954. They were pushing both their bottle Pale Ale and draught XXX, a strong (for the period) Dark Mild. In the case of the latter it can’t have been that successful as it was discontinued the following year. Whereas Whitbread Pale Ale is still alive – just about – today. The Belgian version has been continuously available, while a UK version was revived recently.

Here are some of the Pale Ale adverts:

“You know what you're getting
Pour it out. Pour it all out, for Whitbread's Pale Ale is always clear and brilliant to the very last drop. A fine ale — refreshing even to the eye. Brewed from the finest materials, it’s bottled only by Whitbread. It may not be the cheapest but, without any doubt, it is the best of the light ales.

Wherever you buy Whitbread’s Pale Ale - at the bar or at the off-licence to take home - it is always in splendid condition. You know that you are going to enjoy a first-class beer - 
WHITBREAD the best of the light ales.”
Illustrated London News - Saturday 13 February 1954, page 4.

A recurring theme of the adverts is that you didn’t need to pour it a special way and that it was clear to the last drop. Why did they say this? Because some of the most famous Pale Ales – Bass Red Triangle and Worthington White Shield, for example – were still bottle-conditioned and required careful pouring.

Note that they’re also going for a “reassuringly expensive” line in the reference to the price. We’ll see later if it really was more expensive.

This next advert spells it out:

“You know what you're getting
Barmen have a way of pouring out bottled beer. But there is no special secret where Whitbread's Pale Ale is concerned. Whether you open the bottle yourself or whether it is poured for you at the bar, this is a beer that remains clear and brilliant to the last drop. It is brewed from the finest materials, with a skill that come from long experience and it is bottled only by Whitbread's. At the pub, the club or the off-licence, you know that you will not be disappointed -

when you pour out a WHITBREAD the best of the light ales.”
The Sketch - Wednesday 30 June 1954, page 41.

This next advert stresses how Whitbread Pale Ale was always in good condition:

“You know what you're getting
It's good to have some beer at home when friends drop in. But how much better when you can be sure, as you open the bottle, that that beer will be in first-class condition - as you always can be sure with Whitbread's Pale Ale.

What a fine beer this is - brewed with a skill born of long experience. It is bottled only by Whitbread. That is why, wherever you buy a  bottle of Whitbread's, you know you can rely on its quality and condition.

Your friends will be glad that you laid in some beer.

But they'll be happier still -
when you offer them WHITBREAD the best of the light ales.”
The Sketch - Wednesday 17 November 1954, page 50.

At a time when there was plenty of dodgy draught beer about, a guarantee that your beer wouldn’t be flat, cloudy or sour was very attractive. Whereas your modern geek would be actively seeking out those characteristics.

How expensive was Whitbread Pale Ale compared to its rivals? Let’s take a look.

Light Ale 1953 - 1954
Year	Brewer	Beer	Price per pint d	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	colour
1953	Duttons	Green Label Light Ale	18	1032	1006.8	3.27	78.75%	24
1953	Mitchell & Butler	Cape Ale	17	1033.8	1007.3	3.44	78.40%	33
1953	Norman & Pring	Light Ale	18	1031	1011	2.58	64.52%	17
1953	Young & Son	Light Victory Ale	17	1032.1	1007.6	3.18	76.32%	30.5
1953	Ely Brewery	Davids Ale	18	1033.1	1003.7	3.83	88.82%	23
1953	Fremlin	Elephant Light Ale	20	1031.6	1006.9	3.21	78.16%	20
1953	Tamplin	Baby Tamp	22.5	1031.8	1005.6	3.40	82.39%	20
1953	Truman	Eagle Light Ale	19	1034	1004.6	3.83	86.47%	21
1954	Mitchell & Butler	Cape Ale	18	1033.5	1007.7	3.35	77.01%	28
1954	Barclay Perkins	IPA	19	1031.2	1007.5	3.07	75.96%	19
1954	Whitbread	Pale Ale	21	1034	1005.2	3.75	84.71%	22
1954	Courage	Pale Ale	19	1034	1007.2	3.48	78.82%	28
1954	Ind Coope	Sparkling Ale	24	1030.5	1008.5	2.85	72.13%	26
1954	Taylor Walker	Pale Ale	19	1031.2	1007.3	3.10	76.60%	21
1954	Tollemache	Light Bitter	19	1030.4	1006.6	3.09	78.29%	18
1954	Truman	Eagle Light Ale	19	1031.3	1005.3	3.38	83.07%	22
1954	Watney	Pale Ale	19	1033.1	1009.7	3.03	70.69%	22
	Average		19.2	1032.3	1007.0	3.28	78.30%	23.2
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/002.

You can see that Whitbread Pale Ale is around 2d per pint more expensive than the average, but it isn’t the most expensive. That honour goes to Ind Coope Sparkling Ale, which costs a full 3d per pint more than Whitbread Pale Ale. Though the Whitbread beer does have the level highest OG and the highest ABV.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1960 Whitbread Best Ale

The hundreds of hours I spent photographing and analysing Whitbread’s brewing records have been well worth it. Because I have their beers for every year from 1805 to 1973, when Chiswell Street closed.

Remember that photo I posted recently showing Best Ale being racked into casks? I was able to work from the gyle number that was stencilled onto the casks (348) that the beer was brewed around 19th May. I don’t have a photo of that particular brewing record, but I do have one from 9th June, gyle number 391. That’s close enough for me.

Other than that, there isn’t anything particularly special about this beer. And it’s certainly nowhere near what I’d describe as “best”. It’s a totally run of the mill post- WW II Mild*. With a gravity around 1030º, and a simple grist of mild malt, crystal malt and No. 3 invert. Though in the original some of the sugar was Hay M. Pretty sure that’s a dark proprietary sugar, so I’ve just upped the No. 3.

It’s also a very typical London Mild, in that it’s quite dark and poorly attenuated. London Milds after WW II developed their own identity. At least until they started to die off in the 1960’s. By the late 1970’s, I believe Fullers Hock was the last cask Mild regularly brewed in London.

That’s it. I only really wanted to let you know what the beer they were filling in that picture was like.

1960 Whitbread Best Ale
mild malt	4.75 lb	76.00%
crystal malt 120 L	0.50 lb	8.00%
no. 3 invert sugar	1.00 lb	16.00%
Fuggles 60 min	0.50 oz
Fuggles 40 min	0.50 oz
Fuggles 20 min	0.50 oz
OG	1030.3
FG	1008.5
ABV	2.88
Apparent attenuation	71.95%
IBU	17
SRM	25
Mash at	150º F
Sparge at	168º F
Boil time	60 minutes
pitching temp	64º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1099 Whitbread ale

* Come to think of it, as Whitbread only brewed one Mild they couldn't even call it Better Ale, let alone Best Ale.

How Whitbread got their claws into Tennant

Rummaging through the newspaper archives, I discovered that Whitbread’s relationship with Tennant Bros. went back further than I had imagined.

Whitbread were very canny in their dealings with other breweries. Rather than the aggressive buying up of rivals practised by other upcoming national groups like Hammonds, Whitbread played the helpful big brother. Buying into breweries, but not immediately taking them over. This cautious and friendly approach held them in good stead in the 1960’s, when they were able to us the shareholdings as a platform to take over full control.

This is how it started with Tennant Bros.

“Whitbread funds for Sheffield brewers Closer link with Tennants
our City Editor SYDNEY J. BROOKER 171, Fleet Street, EC4 Telephone—FLE 9693
Wednesday Evening
Having embarked on a programme of capital expenditure to be carried out over five years, the directors of Tennant Bros., the Sheffield brewery undertaking, feel that the time has come when the provision of additional capital should be assured.

That the Tennant directors have turned to Whitbread and Co., the big London brewers, for the required finance is satisfactorily explained by the fact that for some time the two have enjoyed friendly co-operation and a close business relationship. The ties between them will be extended and strengthened by the acquisition by Whitbreads of a substantial shareholding in Tennant Bros.”
Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Thursday 29 December 1955, page 7.

Reading between the lines, it sounds as if Tennant didn’t have the money to invest that their business required. The money provided by Whitbread in return for a shareholding would provide that capital. As time would show, this was a dangerous approach for a company wishing to remain independent.

The existing relationship between the companies was probably Tennant bottling some Whitbread brands and selling them in their pubs. I’m thinking Mackeson.

“This is to done in several stages. First Whitbreads will take up forthwith up to £50,000 worth of Ordinary glares. The price to be fixed by the Tennant directors probably will be based on the Stock Exchange official quotation averaged over a period of months. This procedure will be repeated during next year and may be again repeated in subsequent years up to a further amount of £150,000, commitment for the longer term is to be entered into at this stage.

It will thus be seen that the maximum investment of Whitbreads in the Sheffield undertaking under these is arrangements is £250,000. That would be a substantial investment but would not represent a controlling interest. As regards future dividends, the Tennant board is confident that, in the absence of unforeseen circumstances, the present rate of distribution of 13.5 per cent, can be maintained, and even raised, on the increased Ordinary capital.”
Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Thursday 29 December 1955, page 7.

I’m not sure how they get a maximum of £250,000 from the amounts of £50,000 and £150,000. Surely that should be £200,000? No matter what the figure was, it was a considerable amount of money in the 1950’s. I suppose for Tennant the attraction of raising capital this way was that they didn’t have to get into debt. Though, obviously, long-term it led to the possibility of being taken over completely. Note that it ordinary, i.e. voting, shares that were involved.

Something similar was experienced by a couple of dozen other brewing companies, though Whitbread didn’t end up owing all of them. Just most of them.

Advertising Mackeson

I’m feeling lazy again. So just a brief post about Mackeson. One of my myriad of beer-related obsessions.

As I’ve told you many times before, Mackeson was a huge brand in the 1950’s and was probably Whitbread’s biggest seller. Hard as that might be to imagine today. Though this advert might well help explain that.

Because it’s obviously aimed at women. A clever move, as it doubles your potential market. Though, as with most adverts written by men but aimed at women, it’s pretty sexist and condescending.

Here’s the text:

“Some people prefer MACKESON’S Stout
it’s a matter of taste
Generally, stout has a slightly bitter taste. But Mackeson’s mellow smoothness comes as pleasing change to many who take a rich, reviving glass after the long day’s housework is over.

Try it, and taste the difference!

BREWED AND BOTTLED BY WHITBREAD
Suppliers for the County:
Fredk. Lenay & Sons Ltd., Phoenix Brewery, Wateringbury, Maidstone, Kent.”
Kent & Sussex Courier - Friday 28 July 1950, page 7.

Note, too, how the emphasis is on it not being bitter like other Stouts.  One of the things that surprised mw in “The Pub and the People” about 1930’s Bolton was who was drinking bottled Guinness: middle-aged women. So the idea of women drinking Stout wasn’t particularly new. Though here it’s a very middle-class looking woman drinking in the safety of her home.