Smithwick's 0.0?* – When Guinness Brewed a Non-Alcoholic Bitter

Alcohol free beer is hardly a new phenomenon, although every time it regains its popularity for a new generation there seems to be a collective loss of memory that it has existed in various forms for 150 years or more. From the long-gone days of alcohol free(ish) Hop Bitters, Hop Porter and Hop Stout of the late 19th century – driven by the temperance movement – it stuttered along through the early 20th century before finally re-emerging in the 1980s in numbers, primarily aimed at a new health conscious breed of people plus those who had found their moral compass, aided by new legislation, and  didn’t want to drink and drive.

By the late 1980s there were 25 brands of low or no alcohol in the UK market, 12 of which were made there and the rest imported¹, and onto this sober-driven bandwagon was to jump an Irish brewed contender with an equally unlikely name.

-o-

Smithwick’s Alcohol Free Bitter, or AFB as it was marketed, was developed in James’s Gate in Dublin by Guinness, the owners of the St. Francis Abbey brewery in Kilkenny at the time and therefore the holder of the brand rights to the Smithwick name for brewing. Guinness had launched their alcohol-free lager Kaliber in 1983 in Ireland, followed by the US, before it appeared in the UK in late 1985, and by 1988 it was selling very well there. Over September and October of that year they launched Smithwick AFB into that market as an ale alternative for those who, perhaps, preferred something less Teutonic tasting on their palates, as many of the non and low alcohol beers available at that time were lagers. An alcohol free version of and English style beer would have seemed to be a good call as a stablemate for Kaliber.

Using the Smithwick’s brand might seem a strange choice but it would have made sense on a number of fronts. Firstly, the brand would possibly have been known to a small extent beer-wise, but regardless of that, the name itself is essentially an English surname and even follows English pronunciation traditions. Secondly, they could play on the marketed heritage of the brewery to apply an instant veneer of respectability and history to the product. Lastly, ‘normal’ Smithwicks was developed in the mid-1960s as a reaction to keg bitters such as Watney’s Red Barrel and other UK interlopers which were taking market share from the Irish breweries and their ale brands, with some such as Red Barrel even being brewed here. It was pretty much a keg bitter itself – this was before it was reclassified as that new-fangled style called an ‘Irish Red Ale’ – so the leap from it to a non-alcoholic bitter-style ale probably required little in recipe changes. So, in the same way that it was rumoured that Kaliber was just non-alcoholic Harp – it was brewed in the same brewery in Dundalk – then AFB would seem to be just Smithwicks without its alcohol content.

No common sources seem to say exactly where the beer was brewed but given the labels and other marketing material, we can hesitantly assume that it was in the Kilkenny brewery, but it was bottled, along with Kaliber, in the other Guinness owned Dundalk Brewery, Macardle Moore. Curiously, there is a reference to that brewery being ‘at the heart of [..] non-alcoholic Smithwicks' and which is confirmed to be ‘exactly the same as Smithwicks, only with the alcohol taken out.’² Indeed, Smithwicks ale for the north of Ireland was being brewed there so it is possible that some or all of the beer was being brewed in the Macardle Moore brewery given the enigmatic quotation above? It was also reported elsewhere to have been based on the higher gravity Export version of Smithwicks, which would possible give it more depth and compensate for the lack of alcohol, or perhaps it was chosen to be even more close to and English Bitter by taste after the alcohol was removed.³ There is no mention in any sources as to how it was dealcoholised but it was probably done at the end of fermentation by a distillation method to evaporate out the alcohol, as was Kaliber, and certainly a stronger flavoured base-beer would help mask any unpleasantness from that process.

The launch was accompanied by newspaper competitions plus promotions, and a strange and repeated focus on how the beer, at 0.5% abv, contained less alcohol than orange juice! Reviews of the product at the time varied a little but it seems to have been generally well received for what it was, with reviewers commenting on how it (ironically) ‘packed a real bite and had good flavour’ and how they could drink it in a pub all night,  although it was also said to be ‘quite gassy and sweet.’⁴ Others said it was ‘pretty good. Smells right and tastes of hops. Quite rich and smooth to drink.’⁵ It was sold in half-pint and in 4-packs of 330ml bottles, and perhaps in other formats too. The name Guinness featured quite prominently on the labels, beer mats and newspaper advertisements, presumably to add another layer of confidence and security to the brand for those who had never heard of Smithwicks and needed reassurance as to its provenance. Unlike Kaliber, it doesn't seem to have ever been available south of the border in Ireland. Hardly a surprise given its restyled name and branding, and the confusion it might cause to consumers here.

The late 1980s seems to have been the highpoint for that generation of non-and-low alcoholic beer and by January 1991 the love and demand for these ‘near beers’ was in decline. Complaints at the time of these beers being too expensive and that some didn’t taste great – tarnishing the reputation of all – sound somewhat familiar to modern ears regarding our current generation of 0.0s.

Smithwicks AFB was one of the first of many of these brands to quietly disappear due to disappointing sales, even given the good reviews. Most of the others followed; who in the UK remembers Bass brewed Barbican or Whitbread's White Label now?

-o-

All of this gives pause for thought as to the current 0.0% bubble that seems to be increasing month by month. History would seem to tell us that it won’t last, that sometime in the next few years there will be a big pop, or possibly just a slow deflate.

Perhaps not though, as the trend is different this time round. There are many more draught versions available and the quality and taste seems generally much better. Also the marketing angle is different and more focussed, and perhaps the reason for drinking these beers has also changed. But we still come back to history repeating itself so it may not be overly prudent as a long-term investment ...

Although, conversely, maybe we are not far away from Guinness launching a non-alcoholic nitro ale on us – less of the Smithwick's 0.00 and more of a Kilkenny 0.0?!

Liam

* It was 0.5% abv of course!

¹ The Daily Express 18th January 1988
² The Drogheda Argus and Leinster Journal 2nd September 1988
³ The Staffordshire Newsletter 18th November 1988
⁴ The Northamptonshire Evening Telegraph 12th December 1990
⁵ The Bristol Evening Post 24th March 1990

Please note, all written content and the research involved in publishing it here is my own unless otherwise stated and cannot be reproduced elsewhere without permission, full credit to its sources, and a link back to this post. Newspaper research was thanks to The British Newspaper Archive. Label and label image are the authors. DO NOT STEAL THIS CONTENT!

That Bass Pale Ale Label - Why It Wasn't the First Trade Mark Registered in the UK

There is an enduring story that Bass’s Red Triangle was the first registered trade mark in the United Kingdom in 1876 – and with 2026 being the 150th anniversary of this claim there have been quite a few mentions, reports and comments published recently. We’ve all read the following in one form or another in many a publication in print and online.

‘The earliest known trademark is said to be the Bass Ale triangle.’

‘[Bass’s] red triangle became the UK's first registered trade mark.’

‘Bass's application for its Pale Ale Label back in 1876 was the first ever UK trade mark registration.’

The latter of those is more correct, as it was the whole label that was registered and not just the triangle, but in actuality this wasn’t even the first registered trade mark. Nor was it likely to have been the first whole beer label that was a registered trade marked once we delve into a little copyright history sprinkled with a little pedantry.

Trade marks were around for a long time before the 19th century in one form or another but from a legislative and product labelling point of view the focus here is on that century and especially the legislation than cover the UK, and Ireland, at that time. Some of the laws and wording from that era are quite tricky to understand in their entirety but it can still be looked at with a layperson’s eye and some understanding can be garnered from it – hopefully correctly – in order to delve into the more basic history of trade marks in that century. Here's a short summation of what can be gleaned from a moderate amount of research on the subject.

-o-

The first relevant piece of 19th century legislation for this topic was the Copyright Act of 1842 (5 & 6 Vict. C. 45). This dealt mostly with published works such as books, plays and other printed material. It wasn’t the first ever copyright act but it appears to be the first where copies of published works had to be submitted to certain libraries and where an entry in the registry of copyrights at Stationer’ Hall in London could be used to help your claim in the case of a copyright infringement – something that was looked after by The Stationer’s Company who operated from said premises, in one form or another, since the 16th century. Redress for infringements were enforced via the Court of Chancery by the holder.

But it appears that it wasn’t just published works that could be registered, it was also trade marks and labels from this date.¹

Here’s a nice example for such a registered trade mark from 1847 for Daintree & Co.²

And another from 1874 but crucially stating that the shown label for Bishop’s Citrate of Magnesia was registered in Stationer’s Hall in 1860 – not just the trade mark itself.³

Curiously, even as late as 1891 Garvey’s in Waterford were advertising that their Guinness Porter label was entered in the Book of Registry of Copyright in Stationer’s Hall, and they quote that much earlier 1842 act as can be seen here.⁴ This is a very late use for registration in this way, as be seen later, but it proves that beer labels could be registered under this early act although sadly there is no proof that Garvey's registered it earlier than 1891. It is also of note that the words 'trade mark' are not actually mentioned here, so this is certainly in a greyer area and probably explains the late use.

There are many more examples so even under this act there was an ability to register trade marks and labels for many products and consumables under a copyright act.

The next piece of legislation is The Merchandise Marks Act 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. C.88) which spelled out further the implications of the fraudulent marking of merchandise and the penalties imposed on those who would try to pass of one product as another, including fines, seizures and convictions. It would also seem that with both of these acts the need for registration was not entirely specified – or possibly not even required – but never the less ‘registered designs’ were mentioned which seems to lead to more and more businesses, including breweries, registering theirs as a way of proving ownership. This was still dealt with under a general copyright law more so than any specific trade mark law – but trade marks were certainly still being registered in the 1860s and 1870s. (The almost endless, and relatively fascinating, debates regarding this act were printed in many newspapers at this time, many quoting the continental legislations that were already in place before this act. They are certainly worth a read and were printed in parliamentary reports and covered very well by newspapers of the time.)

It would appear that the first of what we now recognise as the older buff Guinness labels with black writing and a red code was registered in 1862⁵ and mention of that can be seen in advertisements around that date which mention 'registered label on each bottle.'

We can see another drink label being mentioned as registered here in this advertisement for Hennessy's Brandy from 1868. It says, 'Copyright of our lable[sic], with the battle axe (our trade mark) is registered at Stationer's Hall, London.' We can see here the word being used is 'copyright' more so than the phrase 'trade marked' due to it still being done so under copyright law but it has been registered, as has their trade marked image.⁶ (It seems from newspaper reports that it was extremely common to send inferior brandy in Hennessy branded casks to 'the colonies' at this time!)

For another example, here’s a label facsimile from 1872 for Bottled Cooper, a blended beer ‘brand’ with Irish origins at the Beamish & Crawford brewery in Cork. The words 'Registered Trade Mark' can be seen on the tower in the centre of the label.⁷ Beamish & Crawford were using this castle trade mark from at least 1862 – although earlier labels omit the word 'registered' – and sadly it is unclear as to whether the whole label was registered or just the logo. It does seem likely at least that the whole label was entered at Stationer's Hall but no proof of that can be found in common sources, but we can be relatively confident that the logo at the very least was registered.

Finally came the Trade Marks Registration Act of 1875 which now dealt specifically with trade marks, and where as previous registration had been made under copyright law and lumped in with other copyright material. Now trade mark records were held together, and separate from the other copyright material. A Trade Mark Registry Office was opened in Quality Court, 47 Chancery Lane on the 1st of January 1876 with a Mr. H. R. Lack from the Board of Trade the first registrar, and this we can assume is when and where that famous Bass label is the first one registered.

For the record, Guinness registered their label under this act in the same year, but on the 1st of April!

-o-

So, as pedantic as it might sound, it is not correct to say that the Bass Pale Ale label was the first trade marked beer label registered, or even the first label registered, and certainly not the first trade mark. It is more correct to state it was the first trade marked label to be registered under the new Trade Marks Register Act of 1875. (Incidentally, Bass had a trade mark from c. 1848 according to a newspaper report in The Sheffield Independent when the 1862 act was being debated and those from the brewery were being queried and interviewed. In that piece they were specifically called as witnesses as to how prevalent the fraudulent labelling of their product was in the UK, and beyond.)

Further consolidation and amendments were added towards the end of the century and into the next, and although the 1875 act was certainly the most far reaching and important piece of legislation it was by no means the first of the 19th century, nor was it impossible to register a label or trade mark for a product prior to this act as we can see.

Sadly, much of the earlier trade mark records were destroyed¹ and this might include those of Stationer's Hall too? Information appear to be scarce, so it might be impossible to find out what was the first 'trade marked' consumable product in the UK under the copyright acts, let alone which beer label was first registered under that early legislation. A search of the records available online do flag some brewery trade marks in the years just prior to 1876 but no labels sadly. And of course, the Bass label may have been the first registered under these earlier acts too, but I can find no proof or mention of that.

This is a very simplified look at what is in fact a complex and nuanced subject, and admittedly, in the grand scheme of things this sort of detail probably doesn't matter. But it is still important to clarify certain aspects of beer history and bust as many myths as possible, even if this one isn't entirely incorrect – it's just misquoted. And although it is very true that there was no bespoke 'Trade Mark Register' in the UK prior to 1875 there was the ability to register a trade mark by other means as we can see, specifically copyright law, and these trademarks and labels were registered in Stationer Hall.

A tedious, pedantic point perhaps, but hopefully justified?

Liam K

(The image at the top of the post is just a nice label from an advertisement for the Hibernian Mineral Water Company from The Dublin Advertising Gazette 28th August 1869 showing their registered trade mark, and predating 1876 as another nice example. Plus it's Irish.)

¹ National Archives Website

² Webster's Royal red book or Court and fashionable register published in 1847

³ Year Book of Pharmacy published in 1847

⁴ The Waterford Standard 27th January 1892 

⁵ A Bottle of Guinness Please – David Hughes 2006

⁶ The London and China Express 24th April 1868

^{7 The Islington Times 17th January 1872}

(More on that bottled Cooper here.)

Please note, all written content and the research involved in publishing it here is my own unless otherwise stated and cannot be reproduced elsewhere without permission, full credit to its sources, and a link back to this post. Newspaper research was thanks to The British Newspaper Archive, who have kindly let me share the above images. Other sources are as stated. DO NOT STEAL THIS CONTENT!