Formby Old Brewery (part three)

With the help of a couple of readers, I've manged to find out some information about the beer brewed by the Old Brewery. Something known locally as "Jacky water". 

Old Brewery in 1960

Local John S. Roberts talked about the beer in the ‘Formby Times’ in 1966

“It was a very dark, ‘unfined’ (i.e. ‘cloudy’ drink). Visitors used to hold it up to the light doubtfully, taste it, then hold it up again. But eventually they grew to like it and Formby beer became very popular. Many of the older men would drink nothing else. There are stories that some of them made friends with the brewery workers and spent a good deal of time on the premises, drinking out of a bucket to save glasses. They seem to have found Formby Ale fairly potent because they were often fighting amongst themselves. Apparently pigeons used to roost on the rafters above the vats and this is supposed to have added ‘something’ to the drink.”

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to track down the relevant article in the Formby Times. I only have it second hand, via Formby Civic News, Spring 2016 issue.

It sounds like pretty rough stuff and I suppose a sort of unfined Dark Mild.

Another local, Albert Aindow, desctibed Old Brewery Beer in 1980, I'm assuming inm the Formby times again.

“The ale they served then was brewed locally and was known as Jacky Water be-cause it was meant to come from a local ditch that had ‘Jackies – little fish – in it. The thicker the ale was, the better it was. The doctors wouldn’t prescribe Guinness, they would prescribe this Jacky Water. It was certainly better than ale anywhere today. You could drink it all night and never get drunk or have a bad the following day.”

They really aren't selling this beer well. Not so sure I'd want to drink a beer all night and not get drunk.

I'm still trying to work out when the brewery was demolished. This is obviously wrong:

"The name is all that is left in Brewery Lane
If you think that Brewery Lane got its name front a brewery, you get full marks for perception. The brewery belonged to Mr. Dickenson and was demolished in 1947. "
Formby Times - Wednesday 11 December 1968, page 13.

They've got the name of the owner wrong and the brewery was still operating in 1949, as we saw earlier in this series. Plus there are drawings of the buildings from 1960.

 Old Brewery yard in 1960

 Remember that the brewery was called T & WR Dickinson in its final incarnation? Seeing the full name of WR Dickinson has brought a load of new questions:

"The Formby Brewery in Brewery Lane was run by the Dickenson family. They are shown as Thomas and William Rimmer Dickinson in the late 19th century and they provided the beer for the Railway  Hotel in Duke Street, the Grapes in Thornton and the Liver at the top of South Road, Waterloo.  They both appear in the 1885 Voters List.  An Edward Dickenson can also be found as a publican at the Grapes." 
Formby Civic News, Spring 2016, page 6.

That R stands for Rimmer. That's a pretty weird middle name. Rimmer isn't a usual given name but is reasonably common as a surname. Using it in that way imp0lies its either the mother's or the grandmother's surname. Did the brewery pass to a female member of the Rimmer family at one point?

And can they make their minds up about how the surname is spelt. Is it Dickinson or Dickenson?

Formby Old Brewery (part two)

I was still scratching my head about Formby's brewery, when I came across this, much later, article mentioning Brewery Lane:

"Brewery Lane plans:
New row develops
A ROW is developing between Formby's Brewery Lane residents over the council's scheme to widen and pave part of the lane, altering its junction with West Lane. 

The council plans to pipe the ditch in Brewery Lane and provide a footpath in front of the staff homes belonging to St. George's School. The managers of the school requested these measures five years ago. 

The controversy has arisen over the fact that many of the trees and bushes in the lane will have to be removed if the plans are carried through and if the corner is to be improved a group of trees on the south side of the lane will have to be chopped. 

Several of the objectors, who have formed a petition, met with members of the Council to discuss the plans. Mr. A. H. Jones. of 19 Brewery Lane, who was speaking on behalf of the objectors, questioned the need for the scheme at all. He told councillors that the rural setting of Brewery Lane would he ruined. The objectors also want the plans to pipe the ditch in West Lane to be dropped. "
Formby Times - Wednesday 08 August 1973, page 1.

Trees? Houses? That doesn't sound at all like the yard at the side of the Royal Hotel. So I looked up Brewery Lane on Google maps. Sure enough, Brewery Lane is on the northern edge of Formby.

Next step: look up Brewery Lane on the 1892 map. And there it was. A building marked as Old Brewery. It was on a 1927 OS map, too. While the Reciprocity Brewery was no longer noted.

Got it. There were two breweries in Formby. And at one point both were owned by someone called Rimmer. "A Century of British Brewers plus plus" gets the two mixed up, giving the Reciprocity Brewery's address on Liverpool Road for the Old Brewery.

It's easy to see where the Old Brewery stood if you look at the modern arial photo and compare it with the OS map. It's the roughly rectangula rbit about halfway along Brewery Lane, bounded on most sides by trees.

There's that sorted out. Now I need to find out more about the Rimmers. Were Thomas and John related?

Formby Old Brewery

That one article mentioning the closure of an ancient brewery started a quest. A very fun one. The British Newspaper Archives really are a gold mine.

I've still on the first leg of my trek. Already I've made a few discoveries. But not quite as much of the history of this brewery as I first thought.

I started off with "A Century of Btish Brewers plus plus". Sure enough, there was a brewery listed in Formby: T & WR Dickinson, Old Brewery, Liverpool Road. And it was taken over by Tetley in 1949 with 3 pubs. That fits the details in the article perfectly.

Next step was to look at an 1892 OS map of Formby. The brewery was certain to be marked as such. Sure enough, I found a collection of buildings just off Liverpool Road marked "Reciprocity Brewery". That had to be it.

A couple of things struck me as odd. The original article mentioned that the brewery was in Freshfield. At the northern edge of town, while Liverpool Road is to its south. Also, the Reciprocity Brewery was located right next to a pub, The Royal Hotel. But that wasn't one of the three pubs mention in the first article. It was like a brewery, so why was it owned by someone else?

Searching the newspaper archives for "Reciprocity Brewery", I came across this obituary:
 

"A TEETOTAL LICENSEE.
AN UPRIGHT AND ECCENTRIC FORMBY MAN PASSES AWAY.
Mr. Thomas Rimmer, proprietor and licensee of the Royal Hotel and the Reciprocity Brewery, Formby, died suddenly on Monday morning from an apoplectic stroke. He was 63 years of age, and had led a busy life. For 30 years he had worked for and represented the public of Formby in varyingly successive local governing bodies. 

. . .

For 25 years and more he had been an absolute teetotaller. He was a man of eccentricities, but was always upright. He never, within the last quarter of a century, took himself a halfpenny for any drink served in the ordinary way of business. He never drew a beer lever for money. If a hungry tramp called at his place he would draw a pint of beer, cut a "chunk" of bread and cheese, and give it to the poor beggar. But if anyone ventured on supplementing his hospitality, the tramp had "had enough," and would have to clear off. Mr. Rimmer was one of the old school who said no man, woman, or child must want without that want being met. He was generosity of heart itself, and strove to make no publicity of it. Many a poor cottager has been relieved from distress by means of monetary and other help extended by him. Twenty-eight years ago he occupied his usual pew at St. Peter's Church, Formby, when the preacher made pointed applications to him and his trade. Since then, till three Sundays ago, he never entered a place of worship except on the occasion of a funeral. The occasion was the funeral of an old Formbyite, Mrs. Mary Neale, and the vicar, the Rev. T. Bishop, took the opportunity to make some remarks on the non-attendance at church of many except on the occasion of an interment. Mr. Rimmer must have taken, the moral to heart, for two Sundays ago he attended the church, and was accommodated in the same seat which was his so many years ago. In politics he was a Conservative. His funeral took place on Wednesday afternoon.
Liverpool Weekly Courier - Saturday 21 November 1903, page 3.

The brewery had been under the same ownership in 1903. There's that sorted out. Except Mr. Rimmer was both landlord of the pub and owner of the brewery. That sounds awfully like a pub brewery to me. Things were getting confusing.

"Reciprocity Brewery" only threw up a handful of hits, so I gave "Formby Brewery". Much more luck with that. Lots of hits. Including these:

Formby Brewery, January 1st, 1865. ALL persons having any Claims against the firm of the late Tryer and Co., are requested to send the same to John Rimmer, of Formby, one of the trustees. And all persona indebted to the same firm are requested to pay the same to the said John Rimmer, on or before the 1st February next, 1865.
Southport Visiter - Friday 20 January 1865, page 1.

Deaths
On the 22nd instant, at the Brewery, Formby, in his 76th year, Mr. Tyrer, much respected and regretted.
Gore's Liverpool General Advertiser - Thursday 29 December 1864, page 1.

Mr Tyrer had died and it looks like John Rimmer took over the brewery. (That's a familiar surname. Was he the father of Thomas Rimmer?) Not that he enjoyed it long, as he died two years later and the brewery was auctioned off.

ON TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY NEXT.
FORMBY BREWERY, FORMBY, NEAR LIVERPOOL.
The place of Sale is a short from the Freshfield station the Liverpool and Southport Railway. Trains for Freshfleld leave Southport 8-0, 10-5, 12-20, 2-0; leave Liverpool, 8-0, 9-0, 11-15, 12-33. 

JOHN JEFFRYES, Senior Auctioneer and Vakuer of the Didtrict,
Respectfully announces that he has been favoured with the appointment from the Representatives of the late Mr. John Rimmer, deceased, to SELL by AUCTION, Tuesday and Wednesday, and 10th and 11th days of July, 1866, at Twelve for One o’clock at Noon each day, on the premises, "FORMBY BREWERY," FORMBY, the whole of the 

BREWERY PLANT, Four hourse Upright STEAM ENGINE, with boiler and shafting complete; large Malt Mill,about 300 BARRELS, HALVES, & QUARTERS, 25-barrel copper BOILER, Working ROUNDS, Stillages, COOLER &c; Brewer's Spring CART, Iron and Wood FARM IMPLEMENTS, sets of GEARS, two superior draught HORSES, three valuable Newly-calved COWS, STURK, Roaring CALF, breeding SOW, 11 Young PIGS, and 9 Store PIGS, GROWING CROPS and HAY, WHEAT, OATS, RYE, POTATOES, CARROTS, &c., DAIRY VESSELS, HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE. Home-cured HAMS and BACON, and all the other the Effects, the property Mr. John Rimmer, deceased.

ORDER OF SALE. - The Brewery Plant, Implements, Live Stock, Growing Crops,and Out-door effects will be sold the first day; the Furniture the second day.

The Brewery Plant (Engine, Boiler, Shafting, Brewing-copper, Malt Mill, &c.) as will be arranged, will, in the first instance, be offered by Auction at the opening of the sale, IN ONE LOT; but if not disposed of in one lot, then the same will be sold piece-meal. 

The whole will be sold without the least reserve. An early attendance of friends in general will be esteemed. 

Further particulars may be obtained from Joan Jeffryes, Senior Auctioneer and Valuer of the District, at his Offices, Aughten-street, Omskirk; in Wigan; or 29, Todd-street, Manchester.
Wigan Observer and District Advertiser - Saturday 07 July 1866, page 1.

That's strange. If John Rimmer had inherited the brewery from his father, there would have been no need for an auction.

It doesn't sound like a very big brewery, owning just 300 casks of all sizes and a 25-barrel copper. Interesting selling crops which were still growing. And a sturk, too. I've always wanted one of those, whatever it is.

I was really confused at this point. Taking a slightly different tack, all became clear. I explain how next time.

Let's Brew - 1878 Adnams XX

A milestone today. I laid out the skeleton for  the book after "Blitzkrieg!". And wrote the first recipe for it. I'm just about done with my WW II recipes and totally sick of them, myself. I'm guessing you are, too. Hence moving back several decades.

The Adnams records at this date weren’t exactly the most detailed. There’s a stack of information missing. Just a warning that there’s a fair amount of informed guesswork in this recipe. I have some more detailed Adnams records from 1890 and I’ve used that to inform this recipe.

There’s not too much guesswork in the recipe. Mostly because there’s so little to it. Base malt and sugar is all the grist amounts to. A bit vague on the latter, which is literally just described as “sugar”.

I’m struggling for much more to say. OK, the strength. Adnams XX is notably weaker than a London equivalent. Barclay Perkins XX, for example, had an OG of 1078º in 1880.  That’s quite a difference, but fits with the general trend of London beers being stronger than those brewed elsewhere in England

Two types of hops were used. The handwriting is pretty bad, leaving me unable to say for certain what they were. One could be Kent. The other one looks like “cedf”. No idea what that could be, other than “calif” written really weirdly.

1878 Adnams XX
mild malt	7.00 lb	70.00%
No. 2 invert sugar	3.00 lb	30.00%
Goldings 105 mins	2.50 oz
Goldings 30 mins	2.50 oz
OG	1054
FG	1015
ABV	5.16
Apparent attenuation	72.22%
IBU	62
SRM	11
Mash at	154º F
Sparge at	172º F
Boil time	105 minutes
pitching temp	64º F
Yeast	WLP025 Southwold

The Formby Brewery

I could spend hours trawling through the British Newspaper Archives. Come to think of it, I do.

Not a total waste of time as it provides me with a stack of information. Information that, only a decade or so ago, would have taken months to accumulate. Even then, you'd miss a lot.

I was intrigued by the small brewery in Formby, claimed to have been founded in the 16th century. Time for a quick search of the archives. The results were far from disappointing. After 15 minutes, I already had the names of three previous owners. And threw up more question which need digging into.

The investigation will take a while. In the meantime, I've found someone who really did lament the passing of the brewery.

"IN MEMORIAM
After all these years of mellow memories, we've less than a month in which to drown our sorrows and mourn the passing of the home-made pint o' wallop. 

My noggin of Formby brew is to be snatched from my (steady) hand. I can't recover from the shock. I doubt I ever shall.

But what a chance to Formby beer a real send off! Here's hoping I'm still alive and kicking for the party.

All the same it's grim news. There's many an old Formby man like your old uncle who was weaned on this native ale.

NOT YET
They say when you take away a man's chief form of sustenance, he doesn't last long. Ah me.

But I hope "they're" wrong. I don't want to leave Formby yet awhile, in spite of the Council, the foreshore, Deansgate Lane ditches, darkened Long Lane, Mr. Criddle and all. 

Mind you, I've got nothing against the chaps who've bought up the old brewery. But to close even one, and this one! 

There should be a law against it. I'll talk to Shawcross about it. 

Is it possible to have a few gallons bottled or barrelled to keep for the future? Just to help out a special celebration, like the first trip to Mars or the time when Wicks Lane Crossing is eliminated by a proper by-pass road and bridges.

SOME SMILE
I suggest the Council do stow away the last precious drops as a memento of an old industry. 

Mind you, while we mourn, others rejoice that the brewery is being knocked out. 

There will he joy among folk living up Freshfield Road, especially those who live to windward of it, because they say they get an awful lot of smoke from the low-built chimney stack. 

There's only one thing to do when the smoke screen is up. Close all windows, batten down the hatches and standby to scrub down. 

That's what these locals tell me. Fancy living in the shadow of a brewery and regretting it! 

However, it takes all sorts to make a world, in which, after all, Formby is included even if some people say it's the last place they'd stay in.
Formby Times - Saturday 08 October 1949, page 3.

"Wallop" was slang for Mild. The other article only mentioned Mild, too. I wonder if that was the only beer they brewed?

 

Funnily enough, there was a letter to the Formby Times disputing some of that article.

"THE "Formby Times" is evidently labouring under a misapprehension regarding the location of the Old Formby Brewery, which I feel I must correct. 

On three occasions in recent issues your reports have placed it in Freshfleld Road. 

It is actually in Brewery Lane, more than half a mile distant from the nearest point In Freshfield Road, and therefore the "smoke from its chimney" could hardly cause discomfort to the dwellers In Freshileld Road.
—W.M., Formby.
Formby Times - Saturday 12 November 1949, page 2.

What a basic mistake to make. The address of the brewery is mostly given as Liverpool Road. I assume Brewery Lane is the driveway running along the side of the Royal Hotel. It's not much of a street today. Not even marked on the 1890s map above.

A Porter and Stout argument (part three)

More from my highly amusing discussion with an overconfident home brewer.

This time he's replying after having gone away and read Obadiah Poundage's letter. Unsurprisingly, he didn't understand it.

"Interesting read.  He refers to "Porter or Entire Butt," rather than "Entire gyle," which sounds more like mixing the containers of fermented beer, rather than mixing the worts.  Also, are you certain "entire gyle" didn't simply mean the default process of adding the sparge back to the first runnings, rather than making a second, weaker beer from it?  There is literally no advantage to combining different worts.  Making a wort with dark grains, and combining it with a wort made from light grains, would taste no different than a wort made with a mixture of light and dark grains.  Something's getting lost in your translation/explanation. 

Note he's also clueless about 18th-century brewing methods and doesn't realise no brewer in London sparged until about a century after Porter first appeared. Nor can he grasp the concept of entire gyle. No idea where he got the idea that it meant blending worts from mashes of different-coloured grains.

He then expands on his theory that Porter was an English derivative of German Dunkles:

"Regardless, this in no way disproves porter was based on Dunkel and Schwartzbier.  In fact, Dunkel just means "dark" in German.  We know it was the beer most widely drank my commoners because it was cheap, and there is historical record of Dunkels being hundreds of years older than Porter.  Not to mention, the oldest known document mentioning porter being from 1760 tells me the beer is even older, because we have no idea how many countless other documents have been lost, and how long people uttered the term out loud without penning it down.  Dunkel is likely the origin of porter, and English-speakers just referred to it as "porter" because, just like in Germany, that's who drank it.  The origin of porter is just as muttled as IPA.  I know you want to believe otherwise, but the fact is that many versions of all this information are out there, in many languages, from multiple countries, and they conflict.  Being positive one is right and the other is wrong is no more asinine than being religious. None of this proves Germans weren't drinking porter-like beers hundreds of years earlier.  Nor does it prove that Americans didn't go through their own history of dark beers.  Countless other beers that would have tasted the same as a porter could have come and gone, or been renamed "porter" after the name was popularized.  I find every story I hear fascinating, but I put faith in absolutely none of them.  Sorry."

It's very much from the it-could-have-happened-so-it-must-have-happened school of history. Not sure where he got the idea that porters drank Dunkles in Bavaria. Back then most Bavarian men would have been agricultural labourers or craftsmen. I'm trying to imagine happy peasants drinking steins of Porter. Nope, doesn't feel right.

I just love this line of argument: "None of this proves Germans weren't drinking porter-like beers hundreds of years earlier." You can't prove it didn't happen, so it probably did. I could just as easily say, Germans had potatoes centuries before chips were invented, so chips must be derived from Bratkartoffeln. Or, aliens could have built the pyramids. You can't prove they didn't.

Towards the end he even hints that Porter might have first been brewed in the American colonies. It's amazing what brilliant theories you can develop if you completely ignore annoying little details like facts.

I suggested he read Martyn Cornell's demolition of the theory that Porter came from the Flemish beer Poorter and he came back with this:

"Let me get this straight, I inform you that the history of porter is muddled because there are multiple historians that disagree with one another, and your proof that I'm wrong is posting yet another article written by a beer historian who disagrees with everyone else?  Got it.  JFC.  This whole conversation is hilarious.   Besides, that article simply argued against where porter got it's name, and I've never uttered the word "poorter" once, so I have literally no idea how you think it relates to this conversation." 

How was this relative to our conversation? Because it fucking showed, giving sources, what the true history of Porter was. And that it was a style first brewed in London. It seems pretty obvious to me the article was extremely relevant. Because other people have written unsourced nonsense about Porter, Martyn's article was just "one of many equally valid theories"?

Immediately he's back to Porter being originally German:

"I'm saying Schwartzbier was invented 300 years before porter, and at some point, a London brewer probably tasted one.  If you disagree with that notion, you've likely lost touch with reality yourself.   I don't even care about any of this.  I've said MULTIPLE times now, that beer history is muddled, and that I don't take stock in anything I'm saying, but hey, if you're enjoying this interaction, I'm here for you.  Keep arguing.  Put whose ever face you're mad at on the punching bag.  Let it out."

I'll be honest with you here: I've no idea how old Schwarzbier (he can't even spell it correctly) is as a style. I doubt that it goes back as far as the 15th century. A London brewer would "probably" have tried? What the fuck? Until the 1990s, Schwarzbier was a very obscure style, brewed in tiny quantities in just one region, Saxony. Few German brewers would have tried let alone one from London. 

In the 18th century London had the largest and most advanced brewing industry in the world. By a very long way. Germany was a backwater when it came to beer at the time and didn't have any reputation internationally. What did they do in the 19th century when they wanted to modernise their industry? They went to the UK. One German brewer who visited the UK - Gabriel Sedlmayr from Spaten -  used what he had learnt in the UK to brew the first modern Dunkles back in Munich. If anything, Porter influenced Dunkles.

Because he's stated MULTIPLE times that beer history is muddled, then it has to be true. That's the logic of a lunatic.

Let's end with him banging on about Germany again:

"Not being able to understand that Germans made dark beer hundreds of years before the UK, and being convinced that the people of London were never influenced by these"

I would have let it go, if the arrogant bastard hadn't kept putting in little personal digs. Instead I invited Martyn to join in. That was fun. It was like watching a cat play with an annoying mouse. Sadly, the posts have now been deleted.

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1943 William Younger No. 1

It seems to be taking forever to polish off the final few recipes for my next book. Only William Younger left to go. Unfortunately, they brewed a ridiculous number of different beers. I've only just finished 1943. Still a couple of more years to go.

It’s all change with the No. 1 recipe compared to 1942. With a quite different grist, where quite a few ingredients have been dropped.

One thing that remained the same was the gravity, which at 1076 was very reasonable for this phase of the war. I can’t imagine there was much any stronger being brewed at the time.

Flaked barley has replaced the two adjuncts from 1942, grits and flaked rice. No surprise there. It’s more of a shock that Younger still had stocks of grits and flaked rice in 1942, as both had to be imported. From here on in to the end of the war and beyond, flaked barley was pretty much the only adjunct available.

This iteration is notable for containing no sugar at all. Why did they drop lactose? I’m assuming it was beyond the brewer’s control as it reappeared in the post-war recipe.

Change extends to the hops, which were Kent and OP21, an experimental variety also known as Brewer’s Favourite, both from the 1942 harvest. I’ve substituted Brewer’s Gold for OP21. The higher alpha content of OP21/Brewer’s Gold means that the calculated bitterness has increased significantly, up from 24 IBU in 1942 to 33 IBU.

1943 William Younger No. 1
pale malt	13.50 lb	75.00%
crystal malt 120L	1.50 lb	8.33%
flaked barley	3.00 lb	16.67%
Fuggles 150 min	0.75 oz
Brewer's Gold 150 min	0.25 oz
Fuggles 60 min	1.00 oz
Fuggles 30 min	1.00 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.125 oz
OG	1076
FG	1022
ABV	7.14
Apparent attenuation	71.05%
IBU	33
SRM	16
Mash at	154º F
Sparge at	160º F
Boil time	150 minutes
pitching temp	58.5º F
Yeast	WLP028 Edinburgh Ale

A Porter and Stout argument (part two)

Some more incoherent beer history fun. This time with the astounding claim that one element of three threads was Lager.

"Porter could be a hundred or more years older, and the first brewers to make it weren't necessarily the "biggest breweries in the world," but rather little pubs that served what they brewed on site, and they cut every cost they could before modern kilning techniques had taken hold anywhere.  I don't necessarily have any investment in any of this info, but I kid you not (feel free to Google this), some historians say that porter was born from a beer called "Entire beer," which was essentially just a three-way mixture of lager, pale ale, and a strong ale.  The three separate beers were poured into a single glass upon request, much like a "black & tan" is today.  Anchor Brewing literally has this on their website.  Again, I don't mean to imply I believe this, nor did I want to indicate that I thought anything you said is wrong, moreover, I believe all of us are wrong!  LOL  "Beer history is a funny thing," meaning, no one really knows any of this for sure, and every "historian" thinks they're the only one that's got the story right, yet they all contradict one another!  I've resigned to just be fascinated by any story I hear, and I romanticize with whichever story sounds good at the moment.  None of it matters."

When I pointed out the first Lagers weren't brewed in UK until the 1840s, I got this reply:

""Porter was always a beer produced by big brewers because it had to be brewed on a large scale."  Interesting.  So, you couldn't make a five-gallon batch of it?  Why is that, exactly?  LOL   Also, John Feltham wrote an article called "The Porter Brewery" in 1802, where he claimed porter was based on a mixed drink called "Three Threads," which was one-third ale, one-third "beer," and one third two-pence.  Don't get mad at me for telling you this stuff.  I'm only pointing out how rocky beer history is.  Also, although lager didn't go by its current name in London till 1839, the people of Pilsen were making beer as early as the 13th century.  František Ondřej Poupě wrote a book in 1794 about lager, so it's not like the world was waiting around for the UK to figure things out.  Although the London porter is one of the most commonly cited early porter beers, let's not forget there are other countries on Earth, and Germans were brewing beer on American soil in commercial breweries as early as 1612.  Dunkel and Swartzbier have documentation that go back to 1390.  -and let's be honest here, a porter is just a variant of a Dunkel.  The history of the porter as we know it is probably so muddled because it went through its own evolution on every continent.  Just a thought.  If you're comfortable being positive you know everything, hey, more power to you."

So they were brewing Lager in London in the 18th century, they just didn't call it that. And they were brewing Lager in Pilsen in the 13th century. Real comedy gold this. 

Then there's the killer - because they brewed dark beers earlier than 1700 in Germany, Porter must be derived from Dunkles or Schwarzbier. Right. Porter is any beer darker than a certain colour. There were  beers that dark in Germany before 1700, so Porter must be derived from them.

I'm not getting mad for you telling me this stuff. I'm having a good laugh.

On a more serious note, it's scary how little weight facts and logic have with a lot of people. I was going to say nowadays, but I guess it's always been the same.

 

When I'm 94

I've been kicking around a though in my head for the last few days. What sources would I use if, 30 years from now, I decided to write a followup volume to "Austerity!".

Initially, foremost in my mind were concerns, such as, would the RateBeer information be available? And would any breweries have bothered archiving their brewing records? Would archived versions of brewery websites be accessible?  (I assume that the British Newspaper Archive will continue to exist in some form.) Then I couldn't help starting to think about the details of exactly how I'd do it.

1971 to 2021 is far too long a period.It would need to be split into two books. The first kicking off with the foundation of CAMRA. Where to end it, though. What's a meaningful, break point? 

I pondered that for a couple of days. It was obvious, really. When the Big Six crumbled into dust. 2000 - 2001. Which followed on logically from my decision to call the book "Cask!". And the one after "Evil Keg!".

Digging an ever larger pit for myself, I wondered how much material I already have. For 1971 to 1980, a reasonable amount. Some brewing records. Not enough, but some, at least. Whitbread Luton records must have survived. They'd be interesting to look at. I'd need a shitload of others as well. Thousands of hours of work.

For the whole period I've OGs or ABVs from the Good Beer Guide. Usually only one of the other. Making them much less useful than Whitbread Gravity Book entries. Better than nothing.Big problem: only cask beers. I've far less information on keg and bottled beers. Not sure where I could find that. A bit of scanning and OCR work. Nothing too crazy. A couple of hundred hours, maybe.

I've statistics galore, courtesy of the BBPA Statistical Handbook. Beer production, % sales by style, number of breweries, number of pubs, imports, exports. Everything I could possible need. Maybe more numbers on tied estates. Very little to do. I could use the Good Beer Guide scans to harvest tied house numbers, which were often included in brewery entries.

Far too much for me to even contemplate taking on anytime soon. I haven't finished writing about the periods I have researched fully. More or less. 

I already have my next few books planned out. Should I ever manage to finish "Blitzkrieg!". 

First is "Free!" covering the Golden Age of UK brewing - 1880 - 1914. 

Moving back in time to 1830 - 1880. I can't remember if I thought of a title for that one. "Beerhouse!", perhaps. 

Finishing at 1780 - 1830. About as far as I dare go back, cowardly time-traveller that I am. Plenty of time to think about what I'll call that, given how long it's likely to take me to complete the other two.

I'm hoping "Free!" won't take anything like as long as "Blitzkrieg!". Despite covering a far longer period, much less was going on. Wishful thinking, probably.

A Porter and Stout argument

Porter and Stout. How many happy hours have I spent arguing about them on the internet? Too many.

But it's been a while. People won't discuss beer history with me much on BeerAdvocate any more. I've no idea why.

Often I can't be bothered getting involved in discussions on other platforms. Better things to do with my time and all that. But on a Beer Channel YouTube video called "Porter and Stout: What's the difference?" there was a comment of such unbridled idiocy, I just couldn't help myself.

"Due to old malting techniques, when maltsters of yesteryear were kilning malts to make crystal/caramel malts for ambers and browns, the grains closest to the heat got charred, and they were sold off for dirt cheap, essentially under the notion that these black grains were burnt/ruined/undesirable.  Brewers made a beer from that burnt "garbage" that most folks thought was quite acrid and disgusting, but it was much less expensive to brew with, and thus made for a cheap pint.

"Porter" is a profession.  Sailors who move boxes at a port of call are called porters.  Impoverished porters would drink these cheap, burnt beers because they could afford them, and they wanted a buzz after all their back-breaking work.  Thus, brewers named the dark junk after the folks that were hard up enough to drink it.  The porter beer was born.  

Any and all beers that are darker than a brown ale are considered a porter.  The grains are burnt beyond any style, thus it's just rubbish fit for a porter.  However, people with coin to spare started drinking the swill on purpose.  Since the burnt grains didn't have a lot of fermentable sugars (as you mentioned), people complained that porters didn't have enough alcohol.  Enter the notion of adding more "good" base grains in with the burnt ones.  The result was a porter with a significantly higher ABV, and people referred to this as a "stout porter."  "Stout," by definition meaning "strong and thick."  Thus, a stout IS a porter.  It is just a strong porter."

As seen some incoherent rambling on the history of Porter, but this takes the biscuit. Crystal malt in 1720? Only a century too early. All beers darker than Brown Ale are Porters? That's such a weird claim.
 

"By BJCP guidelines, all beers are porters once they reach a Standard Reference Method (SRM) of 18.  The SRM scale originally went from 0 - 40, with 0 being the straw color of Bud Light, and 40 being absolutely black.  These days, there are two beer styles that go as darks as 80 SRM, and those styles are Foreign Stout and Imperial Stout.  Still, to be precise, these beers may not have "porter" in the name, but they are absolutely stout porters, as all stouts are.  These days, as we just love abbreviating names, we've favored to drop the word "porter" from "stout porter," and that's why they're just colloquially referred to as stouts."

Oh, I get it. The BJCP says everything over 18 SRM is a Porter. The BJCP has come out with some weird stuff in the past, but I'm pretty sure they've never said that. And they didn't exist in the 18th century so how the hell could they have defined what was Porter and what wasn't?

"The reason modern Guinness today is called an "Irish Stout" is to differentiate it from a porter, because it's actually really low ABV, and Guinness doesn't want you to think about that.  By calling it a stout, they're hoping you'll think it's some big, strong beer, when in actuality, it's one of the lowest-calorie beers on the market.  Guinness was originally called a stout because the beer they made when this whole story was unfolding was a stout.  It was completely different.  It is not easy to find, but every year around Saint Patrick's day, Guinness puts a box collection of their foreign extra stouts on sale around the world, and those are the original recipes for their beers that awarded them the status of stout.  When they started making the modern day Guinness with the nitro widget in it, they continued to call it a stout because the nitro makes it taste thick & milky, but without the nitro, it really isn't a thick beer; it's extremely thin."

He really doesn't get beer history and how Guinness Extra Stout slowly evolved into its current form.

Luckily he has some great sources for all this twaddle:

"My sources for all this: #1 I am a brewer myself.  #2 The booked titled "The Search for God & Guinness" which is the history of the Guinness family, and the origins of several beer styles, including IPA, but that's another story.  #3 Brewer calculators will tell you the standard ABVs and SRMs for any beer style."

Wow, he's read a whole book about Guinness and he's a brewer. I'm guessing home brewer. They're usually the ones who come up with nonsense like this. And have unshakeable belief in it.

This is only the beginning. It gets way crazier and illogical. When he starts claiming Porter originated in Germany.

Going out with a whimper

This is a very sad tale. A brewery closing its doors after several centuries. Seemingly with very little fuss.

 

In the article, the founding date is given as 1662, but A Century of British Brewers plus plus says 16th century. Which would have made it the oldest brewery in the UK. Why have I never heard of it?

"TOWEL IS UP ON LOCAL BREW
NEW OWNERS TAKE OVER
Last pints of home-brewed Formby mild ale produced in the 1662 family-owned brewery in Freshfield Road were drunk with relish in the Railway Hotel this week.

On Monday night, the business officially passed into the hands of its new owners, who bought it a month ago, and who, it is believed, will not continue to brew Formby ale. 

A farewell party was staged last Sunday night by Mr. and Mrs. William Baker, who have just relinquished the ownership. 

Customers gathered in the Railway bar and main room to give the former licensee and his wife a cheery sendoff to their new home in West Kirby. 

The new host and hostess, Mr. and Mrs. John Bannister, were installed and welcomed on Monday. 

Neither is a stranger to Formby. Mr. Bannister left the district 18 years ago. He took up an appointment in a Liverpool public house, then moved to premises in Wavertree. For the last nine years he has been manager of the Birkey Hotel, Crosby. 

On September 28th, the Railway (Formby), Liver (Waterloo) and Grapes (Thornton) Hotels, and the Formby brewery whose beer they sold were sold by auction for £97,000 to Joshua Tetley and Sons Ltd., Leeds brewery concern."
Formby Times - Saturday 05 November 1949, page 1.

The brewery was called T & WR Dickinson, in case you're wondering. Interesting that it was sold by auction. Obviously, Tetley wasn't interested in the brewery, just the pubs. Serving just three tied houses, it must have been pretty tiny.

Surprisingly, all three pubs are still trading. So Tetley's investment must have paid off pretty well. It also looks like at least some of the brewery premises are still there, around the back of the Royal Hotel.

Reciprocity Brewery in 1892

I'd love to know the story behind the sale. The last brewer couldn't even drink, being just 16 years old.

Let's Brew - 1944 Fullers No. 2 PA

To follow on from my tables of Fuller's beers a few posts back, I thought I'd throw you a recipe for one of their beers. The exotically named No.2 PA, which boring, old PA in 1940. Reducing the gravity from 1048.5º to 1042.5º on the way.

This is fun. At least that’s what I’d be thinking if I was a regular in a Fullers pub. My Bitter might be pissy-weak, but it wasn’t getting any pissier. The gravity remaining the same as in 1942.

With the Year of Oats over the recipe has basically reverted to that of 1942. From 1944 on it was flaked barley all the way as adjunct. And not just for Fullers. It’s what all UK brewers were using.

Other than that little tweak, the grist is unchanged. There’s a little more glucose, but the quantity was so small to start with that it makes bugger all real difference.

The hops were a 60-40 split between two types of English hops, both from the 1943 harvest. The (calculated) IBUs, at 28, remain the same as in 1943.

1944 Fullers No. 2 PA
pale malt	6.50 lb	81.05%
flaked barley	1.25 lb	15.59%
No. 2 invert sugar	0.125 lb	1.56%
glucose	0.125 lb	1.56%
caramel 1000 SRM	0.02 lb	0.25%
Fuggles 90 min	1.00 oz
Goldings 30 min	1.00 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.50 oz
OG	1034.5
FG	1009.5
ABV	3.31
Apparent attenuation	72.46%
IBU	28
SRM	5.5
Mash at	148º F
After underlet	151º F
Sparge at	168º F
Boil time	90 minutes
pitching temp	62º F
Yeast	WLP002 English Ale

Barclay Perkins XLK material costs in WW II

I was intrigued by a question asked in response to an earlier post. Why did the price of beer increase so much during WW I. My immediate response was - tax. I decided to investigate a bit more, just to be sure.

Let’s take a look at one particular beer, Barclay Perkins XLK, to see what was behind those price increase. Rather handily, Barclay’s brewing records list the price of the ingredients.

I’d best tell you the units I’m using in the tables first. The grains are in quarters – 336 lbs. The sugars and hops in hundredweights – 112 lbs.

In 1939, the raw materials accounted for much less of the cost than tax.

Tax, at a rate of 80 shillings per standard barrel , came to 2.77d per pint of XLK. The ingredients were less than half that, at just 1.27d. Most of that coming from the fermentables. It’s fascinating to see just how insignificant the cost of the hops was.

29th May 1939 Barclay Perkins XLK material costs (217 barrels)
ingredient	quantity	price (shillings)	cost	cost per pint (d)	% of total
Californian pale malt	7.98	47	375.06
PA malt Gripper	9.24	55	508.20
PA malt HA & DT	9.24	59	545.16
flaked maize	4.2	36	151.20
No. 3 invert sugar	9.66	38.5	371.91
total malt/adjunct			1951.53	1.13	16.16%
MK Fuggles 1938	0.90	196	73.70
Kent W 1938	0.84	213	74.11
MK Goldings 1937	0.96	236	94.26
total hops			242.08	0.15	2.09%
total ingredients				1.28	18.25%
tax				2.77	39.57%
retail price				7.00
Source:
Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number ACC/2305/01/623.

If you’re wondering why the quantities look so weird, it’s because this example was parti-gyled. I’ve adjusted the amounts to reflect XLK’s share of the materials.

By 1942, in the middle of the war, things had changed quite a bit. There’s been a big increase in the price of malt – four or five times its pre-war level.

8th May 1942 Barclay Perkins XLK material costs (225 barrels)
ingredient	quantity	price (shillings)	cost	cost per pint (d)	% of total
crystal malt	1.25	230	287.5
PA malt Taylor	13	178	2314
PA malt Dereham	12.75	195	2486.25
flaked barley	3	205	615
sugar	3	100	300
total malt/adjunct			6002.75	3.34	27.85%
MK Fuggles 1941	0.55	334	184.89
Worcester Fuggles 1941	0.55	310	171.61
MK Fuggles 1940	0.55	278	153.89
total hops			510.39	0.29	2.42%
total ingredients				3.63	30.26%
tax				4.41	36.77%
retail price				12.00
Source:
Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number ACC/2305/01/624.

That’s left the ingredients costing almost the same as the tax, and three times the 1939 amount. Despite fewer of them being needed, due to a fall in OG from 1045.7º to 1035.3º.  The proportion of the retail price made up by the tax has even fallen a little. Even though the tax rate had more than doubled, up to 165 shillings a standard barrel.

On a side note, it’s strange to see flaked barley costing more than PA malt. Why would you use unmalted barley when malt was cheaper? Because the government told you to.

Just after war’s end, the situation had altered once more.

29th Aug 1946 Barclay Perkins XLK material costs (282 barrels)
ingredient	quantity	price (shillings)	cost	cost per pint (d)	% of total
crystal malt	3	131	393
PA malt Taylor	14	153	2142
PA malt Dereham	14	142	1988
flaked barley	3	205	615
No. 3 invert sugar	5	99	495
total malt/adjunct			5633.00	2.51	19.32%
MK Colgates 1945	0.71	452	322.86
Worcester Fuggles 1945	0.72	451	326.17
Worcester Goldings 1945	0.72	491	355.10
EK Tolhursts 1945	0.72	476	344.25
total hops			1004.13	0.45	3.48%
total ingredients				2.96	22.79%
tax				6.86	52.75%
retail price				13.00
Source:
Barclay Perkins brewing record held at the London Metropolitan Archives, document number ACC/2305/01/627.

I’m sure brewers were happy to see the price of malt fall a bit, though there were still triple that of 1939. Hops, on the other hand, were around 50% more expensive than in 1942. As they were a relatively small part of the total, it still meant the cost of the ingredients was down from 3.63d to 2.96d. A reduction in OG to 1031.06º also helped to reduce this a little.

Obviously, the tax had increased and was, in 1946, 286 shillings 5.5d per standard barrel.  Making it just over 50% of the retail price at just shy of 7d per pint. Which, coincidentally, had been the retail price in 1939.