Victorian Porter

[Cwrw666]

Other brews with these emulations are in the pipeline (I've already got the "Cobb & Co Amber Small Beer" ready for drinking, one of @Cwrw666 favourites,

Just did another one of these yesterday. Exactly the same recipe as usual - but it's come out at 1052 instead of the 1042 it's supposed to be. Going to be not so much a `small' beer.

 

[peebee]

Just did another one of these yesterday. ...

Something I stumbled over the other day: Georgian again, but certainly in the Porter category. And in the Small beer category too (well, "Table Beer", but "table" and "small" were all the same for tax purposes in those times):

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1804 Barclay Perkins Table Beer

Although I preferred the Barclay's recipe in "The Home Brewer's Guide to Vintage Beer" (also Ron Pattinson, Pg.42). A bit stronger at 1.030! They are definitely on the "must try" list, be it brewed from my "emulations" or your choice of DPBC home-made amber (and brown) malts.

But definitely not "modern" brown and amber malts: Read the tasting notes in that link: "Richly flavoured with quite a full body for a little guy but instantly turns tannic and grainy drying on the finish". Yeuck, now where have I heard something like that before? ... People attempting to make "Cobb & Co Amber Small Beer", that's where!

 

[peebee]

Just to clarify and prove I'm still hacking away at this project:

...
But definitely not "modern" brown and amber malts: Read the tasting notes in that link: "Richly flavoured with quite a full body for a little guy but instantly turns tannic and grainy drying on the finish" ...

Tannic (like stewed tea) + grainy drying = Astringent!


The original quote (quoted by Ron Pattinson) comes from Kristen England. You'll have to ask him if you think my translation is wrong, but please do not say astringency tastes "bitter" (astringency is not a taste! But is often, though not always, hand-in-hand with "bitter" tastes).

Sorry if I'm being repetitive, but I do like to take every opportunity to put right this common wrong. "Astringent" is how I've described modern amber malt used in large quantities (like in that "Small Amber Beer").

 

[user 43495]

Well, what did you expect! I've done Victorian Bitter, Victorian Mild, and now ....

This is actually hastily summarised from my ramblings om "Jim's" forum, but I wasn't going to miss the opportunity of possibly being scrutinised by @patto1ro if he's still nosing in on this forum (but I've already made the mistake of thinking he was a one-day fleeting visit). But even without his input, I think there's plenty of folk here that can make useful additions.

Note, this is Victorian Porter and any mention of chocolate, coffee, BJCP "styles" and the like will be quickly flamed. If @patto1ro mentions them, I'll grudgingly listen ... and then I'll flame him!

Porter had just gone through big changes entering the Victorian era. makeups with the traditional 100% "Brown" malt was being replaced with large additions of the more economical (from an extract point-of-view) pale malt. The inevitable dilution of colour was initially countered by various (occasionally poisonous!) colouring compounds, until they were made illegal in 1816. In 1817 a legal colouring compound made from malt ("patent" black malt) was introduced along with the contraption to make it (rotating drum kilns). The rotating drum kilns went on to churn out other malt forms, some of which influenced porter.

The important thing to remember, is rotating drum kilns didn't replace the previous direct fire heated kilns. And the direct fire heated kilns weren't primitive affairs, they'd got quite sophisticated and continued to be in use for another 100 years or so. And I don't like suggestions that traditional brown malt had to be made very carefully to keep it diastatic; it was making pale malt on the cheap (i.e. quick and carelessly) that resulted in it being a bit "brown"!

But this is where easy access history fails me. How long and widespread was traditionally kilned brown malt used for? How was the black malt used - there's suggestions it wasn't even added to the mash, but to the boiler? And what caused the jump in usage of black malt from the 1-2% early in the Victorian era to the 5-10% by 1850?

I started this line of thinking because I'd made the ubiquitous Durden Park Beer Circle 1850 "Worthington London Porter" and was disappointed with it's lack of "lushness" (and slight "charcoal" flavour, which I don't care for) compared to an earlier attempt to make 18th century (1700's) porter (using a contrived recreation of traditional brown malt). I used modern brown malt and black malt in the mash for the "Worthington London Porter" recipe, both of which are possibly mistakes?

Then I came across this which suggested an alternative approach: T & G GREENALL PORTER 1862

I had to look at other sources for earlier recipes: Ron Pattinson's work, in particular his book "The Home Brewer's Guide to Vintage Beer". Ron's recipes for Barclay Perkin's TT (Porter) 1804 and 1821 nicely bracketed the period of change from relying on traditional brown malt (and toxic chemicals!) for colour to using patent black malt.

There's a way to make Porter that's not just historically more accurate, but a much better drink too.

The best book I ever found for historical recipes was the Durden Park Beer Club's outstanding tome Old British Beers and How To Make Them. They raided several brewery archives and scaled them down for home brew use. There is definitely a Victorian Porter in there, as well as the original Whitbread London Porter. They even give guidance on how to produce the typical sourness.