Paying for take-overs

Take-overs have been very much talked about lately. You must be getting fed up with me saying this: it's nothing new.

The apparent motive may vary - acquiring brands with a cachet, expanding capacity, grabbing more pubs - but the underlying one is always the same. Making more money.

I was so happy when I found a copy of "The Brewing Industry 1950 - 1990" by Anthony Avis. Not because it's rare* as a book. But because it's a rare insider's view of the crazy consolidation of the 1950's and 1960's.

I'd almost said something above about being a materialist**. But in my, albeit fairly shallow so far, research into the whole merger thing, individuals have been more important than I expected.

Anyway, back to the topic. And a quote. Which could easily be a CAMRA text from the 1970's. But it isn't. The author was in brewery management, Hammonds to Bass Charrington.

"Take-overs and mergers had to be paid for, and this took two forms - the obvious step was an increase in the price of beer, and the other was the removal of good trading houses out of tenancy into direct management by the brewery, in order to secure both wholesale and retail profit. Increasing the price of beer enabled the brewery companies to increase the rents to tenants, on the specious argument that increased prices meant higher retail profits and therefore the tenant could afford to pay higher rent, and that too was based on the trade the tenant was doing in his house - the harder he worked and the more he increased his trade, the greater his rent. He effectively paid for his own success. By taking good trading houses under management, the brewery companies also effectively took away the incentive from a tenant to work hard to be in line for promotion to a better house. It took some years of this devious thinking on the part of brewery companies to get through to the tenants, accustomed to benevolent and paternalistic treatment by the brewery. The traditional, if unwritten, promise of a brewery to its tenant, that so long as he increased the trade of his present public house and sold ever increasing barrels of beer, he would be in line to get a bigger house when it came up for letting, and that the brewery would look after all his business problems to allow him to concentrate on the retailing, quite suddenly and within a few years vanished. A whole new ball game, with new rules, started up."
"The Brewing Industry 1950 - 1990", by Anthony Avis, 1997, page 28.

Opinions?




* My copy is no. 94 of 200.
** In the fucking philosophical sense.

Stockholm next week

I'll be at the Stockholm Beer & Whisky Festival next week. No Borefts for me this year. I can put my imperial pint pot back into sotrage for another year.

I'll probably have some free time on Friday 25th September. Any sugegstions as to what I might do?

The nearly men

Looking at Flowers and J.W. Green got me thinking. About some of the early brewing groups attempting to go national in the 1950’s.

With hindsight, it’s easy to assume the Big Six I knew from my youth was an inevitable development. That a few large combines would come to dominate the industry was. But not which ones. Some of the early front runners fell. Few could have predicted in 1955 who would look back as winners 20 years later.

There were a few companies who managed to amass a clutch of breweries and in excess of 1,000 pubs. Some continued to grow. Others were gobbled up by even larger groups. I’m intrigued as to why. Was it purely a question of economics?  I think not. Personalities played a part, too.

Expect lots more about the nearly men: Flowers, Hammonds, John Smith, Truman and some others I’m sure I’ll remember as I go along.

As Hammonds is going to play a central role, let’s introduce you to some of the characters there:

“HAMMONDS UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED
Drop in profits
BEER DUTY THE BUGBEAR
More realistic attitude urged on Chancellor
The Annual Ordinary General Meeting was held on Monday, January 16, 1950, Bradford, the Vice-Chairman, Mr. L. S. Dumaresq, presiding in the absence of the Chairman (Mr. H. L. Bradfer-Lawrence), who was indisposed.

The following are extracts from the Chairman's circulated statement:—

Group profits amounted to £261,374 after taxation, the comparable figure for the previous year being £328,300. I made it clear in a statement last year that a drop profits would be inevitable; and when we come to deal with the difficulties with which last year was fraught, I feel sure you will agree that we have reason to congratulate ourselves that this drop is no more than £66,926, or roughly 20 per cent.”
Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Tuesday 17 January 1950, page 5.

You’ll be seeing the names Dumaresq and Bradfer-Lawrence much more. They were the driving force behind Hammonds’ early acquisitions.

Seeing a 20% drop in profits as a good result is an interesting viewpoint. But the next section will explain why that isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds.

“Effect of onerous Beer Duty
Beer Duty Is still fundamentally the greatest "bugbear" of our trade. Following the Budget prices all were reduced 1d. per pint to the public. The rate of duty paid by the brewer, however, was not reduced in like proportion; the effect this Duty reduction was therefore twofold, first of all we, in common with all brewers, paid 24s. per barrel on all unconsumed stocks including those held by our customers the time the price change was brought about, and secondly we lost and are still losing 3s. per barrel of our profit on every single barrel brewed since the Budget announcement.

You will appreciate that in our size the continuing cost this Budget runs Into many thousands pounds. That the reduction was inadequate was obvious when it was announced, and subsequent trading results have confirmed this opinion; had it not been for the exceptionally hot summer, there is no doubt the results now before you would have been worse than they are, and trade generally would have declined more seriously throughout the country. As it is, with trade continuing to decline, we must expect proportionately lessening results next year, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopts a more realistic view.

The Catering Wages Act of 1947 and its accompanying Statutory Instruments are still with us in even more complicated form. A very great deal has been written about this Act and Its effect upon hotels, restaurants and licensed houses; and have only remind you that your Company owns number hotels and managed houses and suffers accordingly.”
Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Tuesday 17 January 1950, page 5.

Some classic complaining chairman there. Though he has a point. Brewers were told to cut the retail price by 1d a pint, even though the duty reduction was less than that. In April 1949 the tax per standard barrel fell from 343s 4.5d to 364s 4.5d*. On a beer of average gravity for that year, 1033.43, that comes to just over 0.5d per pint.

I must look up the Catering Wages Act to see why brewers hated it so much. Probably made them pay fair wage.

“Dividend and bonuses maintained
During the year we extended the range of qualities of draught and bottled beer offered to the public, within the restrictions enforced the Ministry of Food. Last winter we reintroduced Guards Ale, a strong bottled beer which, before the war, was marketed by one our Subsidiaries, Bentley and Shaw Ltd. This became popular Immediately.

In all the circumstances your Directors considered it only right that the dividend and bonus should be maintained this difficult year at the same rate as last year. A bonus at the same rate of 5% will also be paid salaries and wages to staff and employees.”
Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Tuesday 17 January 1950, page 5.

Nice he mentions a specific beer there. It was indeed a pretty strong beer, clocking in at over 7% ABV.

Hammonds bottled beers 1952 - 1964
Year	Beer	Style	Price per pint d	Acidity	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	colour
1952	Guards Ale	Strong Ale	45	0.07	1073.7	1016.5	7.48	77.61%	15R + 40B
1952	Unity Ale	Ale	26	0.07	1036.2	1008.2	3.63	77.35%	18 brown
1952	Prize Medal Ale	Light Ale	22	0.06	1033.8	1006.9	3.49	79.59%	21 B
1952	Brown Jack Ale	Brown Ale	18	0.06	1029.5	1005.8	3.08	80.34%	16R + 40B
1952	Guards Ale	Strong Ale	48	0.07	1072.8	1016	7.43	78.02%	15R + 40B
1953	Guards Ale	Strong Ale	45	0.10	1073	1011.9	8.02	83.70%	15 + 40
1956	Senior Sovereign Sweet Stout	Stout	31	0.06	1050.4	1016.2	4.43	67.86%	300
1959	Brown Jack Ale	Brown Ale	20	0.05	1034.7	1009.3	3.18	73.20%	70
1964	Brown Jack	Brown Ale	20	0.03	1034.2	1013.7	2.56	59.94%	65
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/002.

Time for a final moan about government restrictions:

“Controls retard development
On the manufacturing side, progress in concentrating our production centres, to which I referred in my Report a year ago, has been slow for a variety of reasons.

The upkeep and repair of properties on the scale owned by your Company, in these prolonged days of licensing and controls, are a perpetual problem. The race to complete deferred repairs continues; but although our applications for licences to carry out these deferred repairs have received sympathetic consideration from the Ministry of Works, it must be apparent to all that the postponement of their completion only increases the cost when they are finally tackled.

Our relations with our tenants and managers continue to excellent. Your Company has adopted entirely the principles the new Model Tenancy Agreement.”
Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Tuesday 17 January 1950, page 5.

Can you imagine having to reply for a licence just to repair a pub? It must have been frustrating if you had the money and inclination to invest in your tied estate.



* Finance Act 1949.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1955 Flowers XXX

We’re approaching the finishing line with Flowers. With what was undoubtedly one of their biggest sellers.

Mild was still wildly popular in the mid-1950’s. Though that was already beginning to change. Younger drinkers were switching to Bitter. And there was a swing from draught to bottled beer, which also didn’t help Mild.

It was during the post-war period that Mild’s status as exclusively a low-gravity beer evolved. Before WW II there had still been Milds with gravities over 1040º, about the same as Ordinary Bitter. Barclay Perkins had three Milds, at 1043º. 1035º and 1031º. After the war, few breweries had more than one Mild. Some had a Best Mild, but this was usually only a couple of degrees stronger than standard Mild. Ones with gravities over 1036º were extremely rare.

Looking at lots of 1950’s Milds recently, I’ve notices a big variation in the degree of attenuation. The gravities are all much of a muchness: 1030-1033º, mostly. But because the attenuation varies from the low 60’s to high 80’s, the ABV goes from 2.7% to 3.7%. Which much have entailed very different drinking experiences. And not just in terms of intoxication.

Flowers XXX is towards the low end of the attention scale, not quite managing 3% ABV. Though, looking at the ingredients, that isn’t such a surprise. You’re never going to get a 85% attenuation with 7% lactose in the grist. The brewers was obviously aiming for body and a degree of sweetness in the finished beer.

Lactose aside, it’s an unspectacular grist. Just pale malt, No. 3 invert sugar and a touch of malt extract. Still not totally sure why malt extract was so common in the 1950’s. Especially in such small amounts.

Not much to say about the hopping. The variety is a guess. But Fuggles were the standard hop of the day. The chances are that was what was used in the original. Goldings were generally reserved for more delicate hop-oriented beers.

Almost forgot. You’ll need to add caramel to get the right colour. It won’t get anywhere close without it.

1955 Flowers XXX
pale malt	5.75 lb	82.14%
No. 3 invert	0.50 lb	7.14%
lactose	0.50 lb	7.14%
malt extract	0.25 lb	3.57%
Fuggles 90 min	0.50 oz
Fuggles 60 min	0.50 oz
Fuggles 30 min	0.50 oz
OG	1032.4
FG	1010
ABV	2.96
Apparent attenuation	69.14%
IBU	22
SRM	24
Mash at	150º F
Sparge at	160º F
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	59º F
Yeast	WLP007 Dry English Ale

This may well be my last post in this format. Depending on how things go at the weekend.

Flowers Breweries Ltd. (part two)

More on the merger of Flower & Sons and J.W. Green.

The composition of the board and the location of the company headquarters reveal who was in charge: J.W. Green.

“DIRECTORS ON NEW BOARD
The chairman of Flowers Breweries, Ltd. will Mr Bernard Dixon, chairman of J. W. Green. Ltd, and other directors the new Board will be Major J. B. S Tabor, grandson of the late Mr. J. W. Green; Mr. C. J. D. Law. grandson of the late Mr. J. W Green; Lt.-Col. H. P. J. Phillips, son-in-law of Sir Harold Wernher; Mr. P. E. Norris, who was for many years at the Luton Brewery and who is managing director of the group's Tunbridge Wells Brewery; and Mr. D. G. D. Webo, chief accountant of the group.

The secretary of the new company win be Mr. C. Holloway, who will also be secretary of J. W. Green, Ltd. Mr. Holloway as a director of a number of the companies in the group. The Flowers directors on the new Board will be Lt.-Col. Fordham Flower, chairman of Flower and Sons,  Ltd ; Mr. Dennis Flower and Mrs. E. Lloyd, directors of Flower and Sons, Ltd.

It will be seen that not only are the Headquarters of the new group to be at the Luton Brewery, but no fewer than six of the nine directors are directors or executives of J. W. Green, Ltd.”
Luton News and Bedfordshire Chronicle - Thursday 04 March 1954, page 9.

Two-thirds of the directors came from J.W. Green, as did the new chairman. It sounds as if some of the breweries they had taken over were still separate companies. This wasn’t that unusual. It was just simpler that way.

It seems that there had already been links between the two companies. Sons in brewing families were usually sent to another brewery for an apprenticeship.

“Many Lutonians will remember Mr. Dennis Flower, who received clinical training at the Luton Brewery. Another interesting link is that the father of Mr, A R. Kelsey, chairman of the Tunbridge Wells Brewery, was a pupil at Flowers Brewery at Stratford-on-Avon in 1850.

MERGER TERMS, SHARE EXCHANGE
The terms the merger are as follows: Green's will declare a bonus their Ordinary shareholders consisting of one Preference share for each 20 Ordinary shares held. Then a further bonus will be declared of one Ordinary share for every three held. These Ordinary shares will then divided into 5s units.

Flower’s shareholders are to get 16 5s. units in Green's for each three Ordinary £1 shares in Flower's. They will also get 7s. 6d cash for each Ordinary share held.

Green’s are also offering fifty 5.5 per cent Preference shares for forty-one 6 per cent Preference shares in Flower's.
Luton News and Bedfordshire Chronicle - Thursday 04 March 1954, page 9.

It doesn’t sound like a whole lot of cash was involved in the takeover. Only the 7s 6d for each Ordinary share in Flower & Son. It doesn’t look like a bad deal for Flower’s shareholders: they were getting £4 of Green’s Ordinary shares and 7s 6d cash for £3 of Flower’s shares.

Here’s a chronicle of both breweries:

J.W. Green
1857 founded by Henry and Frederick Pearson
1869 bought by J.W. Green
1897 became J.W. Green Ltd
1954 became Flowers Breweries Ltd.
1961 bought by Whitbread
1969 original brewery closed when Oakley Road brewery opened
1984 Oakley Road brewery closed
"A Century of British Breweries Plus" by Norman Barber, 2005, page 1.

Flower & Sons
1831 Founded by Edward Fordham Flower
1874 New brewery in Birmingham Rd.
1888 became Flower & Sons Ltd.
1954 bought by J.W Green
1968 Closed
"A Century of British Breweries Plus" by Norman Barber, 2005, page 142.

Here’s a table of all J.W. Green’s acquisitions over the years:

J. W. Green acquisitions
year	brewery	address	tied houses	closed
1897	Luton Brewery Co Ltd	Luton Road Brewery, Luton	90	1897
1920	W & S Lucas Ltd	Sun Street, Hitchin, Hertfordshire	52	1923
1926	Morris & Co. (Ampthill) Ltd	Ampthill Brewery, Bedford Street, Ampthill, Bedfordshire	70	1926
1936	Adey & White Ltd	St Albans Brewery, Chequer Street, St Albans, Hertfordshire	56	1936
1948	E & H Kelsey Ltd	Culverden Brewery, Tunbridge Wells, Kent	84	1956
1949	J & J E Phillips Ltd	Royston Brewery, Royston, Hertfordshire	150	1950
1950	George Ware & Sons Ltd	Pale Ale Brewery, Frant, East Sussex	12	1950
1951	Soulby, Sons & Winch Ltd	The Brewery, Alford, Lincolnshire	143	1952
1952	R. Fenwick & Co Ltd	Sunderland Brewery, Low Street, Sunderland, Tyne & Wear,	101	1964
1952	Mowbray & Co Ltd	Grantham Brewery, London Road, Grantham, Lincolnshire	207	1964
1952	E K & H Fordham Ltd	Ashwell Brewery, Ashwell, Hertfordshire	107	1952
1954	Flower & Sons Ltd	The Brewery, Brewery Street, Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire	350	1969
Source:
"The Brewing Industry a Guide to Historical Records” by Lesley Richmond and Alison Turton, 1990, pages 37, 141, 144, 218 and 242.
Effects of Mergers by Ruth Cohen and P. Lesley Cook, 1958 (reprinted 2003, page 418.
"A Century of British Breweries plus" by Norman Barber, 2005, pages 56 and 138.

You can see how after WW II J.W. Green acquired more than 700 pubs through their purchases of other brewers, even before they bought Flower & Sons. And how most of the breweries were closed quickly. Only R. Fenwick and the Grantham Brewery remained open for any length of time.

I'm intrigued as to why they bought no more breweries after 1954. Had they overstretched themselves? There were another seven years before Whitbread swallowed them up. There must have been some reason for the sudden end to their purchases.

I always like to throw in a personal anecdote when I can. I remember the Soulby brewery buildings from my childhood. We used to pass through Alford on the way to our caravan at Mablethorpe. It was pretty obviously a brewery and a reasonably-sized one, as the 100-odd tied houses make clear. Alford, a pretty small market town, was an odd spot for a brewery of that size.

State run pubs

The nightmare of some. Personally, I can recall some very pleasant ones in Czechoslovakia.

A strange hangover from WW I was the State management scheme. Certain areas important for the munitions industry had their pubs, and in case of Carlisle, their breweries, too. There were some who proposed nationalising the whole of the brewing industry.

“LESS PROFIT ON STATE PUBLIC HOUSES
The net profit for the three State management districts of the liquor trade (at Carlisle, Gretna, and Cromarty Firth) for the year ended March 31 last was £145,289, according to the annual report published a White Paper to-day.

This was £42,946 less than the profit for the previous year. The total, as usual, makes provision for taxes assessed on profits.

The report states: "The increase in the beer duties imposed in the budgets of November, 1947, and April, 1948, and the consequent increase of prices, in conjunction with the maintenance of the restrictions on the gravity of the beer brewed, resulted in the State management districts, as generally throughout the country, in a reduction in the consumption of beer, which was sharply accentuated in the concluding months of the financial year."

The report showed that there were 178 State premises at Carlisle, 15 at Gretna, and 18 in Cromarty Firth.”
Gloucestershire Echo - Friday 27 January 1950, page 1.

I make that £688 11s 6d per pub. Which doesn’t sound that bad to me. Remember that a pint of Mild only cost a shilling. I suspect many privately-owned breweries would have been happy with that level of profit.

But the Carlisle scheme wasn’t the sort of nationalisation Britain saw under Labour governments after WW II. It hadn’t been introduced by socialists. It was closer to a Gothenburg scheme than British Steel.

We’ll learn more about that soon.

Coronation Beers (part four)

The Yorkshire newspapers seem to have been keen on Coronation Ale. Because here’s a report of another West Yorkshire version.

Once again, they don’t disclose the name of the brewery. Though, having told us the name of the beer, that wasn’t hard to track down.

“Coronation ale 'strongest for 40 years'
By a Yorkshire Post reporter
The brewer had waited years to make such strong ale and when he took a sample he said, simply, "I am quite delighted with It."

Officially he described his Coronation ale as "a beautiful round, full drinking beer" which the relaxation for Coronation year of certain brewing restrictions had made possible. This I learned yesterday when I visited a West Riding brewery which is among the companies already marketing the better beer.

'Old Brown'
First I met the managing director. Mr. W. Charles Brown, who is proud that the new beer has been named after him — "Old Brown." "I don't mind being called 'Old Brown.' " said, " In another few days I shall be 74. Of course both words are familiar beer terms," he said, "and the directors decided that should be the name — after me."

Mr. Brown has been managing director of the company for 30 years and admits there are a few secrets In brewing beer. He explained that with the limit on gravity lifted they were now only regulated by the commodities they could buy.”
Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Saturday 21 February 1953, page 7.

If I’d just seen the name, no way I would have guessed that the beer was named after someone. As Mr. Brown himself remarked, both words are common beer terms. I hadn't even realised it was a Coronation Ale.

I’m still searching for details of the brewing restrictions mentioned. I know there was some sort of limit on gravity, I think both an upper limit and an overall average. It’s frustrating not to have pinned them down yet.

You probably want to know the brewery. It’s Samuel Webster. I drank a fair bit of their beer when I lived in Leeds.  They were based in Halifax, also in West Yorkshire, and had a tied pubs in Leeds. I can’t say it was my favourite – Tetleys was much better – but the Dark Mild was OK on cask. They were owned by Watney, but had mostly retained their identity and produced a reasonable amount of cask beer. It closed in 1996.

I can remember spending a day in Halifax in 1979. One of the Websters pubs there still had a “men only” sign above the public bar door. Even though that was illegal by then. Wonder if they still really kept women out?

“No chemicals
"Lots of people think because we employ chemists that we use chemicals." said Mr. Brown. "That is not so. We are only allowed to use certain materials. That is why beer is such good drink — nothing harmful can go into it."

The new-quality beers are being sold In "nip" size bottles containing one-third of a pint at prices varying from 1s. 4d. to 1s. 6d.

"One of the things about this beer," said Mr. Brown, "Is that it will keep longer than the ordinary beers. But we haven't brewed it to keep — we have brewed it to sell." “
Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Saturday 21 February 1953, page 7.

Nips seem to have the favourite package for Coronation Ales. As for the price, a pint of draught Mild would only cost you 1s in  the 1950’s. As we’ll see later.

Now it’s the turn of the head brewer to Speak:

“Mr. F. W. Bodger, the brewer there for 43 years, showed me how the gravity is varied by the malt and sugar content, and added: " This is as strong a beer as has ever been made by this company."

It had, he told me, the qualities of a barley wine and produced a warming effect on the drinker. "With this there's no back bite," he said.
Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Saturday 21 February 1953, page 7.

Was it really the strongest beer they’d brewed in 40 years? I suspect not. Luckily for me, Old Brown wasn’t a one off. Because they were still brewing it in 1959:

Samuel Webster beers of the 1950s
Year	Beer	Style	Price	size	package	FG	OG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	colour
1955	Sam Brown Ale	Brown Ale	9.5d	half	bottled	1013	1035.7	2.93	63.59%	95
1956	Velvet Stout	Stout	1/2d	half	bottled	1022.3	1045.1	2.93	50.55%	425
1959	Velvet Stout	Stout	13d	half	bottled	1019.8	1040.1	2.61	50.62%	300
1959	Dukes?? Ale	Pale Ale	10d	half	bottled	1006.8	1035.3	3.56	80.74%	19
1959	Old Brown	Brown Ale	15.5d	nip	bottled	1023.1	1071.4	6.27	67.65%	110
1959	Velvet Stout	Stout	14.5d	half	bottled	1019.3	1046.1	3.45	58.13%	300
1959	Old Tom	Old Ale	13d	half	bottled	1012.5	1045.1	4.23	72.28%	150
1959	Green Label Ale	Mild, Light	11.5d	half	bottled	1006.7	1039	4.20	82.82%	24
1959	Sam Brown Ale	Brown Ale	9d	half	bottled	1011.1	1036.8	3.33	69.84%	95
1959	Bitter	Pale Ale	16d	pint	draught	1004.7	1038	4.16	87.63%	22
1959	Best Mild	Mild	13d	pint	draught	1004.4	1034.9	3.81	87.39%	20
1959	Mild	Mild	12d	pint	draught	1005.7	1032	3.29	82.19%	50
1959	Bitter	Pale Ale	15d	pint	draught	1005.4	1037	3.95	85.41%	20
1959	Best Mild	Mild	13d	pint	draught	1005.9	1035	3.64	83.14%	20
1959	Mild	Mild	12d	pint	draught	1004.8	1031.6	3.35	84.81%	55
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/002.

At just a touch over 1070º, I doubt it was stronger than anything they brewed in 1914. Though they could have dropped the strength after the coronation. As you can see, at 1s 3.5d per nip, it is a little cheaper than quoted in the newspaper.

The Milds are interesting. Webster still brewed a Light and a  Dark Mild in the 1980’s. Which look direct descendants of the 1950’s Mild and Best Mild. Even the gravities are pretty similar: Dark Mild 1032º, Green Label Light Mild 1033.8º. The colours of the 1950’s Milds are interesting. It was usual for the Best Mild to pale, but the ordinary Mild isn’t that dark. Normally Dark Mild is 80 to 100 on this scale. 50 is just a bit darker than Newcastle Brown.

I think that’s me about done for Coronation Ale. Unless something else pops out of the newspaper archive.

Wicked taxation

Recurring themes. British brewing has lots of them. Complaining about the high level of taxation is one.

This letter to a newspaper bangs away on that theme for a while, but also throws in fags and widespread pub closures. Sounds very modern, doesn’t it?

“Sir, —As a result the fantastic, crippling, wicked taxation now thrust upon a long-suffering nation, allied with the outrageously high cost living (and money tighter), it was not surprising to read in the newspapers recently that over a million pounds had been knocked off brewery shares on the Stock Exchange.

The fact that 2,000,000 barrels of beer less were sold in 1949 speaks for itself. It clearly shows the public are at long last becoming wiser, by getting their backs up and adopting a typical bull-dog grim-like attitude in a firm refusal to pay the grossly unfair 9d. tax on a 1s. pint of weak beer. It would not be so bad if the 1s. pint of beer was 100 per cent strong ale, but the fact that it is of such low gravity, not much stronger than lemonade, is adding insult to injury far as the customer is concerned.

What a striking contrast to the war years, when with plenty of money about and production of beer supplies restricted, the harassed publican on his meagre daily allocation (so as to keep open all the week) very often was compelled to put the towel over the beer engine pumps, and display notices on the counters, "No more beer to-night," at approximately 9 o'clock each evening.

What a sensational difference to-day, with mostly 5-day working week, practically all bonus cut, resulting in less money being earned by workers in general. It is only natural that considerable hardship is bound to be felt by those workers who have families to support, and of those who enter into this category the majority will find that it is more or less a week-end adventure, i.e., such as paying a small subscription in to the local Thrift Christmas Club on a Friday evening (a couple of pints will probably be the limit), and then he is finished until the following week-end.

Also the fantastic tax on cigarettes clearly reveals why there is such a slump on the "Beer Front," a smoke is still a long odds-on favourite with workers in general, which obviously means that most of us cannot afford indulge in both vices.

Unless something drastic is done quickly, such as 3d. or 4d. reduction on a pint of beer, and the beer produced on the pre-war 100 per cent strong beer scale, I can visualise many publicans closing down, for the public are thoroughly browned off.
BERT WILLIAMS.
5, Albany-road,
Tivoli, Cheltenham.”
Gloucestershire Echo - Friday 03 February 1950, page 4.

You might be forgiven for thinking that 9d a pint in tax is an exaggeration. It isn’t. At the start of 1949, the tax rate was 364s 4.5d per standard barrel. For a beer of average gravity for that year, 1033.4º, that works out to 9.25d per ping. The rate was dropped to 343s 4.5d a standard barrel in April. Which is a mere 8.71d per pint. You can understand why the letter writer found that wicked.

A 3d or 4d reduction per pint would have cost the government a lot of money. OK, consumption would most likely have increased, but not enough to offset the lower rate. Beer was an important revenue source: £294,678,035 in 1949. Hang on. Consumption couldn’t have increased naturally, as brewing materials were still controlled. Revenues would inevitably have fallen.

I’ve always thought of the immediate post-war period as one of full employment. It was. But if you’d got used to lots of overtime during WW II, you might have seen your income fall. I seem to remember my Mum telling me that she worked 12 hours a day for some of the war. And a lot of wartime worked paid well. The combination of fewer hours and a lower hourly rate must have really hit incomes. How ironic that when there was as much beer to be had as you wanted, many didn’t have the money to buy it.

Temperance bastards got all annoyed about beer not being rationed in WW II. But effectively, it was. Or at least the supply of beer was rationed. Brewers were told how beer they could brew (a percentage of their 1939 output). They were very careful about who they sent beer to and how much they sent. Just like the publican putting a towel over his pumps long before closing time, ekeing out what they had as best they could.

More 1950's craziness soon.

It's Friday night

Yay. No more work. For two days.

Lots of stuff to do, but no inclination other than to pour another Abt. Did I mention there's lots going on in my life?

It's my own fault I have too many ideas. In the shower. On the tram. Ticking away at my keyboard. Two book ideas this evening. One that might even tempt a publisher.

There's a manual I should be reading*. But I'm listening to Steely Dan instead. Only a fool would say that. Seems appropriate.

I've spent the week drinking - and sometimes throwing  - away the beer that clutters the floor around me. I need to clear space*. And to minimise the percentage of my income that goes to Ton Overmars. I have no choice. "Where are you going to put that thing? You'll have to get rid of other stuff."

As always, Dolores has a point.

It's been fairly painless so far. Drank some stuff that needed drinking. Slung some never right or past its best. Found a couple of gems I won't be drinking in a while. The Rochefort 10 with a sell by date of 06 10 1998. It originally had five mates. The pair I drank after 10 years sent my socks into orbit.

There's a very dusty Wesvleteren 12 with the date rubbed off. Could one of the ones Filip gave me for a bit of beer menu rewriting. That would be around 10 years old. Or could be a remnant from the crate I got at Bierkoning more than 20 years ago.

Meant to say this earlier. Despite what I've been telling everyone all year, I won't be at Borefts. I'll be doing some judging at the Stockholm Beer & Whisky Festival. Dolores thinks I'm crazy. Nothing new there. Again, she may have a point. There's a 10-hour judging session. Let's hope I don't get non-alcoholic Lagers again. I contemplated drowning myself in the toilets that time. Only the prospect of free chips for lunch saved me.

Just had to pour another Abt to celebrate my fleeting freedom from wage slavery. Where was I?

Friday night, relaxing. Ideas. For me they turn too readily into obsessions. With the access I have to material, even a vague interest can result in thousands of hours - what does Dolores say ? - "doing that useless beer shit".

She has a point. There's fuck all money in it.

But the almost-rans of fifties merger mania. That's worth 1% of my remaining time on earth, isn't it?



* Why will become clear soon. 

Flowers Breweries Ltd. (part one)

I’m returning to Flowers. Mostly because I found a great article about their acquisition by J.W. Green of Luton.

But I’ve a deeper reason, too. Because it demonstrates something about the process of amalgamation which left the UK with seven large brewing groups (the Big Six) dominating the industry. It was by no means a foregone conclusion who would triumph and some of the early frontrunners ended up as fodder. Flowers is a good example of the latter.

When J.W. Green bought Flower & Sons in 1954, it created a substantial group, one of the largest in the country. Here are some details:

“£10m Brewery Centre
LUTON TO BE H.Q. OF HUGE MERGER
Plans For "Importing” Flower’s Bitter Beer
LUTON will be the headquarters of a new £10,000,000 brewery group as a result of the merging of J. W. Green, Ltd., the Luton brewers, and Flower and Sons, of Stratford-on-Avon.

Terms of the merger announced this week show that the deal will be on a share exchange basis. It is also proposed to change the name of the J. W. Green Group of companies to Flowers Breweries, Ltd., but the Luton brewery will retain its identity as J. W. Green, Ltd.

The terms are to come before an extraordinary general meeting of the two companies later this month.

The Luton Brewery controls about 1,100 licensed houses, and Flowers some 400.

In the letter of offer sent to shareholders, the chairman J. W. Green, Ltd., Mr. Bernard Dixon, says that the Luton Brewery is now working to full capacity, and further extensions now would be extremely costly. Flowers Brewery, he states, is particularly well equipped, and has ample capacity for development without major expense. About £500,000 has been spent on the brewery since the war.

Since 1948 J. W. Green. Ltd. has acquired seven breweries in different parts of the country, and the merger will create one of the biggest units in the brewing industry.

Well-known brands of bottled beers from Luton will be sent further afield. and Flowers famous bitter will be “imported" into this area. Subsidiary companies of the group will gradually lose their identity.”
Luton News and Bedfordshire Chronicle - Thursday 04 March 1954, page 9.

1,500 pubs would have been one of the largest estates at the time.  And when Whitbread got their hands on them, it formed a sizeable part of their estate. This should put that number into some context:

UK pub ownership 1974 - 1989
Bewery	UK Breweries	% beer sales	On Licences (1974)	% On Licences	On Licences (1989)
Bass Charrington	12	20	9,256	8.15%	7,300
Allied Breweries	7	17	7,665	6.75%	6,000
Whitbread	19	13	7,865	6.92%	6,500
Watney/Grand Met	8	12	5,946	5.23%	6,100
Scottish & Newcastle	3	11	1,678	1.48%	2,300
Courage	8	9	5,921	5.21%	5,100
Guinness	1	9	0	0	0
Total Big Seven	58	91	38,331	33.7%	33,300
Others	89	9	13,800	12.1%
Tied Trade			52,131	45.9%
Free Trade			61,498	54.1%
Total	147	100	113,629
Source:
“The Brewing Industry, a Guide to Historical Records” by Lesley Richmond & Alison Turton.
Notes:
No. breweries and % beer sales 1976
No. on licences 1974

The total number of on licences in the table is a bit deceptive as it includes restaurants and clubs as well as pubs. In 1974 the number of pub licences in the UK was 70,495*.

Building a pub estate was what it was all about back then. About the only way to realistically increase sales was to acquire more tied houses. As most pubs were owned by breweries, buying breweries was the simplest way get hold of more.

Often the brewery itself wasn’t required and was quickly closed. Which wasn’t the case here. It sounds as if J.W. Green was having capacity problems and Flowers nice, modern brewery would come in handy.

I suspect Flowers may have had a better reputation than J.W. Green. Why else call the combined company Flowers Breweries Ltd.? That Flowers Bitter was to be sold in Green’s other houses implies it had a good name.

Too much goodness in the article – and too much other Flowers and J.W. Green stuff – for a single post. Next time some more details of the merger and of the other breweries absorbed into the group. Plus its eventual fate.



* 2011 Statistical Handbook of the BBPA, page 74.

Coronation Beers (part three)

As promised, if a little later than expected, the best brew since 1914.

Thinking about it, 1953 was only 39 years after 1914. There must have been plenty of older drinkers around who could remember the powerful Ales from before WW I. What an odd experience it must have been to have a few years of drinking full-strength beers, then see them become ever more watery as your drinking career progressed. Not so much odd as depressing, I guess.

But I digress. We’re looking at Coronation beer again. See if you can guess which brewery it is. For some reason the article is coy about naming the name.

“Coronation beer, best brew since 1914,
to be 1s 6d bottle
Evening Post Reporter
TODAY, somewhat prematurely. I admit, I drank the health of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II a fully-matured mellow heavy beer, brother to the famed Coronation beer.

While I talked to Mr W. E. Harbord. director of a Tadcaster brewery which has made this taste of "the good old days." the liquid Itself was busy maturing in huge tanks in preparation for the end of February when it will flow into "nip" bottles, ready for distribution to the public during the Coronation celebrations.

Although I was unable to sample the "beautifully fragrant and aromatic" taste of the Coronation beer. I can lay many of the rumours rife about it. Firstly it will be sold in the now familiar, small old-ale bottles, with special Coronation label.

Each contains a third of pint, and will cost 1s. 6d., not 2s. 6d. as was rumoured.

Says Mr Harbord. The Coronation is an opportunity for to give the public something which we are not normally allowed to produce."”
Yorkshire Evening Post - Friday 02 January 1953, page 10.

I’m pretty sure the brewery is John Smiths. Which is dead handy, as we’ll see in a minute. To put that price into context, a pint of Mild would have cost around 1s. 2d. and a pint of Ordinary Bitter 1s. 4d. A nip bottle of Guinness, which at the time was a bit over 5% ABV, was 1s. Making 1s. 6d. not unreasonable for a really strong beer.

The bit about not normally being able to produce a beer like that is a reference to gravity restrictions. I’d tell you what they were, but I’m having a devil of a time tracking them down. There seems to have been an upper limit on gravity that was abolished sometime around this period. I’ll need to do some more digging.

This sounds like something I would have liked:

“Victory ale
To get some Idea what Mr. Harbord meant this I was given glass of Victory ale brewed in 1945 to celebrate the end of hostilities.

This, although not as strong the Coronation beer, was brewed in the same way and has a taste and bouquet, after seven years, unknown except to those who were drinking before 1914.

While telling me of the delights of the Coronation beer, head brewer Mr. W. Gall, handling the Victory ale with the touch of an expert wine taster - glass held by the base and sniffing appreciatively — said: "This is a lovely beer and the Coronation beer on the same basis has had a lot of care taken with it.

"It will mature for about two months, giving it its quality and character and then be put into the several thousand dozen bottles awaiting it. It has a fragrant and delightful bouquet and will be half as strong again as the present heavy beer sold as old ale."”
Yorkshire Evening Post - Friday 02 January 1953, page 10.

Two months was quite a long maturation period by then. Very few beers were given any sort of long time to develop, with only a handful of true Stock Ales still being brewed.

The last sentence is dead useful. Because I’ve two analyses of John Smiths Old Ale from that very year:

John Smiths Old Ale in 1953
Beer	Price	size	package	Acidity	OG	FG	ABV	App. Atten-uation	colour
Magnet Old Ale	1/1d	nip	bottled	0.07	1068.5	1024.5	5.70	64.23%	11 + 40
Magnet Old Ale	1/2d	nip	bottled	0.06	1072.5	1022.9	6.44	68.41%	11 + 40
Source:
Whitbread Gravity book held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number LMA/4453/D/02/002.

As brewers usually meant gravity when talking about strength, that would make John Smiths Coronation Ale around 1100º. Or about as strong as beer came.

So I believe them when they claim this:

“Stronger than all
Mr. Gall was responsible for the final composition of the Coronation beer and has put the best of his 20 years' experience into the final product.

The brewery has made several special heavy beers for special occasions — the last Coronation, victory days, and the brewery's centenary - but this Coronation beer will stronger than any of them.

With the wistful look of a connoisseur, Mr. Gall said. "In the fermenting room there was lovely aroma the whole time we brewed it. It will be a grand beer."

If it is anything like its mature brother, the Victory beer, it certainly will be”
Yorkshire Evening Post - Friday 02 January 1953, page 10.

I’m sure it was stronger than anything they had brewed for a long while.

Next time: another Yorkshire Coronation Ale.