Historic Home Brewing – A Very Rough Guide

It’s a quite ludicrous idea really.

The concept of attempting to brew a historic brewery beer of any kind in these modern times could be seen as a pointless endeavour because on the face of it such a beer will never be exactly as it was. That statement is of course 100% true, but if you only believe in such absolutes and regard anything less as pointless then historical brewing isn’t for you, as it’s a hobby that’s certainly embraces The Ish.

What we are actually aiming for is a historic-ish brew with as close-ish as possible ingredients while using old-ish methods. If you aren’t leaning into The Ish then you won’t be happy with the compromises that need to be made, and conversely if you don’t try to negate and minimise The Ish then you might as well brew a modern beer. It will certainly be easier and there are plenty of tried and tested recipes available. So if you don’t enjoy the search for original recipes, the hunt for the right ingredients, and sticking as close as possible to the process then you haven’t really done the best you can by the recipe and the original brewers of that beer. Neither will you get as close as you possibly can to what the beer tasted like so, to me, it seems a little pointless not to at least try your best, but for sure the whole process is based on a certain amount of compromise.

It all comes down to replicating and controlling what you can and adapting the things you cannot, and it requires more than a little passion in the subject, plus a ridiculous and pointless need to replicate a long dead beer.

Before we start it’s important to flag the work of two people who were of great help to me at the onset with my research and early attempts at recreating what were, and still are, mostly old Irish beers from old Irish recipes. Those people are Ron Pattinson and Edd Mather, and both would be familiar to those with an interest in historical brews, and I would encourage those who are new to this to visit their websites and to buy Ron’s books. Ron is probably more well known and publishes recipes that are easily adapted by homebrewers for their own use, while Edd's are much more detailed but still usable for hobbyists. 

And while Ron and Edd produce the recipes, they don’t do any homebrewed versions as far as I am aware(?), although Ron has certainly done commercial ones! I differ in my approach because I like taking the whole process from the finding of the recipe all the way to drinking the finished product, and I rarely publish recipes. I leave that to both of them, and they are quite prolific at it!

I eventually stopped bugging both of them about recipes and started to develop my own versions, adapted to a homebrew BIAB (Brew in a Bag) method at first before upgrading to a Grainfather with software and Bluetooth, and if you think that the irony of brewing old beers on such a modern system is lost on me, I can assure you it most certainly is not! But that software is hugely beneficial when it comes to easing the development and adaption of recipes. 

-o-

The Source

The first hurdle to clamber across if you want to brew a historic beer is finding an actual recipe. (Ron and Edd, and others, have plenty for you to copy if you want to skip this bit, and the whole post and go straight to brewing!) This is by far the trickiest issue in Ireland where old brewing records are extremely scarce. Some are held in the Guinness Archive, others by Cork University, and one batch in Portlaoise Library, and those cover just a tiny handful of Irish breweries, only five I believe. Apart from that we are indebted to scribbled notes by those who visited the breweries and made notes regarding some of the brewing process, and books on the subject, but even those are very scarce.

In England, and perhaps Scotland and Wales, there seems to be no end to the brewing records available. Either held by the breweries themselves, of which there were many more than on this island, or in local study archives. We certainly should have more records here but they are either in private hands or worse still, have been destroyed.

So those in the UK can find these sources relatively easily but those here need to make a trip to the three sources and take notes and photos of said records. This I must stress is only if you want to replicate a certain beer from our brewing history, but I’d argue that if you don’t do this then you won’t have enough personal knowledge to even pay homage to a particular old beer style. The act of looking at the scribbled notes of a long dead brewer from our past tends to inspire that passion and need for authent-ish-ity required.

These records will have the usual information such as to the date of the brew, its number (often written as gyle number), and plenty of information on the brew itself. I won’t pretend to know what all of this information means but the most important for a historic-ish brew are the following in my opinion:

The malt – types and amounts, usually in barrels and stones 

The hops – sources and weight, usually pounds

Any other additions such as sugars and other adjuncts 

The mash length and temperature

The boil length

The OG (Original Gravity) before fermentation. (This may be in pound of sugar per gallon so you will need to find a conversion chart to get that figure into the modern system we currently use. I have found one in the archives but I'm sure they are available online in old publications.)

There will be other information in the records too such as sparge temperature, plus yeast and fermentation notes, etc, but if you have the information listed above, with or without the sparge temperature, you have much of what you need to attempt to replicate the beer on a simple homebrew scale.

A word of warning, much of this information was written down just for the brewer's own records so there are abbreviations and scribbles that only he might understand. I am reminded of one lot of 19th century brewing records in the Cork University Library that appear to have been brought over to Ireland from the UK and feature some interesting beers, but the recipes seem illegible and gobbledegook to a homebrewer of my level, for now.

The Recipe

The next step is to break down the ingredients into ratios, which probably isn’t an entirely accurate way of doing things but logically will give us the right proportion of bitterness to biscuitness for our purposes. Convert all volumes and measurements to the one unit (I use kilograms) and calculate the ratio of how much hops and sugars, etc. to the malts, as this will eventually give you the figures you need for the actual brew. One tricky thing here is that old records used barrels per brew for their malt amounts, so volume-based measurements versus the weight-based system we use now. There is an added issue too in that Irish barrels and English barrels were different volumes. This will not be an issue for those in the UK but here we used both sizes, with Irish Barrels being 32 gallons and English being 36 gallons, the size used is sometimes noted on the brewing records but more often is not, so an educated guess may be needed to be made. And you thought this would be easy? As far as the conversion of volume to weight, there are figures available online but the simplest thing to do is to weigh a litre (or a pint if you work that way) of malt and convert the barrels using that figure. This won’t be entirely accurate as moisture levels and other factors mean that we are back to The Ish of historic brewing, but it is certainly within acceptable parameters.

Hops are by weight so that’s easy to add as a ratio, but with hops in the past being a little older and stored in poorer conditions they may have lost some bitterness, so it has been argued that you should use them at 75 or 80% of the historical rate. I haven't researched whether that is the case, although I can see how they might lose aroma, I'm not so sure about bitterness?

By now you should have all of the figures you need – use a spreadsheet if that helps.

This is where the brewing software comes in, I use my Grainfather app but I’m sure others work the same way, or you could conceivably build a complete spreadsheet to achieve the same result.

Set the mash time and temperature as per the recipe and do the same for the boil time. Remember the OG we recorded and possible converted? Set your volume in the app and then add the fermentables, changing them up or down until they reach the OG you want but keeping them in the ratios you worked out.

Next add the hops to the recipe in the right ratio to match the fermentables, this should ensure that you hit the right bitterness to 'sweetness'. Then we hit our first unknown – when to do the hop additions? This is an issue in almost every recipe I’ve viewed, as the timing is never listed, so I tend to defer to either the start of boil or with an hour of boil time to go. The fact that the time is never mentioned makes me believe they are added from the start, and although many people would not recommend this process given the long boil times that we will discuss later, it would seem to be the case that this is what was done, as otherwise it would be mentioned surely?

We will now park our recipe temporarily as we discuss what goes into the actual beer

The Ingredients

The malt is probably the single most important factor in the beer and it is imperative to try and replicate it as much as we can, and there are things we can control and things we can’t here. These days with a little research you can work out which variety of barley was used in a recipe by looking at the brew date and doing a little research. The recipe often shows the grower or origin of the main malt although rarely the variety but once we know the introduction dates of the main heritage barley varieties still available, we can at least use one that is age appropriate. For example, Plumage Archer was introduced first at the very start of the 20th century so it should not be used in a 19th century beer, in those cases Chevallier (early 19th century) would be a better choice from what’s freely available these days. Maris Otter and Hunter would suit beers from the 1960s, and so on. Sadly we have lost a fair few heritage strains so we can only use what we have available. A word of caution, the supply has dried up in Ireland for most, if not all, of these heritage malts so importation may be required. Just like in the past I might add!

The malting process might have changed from then to now but that is outside of the control of the homebrewer, although floor malted varieties are available. If you are up for some experimentation you can also attempt to adapt base malts by adding small amounts of speciality ones to the brew. I have added a little Special W malt to Chevallier in 19th century stouts where the malt was described in a book of the time as having a reddish hue. Hardly accurate, but possibly a way of getting closer to the taste, complexity and colour of that old way of malting. I have also added a little Hanna to one brew as I was trying to replicate a portion of Californian malt that was in one beer and it was commented by someone that the malt from there might be a little higher in proteins – this may not be the case but you can see what I am trying to do with what we have available. Generally though, I try just to use the malts without additions, especially on 20th century beers.

Old brewing and malting books are an important resource too, as the above-mentioned book which was on the brewing of 18th century Irish porters mentions that Irish black malts weren’t in fact as black as English ones but more chocolate in colour, so we know to use chocolate malt and not patent at this time for Irish beers at least. (I have used this book to make a complete recipe because it was so detailed, which I will show below.)

Hops can be an issue too, and again introduction dates can help. Most brewing records mention the English grower by name and foreign hops by country or area. (It’s probably important to note here that most of my comments here are based on my looking at Irish records, others may differ.) You might see ‘Bavarian’ or ‘Sonoma’ or ‘Calif.’ on a brew sheet, so source heritage varieties if possible. Finding Cluster hops, for example, is an issue at the moment so you might need to substitute for the oldest variety you can find. With English hops again pick older varieties, Fuggle is probably okay for late 19th century beers but EKG appears to have an older lineage. Bramling X is 20th century, etc. I think you get the idea. I use whole hops wherever possible, as they would be more authentic, plus they suit by Grainfather better than pellets. Get as close as you can to what the original brewer used. There are enough things that are unknown or unavailable so control what you can, even if a bittering hop is a bittering hop to a point. A touch of pedantry is certainly a boon to this hobby.

Other grains, or adjuncts derived from them, were used too. Flaked grains, propriety malt extracts (some just frustratingly recorded by their initials) and sugars were common. In some cases they are listed in detail, but at other times very poorly. Don’t be surprised to see ‘sugar’ or similar on a brew sheet but no record of what time of sugar was used – see also the word ‘Flaked’. A tip here is to look at notes on the recipes and lists of volumes purchased and used at either the end of the month or in the back of the brew book, that sometimes gives you more details. If using invert sugar I use the recipe in one of Ron's books to create it myself, although if very small amounts are required I have used Golden Syrup, or even just basic Dextrose if the actual sugar isn’t listed.

Water is one area I haven’t tackled in my own brews, yet. In theory, and with a big budget, you could RO your existing water and add whatever was in the water where the beer was brewed, but that historical information is scarce and there is a degree of chemistry knowledge needed that I haven’t attempted to approach, especially given that when available the chemical make-up of the water is approached in a different fashion with different terminology. A simple thing to do might be just to check the general quality of the water now where the beer was brewed regarding PH, and salts and adjust your own water accordingly.

Yeast is a bit of an issue too, as the ones used by these breweries, which they rolled on from brew to brew, was probably a house yeast so it isn’t really possible to replicate them, but these days I tend to lean towards those one of the English ale yeasts that are available which impart a little character. I have used more modern yeasts for certain beers in the past but prefer not to, as again the older styles that preserve a little character of the yeast seem, at least, more correct.

The Process

Using a Grainfather – or similar brewing system and software – the process of actually brewing the beer follows the same lines as what is done for any other beer providing everything is set right in the app. So after a final check that the gravity is correct as well as the ratios of ingredients, just treat the process like a normal brew day. To be honest, I find that the easiest part of the whole musty-brewing-record-page-to-beer-glass process.

If you are in any way worried or concerned about the recipe then now might be a good time to change the batch size, I have done some 10 litre brews in these cases, especially with ones that contain malt extract and sugars that I feel might dry out the beer or affect the flavour.

The mash time may seem excessive but my argument is that it was there for a reason, possibly to do with the wort extraction of the older barley varieties, but I’m not sure – that’s something outside of my knowledge at this point. Those longer mashes certainly don’t seem to do any harm and I would feel that at least, again, we are doing the things we can do right in following the recipe. Remember, we are mitigating The Ish!

The same is true of the boil time, which can be quite long at up to, and over, 2 hours. This I feel is certainly more important as there is a certain colour change, both due to evaporation (that change could be achieved in a shorter boil with some changes to the recipe of course) but also due to a degree of Maillard Reaction, and can be confirmed by the C of ‘burnt’ wort that can be witnessed on the bottom plate of the Grainfather when the brew is finished! There can be no doubt that this has an effect on the beer, but regardless it is another thing we can control in our historic brew. This reaction probably increases when using sugars, and although most recipes don’t list when to add those, and I suspect they were added during the process of transferring the boiled wort to the cooler? I usually add them near the end of the boil in order for them to mixed and dissolved – the 15 min mark seems about right.

Once the beer is chilled, the yeast added and it’s in the fermentor the process again becomes a little more historic-ish, as I am fermenting in a stainless-steel container, which would have been wrong for the older historic brews but is something beyond our control. Dry hopping can be done as per any notes you find, as it might give the weight per barrel if you are lucky. Packaging can be another uncontrollable point, although by bottle-conditioning the beer at least you are using a traditional method. Although I have brewed 1960s beers that were certainly force carbonated but as I had no way to do that, I bottle-conditioned those beers too.

I think that broadly covers the way I brew when trying to get as close as possible to what the actual beer tasted like. Of course in most cases I will never know how close.

Are those beers 100% correct versions of the historical originals? No.

Have I done the best I can to reproduce them given the limitations? Yes.

But I can guarantee I have made mistakes ...

-o-

There is a lot not covered here so I will revisit this topic again and give more details on all the different aspects of my way of brewing the beers depending on what I remember to have left out, or any questions that appear over time.

Anyhow, good luck to all who attempt to brew some historical beers and remember to keep The Ish in historic-ish as small as you can.

I haven't been disappointed with any beer I have brewed in this way, but I would be a bit biased of course. Just about all have turned out very drinkable and enjoyable so don't be afraid to give it a try if you are so inclined.

Here are a couple of my simplified recipes if you fancy giving them a go for starters, and don't forget Ron and Edd:

1870s Irish Porter - OG 1.053  IBU 50.8  EBC 69

Batch Size: 23 L

Mash Time: 120 mins

Mash Temp: 64°C

Boil Time: 120 mins

Efficiency 80%

 

Fermentables:

Chevallier 4.6kg

Special W 500g

Chocolate Malt 460g

Hops:

EKG 18g - 120 min

Hallertauer Mittelfruh 18g - 120 min

Cluster 7g - 60 min

EKG 18g - 60 min

Hallertauer Mittelfruh 18g - 60 min

Whirlfloc - 15mins

Water: Mash - 18.51 L  Sparge - 16.94 L

Sparge Temp 81°C(!)

Yeast: Windsor

Final Gravity was 1.010 and 5.64% abv

As you can see, I've added Special W (as mentioned above) to try and replicate the malting of the base malt, and fudged the hop additions to be on the cautious side. Sparge temp is correct, and the beer turned out excellent, especially after a month or so in the bottle,

Mid-20th Century Irish XX Mild - OG 1.046  IBU 36.5  EBC 20.5

Batch Size: 23 L

Mash Time: 95 mins 

Mash Temp: 62°C

Boil Time: 135 mins

Efficiency 80%

Fermentables:

Plumage Archer 4.5kg

Black Malt 80g

Hops:

Fuggle 64g - 90 min

Whirlfloc - 15mins

Water: Mash - 15.87 L  Sparge - 19.55 L

Sparge Temp 71°C

Yeast: Fermoale AY3

Final Gravity was 1.012 and 4.73% abv

The black malt here seems to have been purely used to add a little colour, it is added to the mash here for convenience but may have been added to the boil.

-o-

Enjoy the process and the brewing, and watch that Ish where possible!

(And don't blame me if you burn out the element in your Grainfather, although I haven't. Yet).

Liam

Other sources for historic beer brewing information for you to delve into:

Lars Marius Garshol

Merryn Dineley

Beer Nouveau

Braciatrix

Martyn Cornell

Daft Eejit Brewing

(I know I'm forgetting someone else?)

PS: I have attempted in the past to brew old Irish recipes with commercial breweries but they either weren’t interested, had issues previously with such brews, or they didn’t ‘get’ the concept of getting as close to the original beer as we could, the instead favoured inappropriate ingredients and processes that jarred with me. ‘Surely any bittering hop will do?’ and ‘We don’t need that length of mash or boil, we can just measure', made me think they lacked the commitment to authenticity, even with The Ish! I can appreciate there is cost and time involved for them in making a beer, so I don't really judge them too harshly, I just don't think it's a viable plan as I don't want to compromise on the recipe and they need to make money, and I can't guarantee that. Especially given the tastes of most beer drinkers!

But if a commercial brewer reads this and wants to take a risk, drop me a line!

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.

Sign of the Times: Arthur Guinness's First Signature?

There is good argument to say that research of any kind is a form of therapy, as it distracts the mind, gives a sense of purpose, and can be hugely rewarding when you find that little nugget of information that you were searching for, and often one you weren't! This is especially true of history research, and when it ties in with the specifics of your interested field the whole process can feel like something beyond basic escapism. It brings you to pleasantly solitary place where you feel that only you and this treasure of information exist—regardless of how many others have been there before and will be there afterwards. At that given time it is just you and that line of words or image, all alone but content and happy.

There is more than a little irony that much of the historical research we now do is online and virtual, as historians gaze at their screens at pixelated renderings of said images and words, which are zoomable, copyable, and gratefully accessible. Every second of every day more information is digitised and released on to the internet in the form of books, pamphlets and newspapers. It is normally to the latter that I am drawn as they are such an incredible, and huge, source of information for my interest. Indeed, a search of the word 'brewery' in a site such as The British Newspaper Archive, which also has old (and some new) Irish newspapers on it, gives a number of occurrences at near 7 million, although just a paltry half million of those are for Irish newspapers. An easy trawl through ...

But, as with all printed material, there is something a little sterile in actual newspapers themselves, given as they are mass printed publications which are one step removed from words actually written by those from our past. Or perhaps more fairly just a mechanised form of those words, but you get the gist of the argument I'm sure.

There is something more special about finding actual quill-or-pen-made writing and signatures, even if viewed from that screen on a desk in the dark and pleasant comfort of your own home. And even better if you find something 'new.'

-o-

Beyond the newspaper archives and online book depositories there are other sources for the history researcher, and a hugely important one for Irish historians came online in 2022.

The Virtual Record Treasury of Ireland (VRTI) is an all Ireland and international research partnership working to reconstruct and publish the items that were in the Public Record Office of Ireland which were destroyed in 1922 at the outset of the Civil War during the deeply contentious bombing of The Four Courts in Dublin.

This is from their website:

VRTI restores and reimagines a lost archival treasure through historical research, archival conservation, and technical innovation. It enriches the public understanding of Ireland’s past and reconnects a global audience to our documentary heritage. VRTI does not merely platform digital resources shared by partners. Rather, it creates something entirely new — a veritable Treasury of historical sources, newly translated, enhanced and contextualised — from the collections to which partner organisations provide access. VRTI is, in this sense, entirely unique in the world.

Since its launch it has added more and more information online in a relatively easily searchable format, albeit with the limits of OCR for deciphering printed (and, obviously, written) text.

Back in 2022 at its launch, I immediately started searching for brewing related information and came across quite a lot, although much of it was not entirely useful given it may just mention a named brewer. This is helpful to those who are trying to complete a picture of said brewer but generally it can be a little bit of a pointless search. But I did come across The Minute Book of Corporation of Brewers and Maltsters of the City of Dublin which contains 100 years of information on its members from 1702, a copy of which was held in the Guinness Archives so could be scanned for the VRTI. (I posted on social media at the time about the following but for some reason never committed to the semi-permanency of this site or noted its significance.)

On page 149 of the book, dated Tuesday the 24th of April 1759 and in the handwriting of the Dublin brewer Ephraim Thwaite the following is written:

At a meeting of the Master Wardens of the Brethren of the Corporation of Brewers & Maltsters of Dublin Pursuant to due Notice given, the Petition of Arthur Guinness being Lead[?] praying to be admitted into the franchisees & Liberties of their Corporation, he was accordingly admitted on paying a fine of two Guineas & this Hall adjourned till further notice.

It is signed by the following brewers James Taylor (Cork Bridge), Ephraim Thwaite (Cork Bridge), Thomas Greene (James's Gate), Hugh Trevor (Crooked Staff) and John Forster (Later Thomas Court - possibly with Francis Forster then on James's Street). Of note is that all of these are quite close together, as this area from The Liberties west of south central Dublin towards Dr. Steevens' Hospital—close to the current site of Heuston Station—was packed with breweries and distilleries at this time and for quite a few years to come.

On Tuesday the 26th of June 1759 Arthur was officially sworn in and on Saturday the 25th of August of that same year his now famous signature appears in the record book for the first time.

Now, given that the famous brewery lease wasn't signed until December of that year—that is the document, or a facsimile of which, that you can see embedded under glass on the floor of the Guinness Storehouse in Dublin—then is this the first known signature of Arthur Guinness?

Possibly not, but it's probably the earliest one you can see with ease and it predates his lease by 4 months. (Of course, I'm taking liberties with the post's title, as it can't have been his very first signature!)

-o-

Just as a footnote of sorts, the current signature on Guinness products that closely resembles this one, if sadly a little less flamboyant, only started to be used on bottle labels from 1965. Prior to that it was slightly different and included the words 'Son & Co.' It's nice that they have kept the original Long S he used for the second last letter, but I do think they could have made it a bit more curlified!

Liam 

Virtual Treasury Record Info:

Creative Commons License CC BY-NC 4.0 (Attribution-NonCommercial): Guinness GDB/BR12/0002, 'Minute Book of Corporation of Brewers and Maltsters of the City of Dublin'. Accessed on Virtual Record Treasury of Ireland <https://virtualtreasury.ie/item/Guinness-GDB-BR12-0002> PID: <https://arks.org/ark:/75929/i145700> (13 May 2026). Repository: Guinness Archive (Dublin).

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. Research link is shown above.  Labels and labels image are the authors. DO NOT STEAL THIS CONTENT!

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}

^{See also the range of trademarked labels here from 1866}

(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!

A Shot of Beer History #12: Castlebellingham Christmas Ale

Christmas Ale wasn't something that breweries promoted in Ireland so it's nice to come across an advertisement for one that was to some extent. This is a probably just Castlebellingham's 'ordinary' strong ale marketed in a different fashion, and their sister brewery in Drogheda were certainly brewing something along those lines around this time. That one was classed as a Mild ale, sugar was added to the brew as well as malt and it was relatively well hopped and probably pale in colour but the actual type of pale malt and the sugar used might have had an effect to make it a little darker and more of a deep golden shade. It would have been between 6% and 7% alcohol content based on those records, depending on where the fermentation finished out after its maturation. This is probably the beer that developed into their Stingo beer which was available a few years later and sold as a winter warmer style of ale.

There are recipes in the Castlebellingham & Drogheda Brewery (Cairnes) brewing logs for this period in the Guinness Archive but some of the information as to the precise ingredients is somewhat lacking. Nevertheless, I brewed a possible 1912 version of this beer - from the abovementioned brewing records - and it turned out pale and interesting. It was also incredibly drinkable and not overly challenging give it ended up over 7%, as the fermented out sugar had given it quite a dry quality. I did it find it didn't age very well but that could be down to my brewing method. Plus, I was aging it in bottles, they would have aged it in wooden barrels.

Anyhow, here's to Christmas ales, long may they last. If we can just keep clear of the nutmeg and cinnamon ...

Cheers!

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 images from The Newry Telegraph - 18th December 1915. DO NOT STEAL THIS CONTENT!

Strong Words and Strange Porter: Some Notes on the Beer Recipes for a Talk and Tasting in L. Mulligan Grocer, Stoneybatter, Dublin on 7th December 2025

When Dr. Christina Wade first approached me to collaborate on a couple of 18th century beers to tie in with the English vs Irish porter wars chapter in her book Filthy Queens, I thought it would be a relatively straightforward task. I had some limited experience of homebrewing 19th century Irish porters, albeit on a modern system, so what would pushing a recipe back a century require?  Relatively, easy-peasy surely? A little more research into an era I wasn’t hugely familiar with perhaps, but it should be a relatively straightforward task to come up with a historical-ish recipe. How wrong we were …

Irish brewing records from the 19th and 20th century are scarce enough but those from the 1700s are practically non-existent outside of places like the Guinness archive, whose records of their own beers, as well as the brands they still brew, are inaccessible to the public. That left us looking through old newspapers and books for mentions of what an Irish porter from this period was like, and we certainly found some bits of information but no actual full recipes.

The English version was a little more straight forward, as there is, and was in the past, a little more published on the porters produced on that side of the pond than here, but we soon realized that anything even close to real recipes was going to be impossible. Plus, we were never going to get close to the same process on a modern brew kit anyway, nor would any of the ingredients be date-correct as, for example, barley varieties have changed since the 1700s - not to mention the malting process. Old fermentation methods and using wooden barrels would be problematic too, so we soon resigned ourselves to not being able to replicate porters from that period in any meaningful way given these constraints and settled into a more ‘inspired by’ mode – much as I dislike the term and its use by certain breweries. The difference would be that we would be sure to communicate that these were not historic recipes, but where we could we’d try to add ingredients we found mentioned in brewing at the time – even if they had been highlighted in a derogatory way – and attempt to hit mentioned alcohol contents if we could. I other words we’d have a bit of fun with it and not take the recipes too seriously!

For the Irish Porter we came up with the name Fire & Labour based on a mention of the many costs of brewing a porter, and how that factor was another expense on top of the ingredients – plus it’s a great name for a beer! The hopping rates and gravity were taken from 18th century book mentions so they were factored into the recipe. Gentian root and molasses were allegedly – and sneakily – used in small-beer at this time as a way of saving on bittering hops and increasing the sugars for fermentation, so even though we were brewing a porter in they went too! The malt was mostly modern Irish ale malt but with a little Chocolate malt and Special W in a poor attempt to replicate an old brown malt of the period – and this method is mentioned as a mix for porter in some books, but with different malts of course. Longish mash and boil times were required, and just Fuggles used in the boil for hopping, even if East Kent Golding would have been a better if not perfect fit – my bad! Irish ale yeast was used for fermentation and the target abv was 6.6%.

Again for the English Porter we based it on documented gravities and tried to keep much of the base the same, but with English pale malt and treacle, liquorice and ginger root – again as they had been mentioned as adjuncts in English porters. Fuggles were (wrongly again!) used for bittering too but some were added quite late in the boil this time. It had a higher gravity – over 7% – than the Irish one, again as mentioned in some publications, and we used English ale yeast. This one was called The Fox, a name used for a beer that wasn’t quite what it should be!

These recipes were then passed over to Trouble Brewing for replication and production, and they certainly didn’t let us down. They used as many of the ingredients as they could find that were economical – including the odd ones – and did a fair job at hitting the correct gravities given the vagaries of the conversion and those ingredients. I could not be more pleased at how they adapted and brewed the recipes.

Only one question remains.

How do the taste and who won this particular porter war?

And remember, these are not serious, historical beers – they’re a bit of experimentation and a bit of fun, although they do include historical elements.

More importantly, hopefully they are enjoyable!

Thanks again to Christina for including me in the project, and Trouble for doing all the hard work and taking a leap of faith.

Liam K

A Shot of Beer History #11: Smithwick's East India Pale Ale

It could be argued that the history of the Smithwick family's St. Francis Abbey brewery in Kilkenny bring out a love/hate duality of feelings in certain beer writers. For sure there is a grá for all that true 19th and 20th century brewing history that is relatively accessible and incredibly interesting, but there is also a fair degree of animus and disappointment in how that past has been twisted, muzzled and muted. Years of marketing mischief means that verifiable history and factual reporting have instead been replaced with myths and mistruths, to a point where a once-great brewery has been diminished to a few brands with extremely dubious provenance and a dead-brewery building reborn as an over-branded, souvenir-filled, tourist-driven entity driven by fakelore, online ratings, and ruddy-tinged images on social media. It's such a shame, in every meaning of the word.

You've heard all of that before, but that real history of brewing in the St. Francis Abbey brewery is at times a wonderful thing to come across by chance, and such is the case with this article from an 1896 whiskey trade review regarding Smithwick's East India Pale Ale. At this point Smithwicks had been brewing in Kilkenny for 70 years or so and had established themselves as one of the most well-known and prominent breweries in the country and were supplying their ales and porters throughout much of the country as well as abroad. It's hardly surprising they would warrant a piece like this.

MESSRS. E. SMITHWICK AND SON’S EAST INDIA PALE ALE.

THE BREWERY, KILKENNY.

KILKENNY, in point of quality of its ale brewing, is most assuredly the Burton of Ireland. May its brews be as well known as they deserve to be, and its brewing industry prosper under the initial guidance of Messrs. E. Smithwick & Son, the enterprising brewers of that town. This firm’s East India Pale Ale on draught is on sale at several of the most important refreshment bars in Dublin. It was at the best frequented bar in Dame Street that we tasted this ale last week, although we had met it before at the Brewers and Distillers’ Exhibition in 1892, since which time we had pleasant recollections of it. A finer glass of ale is not made, and anyone who is fond of ale does not want anything better. As compared with the Burton-on-Trent beers, it will hold its own against any of them. It possesses the sharpness of the best of them, and the well-known good draught qualities of the second largest brewery at Burton, the English brewery town. We do not know who the brewer is at Messrs. Smithwick’s, but, judging from the great likeness existing between this and the English ale, he has a very cute knowledge “of how they do it at Burton.” We questioned the barman as to how the public liked “Smithwick’s,” to which he replied they never had a complaint, and that customers who had tried it would never have any other. The colour is the usual Burton tint, it is perfectly clarified, and always possesses a nice head. It is choicely “hopped,” and it must be a capital tonic. The proprietor of the restaurant to which we have referred has expressed himself thus:- “If the quality of Smithwick’s ale keeps up, as it has done, I shall sell none other.” We learn that its keeping qualities are most satisfactory, and that there is a depot in Dublin at the “Lot[t]s,” to the rear of Bachelor's Walk, where a large quantity of ale is properly stored. Messrs. Smithwick’s own carts deliver to all parts of the city, and we are pleased to know that the trade is increasing, and that traders are proud to admit that a finer glass of ale, either in England or Ireland, was never tasted. The Dublin agent is Mr. Wm. Jarratt, whose office is at 8, Cope Street, Dublin.

Newspaper advertisements for this decade show the Smithwick's brewery were supplying Strong Ale, Pale Butt and three different variants of stout as well as a Dinner Ale, but it was their East India Pale Ale that they championed at this point and which their advertisements maintained was their 'Speciality.' As we read above, their pale ale was also the beer they showed at that 1892 exhibition for which (along with other breweries) they were awarded a gold medal and a Diploma of Merit, which they naughtily claimed was a 'First Prize' by the 1950s and is sometimes incorrectly attached to the modern 1960s born Smithwick's Ale to which it bears no real relation. It also seems that asking for a "Smithwick's" in Dublin - at least in the establishment mentioned - would get you a pale ale of Burton quality and something that would compare favourably with Bass's version, which was extremely popular in Ireland at this time. 

A cynic might suggest that the above article is just an advertisement of sorts and we shouldn't take much heed to the lyrical waxings of the writer but there must be a strong element of truth to this probable piece of advertising prose even if that seems a little hypocritical to say given the comments regarding marketing content mentioned above. It's certainly nice to read how Kilkenny was seen as the Burton of Ireland - as farfetched as that might be in reality given how it contained only two breweries at this time - and the rest rings true without being able to verify the quotes of course.

Of note is the fact that Diageo - owners of the Smithwick's brand via Guinness - relaunched a pale ale in 2011 which was a journey full circle back to where they were decades ago with their IPA and then their No. 1 ale, albeit with a different recipe and brewing regime, and this was the same time they started marketing their red ale as such.

I doubt it received a write-up like their East India Pale Ale, and any comparisons between the city of Kilkenny and the 19th century town of Burton would have been a difficult sell, even by clever marketing.

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 images from The Whiskey Trade Review 3rd March 1896. DO NOT STEAL THIS CONTENT!