Tuesday 20 September 2011

Stout fantasies

As a light aside from my dour Scottish series, here's a strong Papazian Cup contender.


This one definitely falls into the category Fantasy History.
"The search for why the acidic, bitter-coffee nature of stout gained popularity over the rich, chocolate taste of porter has little connection to beer. In stout's case it leads to the insurance business.

That strange form of making money started when businessmen began underwriting the safe voyages of ships. They took a chance by guaranteeing a payoff when a ship encountered tragedy; in exchange for this promise they reaped a tidy profit if the cruise was successful. Obviously the key to making money hinged upon the underwriter's ability to assess accurately the risk inherent in any particular ship. To ensure they had an edge, many underwriters stayed close to the piers.

Entrepreneurs saw this steady pier side activity and responded by providing a place where the insurance agents could sit and conduct business while enjoying refreshment. What they provided was the origin of the coffee shop. Within their walls notable firms such as Llyod's of London amassed princely wealth, along with a taste for the acrid flavor of coffee. It was only a matter of time until a brewer latched onto the trend and developed a beer with similar characteristics. Doubt that? Look at what US microbrewers did in the mid 1990s. They won new customers who grew up on "soda-pop" by producing light fruit-flavored beers.

Fortunately, at the same time coffee grew popular, technological advances equipped malt houses with the ability to 'drum roast' grains. This was also essential to the development of stout, and it clearly dates the introduction of stout after porter. Whatever story about the development of stout you prefer, one part of its introduction remains unchallenged: the story of Guinness.

In 1759 Arthur Guinness closed what his peers considered a foolish real estate deal. He agreed to pay 40£ per year rent on an old idle brewhouse. The unusual or foolish part was the term of contract, a period of 9,000 years. As things turned out Guinness was far from foolish. At first the brewery promised nothing but struggle, but his fortune changed in the 1760s when he moved away from ale. The beer he switched to was stout. Guinness brewed his with high levels of roasted grain to emphasize the coffee character. Next, he intentionally added the unthinkable - sour beer - but in a controlled amount (approximately 1%) he found it pleasantly dried the finish. His modifications brought rising profits and a complete switch to 'porter-stout' in 1799. From then on stout was solidly linked to the Guinness family name.

Other brewers watched the influence of stout expand and joined the trend. William Beamish and his partner William Crawford sold their first stout in 1792. By 1800 they were the largest stout brewer in Ireland, a position they held until 1833. Another famous label came from the family of James, William, Jerome and Francis Murphy when, in 1856, they gave up on porter and made the switch to Murphy's Stout.

Why did porter decline and stout triumph? It had to do with politics and war. During World War I rationing and energy restrictions in England prevented malting companies from deeply roasting grains. But Ireland, poised on the edge of rebellion and leaning toward alliance with Germany, was treated with kid gloves. No restrictions of any kind were enacted. During the war, and after, England moved away from their dark beer while Ireland continued its love affair with stout."

. . . . .

"Foreign stout represents the first member of stout's extended family. As the name implies, it was brewed to ship beyond Ireland's shores. Although foreign stout retained the undiminished qualities of the original, it further emphasized elements that naturally preserve beer. To that end brewers fortified it with additional malt.

That modification significantly darkened the beer; moreover, it increased the alcohol which helped stabilize it during transportation. To ensure balance they matched the malt with a higher hopping rate, and it too extended the beer's life. However, raising the amount of malt inevitably led to a fuller body and production of 'fruity' esters, which were subdued in dry stout but blossomed in the foreign version. Along with the esters another by-product was introduced: diacetyl, which lent a touch of butterscotch. The changes bulked up the low alcohol of dry stout to a level of 5 to 6 percent and when this happened it infused the beer with a light scent of perfumey sweetness. "
By Gregg Smith http://www.northamericanbrewers.org/ShoutforStout.htm
That stuff on Irish brewers is just so wrong. Where do they get this stuff from? I suppose they just make it up because it sounds like a good story. Beamish & Crawford brewed Porter before Guinness. Murphy's were still brewing Porter in the 20th century. As were Guinness, a point that seems to have escaped the author. As has the fact that Guinness Foreign Extra Stout and Extra Stout used to have identical gravities.

And all that coffee-roasting shit. The development and use of black malt had nothing to do with its flavour. It was simply a colouring agent.

I'll let you discovcer the many other inaccuracies. I wonder if Gregg Smith was paid to write this guff?

8 comments:

Mike said...

Here's the clue: "Whatever story about the development of stout you prefer..."

This isn't history, it's fairy tale time.

Adrian Avgerinos said...

Holy shit. That's got to be the absolute worst account of beer history I think I've ever read. It makes my head spin when I read it.

It's like the guy picked a few key dates out and then filled in the history with utter bullshit to create a totally false story. A quick look and I see the following wrong statements:

"The search for why the acidic, bitter-coffee nature of stout gained popularity over the rich, chocolate taste of porter has little connection to beer."

Back in the old days Stout = Big Porter. The flavor distinction between the two names only arrived in the last years of the 20th century thanks to American craft/microbrewers not having a clue about beer history.

"It was only a matter of time until a brewer latched onto the trend and developed a beer with similar characteristics. Doubt that? Look at what US microbrewers did in the mid 1990s. "

Wow. Evel Knievel could not have made that leap. I'm stunned.

"This was also essential to the development of stout, and it clearly dates the introduction of stout after porter."

Wrong again. The words Stout and Porter have been shown to exist prior to Wheeler's black malt patent.

"Guinness brewed his with high levels of roasted grain to emphasize the coffee character."

Nice assumption but it's more likely he simple brewed his *porter* to match the market demand for BEER, not COFFEE.

"Next, he intentionally added the unthinkable - sour beer - but in a controlled amount (approximately 1%) he found it pleasantly dried the finish."

Pretty sure this whole back blending thing didn't happen until much later: Like 20th century or at best late 19th century. Besides, aged flavor was considered the norm so it's not like he was reinventing beer.

"During World War I rationing and energy restrictions in England prevented malting companies from deeply roasting grains."

Wrong again. I don't believe there was a restriction in the type of malt. Just the amount. Porter/Stout interest declined due to market changes. No magic politics going on.

"However, raising the amount of malt inevitably led to a fuller body and production of 'fruity' esters, which were subdued in dry stout but blossomed in the foreign version."

What? Clearly this guy doesn't know how the brewing process works.

What baffles me even more is that a quick Internet search shows this guy is an accomplished beer writer and even has a book out about beer history.

Gregg, if you see this, please consider picking up, "The British Brewing Industry, 1830-1980" by Gourvish and Wilson. It's a long read but much easier than doing your own research (since it appears that's not your forte).

Ron Pattinson said...

Adrian, I've got an even worse one than this, courtesy of our old friend Horst. I'm still wondering whether to publish it or not.

beer guru, jr. said...

journalism has always been a mixture of facts, not-so-factual, and outright fiction. read a newspaper or an online news source.

even peer-reviewed publications (like medical journals) will occasionally contain whoppers.

Andrew Elliott said...

I wonder... If they needed Black Patent malt for Stout, how did they make stout with only Brown Malt??? What about the pale stouts that existed -- how did they get roast flavor into those?

Nevermind about the fruity esters and diacetyl -- any rookie bjcp wank knows esters are an ale yeast characteristic, from fermenting too warm; underpitching or underoxygenating the wort as well as poor yeast health will yield diacetyl -- also strain dependent and can be from too-cold or too short ferment.

Wow Ron, I was about to comment that "Hosrt doesn't even do this bad" but it seems you came across something worse.

Rod said...

Ron
If you've got something worse than this it NEEDS to be published.....

Martyn Cornell said...

That really is utterly awful. Just a couple of the non-beery errors: it's pretty amazing that Peter the Great should have been drinking stout when he visited England, since he returned home in 1698, which is before porter itself was developed. And Smith is just making up that stuff about "the Russian court issued a contract for English stout." Since it didn't exist at the time, how could they have?

"In 1759 Arthur Guinness closed what his peers considered a foolish real estate deal … The unusual or foolish part was the term of contract, a period of 9,000 years." Smith is simply making this up, again. No commentator ever wrote anything about the lease of St James's Gate being a "foolish" deal, because it wasn't. The 9,000-year-lease was a standard sort of clause to avoid legal problems that could be associated with transferring freeholds: it gave the same effect as a freehold, without actually being one in law.

Then there's the bit about coffee shops: "notable firms such as Llyod's of London [sic] amassed princely wealth" - Lloyd's wasn't a "firm", it was a place where a bunch of ship owners and entrepreneurs eventually developed an association that became an umbrella grouping of dozens of partnerships involved in the insurance business - and nobody, ever, has tried to link Lloyd's with stout: or coffee shops with stout.

I could go on - milk stout "evolving" from Irish dry stout? Has the man read nothing I or Ron, among others, have been writing over the past five or 10 years? Evidently not …

Oblivious said...

Love this section from the www.northamericanbrewers.org/ShoutforStout.htm

"Within their walls notable firms such as Llyod's of London amassed princely wealth, along with a taste for the acrid flavor of coffee. It was only a matter of time until a brewer latched onto the trend and developed a beer with similar characteristics. Doubt that? Look at what US microbrewers did in the mid 1990s. They won new customers who grew up on "soda-pop" by producing light fruit-flavored beers."

Kind of rough rides all the work of Anchor steam, New Albion Brewing Company and there stout was one of the first America craft beers