Victorian Porter

[peebee]

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.

 

[chthon]

With reference to the mentioned recipe, interesting, as I have still enough DM Amber malt lying around.

 

[Sadfield]

Any Porter for a storm.

 

[matt76]

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

I do genuinely admire your determination to research and attempt to recreate these historic beers, but I think "better" is a very subjective thing.

If we make a beer in the modern style of London Porter and it's a nice beer then it's a nice beer. I don't think the fact it's not the same thing as what the Victorians (and earlier) were drinking makes it any less nice. Likewise, I don't think making a beer in the authentic historic style makes it any better either. Good beer is good beer, no?

However, I agree with you that it's no bad thing if brewers have some appreciation for the history, and that the beers we brew today probably bear little or no resemblance to what they one were. Cornell's "Amber, Gold and Black" is good starting point in that regard.

Regarding your plans for an authentic Victorian porter - if you're really going to be authentic then surely you need to age it, no?

If Cornell is correct then these beers probably underwent some aging with brettanomyces (probably b. claussenii I think?) and/or lactobacillus from the wooden vats they were stored in.

And then you have the option of how you blend the aged "stale" and young "mild" beers at serving.

Side note - I have a plan at some point to age some of my London Porter with b. clausseni. Certainly it's inspired by the history (and also just because I'm curious anyway) but I don't for a second think that suddenly makes it Victorian!

 

[Edd The Brew]

Ey Up
Here's a cracking Porter
https://oldbeersandbrewing.blogspot.com/2021/04/beamish-crawford-running-porter.htmlCheers
Edd

 

[An Ankoù]

Ey Up
Here's a cracking Porter
https://oldbeersandbrewing.blogspot.com/2021/04/beamish-crawford-running-porter.htmlCheers
Edd

Thanks Edd. That looks more than half decent. I've got all the necessaries in stock so I've just got to write up the job sheet.
Happy Easter.

 

[peebee]

I do genuinely admire your determination to research and attempt to recreate these historic beers, but I think "better" is a very subjective thing.

If we make a beer in the modern style of London Porter and it's a nice beer then it's a nice beer. I don't think the fact it's not the same thing as what the Victorians (and earlier) were drinking makes it any less nice. Likewise, I don't think making a beer in the authentic historic style makes it any better either. Good beer is good beer, no? ...

I think I might of given the wrong impression? I'm good at that!

I'm comparing recreations of historic beers with recreations of historic beers; modern styles don't come into it. I thought I'd made it clear, but I'm used to my convoluted explanations to prevent a bun fight often starting one.

 

[patto1ro]

I do genuinely admire your determination to research and attempt to recreate these historic beers, but I think "better" is a very subjective thing.

If we make a beer in the modern style of London Porter and it's a nice beer then it's a nice beer. I don't think the fact it's not the same thing as what the Victorians (and earlier) were drinking makes it any less nice. Likewise, I don't think making a beer in the authentic historic style makes it any better either. Good beer is good beer, no?

However, I agree with you that it's no bad thing if brewers have some appreciation for the history, and that the beers we brew today probably bear little or no resemblance to what they one were. Cornell's "Amber, Gold and Black" is good starting point in that regard.

Regarding your plans for an authentic Victorian porter - if you're really going to be authentic then surely you need to age it, no?

If Cornell is correct then these beers probably underwent some aging with brettanomyces (probably b. claussenii I think?) and/or lactobacillus from the wooden vats they were stored in.

And then you have the option of how you blend the aged "stale" and young "mild" beers at serving.

Side note - I have a plan at some point to age some of my London Porter with b. clausseni. Certainly it's inspired by the history (and also just because I'm curious anyway) but I don't for a second think that suddenly makes it Victorian!

What do you mean by "modern style of London Porter"? The classic modern example, Fullers London Porter, is based on pre-WW I London Porter.

After 1870 or so, no London Porter was aged. It quickly went out of fashion after 1850. I've not come across Porter being blended at the pub in the 19th century. It was usually blended at the brewery. Blending at serving time was an 18th -century thing.

 

[peebee]

Right. Hot-footing across from my "Victorian Mild!" thread ( ), I've been reading this "Porter! (Mega Book Series)" and might of answered one of my own questions:

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?

There's a bewildering amount of stuff about "brown malt" so I've got a lot of reading to go, but on the question of black malt ... (hang-on @patto1ro is back! Switch to best behaviour ... what do you mean I don't know what better behaviour is? ... I'll deal with you later) ☺ 'scuse me, I'll be back in a bit ...

 

[peebee]

Okay ... it seems there was a steady migration of porter drinkers to the new Mild ale ("Mild" not "mild") at about the same time as porter recipes seem to get heavy handed with the black malt? As the bulk of drinkers switched to more drinkable (and probably cheaper) mild, the brewers could react to demands to make their porter more roasty?

Perhaps? Still got to build on this idea.

This would lead to the clear, future, separation of those that drink "Guinness" (10% black malt - ) and those that drink less ridiculous beer?

Perhaps?

 

[matt76]

What do you mean by "modern style of London Porter"? The classic modern example, Fullers London Porter, is based on pre-WW I London Porter.

After 1870 or so, no London Porter was aged. It quickly went out of fashion after 1850. I've not come across Porter being blended at the pub in the 19th century. It was usually blended at the brewery. Blending at serving time was an 18th -century thing.

Sadly Porter isn't a ubiquitous style so there aren't dozens of commercial examples to choose from, but yeah, I'd cite Fuller's London Porter as being a good type specimen of what I at least understand the modern style of porter to be.

I really wasn't aware of the heritage of that particular recipe, very interesting to note, thanks

Two knock on implications of this:

- Firstly the porter I brew is intended to be in a similar style. So go-me and my awesome vintage style porter!

- Secondly I think it answers a question I had in my mind. Above, @Edd The Brew links to a Beamish & Crawford recipe. I was thinking apart from the rather elaborate process, the actual grain & hop bill looks pretty ordinary. So what is it in particular that makes it Victorian? I think the answer is partially that my own impression of modern porter is maybe not too dissimilar to historical porter (later ones at least, after the move away from all diastatic brown malt)

 

[patto1ro]

Okay ... it seems there was a steady migration of porter drinkers to the new Mild ale ("Mild" not "mild") at about the same time as porter recipes seem to get heavy handed with the black malt? As the bulk of drinkers switched to more drinkable (and probably cheaper) mild, the brewers could react to demands to make their porter more roasty?

Perhaps? Still got to build on this idea.

This would lead to the clear, future, separation of those that drink "Guinness" (10% black malt - ) and those that drink less ridiculous beer?

Perhaps?

But Stout maintained its popularity and that would have been even darker and roastier than Porter. There just seems to have been a trend to turn Porter and Stout black. Originally, black malt seems to have been used art a level only designed to replicate the dark brown colour of 100% brown malt Porter. Then gradually it was changed to a black colour.

Mild wasn't cheaper than Porter in the Victorian period. The cheapest - X Ale - was the same price, 36 shillings for 36 imperial gallons. XX, XXX and XXXX Ale were more expensive.

 

[patto1ro]

Sadly Porter isn't a ubiquitous style so there aren't dozens of commercial examples to choose from, but yeah, I'd cite Fuller's London Porter as being a good type specimen of what I at least understand the modern style of porter to be.

I really wasn't aware of the heritage of that particular recipe, very interesting to note, thanks

Two knock on implications of this:

- Firstly the porter I brew is intended to be in a similar style. So go-me and my awesome vintage style porter!

- Secondly I think it answers a question I had in my mind. Above, @Edd The Brew links to a Beamish & Crawford recipe. I was thinking apart from the rather elaborate process, the actual grain & hop bill looks pretty ordinary. So what is it in particular that makes it Victorian? I think the answer is partially that my own impression of modern porter is maybe not too dissimilar to historical porter (later ones at least, after the move away from all diastatic brown malt)

From 1817 to 1940, London Porters were almost always a blend of pale, brown and black malt. Sometimes with some amber malt, too. The only thing that changed over time weas their relative proportions.

 

[peebee]

From 1817 to 1940, London Porters were almost always a blend of pale, brown and black malt. Sometimes with some amber malt, too. The only thing that changed over time weas their relative proportions.

Ah, that was one of my unanswered questions. How can we tell how long was the "traditional" kilned brown (amber, etc) malt was used for. It obviously didn't change to "rotating cylinder" kilned brown malt (i.e. "modern" brown malt) over-night - I say "obviously" but that is how I imagined it after rotating kilns came in for black malt.

And the other unanswered question, how was the black malt used and for how long, and how can we know? I do know it could be used as a colourant and added directly to the boil.

And ... (had enough yet?).

Sorry about the stout thing; I was still in compressed time mode (previous "Mild" thread) and skipping decades, not years.

 

[patto1ro]

Black malt mostly went into the mash. Barclay Perkins - and a few other brewers - put some black malt into the copper, but only small amounts.

As for brown malt, it's hard to say when everyone changed production methods. From memory, it's only late 19th century that they started drum roasting it.

 

[Edd The Brew]

Hi All ,
Slight tech issues, laptop wobbles means a slight delay in getting the next Blogpost up
Cheers
Edd

 

[patto1ro]

Black malt mostly went into the mash. Barclay Perkins - and a few other brewers - put some black malt into the copper, but only small amounts.

As for brown malt, it's hard to say when everyone changed production methods. From memory, it's only late 19th century that they started drum roasting it.

Ah, that was one of my unanswered questions. How can we tell how long was the "traditional" kilned brown (amber, etc) malt was used for. It obviously didn't change to "rotating cylinder" kilned brown malt (i.e. "modern" brown malt) over-night - I say "obviously" but that is how I imagined it after rotating kilns came in for black malt.

And the other unanswered question, how was the black malt used and for how long, and how can we know? I do know it could be used as a colourant and added directly to the boil.

And ... (had enough yet?).

Sorry about the stout thing; I was still in compressed time mode (previous "Mild" thread) and skipping decades, not years.

I think the old method died out at the end of the 19th century. If I remember correctly they were forced to drop the method. That type of kiln caused so many fires that maltsters couldn't get insurance and so had to move to drum roasting. Valley Malt in Massachusetts mnade some of this type of brown malt for Goose Island Obadiah Poundage. I've seen video of the roasting and it looked pretty scary, with lots of flames. Just as well they did it outside.

 

[patto1ro]

Black malt mostly went into the mash. Barclay Perkins - and a few other brewers - put some black malt into the copper, but only small amounts.

As for brown malt, it's hard to say when everyone changed production methods. From memory, it's only late 19th century that they started drum roasting it.

I think the old method died out at the end of the 19th century. If I remember correctly they were forced to drop the method. That type of kiln caused so many fires that maltsters couldn't get insurance and so had to move to drum roasting. Valley Malt in Massachusetts mnade some of this type of brown malt for Goose Island Obadiah Poundage. I've seen video of the roasting and it looked pretty scary, with lots of flames. Just as well they did it outside.

There's video of Andrea making the brown malt here at about 6:40 in.

 

[peebee]

So the 18th century guys used to spread the grain above a damn great bonfire, whereas in the Victorians ... used to spread the grain above a damn great bonfire: But they were cleverer about it? They had got the whole affair inside a building. Well they were cleverer up until the building burnt down.

I think I've got what I was looking for in this thread: It's not outrageous to think they continued to use "traditional" (and more flavoursome) brown malt for at least the first half of the Victorian era; it's not outrageous to think, at least some, black malt was added to the end of the boil, which would avoid much of the the harshness; and it isn't outrageous to use a significant proportion of Chevallier barley malt (as in that video).

So this recipe was quite the norm rather than being an oddity: T & G Greenall 1862 Porter.

All 'cos I didn't like the result of that popular Whitbread’s London Porter (1850) recipe. I might try it again with my contrived brown malt emulation (I ain't making the stuff!), the more imaginative use of black malt, and use Chevallier barley malt which will flatten any harshness even if used as the sole modification. Actually, that Durden Park recipe has matured 7 months now and ain't so bad after all.

More likely I'll pick a recipe from Porter! (Mega Book Series 1) Kindle Edition which has given me a tsunami of recipes and information to pour over. I only picked it up again recently; it's a tough read cover-to-cover, but when you're browsing looking for something it becomes a valuable reference. I rediscovered I had it after purchasing Mild! plus (Mega Book Series 2) Kindle Edition during my "Victorian Mild!" thread.

Which reminds me, I'll get back there ... (eee, I do like them finger pointing links I cobbled up).

@patto1ro: If you could mail me the sales commission, that'll be fine!

 

[peebee]

Something I'm struggling with picking out an 1821 porter to brew is:

From Ron Pattinson's book "The Homebrewers Guide to Vintage Beer" (Pg.43):

And his book "Porter! Mega Book Series" (also his Blog site "barclayperkins.blogspot.com"):

2.83% and 0.71-0.99% Black Malt. They can't both be right! I'm looking to use the minimum black malt I can get away with, but retain a hint of historical accuracy.