peebee
Out of Control
That's just rubbing my nose in ..it. So I only learnt the difference 'tween a verb and adjective a few posts back ... so!
Victorian Mild!
- Thread starter peebee
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
An Ankoù
Landlord.
Both a verb and an adjective are nouns.
peebee
Out of Control
You can shut-up too! 
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2019
- Messages
- 2,426
- Reaction score
- 2,331
Sadfield
Landlord.
![BREWING THERMOMETER STICKERS ACCURATELY MONITOR FERMENTING BEER & WINE LIQUID TEMPERATURES 5PCS HOME BREW SPIRITS WINE LCD ADHESIVE [US]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/311DDjo2X3L._SL500_.jpg)
peebee
Out of Control
Actually there is some help I could do with.
I got Ron Pattinson's "Mild!" book. I used this as persuasion that I needed the "Bitter! "mega" book too. I'm now in a hole so deep I could really do with someone tossing me down a rope so as to get out again.
I got Ron Pattinson's "Mild!" book. I used this as persuasion that I needed the "Bitter! "mega" book too. I'm now in a hole so deep I could really do with someone tossing me down a rope so as to get out again.
peebee
Out of Control
It's going to take me ages going through these books. Meanwhile I need to get some beer (ale) brewing or I'll run out. And as I'd already decided I'll make a "Victorian" Mild I need to have at least a half decent view of what a "Victorian Mild" is so as to select a suitable recipe. So this is Peebee's preliminary conclusions:
Why am I doing it? Well, if I'm going to pretend I'm brewing a "historic" ale/beer I like to think I've made some effort to have an emulation of the original even if I am going to brew it in a new fangled RIMS/HERMS setup and cylindrically-conical fermenter. One of my biggest objectives was to divide an ale called "Mild" (capital "M") from the various other beers and ales that were "mild" (small "m", unaged pale and porter beers and other ales). Jotting it all down gives me the opportunity to annoy folk with different ideas, give folk who actually like the ideas chance to comment on and copy the process and, finally, keep myself occupied.
First off: Mild evolved throughout the Victorian period, there's no particular clear demarcation that lets me point to a more precise date. It was replacing previously popular Porter that appeared to be in decline from mid-Victorian times. "Aged" Porter had close to disappeared by this time too, which conveniently removes the "mild Porter" distraction ("Mild" has no direct connection to Porter brewing). So in the latter Victorian period people were asking for "Mild" and knew what they were getting.
"X" ales had been associated with Milds for decades. "X" was the first beer/ale "designation" and designated strength and quality. It would be followed or replaced by many more letter designations to cover ever more diverse beer/ale types over the coming years. But take up of new designations wasn't instant so "X" could be associated with a multitude of other beer/ale types: "X" wasn't an infallible indicator of "Mild". Check out any "Beano" comic, the drunk adults always clasped a bottle of "XXXX" never "Mild" - that's a digression, not a proof!
The other common designator associated with Mild is "mild"! Unfortunate choice of wording! This relates to age, and "mild" would mean "young". Because it was young the ale would have a sweetish fresher flavour. Because the ale was intended to be drunk young it didn't need masses of hops to help preserve it. Because the ale was intended to be drunk young it wouldn't want to be too strong as that could make for a very harsh drink otherwise. Because it was intended to be drunk young it wouldn't be subjected to extended periods of expensive storage. Because it was low-ish in alcohol Mild would be generally from the "X" and "XX" designated beers.
Note low strength and low hopping rates were a consequence of this type of ale, not defining features. No doubt "XXX" and "XXXX" "Milds" did exist, the extra sweetness would offset some of the harsh unmatured alcohol features, but I'm assuming the lower consumption of ingredients (malt and hops) kept the price down and this would be welcome. I had thought use of sugar hi-lighted "Milds", not so, but the increasing use of sugar generally, after 1875 (as sugar became more available again a time after the American Civil War), possibly was welcome as it "thinned" ales (made them less "heavy") which meant you could chuck more of the ale down yer neck.
That'll do for now. Now to select a suitable formulation that sits well inside that criteria to brew in the coming days. I'm not too concerned about having to defend it much from folk who disagree with it, 'cos most won't be bothered to read this far!
Why am I doing it? Well, if I'm going to pretend I'm brewing a "historic" ale/beer I like to think I've made some effort to have an emulation of the original even if I am going to brew it in a new fangled RIMS/HERMS setup and cylindrically-conical fermenter. One of my biggest objectives was to divide an ale called "Mild" (capital "M") from the various other beers and ales that were "mild" (small "m", unaged pale and porter beers and other ales). Jotting it all down gives me the opportunity to annoy folk with different ideas, give folk who actually like the ideas chance to comment on and copy the process and, finally, keep myself occupied.
First off: Mild evolved throughout the Victorian period, there's no particular clear demarcation that lets me point to a more precise date. It was replacing previously popular Porter that appeared to be in decline from mid-Victorian times. "Aged" Porter had close to disappeared by this time too, which conveniently removes the "mild Porter" distraction ("Mild" has no direct connection to Porter brewing). So in the latter Victorian period people were asking for "Mild" and knew what they were getting.
"X" ales had been associated with Milds for decades. "X" was the first beer/ale "designation" and designated strength and quality. It would be followed or replaced by many more letter designations to cover ever more diverse beer/ale types over the coming years. But take up of new designations wasn't instant so "X" could be associated with a multitude of other beer/ale types: "X" wasn't an infallible indicator of "Mild". Check out any "Beano" comic, the drunk adults always clasped a bottle of "XXXX" never "Mild" - that's a digression, not a proof!
The other common designator associated with Mild is "mild"! Unfortunate choice of wording! This relates to age, and "mild" would mean "young". Because it was young the ale would have a sweetish fresher flavour. Because the ale was intended to be drunk young it didn't need masses of hops to help preserve it. Because the ale was intended to be drunk young it wouldn't want to be too strong as that could make for a very harsh drink otherwise. Because it was intended to be drunk young it wouldn't be subjected to extended periods of expensive storage. Because it was low-ish in alcohol Mild would be generally from the "X" and "XX" designated beers.
Note low strength and low hopping rates were a consequence of this type of ale, not defining features. No doubt "XXX" and "XXXX" "Milds" did exist, the extra sweetness would offset some of the harsh unmatured alcohol features, but I'm assuming the lower consumption of ingredients (malt and hops) kept the price down and this would be welcome. I had thought use of sugar hi-lighted "Milds", not so, but the increasing use of sugar generally, after 1875 (as sugar became more available again a time after the American Civil War), possibly was welcome as it "thinned" ales (made them less "heavy") which meant you could chuck more of the ale down yer neck.
That'll do for now. Now to select a suitable formulation that sits well inside that criteria to brew in the coming days. I'm not too concerned about having to defend it much from folk who disagree with it, 'cos most won't be bothered to read this far!
jMac
Regular.
peebee
Out of Control
As I'm trying to nail down a recipe, I start my usual trick with reference books and start reading this "Mild!" book backwards from the back cover ("!ezirp a ..."? No, not like that! I mean the pages).
What lots of good stuff to look forward to! One thing that bothered me was this switch from drinking dark porter to light X-Ales. I'd already had it drummed in that there was something of a "class" divide (the nobs drink pales, the workers drink dark ales/beer), so was this being eroded? Not at all! Evidence for colouring "Milds" starts turning up - using grain, which was unexpected. Tiny amounts of black malt (to the boil too, maybe even the "hopback"), small amounts of brown and amber malt like in porter (no suggestion if "traditional" or modern kilned). Sugar is still described as "sugar" so no help there colour-wise, and there also doesn't seem to be enough sugar usage? But I think the suggestion is "darker" (amber?) not "dark".
Ron Pattinson is getting bemused by "mild" formulations skipping about. Not by me, because I sill believe X-Ale is describing two (just two
) different ales; Mild Ale and "mild" ale. All based on what goes on in my head, so somewhat lacking in evidence, but it keeps me happy.
I think I might return to Edd's formulations for an easy (easier) life.
What lots of good stuff to look forward to! One thing that bothered me was this switch from drinking dark porter to light X-Ales. I'd already had it drummed in that there was something of a "class" divide (the nobs drink pales, the workers drink dark ales/beer), so was this being eroded? Not at all! Evidence for colouring "Milds" starts turning up - using grain, which was unexpected. Tiny amounts of black malt (to the boil too, maybe even the "hopback"), small amounts of brown and amber malt like in porter (no suggestion if "traditional" or modern kilned). Sugar is still described as "sugar" so no help there colour-wise, and there also doesn't seem to be enough sugar usage? But I think the suggestion is "darker" (amber?) not "dark".
Ron Pattinson is getting bemused by "mild" formulations skipping about. Not by me, because I sill believe X-Ale is describing two (just two
) different ales; Mild Ale and "mild" ale. All based on what goes on in my head, so somewhat lacking in evidence, but it keeps me happy.I think I might return to Edd's formulations for an easy (easier) life.
Can't be long before it's page 5. I better get this sorted before I go ga-ga (according to you?).... But hang on - this is only page 4
peebee
Out of Control
Okay, the "recipe":
A bit boring 'cos I've posted it already. But this one's adapted to what has been learnt throughout this thread. It's the Boddington's 1901 X-Ale.
Chosen because it is lighter on alcohol than some. OG1.045 ("Mild" remember!). On Page 1 I had suggested this might indicate an intention to make a different type of ale: Rubbish! The "provincial" brewers generally brewed 10 or 15 points lower than their London counterparts. I'll brew with S-33 yeast too, Nottingham is quite a bit more attenuative; mashing that Chevallier barley malt at "normal" temperatures will keep the FG up too. The No.4 Invert will be replaced with No.3 as recommended by @patto1ro though no grade is recorded in the brewing books. But I'm beginning to see why Edd did suggest No.4; they were brewing ale for the workers, and they expected their ale dark. I've toyed with darkening additions (caramel colourants, black malt, etc.), but No.3 will do enough for this emulation (I expect getting hold of or even making No.4 will be a serious problem).
The grain will be all British (Crisp Maltings) despite @patto1ro pointing out it would have been all Californian. The Chevallier will dominate completely, even at 36%, and even though Chevellier barley was being grown across the world, I do not know if any was coming from California? But I very much like Chevallier barley malt, so it's going in.
The other malts just represent the various other barleys that may have been used. Same for hops, they'll still be English, though I was tempted to get some "Brewer's Gold" as per Edd's recommendation, for it's typical "American" blackcurrant flavour hints (it is an English "Wye College" hop but developed in the early 20th century from an American - Canadian! - wild parent). Still, hopping is low and no hop is likely to dominate the end result.
Do remember, these worksheets are my interpretation of recipes Edd published, for my water profile and equipment. See Edd's original publication if adapting to your equipment (Boddingtons Breweries Ltd X-ale).
Right, let's see what I can rustle up as No.3 Invert Sugar ...
A bit boring 'cos I've posted it already. But this one's adapted to what has been learnt throughout this thread. It's the Boddington's 1901 X-Ale.
Chosen because it is lighter on alcohol than some. OG1.045 ("Mild" remember!). On Page 1 I had suggested this might indicate an intention to make a different type of ale: Rubbish! The "provincial" brewers generally brewed 10 or 15 points lower than their London counterparts. I'll brew with S-33 yeast too, Nottingham is quite a bit more attenuative; mashing that Chevallier barley malt at "normal" temperatures will keep the FG up too. The No.4 Invert will be replaced with No.3 as recommended by @patto1ro though no grade is recorded in the brewing books. But I'm beginning to see why Edd did suggest No.4; they were brewing ale for the workers, and they expected their ale dark. I've toyed with darkening additions (caramel colourants, black malt, etc.), but No.3 will do enough for this emulation (I expect getting hold of or even making No.4 will be a serious problem).
The grain will be all British (Crisp Maltings) despite @patto1ro pointing out it would have been all Californian. The Chevallier will dominate completely, even at 36%, and even though Chevellier barley was being grown across the world, I do not know if any was coming from California? But I very much like Chevallier barley malt, so it's going in.
The other malts just represent the various other barleys that may have been used. Same for hops, they'll still be English, though I was tempted to get some "Brewer's Gold" as per Edd's recommendation, for it's typical "American" blackcurrant flavour hints (it is an English "Wye College" hop but developed in the early 20th century from an American - Canadian! - wild parent). Still, hopping is low and no hop is likely to dominate the end result.
Do remember, these worksheets are my interpretation of recipes Edd published, for my water profile and equipment. See Edd's original publication if adapting to your equipment (Boddingtons Breweries Ltd X-ale).
Right, let's see what I can rustle up as No.3 Invert Sugar ...
Might have that wrong? I talk gibberish up until page 5? But if I had got it wrong, and it's only page 4, getting it wrong would be what to expect?Can't be long before it's page 5. I better get this sorted before I go ga-ga (according to you?).... But hang on - this is only page 4
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2019
- Messages
- 2,426
- Reaction score
- 2,331
You wouldn't have had "Wye hops" in 1901, the breeding programme didn't start until after WWI - apart from Amos' Early Bird, a Golding clone that was found in the 1880s in a field about a mile from the college. Milds at that time would have used varieties like Tolhurst and Colgate, which A Bushel of Hops grow (but looks like they're out until next harvest now), Grape would also be authentic which they do have.
As and when you move post-1934, Germany still grows a fair bit of Brewer's Gold as they like the quality of its bittering for helles, you can get it from places like BrewUK. Bullion and Bramling Cross have similar pedigrees.
peebee
Out of Control
I (or Edd) never suggested it was the hop used (I hope), just perhaps a suitable hop to use in place of loads of unavailable hops. But it's worth emphasising that distinction!
Sadfield
Landlord.
Edd The Brew
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2021
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 5
I'm disappointed to see such an assinine reply; as @peebee quite rightly says , I use a hop variety that's relatively easily available as replacement for un stated varietals in the original records .I'm disappointed you're not time travelling to the hop merchants, @peebee. You may as well not bother. Still when you move to 1934 you could use a hop that wasn't commercially released until the 1950s.
I also take into account the use of Aged / Stored hops , and where appropriate recommend their use in replicating old recipies .
Sadfield
Landlord.
????
peebee
Out of Control
My entry into "Victorian Mild" begins! The wet bit, I've done enough blagging on about it.
Nothing "Californian", all English grain and English hops ... and Welsh water (the stuff full of fortifying sheep wee). Bit worried about the hops, although there's not many they are prime Fuggles and EKG which will have an impact compared to 5 year old Californian hops (which wouldn't store well) that have sat loose in a barrel while be transported for months on end several thousand miles.
The "invert sugar" is ready to go in the boil. It's been baked in the oven using a totally "no boil" method, described in my invert sugar thread. It was to be "No.3" but at best is No.2.5! So this won't be a dark Mild, more like a "mild X-ale". And before anyone want's to say "what's the difference" I've got this coming your way:
Actually, I'll do better than that. I'll dish out 10,000 word essays to write in detention to be titled "Why traditional Burton Ale isn't (or is!) a Mild". That will need a bit of squirming!
"Mild" should be coming up to boil; better go and check on it.
Nothing "Californian", all English grain and English hops ... and Welsh water (the stuff full of fortifying sheep wee). Bit worried about the hops, although there's not many they are prime Fuggles and EKG which will have an impact compared to 5 year old Californian hops (which wouldn't store well) that have sat loose in a barrel while be transported for months on end several thousand miles.
The "invert sugar" is ready to go in the boil. It's been baked in the oven using a totally "no boil" method, described in my invert sugar thread. It was to be "No.3" but at best is No.2.5! So this won't be a dark Mild, more like a "mild X-ale". And before anyone want's to say "what's the difference" I've got this coming your way:
Actually, I'll do better than that. I'll dish out 10,000 word essays to write in detention to be titled "Why traditional Burton Ale isn't (or is!) a Mild". That will need a bit of squirming!
"Mild" should be coming up to boil; better go and check on it.
peebee
Out of Control
No dissenters? I guess my threats of detention and essays was too much for anyone?
Fermentation done. 36-40 hours but it was only a relatively low SG (1.045). And S-33 is a bit quick. Cooling now (to 14-15C) for a week before casking. The colour is a bit weak, perhaps I should have stuck with Edd's No.4 Invert?
(That is not a special container for judging colour, it a sample of unfermented wort that was assessed for OG in a pyk... don't ask!).
My next "project" is figure how they might of coloured these "X-Ales"? There's a few hints to follow up. But I'm convinced they were coloured: This is 1901 and porter was struggling to hold onto market against the "Milds" that were taking over. So what can you do to persuade long-time porter drinkers to switch to the pale "X-Ales" that the nobs drank? Colour it!
But I don't care what colour it is; it's only "academic" interest.
I thought up a good analogy to back up my rejection that "mild" "X-Ales" are "Milds":
Birds are thought to be the descendants of dinosaurs. So Tyrannosaurus Rex is a bird? That is what you are accepting if you think, for example, a "mild" (unaged) XXXX Ale is a "Mild". Stuff and nonsense!
No-one who knows me is to quote what I say when I see a pheasant ("Look ... a Tyranno ..."
).
Fermentation done. 36-40 hours but it was only a relatively low SG (1.045). And S-33 is a bit quick. Cooling now (to 14-15C) for a week before casking. The colour is a bit weak, perhaps I should have stuck with Edd's No.4 Invert?
(That is not a special container for judging colour, it a sample of unfermented wort that was assessed for OG in a pyk... don't ask!).
My next "project" is figure how they might of coloured these "X-Ales"? There's a few hints to follow up. But I'm convinced they were coloured: This is 1901 and porter was struggling to hold onto market against the "Milds" that were taking over. So what can you do to persuade long-time porter drinkers to switch to the pale "X-Ales" that the nobs drank? Colour it!
But I don't care what colour it is; it's only "academic" interest.
I thought up a good analogy to back up my rejection that "mild" "X-Ales" are "Milds":
Birds are thought to be the descendants of dinosaurs. So Tyrannosaurus Rex is a bird? That is what you are accepting if you think, for example, a "mild" (unaged) XXXX Ale is a "Mild". Stuff and nonsense!
No-one who knows me is to quote what I say when I see a pheasant ("Look ... a Tyranno ..."
).
peebee
Out of Control
This probably points to where the colour comes from. Assuming the colour is dark as I'd presume. @Edd The Brew will like this too, given some of the things said in this thread by a certain "what's-his-name":
Let's Brew 1901 Boddington Stout
I haven't gone off at a tangent (again). Note it's from Boddington's 1901 records, like the X-ale I've made.
And I apologise for the earlier "Burton Ale" reference. As well as an "XXXX" name it also got it's own "KKKK" name, but not very consistently. And I shouldn't have said "traditional" (useless non-word) and meant "historical", i.e. before the 19th century, and certainly before that other alcoholic beverage Burton became famous for (IPA). Still; I did establish a replacement analogy (dinosaur descendants!).
Let's Brew 1901 Boddington Stout
I haven't gone off at a tangent (again). Note it's from Boddington's 1901 records, like the X-ale I've made.
And I apologise for the earlier "Burton Ale" reference. As well as an "XXXX" name it also got it's own "KKKK" name, but not very consistently. And I shouldn't have said "traditional" (useless non-word) and meant "historical", i.e. before the 19th century, and certainly before that other alcoholic beverage Burton became famous for (IPA). Still; I did establish a replacement analogy (dinosaur descendants!).
peebee
Out of Control
Hey! I'm beginning to see this in an entirely different light. Was @Northern_Brewer high-lighting a very undercover backdoor move to save "Mild" from oblivion by referring to it as "AK"? A bit of silent social manipulation? That would be impressive (if true).
(Oops, I've to stop using that thumbs up emoji. It said on the news this morning it is very dated ... like me! But I've to desist giving that impression ... ?). "AK Bitter" and "Mild" (X ale) were historically very similar, even down to sub-30IBU hop levels.
A bit of sexing up Mild? Like perhaps @patto1ro writing about "Imperial Mild"?
I've been getting very uppity on another forum about the tragic downturn of "Mild Ale": Historic Porter's, Stouts and Milds - Brewing Methods - Page 4 - Home Brew Forum
