Victorian Bitter

[An Ankoù]

I like the looks of that one @jjsh posted about: JOSHUA TETLEY & Sons , X K BITTER BEER 1868.

After this "Victorian Bitter" malarkey I'm a complete convert to Chevallier (as may "l"s as you like!) barley malt and "Victorian Bitters" but this XK recipe will be a chance to try Edd's trademark malt mixes (it's 50% Chevallier, having been cut with other malts), while otherwise being quite similar to the Morrell's derived recipe (including having the very successful Hochkurz-like mashing schedule).

Even though Edd does a fair bit of work to make sense of these old recipes, it'll need a bit of shoehorning to fit into one's own brewing practices (I don't think they had conical-cylindrical stainless steel fermenters back then, and I better dig out my "blow-off tube" if I follow the recommendation to use a "Yorkshire Square Yeast Strain"; e.g. WYeast's West Yorkshire Ale yeast which does have a tendency to try and make it out of the front-door).

But, this is all advance planning, for Christmas potentially!

Just looking at this recipe again, @peebee , all the hop additions say "aged 12 + 0 months (2019)" followed by an alpha rating. Does this mean that you've calculated a reduced alpha acid content for hops that have been stored normally for a year or are they hops that have been stored in such a way as to deliberately age them (in a paper bag in the fridge? Or is it just for your records that the hops were from an earlier harvest?
Thanks. I'm thinking of doing this one. it doesn't look too horrendously strong.
Or should I be asking @jjsh ?

 

[peebee]

... Or is it just for your records that the hops were from an earlier harvest? ...

Aye, this latter reason. I do not purposely age hops, but calculating the effect of age to better keep my brews consistent.

I scribble the results in the description (Beersmith adds the IBU value) so I don't have to recalculate from scratch if I have more of those hops to use at a later date. There's two figures (e.g. "... 12 + 0 ...") to represent time since harvest (estimated as 7C in oxygen depleted packaging), and time I've had them (in freezer at -18C).

I guess this makes me a right farty old git with too much time on me hands?

 

[peebee]

Just looking at this recipe again, @peebee , ...

We had an anonymous visitor ( ) in the "Victorian Mild!" thread yesterday, and he was saying some useful stuff about some of Edd's recipes I'd pulled out. I know how some of Edd's malt selections leave you scratching your head, so you might like these insights (he's talking about my "Boddington mild" selections:

Both of those recipes look wrong to me. No idea why they include Vienna malt <Crisp Vienna I was using in place of mild malt>, the originals were 100% pale malt. They did include three types of base malt - English, Middle Eastern and Californian - but they were all Californian.
And where are the Californian hops?

I never thought to ask if this was talking about source of malt, or just barley, I suspect the latter?

But, on the subject of Boddington's ( ) there was another interesting recipe amongst the milds: BODDINGTON`S AK BITTER BEER 1901. Only OG 1.046 (dated a few months after Victoria expired, but that chronological hiccup has been excused once already). Seems a decent possibility to add to that Peter Walker bitter I posted in your bitter thread : PETER WALKER & Sons : X BITTER 1896.

 

[patto1ro]

We had an anonymous visitor ( ) in the "Victorian Mild!" thread yesterday, and he was saying some useful stuff about some of Edd's recipes I'd pulled out. I know how some of Edd's malt selections leave you scratching your head, so you might like these insights (he's talking about my "Boddington mild" selections:



I never thought to ask if this was talking about source of malt, or just barley, I suspect the latter?

But, on the subject of Boddington's ( ) there was another interesting recipe amongst the milds: BODDINGTON`S AK BITTER BEER 1901. Only OG 1.046 (dated a few months after Victoria expired, but that chronological hiccup has been excused once already). Seems a decent possibility to add to that Peter Walker bitter I posted in your bitter thread : PETER WALKER & Sons : X BITTER 1896.

Source of the barley. All malted in the UK.

 

[patto1ro]

My difficulty with "XK" is that it's a contradiction of terms. But having read a bit (incl. Ron Pattinson) I think "X" and "K" are often given the "Barclay Perkins" interpretation and amongst other breweries the interpretation can be a bit different. So I might see "XK" as a "keeping mild" and therefore contradictory, whereas another interpretation might be ... (and on, and on).

I think the conclusion is you can interpret the letters for one brewery, then remember to scrape the interpretation and start from scratch to try and make sense of the same letters used in another brewery.

Crazy? But what are people going to make of "raspberry milkshake mocha porter"?

XK was a Pale Ale one strength up from AK. The K tells you that it wasn't a Mild Ale. These were Fuller's Pale Ales in 1887:

AK 1049.6
XK 1057.1
IPA 1060.9

X is a strength indication. The K tells you that it's a Pale Ale. The strengths go A, X, XX, XXX, XXXX.

I've spent years working this **** out. It wasn't totally consistent across breweries, but there were some conventions that were generally adhered to.

 

[peebee]

Source of the barley. All malted in the UK.

(Eeek. I hadn't expected him to still be around ... )



(He's probably as mad as hell 'cos I never sent him the 100 euro I promised. Time to be nice, or is it "condescending"?) ...

 

[peebee]

XK was a Pale Ale one strength up from AK. The K tells you that it wasn't a Mild Ale. These were Fuller's Pale Ales in 1887:

AK 1049.6
XK 1057.1
IPA 1060.9

X is a strength indication. The K tells you that it's a Pale Ale. The strengths go A, X, XX, XXX, XXXX.

I've spent years working this **** out. It wasn't totally consistent across breweries, but there were some conventions that were generally adhered to.

I think it is very brave to try to rationalise these "letter" codes. Having such an unpoliced system (?) means if a brewer has an XX brew, and a competitor has a superior XX brew, the solution is easy - call your brew XXX.

I can reach these conclusions by putting the scenario through my "lying human nature simulator", otherwise known as ...

"It's what I'd do".

 

[peebee]

XK was a Pale Ale one strength up from AK. The K tells you that it wasn't a Mild Ale. These were Fuller's Pale Ales in 1887:

AK 1049.6
XK 1057.1
IPA 1060.9

X is a strength indication. The K tells you that it's a Pale Ale. The strengths go A, X, XX, XXX, XXXX.

I've spent years working this **** out. It wasn't totally consistent across breweries, but there were some conventions that were generally adhered to.

So: "K" means it wasn't Mild, and it's a pale ale

What about this (Tetley's records, but I'm not naming the source 'cos I don't want to drag anyone else down with me 'cos it's a long way to fall - or not intentionally, I'm not sure I can do anything intentionally...):

PORTER

Date Original Gravity Racking Gravity Final Gravity IBU A.B.V
03/12/1844 1.074 1.017 1.013.75 29-32 6 ¼ %
CC Porter 27/06/1844 1.064.75 1.019 1.014 37 5 ½ %
17/??/1844 1.064 1.021 1.013 38-40 5 ¼ %
XK Porter 01/04/1848 1.069.5 1.018 1.014 38-40 6 %
Stock Porter Mon 08/10/1858 1.072 1.024.5 1.014 53 6 %
XXK Porter 1.064 1.034.5 1.023 45 5 ¼ %
X K Porter 1.061 1.022.75 1.018.75 43 4 ¾ %
XXK Porter Fri 20/05/1859 1.068 1.021 1.016.5 45-47 5 ¼ %
XK Porter 1.061 1.022.75 1.018.75 40-42 4 ¾ %
XXK Porter Wed 01/06/1859 1.068 1.021 1.016.5 36-38 5 ½ %
XK Porter 1.061 1.022.25 1.018 36 4 ¾ %
XK Porter Fri 15/06/1859 1.061 1.021.5 1.017.25 38 4 ½ %
Stock Porter 1.075 1.023.5 1.016.5 40 6 %
XXXK Porter Sat 10/10/1868 1.069.5 1.030 1.018 38-40 5 ½ %
X K Porter 1.055.5 1.024.25 1.017.25 36-38 4 %
XXK Porter Fri 14/05/1869 1.069.5 1.022.25 1.018 36-38 5 ½ % X K Porter

I promise:

From now on I shall only listen to your data to make my plans from



(What's that flippin' noise? ... ah, it's my "human nature simulator" going off again ... I'll have to figure how to switch it off).

 

[patto1ro]

So: "K" means it wasn't Mild, and it's a pale ale

What about this (Tetley's records, but I'm not naming the source 'cos I don't want to drag anyone else down with me 'cos it's a long way to fall - or not intentionally, I'm not sure I can do anything intentionally...):

PORTER

Date Original Gravity Racking Gravity Final Gravity IBU A.B.V
03/12/1844 1.074 1.017 1.013.75 29-32 6 ¼ %
CC Porter 27/06/1844 1.064.75 1.019 1.014 37 5 ½ %
17/??/1844 1.064 1.021 1.013 38-40 5 ¼ %
XK Porter 01/04/1848 1.069.5 1.018 1.014 38-40 6 %
Stock Porter Mon 08/10/1858 1.072 1.024.5 1.014 53 6 %
XXK Porter 1.064 1.034.5 1.023 45 5 ¼ %
X K Porter 1.061 1.022.75 1.018.75 43 4 ¾ %
XXK Porter Fri 20/05/1859 1.068 1.021 1.016.5 45-47 5 ¼ %
XK Porter 1.061 1.022.75 1.018.75 40-42 4 ¾ %
XXK Porter Wed 01/06/1859 1.068 1.021 1.016.5 36-38 5 ½ %
XK Porter 1.061 1.022.25 1.018 36 4 ¾ %
XK Porter Fri 15/06/1859 1.061 1.021.5 1.017.25 38 4 ½ %
Stock Porter 1.075 1.023.5 1.016.5 40 6 %
XXXK Porter Sat 10/10/1868 1.069.5 1.030 1.018 38-40 5 ½ %
X K Porter 1.055.5 1.024.25 1.017.25 36-38 4 %
XXK Porter Fri 14/05/1869 1.069.5 1.022.25 1.018 36-38 5 ½ % X K Porter

I promise:

From now on I shall only listen to your data to make my plans from



(What's that flippin' noise? ... ah, it's my "human nature simulator" going off again ... I'll have to figure how to switch it off).

Those aren't the names of Tetley's Porters. Which were SP, X (with a single horizontal line) P, X (with two horizontal lines) P, and X (with three horizontal lines) P. See for yourself:

Not a K in sight. The above is from a brewing record dated 8th October 1858. The Xs with lines I haven't seen anywhere else, it seems to be unique to Tetley.

 

[patto1ro]

So: "K" means it wasn't Mild, and it's a pale ale

What about this (Tetley's records, but I'm not naming the source 'cos I don't want to drag anyone else down with me 'cos it's a long way to fall - or not intentionally, I'm not sure I can do anything intentionally...):

PORTER

Date Original Gravity Racking Gravity Final Gravity IBU A.B.V
03/12/1844 1.074 1.017 1.013.75 29-32 6 ¼ %
CC Porter 27/06/1844 1.064.75 1.019 1.014 37 5 ½ %
17/??/1844 1.064 1.021 1.013 38-40 5 ¼ %
XK Porter 01/04/1848 1.069.5 1.018 1.014 38-40 6 %
Stock Porter Mon 08/10/1858 1.072 1.024.5 1.014 53 6 %
XXK Porter 1.064 1.034.5 1.023 45 5 ¼ %
X K Porter 1.061 1.022.75 1.018.75 43 4 ¾ %
XXK Porter Fri 20/05/1859 1.068 1.021 1.016.5 45-47 5 ¼ %
XK Porter 1.061 1.022.75 1.018.75 40-42 4 ¾ %
XXK Porter Wed 01/06/1859 1.068 1.021 1.016.5 36-38 5 ½ %
XK Porter 1.061 1.022.25 1.018 36 4 ¾ %
XK Porter Fri 15/06/1859 1.061 1.021.5 1.017.25 38 4 ½ %
Stock Porter 1.075 1.023.5 1.016.5 40 6 %
XXXK Porter Sat 10/10/1868 1.069.5 1.030 1.018 38-40 5 ½ %
X K Porter 1.055.5 1.024.25 1.017.25 36-38 4 %
XXK Porter Fri 14/05/1869 1.069.5 1.022.25 1.018 36-38 5 ½ % X K Porter

I promise:

From now on I shall only listen to your data to make my plans from



(What's that flippin' noise? ... ah, it's my "human nature simulator" going off again ... I'll have to figure how to switch it off).

I never said that a K meant a pale beer, just a Stock Ale.

 

[Sadfield]

I never said that a K meant a pale beer, just a Stock Ale.

On the subject of Stock, I'm more interested in the effect of the process, than the intricacies of different recipes. Are there any rules of thumb regarding how beers were stored/aged depending on whether they were pales, IPA or Porters. The use of vats versus firkins? Storage duration? The extent of contamination? I see a lot of commercial and homebrewers brewing old recipes, yet skipping a step I suspect has a considerable influence on the result.

 

[patto1ro]

On the subject of Stock, I'm more interested in the effect of the process, than the intricacies of different recipes. Are there any rules of thumb regarding how beers were stored/aged depending on whether they were pales, IPA or Porters. The use of vats versus firkins? Storage duration? The extent of contamination? I see a lot of commercial and homebrewers brewing old recipes, yet skipping a step I suspect has a considerable influence on the result.

Stock Pale Ales were aged 9 to 12 months, IPA destined for India at least 12 months before getting on the ship. Keeping Porter was aged 6 to 9 months, Strong Stouts 1 to 2 years.Stock Ales were aged 9 months to two years. Nothing was aged in a firkin. Porter and Stout were aged in large vats. Pale Ales and IPAs in hogshweads. Stock Ales were sometimes aged in vats, sometimes in hogsheads.

 

[Sadfield]

Stock Pale Ales were aged 9 to 12 months, IPA destined for India at least 12 months before getting on the ship. Keeping Porter was aged 6 to 9 months, Strong Stouts 1 to 2 years.Stock Ales were aged 9 months to two years. Nothing was aged in a firkin. Porter and Stout were aged in large vats. Pale Ales and IPAs in hogshweads. Stock Ales were sometimes aged in vats, sometimes in hogsheads.

Cheers.

 

[marshbrewer]

Is it safe to assume that whatever they were aged in, if the primary construction was wood of some kind, it would have been lined with something, i.e. pitch or whatever? In other words, any additional flavour contributions would have been made by brett, etc, rather than direct contact with wood?

 

[patto1ro]

Is it safe to assume that whatever they were aged in, if the primary construction was wood of some kind, it would have been lined with something, i.e. pitch or whatever? In other words, any additional flavour contributions would have been made by brett, etc, rather than direct contact with wood?

In the 19th century casks were unlined. They deliberately used a tyype of wood - Memel oak - which imparted little to no flavour, especially after a few uses.

 

[peebee]

Those aren't the names of Tetley's Porters. Which were SP, X (with a single horizontal line) P, X (with two horizontal lines) P, and X (with three horizontal lines) P. See for yourself:
View attachment 44260

Not a K in sight. The above is from a brewing record dated 8th October 1858. The Xs with lines I haven't seen anywhere else, it seems to be unique to Tetley.

I'll pass that on? I've had the strike-throughs explained, but good to see them!

I never said that a K meant a pale beer, just a Stock Ale.

But I can change that to "I never said meant to say that a K meant a pale beer, just a Stock Ale". Careful, what I can do with slip-ups could make your head spin (mine always spins, so if I'm lucky it'll spin the other way). But intention taken on-board.

Site is unusually quiet. I think most of the others on this site are out enjoying the unusual weather, or else have their heads in their hands thinking "oh no, who let him"-(me)-"out". Or else your reputation really stinks and they think "that'll teach him".

 

[patto1ro]

I'll pass that on? I've had the strike-throughs explained, but good to see them!


But I can change that to "I never said meant to say that a K meant a pale beer, just a Stock Ale". Careful, what I can do with slip-ups could make your head spin (mine always spins, so if I'm lucky it'll spin the other way). But intention taken on-board.

Site is unusually quiet. I think most of the others on this site are out enjoying the unusual weather, or else have their heads in their hands thinking "oh no, who let him"-(me)-"out". Or else your reputation really stinks and they think "that'll teach him".

In the context of AK and XK, the K tells you it's a Pale Ale. A different story for KK, KKK and KKKK which are Stock Ales and in the 20th century were dark in colour.

 

[Edd The Brew]

Here you go peebee;
https://oldbeersandbrewing.blogspot.com/2021/04/w-b-mew-langton-co-family-ale-1887.htmlA nice Victorian Bitter style beer ,
ok I realise that the style residents of
Prince Albrecht St might not like my taxonomy , but to be quite honest I really couldn't give a ......... what they say.
Cheers
Edd

 

[peebee]

"Hot off the press" it seems!

I do like these Victorian beers; a substantial bitter by today's standard and they call it "family ale". Just what the kids need before packing them up the chimney with a brush.

 

[Edd The Brew]

I've just posted the Beamish & Crawford Running Porter from 1851