100 Years of Irish Brewing in 50 Objects: #23 – Guinness 'Belgian' Tumbler (c. 1950)

I felt the most extraordinary desire for a glass of Guinness, which I knew could be obtained without difficulty. Upon expressing my wish to the doctor, he told me I might take a small glass. It was not long before I sent for the Guinness and I shall never forget how much I enjoyed it. I thought I had never tasted anything so delightful. I am confident that it contributed more than anything else to the renewal of my strength - from the Diary of a Cavalry Officer, June 1815, after being severely wounded at the Battle of Waterloo.

Ethel M. Richardson, "LONG FORGOTTEN DAYS." (1928) via The Sketch Guinness advertisement 1938

Although this object itself has but a loose link to Irish brewing history it is still an important link, as it could and should be seen as a tangible part of the porter export trade from this country, and particularly from its biggest brewery – that of the Guinness enterprise in Dublin. There is a long history of exporting porter from Ireland which has been recorded elsewhere with varying degrees of detail but the above glass connects into the Guinness export trade to Europe and, in particular, to Belgium. An export trade that to a modern eye would seem to be the equivalent of sending coal to Newcastle, given that Belgium is now synonymous with good and plentiful beer to most of those with an interest in the subject.

But, as we can see from the above - granted anecdotal - quotation, Belgium is a country that has been experiencing Guinness’s porters for quite a few years, albeit in that case by military contract via England it would appear.

-o-

This glass is a wonderful piece of workmanship that no photo will do justice to. It is made from quality glass that approaches lead crystal in colour, quality and sound, and appears to be mould-blown or similarly formed before the eight facets were cut and polished by hand to form an octagonal-shaped lower section around an extra thick base, with the bottom of the glass also polished to an incredible smoothness. As to the more boring details, the tumbler is approximately 15cm high by 8.5cm wide at its mouth, it weighs 400grms and holds 400ml of liquid, an important volume, as will transpire later. It hearkens back to similar conical tumblers of the late Victorian and early 20th century. These heavy-based, fluted pint glasses were relatively common on these islands before the popularity of undecorated, plain or ‘straight’ (‘Shaker,’ as they would be termed in America) glasses, which themselves gave way to other styles later on. There is also a nod perhaps to the continental ribbed or fluted tumblers used these days (and most likely in the past) by some lambic brewers. The gold lettering around the harp symbol seems to date them to the mid-20th century, and the same logo was used on goblets produced to mark Guinness’s bicentenary year in 1959. Another, probably slightly later version with a buff coloured logo was also produced, which was presumably a little more durable during washing, and the glass itself appears in at least one advertisement, on a showcard from 1950 for the Italian market*. (Curiously, a slightly less tapered version of the glass with a shallower base and without the logo is illustrated in a showcard in English dated to c1912**, which might be an indication of the inspiration for the design, or adoption of an already known design for the continental market.) There is no indication of the country of origin for the glass but Belgium, France or any of the surrounding countries would be a relatively safe bet, unless they were commissioned from a Czech supplier, as they are certainly of that quality and heft. (Belgium was certainly making imperial pint tumblers with groves around the bottom for the English and Irish markets late in the first half of the 20th century, but they were somewhat cruder and wholly moulded.)

That capacity mentioned above of 400ml could be an important indicator of the true purpose of the glass, as this volume is a perfect fit for a 330ml bottle of Guinness including room for a head right up to the rim without overflowing, which is helped by the conical shape. The name and product that comes to mind in the 1950s with regard to Guinness on the continent, and Belgium in particular is John Martin in Antwerp, and bottles of Guinness Foreign Export Stout.

With the help of David Hughes excellent book ‘A Bottle of Guinness Please’ the following early history of the company can be cobbled together from various mentions and references within its pages.

John Martin wasn’t the first or only importer of Guinness into Belgium, there were others before him and operating alongside him in the country when he was appointed an agent in 1912 for Antwerp, and he started bottling that same year – although some draught stout was also being sold during this period. At this point Guinness’s Extra Stout (ES) and Extra Foreign Stout (AKA Foreign Extra Stout, or FES) were being imported into the country. This changed to Export Extra Stout (GXS) around the time Martin commenced bottling (although there is a contradictory mention of him bottling ES in 1913, and these names and abbreviations are a minefield to traverse.) and Guinness began to see an improvement in sales. This was also helped by a marketing budget that included newspaper advertisements as well as showcards, metal signage and postcards. Sales were showing some growth up to the start of World War I when exports stopped. Supply recommenced in 1920 and by 1923 the main beer being sold by Martin was ES with just some FES, the beer being bottled in reputed pint (379ml[?] approximately) bottles at this point. This was the year that they merged with the Schweppes company with Martin remaining on as the managing director. Sales were generally poor at this point and suffered from rivals Bass’s stout being stronger and pasteurised, so therefore more stable and consistent, unlike Guinness’s stouts. In 1930 Martins started pasteurising ES onsite in Brussels, where they had moved their headquarters to in 1927. After World War II sales slowly increased and Martins remain connected with Guinness right up to this day.**

The history of what we know now as Special Export Stout in Belgium is a trickier thing to pin down (and we are indebted to David Hughes again for the following information) but Martins were bottling a stronger version of ES called ES77 (1.054 gravity which possibly equated to an abv of 5.5% at most?) for the Belgian market, which was a new stout developed for the Armed Forces in 1945 exclusively in Europe, whereas other countries received a slightly weaker version. (This may therefore be the origins of what would be eventually become Guinness Special Export Stout?) Production of stronger export stouts in general had stopped in 1917 and only commenced again in 1945. By 1949 it was reported to be (1.058) and was reported to be a stronger version of Extra Stout which was sweeter with a lower hop rate than FES – this is still true today. It would appear at least that during the following years it gain some extra strength to end up at is current 8% abv. This would make sense as it was a stronger beer prior to the wars so it possibly bounced back, and helpfully, Ron Pattinson shows that an export stout brewed by Guinness was 6.6% abv in 1948, 7.8%in 1963, and 7.3% in 1966. The variance is mostly due to the attenuation of the brewing more so than the gravity of the beer but it still shows and general increase over time.

For comparison, the much-told story about how it came about varies a little depending on the teller but the Guinness website gives the most common story:

So, how did this continental brew come to life? Well, John Martin was an English brewer living in Belgium who shared Arthur’s thirst for exploration and adventure. In 1944, he ventured through the doors of St. James’s Gate with a request to create a truly Irish stout with a fiercer punch and sweeter aftertaste, to suit the palate of his Belgium friends.

The Guinness brewers, never ones to turn down a challenge, of course obliged and that’s what he got. An adventurer’s black gold.

So next time you indulge, close your eyes, and think of… Belgium.

A visit to many other internet sources and the odd book all tell a similar tale, although factual, first-hand content is unavailable in any commonly available, public sources. So what we are left with is the snippets regarding the beer as published by David Hughes plus a little bit of marketing-driven history and a fair degree of conjecture. The actual history of the beer itself is probably a combination of facts and story, complicated by the various Guinness brews and how they changed over the years.

Branded continental glassware for Guinness isn’t new, and even Martins themselves had commissioned embossed glasses for the Belgian trade in 1910, and other bottlers were producing etched glasses with ‘Guinness XX’ on them not long afterwards*** – and there may be earlier examples. And it is highly possible and probable that Jon Martin commissioned these glasses for his export stout from the very late 1940s onwards, although they were also probably used for draught product on occasion. The same glass is shown on a beermat which was dated as being from 1976, so perhaps these glasses lasted up until the 1980s? Either way they should be an incredibly desirable product for the Guinness glass collector, although they seem to be relatively rare on these islands at least. But perhaps, like the early Guinness tankards that were used here in the sixties and seventies, they have become prized possessions on the continent, and sit in collections throughout Belgium, and beyond. They are indisputably the finest pieces of glassware ever produced for the brand, even more attractive than those aforementioned tankards.

And perhaps somewhere in Belgium, in an old and half-hidden pub in some quiet and peaceful town, when you order a bottle of Dublin brewed John Martin’s Special Export Stout, and as you are sitting facing a charming square, the kindly old bar owner will reach over your shoulder and place that beer on the marble-topped table, followed by an old beermat on which is placed one of these gorgeous glasses.

Wouldn’t that be a treat?

Liam K

*The Book of Guinness Advertising page 175 - Jim Davies1998

** ‘A Bottle of Guinness Please’ - David Hughes 2006

*** The Guinness Online Archive

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. Much of the research was thanks to David Hughes' book, and the glass and beermat image is from the author's own collection. DO NOT STEAL THIS CONTENT!

A Shot of Beer History #7 - How Old Are Beer Kegs?

We've all seen them, those rows and stacks of beer kegs that line the street outside our public houses - battered, bashed and tarnished. Most people don't give them much thought, apart from having to dance and dodge around these obstacles as they run errands or go about their daily business.

But have you ever wondered how old beer kegs are? Not barrels or casks, actual beer kegs, or at least something that sounds like them. Well it seems that something akin to a modern, metal beer keg has been around since at least 1840 if we go by this description in an engineering journal from that year ...

Ale and Porter Preserved. - In order to save ale and porter in good condition for a considerable length of time it is, for the most part, kept corked down in bottles; and though this method answers exceedingly well, yet it is subject to this inconvenience, that it causes, where a small quantity, as one draught, for instance, is only required, all the rest of the ale or porter in the bottle to go to waste, which must prove both expensive and inconvenient. It is pressure that is the main cause of keeping ale, &c., so well in bottles, and an apparatus is in use by which liquids may be constantly under pressure in casks as well as in corked bottles. The vessel is made in the form of a cask of strong tin, strongly braced by iron hoops, which stands on its end. At the upper end is a cock, soldered to a tube, which is immersed to within an inch of the bottom of the cask. At the same end is a condensing syringe, by means of which air can be forced into the cask; and whenever this is effected it is obvious that the liquor will have a tendency to escape through the tube and out at the cock with a force proportionate to the degree the air is compressed by the action of the syringe. If the cock be then turned the liquor will rush out with violence, foaming, at the same time a great quantity of froth, or what is usually termed a cauliflower head. Every time the ale is drawn from the cask, the air it contains is not exposed to the atmosphere, whilst the liquor is kept under pressure, and no vent peg is necessary. It is said all the advantages of bottling are obtained by the above process, without one half of the waste and inconvenience attending on the former system.

That certainly sounds like a prototype modern beer keg. A pressurised, metal beer container where the liquid is forced from a tap at its top, using apparatus that sounds somewhat familiar to any in the pub trade, albeit without the external tubing and using just manually applied pressurised air instead of forced pure carbon dioxide.

So it seems that those beer kegs we are familiar with are heading for being two centuries old?

Although anything resembling modern keg ale was still a quite a few years away!

Liam K

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. The above information was sourced via Google Books - Mechanics' Magazine and Journal of Engineering, Agricultural Machinery, Manufactures, and Shipbuilding, Volume 32 Knight and Lacey - 1840.. DO NOT STEAL THIS CONTENT!

A Shot of Beer History #6 - The Irish Reinheitsgebot

In 1778 there were a series of brewing related acts passed in Ireland for 'the improvement of His Majesty's Revenue and the more effectually processing of the Frauds therin.' Of interest is what appears to be an Irish version of the Reinheitsgebot, the Bavarian purity law which dictated what could, or more importantly what could not, be included in the beers brewed there. The relevant Irish acts read as follows:

VIII. And be it further enacted by the authority afore said, That from and after the twenty fourth day of June one thousand seven hundred and seventy eight, no common or retailing brewer, or other retailer of beer or ale, shall make use of any madder, molosses[sic], sugar, honey or composition or extract of sugar, or make use of any broom, wormwood, gentian root, or any drug or herb, or of any ingredient whatsoever in the brewing, making, or working of any beer or ale, other than water, malt, hops, and barm; and that all beer or ale brewed or mixed with any ingredients other than water, malt, hops, and barm, shall be forfeited; and that every such common or retailing brewer, or other retailer of beer or ale offending therein shall forfeit for every such offence the sum of ten pounds.

IX. Provided that no penalty or forfeiture herein mentioned shall extend or be construed to extend to the infusing of broom, wormwood, ground ivy, or other ingredient into beer or ale by the retailer, after the same is brewed and tunned, for the purpose of making purl or jill, or broom or wormwood beer; or to the using any ingredient or ingredients necessary for the making of porter in making brewing the same.

So we can see that fines were to be levied onto brewers who used adjuncts in their brewing (a relatively common occurrence in the 18th century according to the scant recipes available at the time) as this would presumably have an effect on the tax revenue garnered from malt and hops, and it was probably enacted for that reason more so than any concerns regarding the quality of the beer or the risk of poisoning. The act did not apply to the brewing of porter (or if any adjuncts were added to other beers post brewing) so it could be brewed with whatever the brewer wanted to use.

If this act was never repealed* then there are quite a few Irish brewers that need to forfeit their beers and pay up that ten ponds, or its equivalent!

Liam K

* It was, see John reply below.

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. The above information was sourced via Google Books. DO NOT STEAL THIS CONTENT!

A Shot of Beer History #5 - Tankard Theft

In May 1913 the following report appeared in a Dublin newspaper as a warning to the city's publicans:

It is now some time ago since the licensed trade suffered great loss by the disappearance of pewter tankards, and now the tankard thieves have again made their appearance. They re-started on the North side of the city on Wednesday, and confined their unwelcome attentions to Upper Dorset street. The modus operandi is as follows:- Generally a man and a woman enter the "snug." the man calls for a tankard of porter, and the woman a bottle of stout. They occupy the "snug" for some time, and then leave, the woman having hid away the empty tankard, and leaving a pint tumbler in its place, the assistant in his rush forgetting, when he sees the two glasses, that he supplied a tankard.

The tankards are melted down along with the tops of soda water syphons and made into counterfeit coin, which is generally freely circulated after a tankard raid. the coins are very neatly turned out, and have a very good ring, but the bright colour will be detected if closely examined.

As alluded to in the report, this was a relatively common practice but it is interesting to see the 'modus operandi' here in print. So, it appears that the theft of drinkware from pubs isn't a new phenomena - not that we really thought it was - although the reasons for said theft appears to have changed through the years to one of collecting.  Although there is no mention of where the ladies mentioned in the report hid their soon-to-be-swapped tumblers and stolen tankards, it is possible they were tucked neatly into the folds of a dress but it is probably more likely a bag of some description was used. Anecdotally, that practice still exists, with glassware generally disappearing into a handbag these days - often at the gentleman's prompting - but without the switcheroo. (That's not to say that women don't steal glassware for their own use of course!)

It's 'nice' to see that there is equality and partnership when it comes to this exercise, although it must also be said that then - as like now - the gentleman can have plausible deniability as to the theft, as the stolen item is in the possession of the lady, and therefore perhaps the alliance is not quite what it seems ..?!

Liam K

PS. Don't steal stuff from pubs!

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 image from The Freeman's Journal of the 16th May 1913. DO NOT STEAL THIS CONTENT!

100 Years of Irish Brewing in 50 Objects: #22 – Macardle’s No. 1 Beermat (1973)

The Licensed Grocers and Vintners’ Association, at their meeting held yesterday, decided to increase the price ales and ciders by a halfpenny per bottle, and No. 1 Ale by one penny. The price stout and porter remains unchanged.

The Dublin Daily Express - 25th October 1916

If there is one still-existing beer brand that elicits a wave of nostalgia when mentioned in certain company it’s Macardle’s ale. The ‘Large Mac’ from the shelf, or the cooler depending on your tastes and the weather, has a small but important cult following, who against all odds seem to be keeping the ale alive and stocked in certain bars and off licenses across the country, with a bias towards north Leinster sweeping down towards the southeast of the island. The draught version appears to have vanished entirely from the pub counter even in its literal homeland of Dundalk, gone the way of the Small Mac and the six-pack of dumpy half-pint bottles. Now this once well-known and important brand is only offered in a pint bottle, and by default is normally served with a half-pint, trumpet-shaped pilsner glass. Along with bottled non-nitro Guinness, it is the default choice for many drinkers who prefer the fuller flavours of microbrewed beers and find themselves in a pub in Ireland which only stocks ‘The Usual’ line-up of taps serving the somewhat anodyne output of larger breweries. In its current form Macardles is a well-carbonated, amber coloured ale with a pronounced bitter hop bite and a relatively decent malt aftertaste. It would be difficult to compare it to any other ale currently available in Ireland, so it’s perhaps best described as being somewhat reminiscent of a throttled back English bitter, especially when served at ‘shelf’ temperature and from a fresh-brewed batch. 

-o-

Like most Irish mainstream beers, Macardle’s has been reduced to a brand owned and produced by a multinational corporation, but the brewery history behind the name goes quite far back, and was once a huge part of the now-lost brewing history of the island. The history of most Irish breweries can be quite complicated and the origins are often lost and muddied by oft-repeated errors and marketing-friendly white lies, but looking back at the early period when our brewery was called Macardle, Moore & Co., and using as a starting point an advertisement for the enterprise which was published as a part of The Freeman’s Journal’s series on Irish industries in June 1920, a short, early history and status of the brewery can be gleaned. The headline over the full page advertisement read ‘A Famous Irish Brewery’ and it also included some images of the brewery buildings and workings which sadly didn’t print too well at newspaper quality, so are not too noteworthy here. The advertisement states:

The firm was established by the late Mr. E. H. Macardle [who] took over, jointly with the late Andrew Thomas Moore […] an old brewery, carried on in the Napoleonic era by Duffy, Plunkett & Co. and afterwards by Jas. Mc Allister. [The] brewery was established in Dublin Street, Dundalk, but it was subsequently transferred to Cambricville, where the industry is now carried on in the most pleasant surroundings, the windows of the vat room, for example, looking out over a wooded demesne. Cambricville was originally a Huguenot settlement, where the exiles carried on the manufacture of Cambric, according to the processes which had made Cambrai famous. The De Joucort family founded the industry in 1740.

Although a good starting point, this is a somewhat succinct history of the business, and we might need to delve into other sources - mostly newspapers from the period of the brewery’s birth - for clarification, especially as any dates and details seem a little scarce in the above piece.

In 1860 or possibly the year before, Edward Henry Macardle entered into a partnership with John Charles Duffy to greatly improve the existing brewery on Dublin Street in Dundalk. John C. Duffy had probably owned the brewery along with other family members - James and Arthur Duffy and his uncle Patrick Wynne - since at least the early 1830s, and perhaps prior to that it was owned by Patrick Wynne alone. After John Duffy’s death in 1863, Andrew Thomas Moore, a cousin of E.H. Macardle, became his partner in that enterprise on Dublin Street, and so started Macardle-Moore reign as brewery owners in (and just beyond) the town.

Meanwhile, the brewery at Cambrickville, just outside Dundalk but quite close to the Dublin Street brewery, was possibly set up c. 1804 by a Simon Loraghan who is named as living at a house on the brewery site when it is up for sale in 1807, the brewery was ‘only three years at work’ at that time according to a newspaper advertisement. (Modern references to the brewery mention that this was the site of an earlier brewery in the 18th century owned by a William Stuart, of which there is no mention in commonly available sources from this time. Mr Loraghan may have had nothing to do with the brewery and may have just been a caretaker for the site, or an agent for its sale. Plus the 'three years at work' could refer to a rebuilt brewhouse on the site.) A James Duffy and Edward McAlister are later in partnership - with others - at the brewery up to 1822 when the partnership appears to have been dissolved. This was around the same time that a bankrupted Richard Darley lost his share in the venture, having seemingly surviving a similar fate in 1816 and 1819, when it was noted he was a quarter partner in the brewery. (This may have been just a protracted delay in resolving the issue of his bankruptcy, and it would be of interest if Richard Darley was related to Henry Darley who had a brewery in Stillorgan, and Bray, in the 19th century but that seems difficult to prove.)

A James McAlester (the surname spelling seems to vary) was running the brewery there alone from 1824 when the partnership called Duffy, Plunkett & Co. comprising of McAlester, John Duffy and Patrick Plunkett was dissolved, although it appears Plunkett had already left the business in 1821. The enterprise was known as ‘Cambrick Ville Brewery’ at this time. McAlester was still brewing there in 1846 according to Slater’s Directory, although four years earlier in 1842 barley, brewing utensils as well as furniture and livestock was being sold at an auction to pay off some debts, and the brewery was certainly unoccupied by the 1850s as referenced by council records in newspaper at this time. So Slater’s may have been listing it as an existing brewery structure even though it was not currently in production.

But in 1863 it was being advertised to be let, had been completely refurbished and was in ‘first rate order and repair’ after a ‘considerable sum’ had been spent to bring it up to working order, with applications to be made to the owner James McAlester, according to an advertisement late that year. As well as the brewery itself, there was an onsite malt house with 8,000 square feet of flooring that was capable of producing 300 barrels of malt weekly. A substantial 6-bedroom dwelling house with a parlour, drawing room and library was also included in the letting. So all in all an impressive site.

In late 1865 the partnership of Macardle, Moore & Co. agreed to buy (or let) the brewery from McAlester, with advertisements for its sale at this time particularly noting the quality of its water for brewing ‘pale long keeping ales.’ The brewery appears to have begun production of ale and porter there in 1866  with the plan at the time to keep both breweries in operation, but it appears that the Dublin Street brewery closed soon afterwards. Malting continued at the Dublin Road site for a number of years, with the old site being called ‘the old brewery’ in newspaper mentions into the early 1870s. It should be noted that the spelling of the new brewery has now changed to Cambricville Brewery, although the spelling does seem to vary through the years.

The article from 1920 continues:

The Firm has also a number of modern maltings and branch grain warehouses, where the grain is stored and subsequently transferred to the brewery, where there is a branch line and siding which connects with the Great Northern Railway system.

One of these maltings, which is in Dundalk, is known as the Butter Crane Maltings, because it was used as a storehouse for butter and bacon and other Irish produce during the Napoleonic Wars, when the British Government drew a large portion of their supplies from Ireland.

[…] the stout and porter and ale brewed in this famous Dundalk Brewery have achieved a national reputation, and the firm are now extending their connection right through the country, and are appointing agents where not already represented. Their beverages have long been in great demand in Army canteens at home and abroad, and the directors believe that their products have only to be tested to command the widest approval and support.

The piece goes on to emphasise the ‘purity and wholesomeness and really palatable flavour’ of its beverages, and although it reads very much like the advertisement it is, it certainly shows the importance of the brewery at this time in Ireland, and - like most Irish breweries - how it brewed a range of beers, not just one product, from its earliest time on Dublin Street, in fact it won a medal at the Irish Exhibition of Arts and Manufacturing in 1882 for its porter, not its ale as is sometimes reported. The military connection mentioned above was a huge part of their business, as was an export trade, and as were their tied houses in Dundalk and surrounding area, with some being as far away as Belfast. It was one of the best know breweries in the country for many years before - after some changes in ownership and being turned into a bottling plant with minimal brewing - it finally closed in 2001.

-o-

But what of the last remnant of this brewery’s drinkable history? The last remaining format, the pint bottle with its red, white and black label showing the words ‘Macardle’s’ along with ‘Premium Quality’ and ‘Traditional Ale,’ a label which is less than iconic but more than just plain familiar to many drinkers. The one on the back of the bottle states ‘Originally brewed in Dundalk in 1863 with the finest raw materials of Irish grown barley, hops, water and yeast. Macardle’s is known for its distinctive flavour which is often described as nutty in character by ale aficionados’ and interestingly that first sentence could apply to the 1863 beer or the current one, depending on how you interpret it. It is also proclaimed it to be 4.0% alcohol by volume, and the name of the brand owner and current brewer, ‘Diageo Ireland, St. James’s Gate, Dublin 8’ also features here. 

Prior to the current rebrand, which occurred in two steps in the mid-1980s and which focussed on tradition and quality, the labelling featured the term ‘No. 1 Ale’ prominently on its bottle labels and caps. Advertisements in the 1960s read ‘Number one for quality. Number one for strength. Number one for flavour,’ and that byline regarding its strength goes right back to the early 1920s when it was being advertised as ‘Macardles No. 1 Strong Ale.’ This was when it was being first advertised under the ‘No. 1’ ale in newspapers and there is even an implication that it was a new brew with advertisements stating that ‘every effort is being made by [the brewery], by using the choicest material, regardless of cost, and the best skill in manufacture to produce an ale second to none’ (1923) and that the brewery ‘was glad to note that our efforts in producing this famous ale have been so highly appreciated by the public’ (1926). This could be just down to interpretation but it could be read as being a new product at this time.

Regardless of the date it first appeared, a look at this ‘No. 1’ ale from its advertised traits in the 1920s through to its current, renamed form appears to flag something amiss. Even in a country that had barley-wines at 5.5% alcohol by volume in the second half of the 20th century it is highly unlikely that a 4% ale would be called a ‘strong’ ale, as Macardle’s No. 1 was in the 1920s and 1930s, nor could it be beer of ‘strength’ as it was promoted as during the 1960s, which hints at a recipe change, or perhaps just a dumbing down in alcohol from this period. ‘No. 1’ ales were generally the strongest of the ‘normal’ ale output of a brewery. There appear to be no brewing records available for public viewing for Macardle-Moore but we can look at a brew that was made by them in 1911 to mark the kings visit which had been supplied to soldiers at the time and was probably around 5% abv or more based on an advertised original gravity of 1.053. This was a 'Pale Bitter Ale' originally supplied to troops so possibly not their strongest-brewed effort, and although this is a decade or so before the ale called ‘No. 1’  appears it would seem unlikely it would be weaker than it. For reference, down the road in Drogheda, rivals Cairnes were brewing their eponymous Cairnes ale (which is listed in early brews as a ‘No. 1’) in 1928 to 5.5% abv and Perry’s in Rathdowney had an XX ale in 1933 that they marketed as a ‘No. 1’ ale which was also 5.5% according to brewing records available for those breweries. (And that is without mentioning the English brewed and hugely popular Bass No. 1 ale.) All of this would make one assume that the Macardle-Moore ‘Strong Ale’ was at least this strength, or possibly a little higher in alcohol, and perhaps – like some of those mentioned from other breweries - it fell slightly through the 1940s and 1950s before eventually dropping by the 1980s to the now 4% abv. (The quotation about the increase in ale prices at the very start of this piece implies that No. 1 ales were stronger and more expensive too.)

Both of the ales mentioned above from Cairnes and Perrys were pale ales, as no caramel, dark malt or roast barley appear to be used in them at this time. Bass and Smithwick No. 1 ale were also pale ales so it is certainly more than possible that Macardle's No. 1 was also a pale ale at this time, although without access to brewing records we cannot be sure, as there were certainly some darker ales available in Ireland in the past.

For reference, in the mid–to-late fifties the brewing output of the brewery was Macardles No. 1 Strong Ale, Macardles Export, as well as their brewing Double Diamond. The latter being pasteurised and filtered, and the others appearing to have been bottle conditioned, another small if significant change from the present day, according to a newspaper report that mentioned its bottling of other ales too.

Also of note is that in the 1990s the recipe was said to included flaked maize which was unlikely to have been used in earlier brews (although not impossible of course), and if this beer dated back to 1863 then it would certainly not contained such a fermentable as Macardle-Moore took out advertisements in newspapers in the latter part of the 19th century where they were at pains to state their porter and ales included just barley malt and hops (Pacific hops at times!), along with water and yeast. This inclusion of maize would also hint at a reformulation at some point, perhaps in the 1980s when the newer branding and the dropping of the ‘No. 1’ occurred.

Lastly, a presentation given to The Old Dundalk Society in 2019 contains a slide regarding the head brewer Bernard Rodgers, who was head brewer from the 1920s until 1952 claims he was the 'first brewer to brew Macardle Ale.' Unfortunatley no further information is given.

-o-

The question is whether, as is claimed on the bottles, it is the same ale – or any ale - that was brewed in 1863, presumably in the Dublin Street brewery as it could not have been brewed in Cambrickville.

This seems highly unlikely, if not impossible.

Although, ‘Traditional’ is one of those word that means many things to many people, and so it could be argued that it was brewed traditionally with a base at least of hops, malt, water and yeast. 

But the barley variety and how it was malted will be different, as will the hops – and they are probably in pelleted form. The mash and brewing regime have probably changed and been curtailed, and perhaps the yeast and water profile are different – although the latter would be the easiest to replicate. The colour of the beer has possibly changed too, darkened to fit in with the false ‘Irish Red Ale’ history. The beer is no longer bottle conditioned as it was in the past, and lastly, we can see that the alcohol amount has also probably changed. It may be roughly based on a recipe from 1863 but it’s difficult to track a continuous unbroken path to the present for such a beer.

But, it may certainly be the beer that was brewed in the 1980s in Dundalk, and perhaps fifty odd years is tradition enough?

Liam K

There is more information on the Macardle Historical Society website here, including the presentation and slide mentioned above. New information is being added all the time.

There is a wonderful collection of aerial photographs of the brewery from 1956 here on the NLI site.

(Newspaper references available on request.)

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 and the Macardles beermat image is from the author's own collection. The Cairnes' brewing record mentions is held in The Guinness Archive and the Perry's records are in the Portlaoise local studies department of the local library. DO NOT STEAL THIS CONTENT!

A Shot of Beer History #4: On Beer Festivals - Irish Provincial Narrowness vs. English Degrading Eccentricities

On Wednesday 21st of May 1873 the following editorial appeared in the Irish newspaper, The Freeman's Journal:

The wit and ingenuity of the world would seem to be on the side of frivolity and wickedness. The efforts made to entice men and women to the profane, the foolish, the enervating, and the contemptible, are far greater and more intense than the efforts to regenerate, to restrain, to correct. The follies of our day are characteristics almost superior to the genuine achievements which we can really boast. Fashion in itself is a sufficient indictment against us. The attractions of life are usually foolish in act or seeming, and sometimes they are wicked and pernicious. Any bad play put upon our stage is certain to attract attention and to gain applause. Any novel contemptibility is hailed as a stroke of genius; and the man who invents such a monstrosity as a barmaid show, a baby show, or a beer show, is instantly elevated to the rank of a benefactor. The lower senses are invariably appealed to in these clever designs; and we are sorry to see that success is often achieved by the assistance of those whose duties should preserve them from such a foul abuse of power. The latest sensation is, as we have hinted, a beer show. Babies, barmaids, pugs, and monkeys having had their year, the folly of the age finds relaxation in beer. It is needless to say that the scheme is due to the brain which originated these splendid absurdities; and it is also needless to say that the brains of those who assist at the show will be none the better for the exercise. In Woolwich Gardens [London] there are just now some five and thirty specimens of the national beverage. The visitor pays for a tasting order, and having made up his mind, or as much of that guide as remains after the discharge of a solemn duty, he votes for a particular beer. If we remember that even half a glass of beer all round will give the taster a gallon of intoxicating liquor, we can estimate his judgment, his sagacity, and his condition. To the ordinary mind there is a leering impudence in this scheme which is at once disheartening and irritating. The audacity which enables a man to submit to this sort of pastime to a civilised people is very suggestive of the spirit of the age. But the truth of the case is humiliating, indeed. These things succeed. Thousands of young men will visit the gardens and taste the beer and record their votes, and the proprietor, who is rapidly gaining a reputation for unequalled cleverness, will probably make more money in a month than a man of genius and industry can in a year. In a community like ours, where religion and morality have a real influence, a beer show is happily an impossibility. The idleness of wealth is one of the curses of England, for idleness is ever wicked or inane. In Ireland what is sometimes called our provincial narrowness saves us from many of the degrading eccentricities of our rich neighbours, and preserves for us that stern regard for decency which is one of our it most praiseworthy qualities.

There are lots of quotable terms in this diatribe on beer festivals and their visitors, I think my favourite is 'leering impudence?'

Regardless, enjoy your next splendid absurdity - wherever, however and whatever that may be ...

Liam K

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 image. DO NOT STEAL THIS CONTENT!

100 Years of Irish Brewing in 50 Objects: #21 - Murphys of Clonmel Flip-Top Bottle (c. 1910)

On Saturday night between 11 and 12 o’clock the Clonmel Brewery was broken into and a quantity of porter and of the new ale manufactured at the brewery, known as “B.B.”, was stolen. The thirsty visitors effected entrance to the brewery means of a disused hayloft which looks out on Dowd’s Lane in the quay direction. The door of the hayloft, which is about eight feet from the ground, was shut-to but not locked. Several dozen of porter and “B.B.” were taken, and it is certain that there must have been at least two disciples of Bacchus concerned in the affair. Sergeant Booth is looking the matter up, but so far no arrest has been effected.

Further inquiries show that the circumstance of the door being open was due the fact that they hay in the loft, which was ordinarily piled up against the door, thus keeping it closed, had been removed. This would go to show that it was some parties with intimate knowledge of the inner arrangements of the brewery who committed the depredation. Suspicion was first aroused by the fragments of two or three bottles, which were found in the street, underneath the hay loft, next morning.

The Cork Examiner - Wednesday 27th July 1910

Flip-top bottles are often thought of as a relatively modern idea as a bottle closure device, and not something which is generally associated with Irish brewing. But the object shown above shows that they have certainly existed here in the past, and were not developed and exclusively used by the Grolsch beer brand of which they are most associated. Their use by German breweries is also know by those who partake of beers from some of the relatively smaller companies of that country too, and Germany appears to be where the origin of this precise type of closure begins – way back in the 1870s.

In 1878 Nicolai Fritzner of Berlin was granted provisional patent for the bottle closing device using a porcelain stopper with an Indian rubber or leather washer and a wire clasp. He had already patented something similar in 1876, and a year earlier than that a Charles de Quillfeldt from New York had registered a very similar method of closure, although the bung used to close the bottle was made completely of rubber so isn’t quite the same as the version today’s beer drinkers are familiar with, and even prior to this there were other wire and bung bottle closing inventions but again they were not quite the same design. The true inventor is open to interpretation, and there were court cases and complicated debates regarding copyright infringement that we won’t go into here, suffice it to say that these general types of bottle closures have been around since the mid-1870s at least, and the ceramic stoppered version we are familiar seems to appear near the end of the decade.

This bottle was made by the firm of Charles Borron & Co., as shown by the letters CB&C which stand proud of the base. That company operated in Newton-le-Willows in Merseyside in England from the mid-1860s until it closed in 1925. The glass used itself is dark green and the volume it holds is exactly one half pint. The words ‘T. Murphy & Co. Ltd. Brewers Clonmel printed on the ceramic stopper and the same wording - with the ‘T’ extended to the name ‘Thomas’ - is in relief around the base of the bottle itself. The date of the bottle is tricky to ascertain to any precise degree of accuracy but it must fall between the very late 1870s when the closure mechanism was invented and 1925 when the glass bottle manufacturer ceased trading.

But we can perhaps be a little more accurate based on an advertisement for the aforementioned ‘B.B.’ ale that was produced for the Thomas Murphy brewery which shows our exact bottle design complete with a handsome label and a pale drink poured into glass. The words ‘Drink Murphy’s B.B.’ are printed above the image. The ale was described as new in 1910 in the above report on the theft, and it was still being advertised in newspapers in 1915, so this gives us, perhaps, a better indication of the date of our object notwithstanding that the bottles could have been used for other beers and ales prior to this period. There is no record of what style of beer ‘B.B.’ was and it would be obvious to suggest Best Bitter, although perhaps a better guess would be ‘Bitter Beer’, a term used by others. Adverts say it was ‘a genuine refreshing drink’ but very little else is mentioned about it.

-o-

What became known as Thomas Murphy & Co. appears to have started as a partnership with Thomas Greer and Thomas Murphy, both Quakers - as were many of our Irish brewing hierarchy - in the late 18th century, although some sources suggest it was started just by Greer alone with Murphy coming into the business later. Their foundation date seems to be a little vague, with later sources claiming it was 1798 but advertisements in newspapers and guide books give the date at 1797 and 1799. The earliest mention, in a newspaper from 1863, states the 1797 date so it is possible that the 1798 date was adopted because of the importance of the rebellion that occurred in that year. It is also possible, and likely that there was a year or two in between the sourcing of the brewery site, its fit out, and when it commenced its first brewing which could also account for the variously used years.

Dubious dates seem to be a minor issue with the brewery’s purported history, as another major event – or calamity – that occurred was when the entire brewery burned down. The date given in every available history for the brewery states that this was in 1829. It wasn’t. It was in 1825 as attested by a few newspaper reports that sate that on the morning of Saturday the 8th of October a fire was spotted in the brewery and that the entire premises (measuring 200 ft by 500 ft at this time)was soon engulfed in flame, the fire having started when a kiln became overheated and burst through its protective tiles, causing huge flames to escape into the brewery itself*. Luckily no one was injured and after the insurance pay out the brewery was rebuilt and began expanding, eventually stretching from Nelson Street across Dowd’s Lane and down to the quay. The main building itself was and is a handsome six storey structure and it can be seen in its prime in this illustration from c. 1889, although no doubt with some artistic license applied. At this time the site stretched to 2 acres and it employed 200 people if write-ups of the day are to be believed, plus there were coopers making casks and carpenters building drays – it was a large and important endeavour for the town and surrounding area.

From The Book of County Tipperary by George Henry Bassett · 1889

In 1829 the brewery of Greer and Murphy were producing Double Strong Ale, Pale Butt, Ale, Porter and Table Beer** and in 1833 Thomas Greer dies and in that same year the brewery can be seen to be exporting its beers to England. The partnership was officially dissolved in 1838 and the brewery was now known as Thomas Murphy & Co. By the 1860s and 1870s they were brewing East India Pale Ale, and Strong Ales and Mild Ales as well as Brown Stout according to various newspaper advertisements. The pale ales in particular were attested to be as good as any of those produced on these islands at the time.

-o-

As an aside, in 1887 the following incident occurred, which is worth noting:

A curious occurrence took place here on Wednesday. It appears that on Sunday last a champion football match, between a Carrick team and one in Clonmel, was played on the ground of the latter, and that at the termination of the play a serious row took place. On Monday six of the Carrick contingent were arrested and fined £2 each by the Mayor of Clonmel. On the same day a drayman named Patrick O'Neill, in the employment of Mr Murphy, brewer, Clonmel, arrived in Carrick with some barrels of beer, ale, and porter. He was hooted through the streets by a large crowd, the publicans refusing to deal with him. So serious did things turn out that the police had to escort him out of the town for some miles. On Wednesday he returned only to meet much the same treatment. Not a trader in the town would purchase, nor could he get stabling for his horse or refreshments for himself. He left, after been hooted about, under police protection.

The Dublin Daily Express - 3rd June 1887

If nothing else, this shows that sport will trump beer every time, and the passion - and resentment - of its supporters is something that hasn’t changed to this day.

-o-

The brewery struggled in the early part of 20th century due to losing of the lucrative contract to supply army canteens as well as increased competition, well-publicised strikes, and raw material supply issues before finally closing in 1925 - the very same year as the maker of our bottle - with a portion of the extensive premises becoming a shoe factory and other parts becoming the cider factory for new firm of Magner’s, now known as Bulmers and a brand owned by C&C.

The brewery building erected on the quays still stands as testament to the once great brewery and employer in the town, as do other buildings previously owned by the firm, and if you stand with your back to the river you can see to the left of the imposing stone and brick façade of the brewery, the archway where once drays loaded with casks, and perhaps our bottle, left the brewery for parts unknown.

It's important to remember that once upon a time, we had another Murphy’s brewery…

Liam K

* The Southern Reporter and Cork Commercial Courier - 11th October 1825

**  The Tipperary Free Press - 17th January 1829

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. DO NOT STEAL THIS CONTENT!