The Guinness Blacklist – Testing the Taste Buds & Challenging Convention

If there's one thing that will anger and traumatise a certain type of Guinness drinker it's the thought of blending their hallowed tipple with any other drink. Okay, so there's more than one thing, there are many things that will cause their teeth to gnash – from the glass, to the pour, to the size of the head, and a host of other perceived serious issues that will somehow cause that stout to taste awful. But probably top of that pile, nothing should be added to their stout on pain of death by a 1,000 social media replies – with perhaps the exception of a grudging dash of blackcurrant. This preciousness around Guinness seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon, probably driven by an internet obsession with the image of the so-called perfect pint. It has of late become sacrosanct and yet another example of the swapping of one flawed religion for another form of worship, complete with preachers and gurus.

But this quest for idolatry and purity of vision/taste hasn't always been the case, as there was a time when even Guinness themselves, albeit their English marketing division, were promoting (to a point) something that would horrify many a drinker of their beer today.

So, let the traumatisation and gnashing begin.

-o-

The summer of 1975 was a hot one in the UK, as was the following year so if there was ever a time to float the idea of mixing Guinness with other libations it would appear that the marketing department of the Guinness brewery at Park Royal in London picked the right years, given that Guinness is often categorised – erroneously – as a winter drink for cold weather. It was in in that year that the Guinness Blacklist was launched, with a somewhat begrudging tone it seems, on the UK's unsuspecting public. The time of the launch and promotion seems to be coincidental to the sudden flip to hot weather, as it would have had to be planned months before, but it certainly was fortuitous if the idea was to keep people drinking stout and not change to the cold lager that was becoming more and more abundant as the drink of choice in pubs and in the home at this time. But as we will see, given the tone of the marketing message it was more about a clever form of advertising perhaps that a very serious attempt to change the drinking habits of Guinness drinkers.

From the 11th of June 1975 advertisement began to appear in national newspapers in the UK in a slightly admonishing tone telling Guinness drinkers that although the brewery knew it was happening that weren't really that keen on the idea of Guinness being drank with anything added to it. They claimed they knew it was happening and had a complied a leaflet that listed what they saw as the common additions to their famous stout. Called the Guinness Blacklist, the name working well to both describe a list of black drinks as well as those that were disapproved of, and it contained a list of twenty Guinness blends that they say they felt were interesting, each accompanied by an illustration. The list could be obtained for free by filling in a coupon and sending it off to a promotion company on Brentford high street. Perhaps spurred on by the hot weather, by the following summer the tone of the advertisements had softened to resignation, to the point where in September 1976 similar advertisements for the list were almost begging drinkers to try a Guinness shandy.

The tone of the opening blurb on the list itself is almost sceptical resignation in its thoughts and opinion on the practice of mixing.

When we started to compile the Blacklist, we little realised how much people have been experimenting with Guinness.

It seems there's scarcely a drink that hasn't, at one time or another, shared the same glass as our dark, distinctive beer.

Reluctantly, we have to admit that many of the mixtures we tried were surprisingly pleasant. Others provoked, well, mixed feelings.

We suggest you try a few careful experiments at home, or down at the pub, and make up your own mind about mixing Guinness.

You may find some of the drinks we mention have different names from those you're used to.

The fact is, names of drinks differ widely from one part of the country to another. (For example, at least three different mixers go under the name Longship.)

Similarly, the origin of many of these drinks is somewhat uncertain. If in doubt, we've stuck to the most entertaining, if not believable, stories.

However, we'd be grateful for any further information about the practice of Guinness-mixing.

In fact, if there's anything you'd like to add, let us know.

The leaflet then goes on to list and illustrate the various blends that may or may not have existed. Some certainly did but some are also a little questionable in history, origin if not just general appeal.

-o-

So what were these blends and what did they taste like? Well, there is only one way to find out ...

(A note on blending: These drinks will be thoroughly mixed, unlike what seems to be a newish method of beer 'blending' where the two products are layered one over the other. That is not a blended drink, it is two separate drinks in one glass and it's pointless from a tasting perspective, even if it is quite photogenic in its appearance.)

-o-

Top Hat

The history behind most of these names deserves to be taken with a fair degree of scepticism, and this so-called 'popular drink' seems to have gone almost unreported in publication at this time, although there is a mention from the previous century, and in more very recent times of course. In general, factual content might be a little hard to come by with regard to some of these names and their provenance, but that's not quite the point of this exercise, and no doubt this mix was tried by drinkers at some point in the early part of the 20th century too.

The suggestion in the advertisements was that these blends be tried in the pub or at home, both with bottled Guinness Extra (now called Original) of with the draught version. This one called for ginger as a mixer so I selected Crabbies and a small bottle of Extra Stout. Back in the day this would have been a half pint bottle of stout not a 330ml, and the ginger beer may or may not have been alcoholic like this one, but it seemed a good choice. This is really the stout-based version of a drink called a shandy gaff.

At first it was mixed half-and-half but on tasting the blend the ginger was too dominant, its mild spice-burn was followed by an unpleasant acrid quality from what remained of the stout flavour, the roast barley, which left the whole drink tasting like a cheap coffee and ginger mix with no redeeming quality.

I persisted. Adding more stout to the mix, and using something closer to a 1 part ginger beer to 2 parts stout, made a huge difference to the experience. With the ginger beer now slotting into the background the flavours of the stout could be easily discerned, and this new ratio transformed it into a completely different drink. Gone was the over spicy heat and that lingering burnt flavour and what we now had was a very pleasant drink that hovered somewhere between and brown ale that was using some new-fangled New-World hops and some type of fancy spiced cola beverage. Success at the second attempt, and I can certainly see the appeal of this one. Not offensive in any way and perhaps a pleasant winter drink? Maybe mulled with a poker?! Regardless, it can be recommended to try, but watch the ratio of stout to ginger beer..

-o-

Calcutta Cup

This blend gets the odd mention in more modern times but seems elusive in the Empire days based on a quick and, admittedly, unthorough hunt of old newspapers and books. There is certainly some logic to adding tonic to anything in certain climates given its protective qualities, but again the name and the history seem to be a little forced. It did certainly exist from at the very least the 1960s although perhaps not under that name.

I chose a small bottle of Guinness Extra Stout for this one too, along with a small can of Schweppes tonic water. I was a little wary of the tonic so mixed it roughly 1 part to 5 of the stout at first. That quantity had little effect on the drink, it just added a little cloying sweetness, so as with the Top Hat I reblended with 1 part tonic to 2 parts Guinness. This added an odd but rather nice coppery metallic bitterness to the drink that balanced the sweetness a little and something resinous too, like a mild lychee flavour perhaps? Although that might have been down to tropical empirical thoughts.

I'm not sure, but in a blind tasting you might just think it was some sort of too-clever artisan porter? It was very refreshing, and I could see it being popular in hot weather, or if one was blighted with mosquitos, but I think it might be difficult to drink it in large quantities with that still-lingering sweetness. Perhaps a different brand of tonic would give a different outcome on that front.

It's certainly one to try and it is quite inoffensive, if hardly inspiring.

-o-

Wasp Sting

The thought of mixing Guinness with orange juice sounds, even to me, as deeply unappealing as the effects of the name of this concoction. And the first half-and-half pour didn’t do anything to change my opinion. It ends up a murky brown colour with no head retention and an overpowering orange aroma. The bitterness of the orange juice clashes dreadfully with the bitterness of the stout with just a tiny redeeming quality of something sweet and cola-like right at the end. This is certainly one that would be best served ice-cold to mask the flavours, as it is quite unpleasant at this ratio.

But let’s persevere. Remixing at the two parts Guinness to one part orange juice changes it completely. The murkiness is now masked by the dark stout, and the head retention is somewhat better making it visually more appealing. There is still a strong orange juice smell just before you dive in but it’s not offensive, and the taste is better, with the stout and orange juice's bitterness more balanced by being unbalanced. It’s not quite Terry’s Chocolate Orange territory but it’s certainly heading in that vague direction, albeit a dark chocolate version. At this ratio it’s definitely more acceptable but not one I’ll be rushing back to try anytime soon. It certainly feels like it was put into the list like a filler used on album with just a few proper hits.

-o-

Black Velvet

This is certainly one of the best-known Guinness cocktails, achieving fame and perhaps some notoriety too. I took a small liberty with this one by using Prosecco instead of champagne, but I can’t see that drastically changing the outcome flavour wise. The Blacklist suggest a fifty-fifty ratio so that’s what I began with and at that mix it was quite a pleasant drink if a little, well, boring. It tasted very much like a sweetish cider with a little kick of grape must or juice. It’s very easy to drink, too easy perhaps, and not stout-like in any way. Very inoffensive.

I then changed to my now standard 2-to-1 mix of stout to mixer and this completely transformed the experience. A dark cocoa taste was quite prominent now and at this ratio it tasted like a sourish dark ale of some description. The sweetness has practically disappeared too and I would imagine that this would absolutely confuse anyone on a blind tasting of sour beers. It really is quite a pleasant drink, and is still dangerously drinkable. It’s certainly one I’d return too, perhaps next time with actual champagne!

But what of the purported history in the Blacklist of it being invented at the Brooks’s Club in London in 1861? I can find no trace of that history prior to the publication of the list in the mid-seventies but it is certainly a drink with a lot of other history. Stout or porter mixed with champagne has been around for a very long time, with various stories and characters attached to it over the many years of its existence.

The actual first mention I can find is by Edward Lear in his 1851 book Journals of a Landscape Painter where he recounts that in 1848 while dining with Osman Mazhar Pasha, a governor in the Ottoman Empire, a captain of the guard was made to drink ‘an amazing mixture of porter and champagne, assuring him it was a species of Frank soup, which he seemed to like little enough.’

The German writer Otfrid Mylius mentions it in London Mysteries: Contemporary Social Scenes published in 1867 where he states that. ‘Kitty, the chambermaid, passed around the intoxicating mixture of porter and champagne during the break, which the dancers sipped rather immodestly.’

The one character who seems most closely connected with the drink is Otto von Bismarck, of which there are innumerable accounts from various sources (many just copying another mind) of it being his favourite tipple in or around the 1840s(?), albeit in publications from a few decades later. Some accounts even have it named after him, a 'Bismarck' being another name for the drink. (Not to be outdone, Paul von Hindenburg favoured an ‘East Prussia Cup’ where the blend of stout and champagne is fortified with brandy and burgundy!)

The American Harry Johnson mentions it in his Bartender’s Manual published in 1882 calling it a 'Champagne Velvet' using 'Irish porter' and champagne in a half-and-half ratio and stating the name comes from the drink making you ‘feel in a short time as fine as silk.’ So not actual feeling like velvet, strangely.

It is mentioned in Cakes & Ale, a Memory of Many Meals by Edward Spencer (Nathaniel Gubbins) in 1897 in his list of ‘Cups & Cordials’ where he name-checks Guinness and states that is one of the ‘best [beer] combinations possible’ and that it should be ‘drunk out of a pewter tankard, and is specially recommended as a between-the-acts refresher for the amateur actor.’

It was reported in 1902 that Cecil Rhodes also drank this blend, and it was called a ‘Velvet’, but known in South Africa as an ‘Imperial Shandy’ and by the early 1920s and into the 1930s it was being called a 'Black Velvet' as well as a 'Royal Shandy', where it is mentioned as being a revived Edwardian party drink and that the actress Miss Margret Rawlings was mainly responsible for said revival, while other newspaper sources claim it was ‘introduced’ by an Australian cricket team on tour in England and that the ‘Royal Shandy’ originated there.

Yet another newspaper report from the 1930s states that the mix of stout to champagne should be ’75-25 per cent’, which is close to my preferred ratio. The same report, where it is called a ‘Royal Shandy’ again and stating that it is sometimes called a Black Velvet, say that 'it was popular during the eighteenth century at the French Courts, where porter specially brewed by a Lord Mayor of London, Sir John Parsons, was “laced” with native champagne.' Now, Parsons died in 1717 so it would have been quite an early iteration of porter which was used! And one more unverified mention in a newspaper even claims it was invented by the wine steward to Russian Emperor Peter III, the husband of Catherine the Great. He died in 1762, so that pulls it back by many decades, if true of course, which it probably isn't.

The truth is probably that the drink has likely been made for as long as the two ingredients have existed and, regardless of the persons involved, this mix of two popular drinks most likely it dates back to the 18th century, and it's origins appear to point vaguely towards the continent but that certainly may not be the case.

I could go on but I won't, as there are many mentions of this mix of drinks in one form or another, with different names, over the last 175 years – that we do know at least. Plus, it appears that the name Black Velvet is at least 100 years old and the Velvet part predates that by another quarter of a century or so.

It seems to have many stories and legends attached to it, as to what's true and what's not I've no firm opinion other than the quote in the Blacklist appears to be wrong.

It's still a rather nice drink in the right ratios though.

-o-

That's four down, only sixteen more to go!

More to follow soon ...

Liam K

A Deep Dive into the Wreck of the Mindora and that Bottle of Guinness

It began with a shipwreck.

Late on Sunday night, another fearful collision took place in the Channel a few miles to the westward of the South Foreland, which, it is feared, has proved fatal to both ships. The ill-fated vessels are reported to have been the Khersonese, a very large ship, bound to Calcutta from London, and the Mindora, barque, Captain Hall, also from London, bound to Victoria (Vancouver's Island), with passengers and a valuable general cargo. The telegrams which have been received announcing the catastrophe are rather brief in the particulars. It appears that the collision took place off Folkestone, or rather near the Varne, the ships coming together with fearful violence. The Mindora is stated to have been abandoned in a sinking state seven or eight miles south-west by west of the South Foreland, having then six feet of water in her hold, and that the crew and passengers had landed at Kingsdown, near Walmer. […] Both ships and cargoes are insured for a very heavy amount.

The Liverpool Mercury – Wednesday, 30th November 1864

Such was the sad fate of the Mindora (AKA Mindoro), a brand new barque – a versatile type of sailing ship – that was launched in Sunderland in August of that year, 1864. It was built in the Pallion shipyard of Mr. William Adamson, and was a 436 ton ship measuring 136 feet by 27 feet 8 inches and registered and owned by the Adamson family. By the end of that month, it was being readied to be loaded at London Docks, where prospective passengers or shippers were invited to apply to various agents in the city regarding passage to Victoria on Vancouver Island, Canada of people or product. It set sail on the 20th of November with Captain Hall in charge and a crew of 13, plus 3 male and 3 female passengers¹, plus a fully loaded hold.

The ship was heading towards the English Channel on its westward turn when the collision reported above occurred on the night of 27th of November 1864 in poor weather, and although the Khersonese eventually limped back to London the Mindora was not so lucky. Eventually sinking with all its cargo but at least with no loss of life.

And what became of that cargo? Well a newspaper report in July of the following years² tells us more:

DOVER, July 4. - The Mindoro (barq.), of London, Hall, from London to Victoria, V.I., which was abandoned in a sinking state 28th Nov., after collision with the Khersonese, from London to Calcutta, has been found sunk four miles off this place. The divers engaged report that she is nearly upright, and that the lower masts are standing, but dangerous to shipping, as there are only three fathoms upon her mast heads.

They position where it sunk must have been roughly noted or recorded at the time, and it seems to be in relatively shallow water, with just five and a half meters of ocean over her mast heads. We can also see that efforts were being made to dive on the boat, and yet another report³ in a newspaper's Maritime Extracts gives us the following news from Dover on the 28th of July:

The undermentioned goods were landed here to-day by the divers, being the first portion of the cargo of the Mindoro barque, which lies sunk about four miles off this port:—14 casks of Bass's pale ale; 4 dozen marked “M D O”, from Cameron and Saunders; 8 cases cognac (Jas. Hennessey's), marked “G N”, “E H”, “Twis”; 1 bale linen shirts; 1 basket female wearing apparel; 2 large cases marked “J W” in a diamond “V” outside; also, 2 water casks, and some breakers painted green.

So just a few months after its sinking, divers were already pulling up both drink and clothing from the wreck. The lettering mentioned are intriguing and are perhaps the initials of the end receiver of the goods in Victoria? (The MDO might be an abbreviation for the ship but the other letters would not make sense then?) Also of interest is the Cameron and Saunders mentioned with regard to casks recovered, and more on those names later.

Then in September of 1865, still less than a year after the ship sank, we get the first mention of the focus of this article – stout!⁴

At DOVER—For the benefit of all to whom it may concern.

Important Salvage Sale.

At the STORES in HAWKESBURY-STREET, DOVER,

On TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1865, at Eleven precisely,

By Mr. T. G. BROWNING,

A CHOICE COLLECTION OF CLOTHING,

Consisting of cloth coats, moleskin trowsers, felt and straw hats; also, a quantity of Hoyles superior prints, bareges, muslin curtains, Lenos mohairs, silk parasols; a puncheon of rum, sundry cases brandy, ale, and stout; case of eau de cologne, and sundry other articles;—salved from the wreck of the ship Mindora, sunk off Dover on a voyage from London to Victoria, Vancouver's Island. Particulars will be given in catalogues to be obtained of the Auctioneer, High-street, Whitstable; or of Mr. W. J. IRON, Receiver of Wrecks, 1, Cross Wall, Dover. Samples of goods may be viewed on the day prior to the sale, from Ten to Four o'clock.

Yet another newspaper's Maritime Extract from Dover on September the 29th states that, ‘A quantity of goods [has been] recovered from the sunken ship Mindora, consisting of brandy, &c. The ship lies in deep water’. This report, though scant on the actual salvaged cargo, gives us the names of the ‘diving cutters’ that recovered the goods, Fear Not, Nancy and Mandamus. (One wonders if this is 3 ships or 2?!)⁵

A report in a different newspaper⁶ on the same date gives us an idea of what those good are, minus the brandy:

A Large quantity of WOOLLEN, COTTON, and other GOODS, consisting of about 4,000 pairs stockings and socks, 10,000 yards prints, 500 yards flannel, 4,000 yards unbleached cotton, 50 Macintosh coats, 500 merino shirts, 40 pieces barage, 400 pairs of merino and other drawers, 70 doz. cambric handkerchiefs, 500 yards cloth, 200 woollen shawls, and sundry articles of clothing, woollens, &c.

And there’s even more the following month, when, ‘A Large assortment of Ladies' superior LINEN and COTTON UNDERCLOTHING of the best manufacture, 100 doz. Men's Cotton Socks, 40 pieces sup. Alpaca, about 50 pairs Men's Shoes, and sundry articles’ are offered for sale from the wreck.⁷

And incredibly, the recovery of goods continues, with the following advertisement⁸ appearing in December 1865:

For the Benefit of All to Whom it may Concern. TO BE SOLD BY AUCTION, BY MR. T. G. BROWNING, ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER, 5TH, 1865, At Eleven o'clock precisely, AT the STORES in HAWKESBURY STREET, about 60 Cases of Brandy, Three Cases Wine, One Cask Brandy, 1 Puncheon Rum, and sundry other articles, salved from the wreck of the ship 'Mindora,' sunk off Dover on a voyage from London to Victoria, Van Couvers[sic] Island. Catalogues with particulars can be obtained of the Auctioneer, High-street, Whitstable; or of Mr. W. J. Iron, Shipping and Insurance Agent, 1, Cross-wall, Dover.

That appears to be quite a large quantity of bottles, 60 cases of brandy alone would amount to large consignment to be ‘rescued’ from the bottom of the sea and combined with the other goods recovered and those perhaps not reported it seems to have been a very worthwhile salvage venture.

We are not finished yet as in June the following year – 1866 – someone was yet again diving and landing goods in Dover, with 2 cases of cotton prints and 2 cases of ginger being brought up and reports that the now intended to ‘blow the decks out of the Mindora’ to get at even more cargo.⁹

And last but not least, the following month we get a report¹⁰ that on the 30th of June 1866 that more goods were hauled up:

The following goods were landed by the divers this afternoon:—2 casks bottled stout, 30 muslin curtains, 2 pieces damask, 10 pieces prints, 2 pieces alpaca, 6 stools, and a case of ginger, from the wreck of the Mindora.

Finally we have some more stout being raised and a better indication of how they were stored. So packed into casks not crates.

(There is another mention of stout being offered for sale from the ship but the stock is combined with that from another wreck so it can’t be verified to come from the Mindora.)

What is incredible is the sheer amount of salvage being lifted from the wreck, and that it survived the salt water. Whatever about the bottles and clothing, the ginger must have been well pickled!

It is worth noting to that shipwrecks were incredibly common in this era, as was the loss of goods to the sea, much of it unreclaimed unlike the cargo of the Mindora. There are, or were, probably tens of thousands of bottles of beer sitting on the floor of the oceans of the world, a fair few whose contents would have originated in Ireland, and especially from the Guinness brewery.

-o-

Now we can finally jump forward 161 years from the ships sinking and a story of a diver finding a Guinness bottle (which morphed into 20 in some reports) in the wreck of the Mindora in 2025, which has just recently been reported in dozens of online articles. According to the embossed base, the bottle contains Guinness Extra Stout from Cameron and Saunders, who we might remember were mentioned above in a newspaper report of salvaged stock, and this branding is repeated on the top of the capsule that covers the caged and corked top. As we can see from the older newspaper reports above, a huge amount of the cargo was salvaged from the wreck in the years after the ships sinking including some bottles of stout that we might assume were from Cameron and Saunders given the recent find and the name-check above with regard to casks recovered.

We now know that this is not the first bottle of stout to be salvaged from the wreck so it is possible that no more remain, despite the mention of others being suspected to be there by the diver Stefan Panis. Although it is certainly more than possible that one cask, or crate, was missed during the original salvage and more are somewhere within or without the wreck, waiting for the sands to shift to reveal themselves, or that they were buried deep in the hold and still sit there biding their time for discovery.

Depending on maritime law it is possible that others may not dive on the site in order to dig for what they see as buried treasure, as the site appears to be relatively well known in diving circles.

-o-

The label on this recently found bottle has long since disappeared but this playing card image¹¹ produced by Cameron & Saunders shows a label for such a beer. This might be later than those shipped on the Mindora but it is possible that they are the same design or similar that would have been affixed to the bottles. Images of the bottles from current news reports and social media are typical of the heavy shoulder bottles used at this time, especially for export, although the embossing is a nice touch as is the capsule that covers the top of the bottle and matches somewhat the logo in the centre of the label facsimile shown here. The recently found bottle appears to be pint but is possibly a quart size, so 2 Imperial Pints? Although the pictures are unclear and Guinness's stouts was shipped in both sizes to Victoria according to advertisements from this time. What we can say is that Cameron & Saunders were shipping 'Burton Ale' in Quart bottles packed 4 dozen to a case to Victoria in 1862. This gives us a fair idea of how many bottles of stout were recovered initially, if the 4 dozen cases recovered contained this number of bottles! And, if that consignment from Cameron & Saunders was Guinness Extra Stout and not another beer such as Bass.

Cameron & Saunders operated from 7 Hart Street, Mark Lane in London at this time and were primarily Bass bottlers and exporters. The site, which is now a high-rise modern building, would have been conveniently located close to both Fenchurch Street train station and the Thames for easy shipping of goods by sea or rail. They appear to have commenced trading around 1859 or a little before and were bought out some time in the first decade of the 20th century by a rival company, although as a brand they seem to have lasted until the 1920s.¹¹  They were one of many Guinness bottlers during this period when it was a common practice for companies such as these to purchase beers from Guinness, and other breweries on these islands, in bulk and bottle the stout with their own branding once the design and wording had been signed-off by Guinness in Dublin, and as long as it said it was Guinness's porter in the bottle. (This generally meant that theirs was the only porter they were allowed to bottle.) Of those bottling companies, Burkes was probably one of the more well known, along with Blood Wolfe, Hall, Read, and Moline amongst others depending on the era. Indeed Guinness were shipping huge amounts of their stout porters to England specifically for this purpose, as they themselves wouldn’t enter the world of bottling their own beers for a considerable few years more.

To give an idea of how valuable this export trade was to Guinness, in 1863 the London trade alone for Guinness was worth £64,000 of a total English trade of £213,000, that being over twice the trade of Dublin at £100,000 with the total Irish trade being ‘just’ £341,000.¹² That’s just how important exporting their stouts was to Guinness in this era, and beyond of course.

This stout would have been brewed in Dublin before being matured for 2 years in huge vats and it would have then been transferred to wooden casks and shipped to London where it would have been left to settle for weeks before being bottled, corked, caged and encapsulated. Then it was labelled and packed most likely into barrels/casks, or perhaps crates, with dry straw before being loaded onto a vessel. So that recently salvaged stout is unlikely to date from 1864, and more likely to be from 1862 or before – it's even older than has been reported!¹¹

-o-

As to the beer itself, a lot has been made in the recent news regarding the plans to harvest the yeast from the bottle in order to rebrew the beer. This would be impossible to do from just regenerating or even matching the yeast for a number of reasons, not least being that it probably contained not one yeast strain but several, including less conventional brewing yeasts such as Brettanomyces and Lactobacillus which may have entered the beer either in the Guinness brewery or the bottling warehouse of Cameron and Saunders. These may have given the beers a drier, funkier and more acidic – but still palatable – taste.  They are still used in certain beers today for the same reasons, although it was likely their effect on the beer was less seen as a positive back in the day?!

In order to explain why the yeast is just a small, if important, factor in the beer's recipe we need to look at what exactly constituted Guinness Extra Stout in the 1860s, and luckily, we have a good and reliable second-hand source for that, given that access to the brewing archives of Guinness is strictly off limits to mere mortals. David Hughes in his book on bottled Guinness¹¹ gives us more than an inkling of what the beer was like at this time, give or take a few years.

In 1860 and 1867 Guinness Extra Stout was brewed to 1.079 gravity, a measure of the sugar it contained that would be turned into alcohol by the fermentation process. It probably finished fermentation at around 1.018 or so (or perhaps lower by the time the bottler got it into actual bottles and it conditioned even more in there?) giving an alcohol by volume of around 8% or so, the same as Guinness's current offering of Special Export served on the continent, and not to be confused with the slightly lighter modern Foreign Extra. This level of alcohol would certainly help its stability on its journey around the world as would other factors too. The Foreign Extra Stout brewed in the same years was a little lighter curiously, at 1.076 but appears to have finished lower so may have been as strong or a little more perhaps? Cameron & Saunders also bottled this beer, and labels for it also survive.

The ingredients, although generally the same in certain ways, were quite different to today’s draught nitro Guinness. The barley variety would be different as would the malting process and types of finished grain. Roast unmalted barley is used in the modern Guinness portfolio but this would not have been used in brews at this time. A list from 1883 shows that the malts used were pale (which would have been darker than modern pale malt), amber, and roast. It was more likely higher hopped than today’s versions too, giving more hop bitterness, although perhaps a less roast barley bitter bite due to the use of roast malt versus roast barley, as books on the brewing of Irish porter from around this time state that the 'black' malt was more akin to chocolate malt, so not quite as well roasted.

The brewing process would be similar in one way but radically different in others, with longer mash times and boil times and changes in almost every step compared to modern processes. The equipment used is more modern too, which would effect the brewing. Even the fermentation process differs from today and the use of wooded fermentation, storage, and shipping vessels means the inclusion of ‘bugs’ other than the original brewer’s yeast as mentioned earlier.

All of this means that a beer from the 1830s would be impossible to brew again accurately and the idea that anything could be gleaned from just analysing the yeast is ludicrous. It could be done to a certain degree in collaboration with the Guinness archive who would have the actual record of the brew but it would still probably be a watered-down version, literally. Those who attempt to brew historical brews will always say that they will keep as close as possible to the recipe but with so many variables it would be impossible to say that they were brewing the same beer, in fact it would be accurate to say they definitely are not. And hobbyists can get a little closer than most professional brewing companies where time and materials equate to serious money, so the research, work and recreating of ingredients required would be unfeasible for most if not all.

Any brewery who says they are brewing a dead-on balls-accurate historical brew is more often than not fibbing to you.

This found bottle of beer is certainly hugely important as a historical brewing relic and as part of an intertwined story and the history outlined very briefly above, along with the tangible heritage of the Guinness brewery. But the respreading of this story is more down to the interest and marketing of modern Guinness than anything to do with that history. It’s clickbait for the Guinness obsessed and beer-curious, bandwagon jumping to sell advertising buy the reporters. Although it was of actual interest to those interested in the history of beer in fairness.

And perhaps that is reason enough to write this post. Not a rebuttal, not a rebottle either hopefully, just a recording and reiteration of an important part of Irish brewing history.

-o-

We will leave on a quote from David Hughes’ excellent bible of bottled Guinness.

‘The Guinness of today, be it Extra Stout or Foreign, is younger, lower in alcohol, less bitter, much less acidic, the gas content of the beer and head size is higher, there is no sediment in the bottle, it is brighter when held up to a lamp and crucially it is more consistent in its quality and in real terms cheaper to buy.’

Personally though? I’d love to try a bottle of Cameron & Saunders Extra Stout from a corked and caged bottle.

I might even share some …

Liam K

¹ The Dover Chronicle, 3rd December 1864

² The Caledonian Mercury, 8th July 1865

³ The Liverpool Journal of Commerce, 31st July 1865

⁴ The Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, 4th September 1865

⁵ The Liverpool Shipping Telegraph and Daily Commercial Advertiser, 3rd October 1865

⁶ The South Eastern Gazette, 3rd October 1865

⁷ The South Eastern Gazette, 31st November 1865

⁸ The Dover Chronicle, 2nd December 1865

⁹ The Dover Chronicle, 27th June 1866

¹⁰ The Dover Chronicle, 4th July 1866

¹¹ "A Bottle of Guinness Please" by David Hughes

¹² Guinness's Brewery in the Irish Economy by Patrick Lynch & John Vaizey

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 and image is 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!

Martyn Cornell’s Porter & Stout a Complete History –The Session #150

Where to start?

When Boak & Bailey, along with Alan McLeod, suggested that we focus on a part of Martyn Cornell’s magnificent tome Porter & Stout–A Complete History for The Session #150 one would have thought it would be an easy ask for me. After all, I’d written on the subject of porter previously and I was a relatively good researcher of facts, if not a great retainer of them. What could be easier? Pick a topic related to the book and write about it …

Simple, huh?

If only.

-o-

Let’s back track a little to when I first started writing about beer history. In the beginning I would consult Martyn’s website or books, as well as those of others, to see if a certain broad topic had been covered, and I quickly came to the realisation that Martyn had covered almost all of what I was hoping to write about on any given subject. I kept thinking back to that old South Park episode where everything that the denizens of that world thought up had already been done by The Simpsons.

‘The Simpsons did it!’ rang through my head but with Martyn’s name instead.

But eventually I stopped checking, as it became a little deflationary, and I began writing just from my own research and by taking a path generally less travelled by other writers. There would be the inevitable crossovers but I just hoped that I wasn’t making any huge mistakes that would engage his, or others, wrath. Anyhow, I've come to realise that coming at a subject from a different angle, or even the same one by a different writer throws up new content and opinions.

I certainly did made mistakes but I found that I was indeed covering some new ground, especially on the Irish side of things and on topics beyond the ubiquitousness of Irish porter history, and carved a little tiny niche in beer history where I still happily sit, albeit beside the giant hall that Martyn excavated out for himself. (Admittedly my efforts to create a bigger more comfortable space for myself have slackened of late, mostly due to blunt, rusty tools—although what is it they say about bad workmen?)

Anyhow, my much better half ordered and purchased Martyn’s book for me, after quite a bit of cancellations and reordering, and when it eventually arrived, I sat down and read the Irish section over a few evenings. And that’s when the issues and self-doubt began again, as he had covered almost every aspect of Irish porter history! As a fan of beer history, I was ecstatic, but as a writer of it I felt, selfishly, dejected and deflated.

Isn’t that odd?

I put the book under a pile of others and left it there, crushed under the beer histories of Cork breweries, pub lore and other vaguely beer-related publications. I wasn’t annoyed with the book by the way, or at Martyn for writing it, I was more annoyed at myself for feeling how I did and spiralling onto a ridiculous ever decreasing circle of self-doubt and self-pity, which is not a good look for a late middle-aged beer writer! Although it is perhaps more common than I think?

Anyhow, there the book remained until Boak & Bailey first mentioned it as a topic for The Session.

-o-

I never met Martyn and didn’t know him really in any way beyond Twitter and then Bluesky, or apart from the odd amicable email exchange. We certainly had some heated 'discussions' over the years but not too many, the worst being on the subject of one of my bugbears, which is the use of the dreaded and incendiary phrase ‘The British Isles’, which is like a red rag to bull to me. I had heard all the geography-based arguments before and I explained my case but we couldn’t see eye-to-eye on the subject, and that was fine in truth.

Generally, I liked the version of Martyn I knew from social media. He could be quite prickly of course but he was supportive of lots of my writing and commented on my posts, often gently admonishing me regarding things he didn’t agree with. He was passionate, prolific, and persistent, and I must say I really miss his input into beer history topics.

But back to his book and Boak & Bailey’s call to arms.

I dug out the book again, rescuing it from beneath an ever-growing stack, and I flipped through the pages with a new found need to give myself a much-needed kick in the backside and find a topic to write about. But even with some new-found energy and enthusiasm it wasn’t quite so simple, as firstly the subject of Irish porter—my general topic of interest in the book—is a vast one and multiple ideas sprang to mind only to flitter away and dissolve as I came to the realisation that he’d already covered it all, or had covered enough of to make me require a deeper dive which I wasn’t quite up too right now.

Then I reread a little nugget that reminded me of an interaction with Martyn, one where he admitted to 'borrowing' my research for his book. An interesting tiny snippet of information that had fascinated me enough to tweet about a while back, and for Martyn to comment on.

Now I had my piece; my connection.

The content of the referenced piece is on pages 81 & 82 of his book and is regarding signage advertising Irish Porter (versus English) for sale in public houses. It was an advertisement I found in a newspaper from 1779 where a sign maker was touting for business. It reads thus:

Transparent Labels for Shops, &c.

ISAAC COLLES, at his PRINT-SHOP

No. 13, Capel-street

CONTINUES to execute the elegant and much admired TRANSPARENT LABELS for SHOPS. The Utility of the above Transparencies are obvious, shewing[sic] the Name and Profession conspicuously at Night, when Shew-Boards cannot be seen. He likewise paints Lables on TIN or Copper for the Day, in plain or gilt Letters.

Said COLLES particularly recommends it to the Publicans, who have resolved to sell Irish Porter, to have these useful Transparencies fixed to the windows, as they can be seen at Night, the Time usually allotted for Porter-drinking.

I put this up on my feed at that time and I got a reply from Martyn.

‘Thank you; stolen!’

So you see I definitely contributed to this book! Admittedly, in a very minor way. (Although I have a sneaking suspicion that he also gathered other snippets and dates from my posts and pieces!?)

The advertisement, which Martyn, rightly, didn’t focus too much on, but might be the first ‘lit’ beer advertising sign in Ireland.

The idea of transparent, backlit signs could be assumed to be a relatively modern invention, but here we have a signmaker purporting to be making some in the 18th century. I decide to do some more digging and seemingly the most common way to create a transparent material in order to write lettering on was to coat thin paper or fabric with a varnish-like substance. You can see how this would indeed create an opaque surface, and certainly ‘transparent’ enough for it to be seen from outside a window in a well-lit public house. Oil could also be used, but that might make the painting of the material more difficult. Or perhaps oil could be mixed with pigment to do the lettering and the words themselves would then be highlighted? (Glass was another option but given the wording used I don’t believe that was used in this case.)

Transparent paper could be purchased readily in England at this time too, and tellingly from a varnish maker, so it was a known practice as advertised in The Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette in April 1788

Sadly, I can find no surviving examples of this type of signage but there are a few images of paintings done in such a way on the internet, seemingly there was a small craze for them around the time of that advertisement.

-o-

So that’s my own personal connection to the book. Martyn didn’t credit me, but in fairness he did thank me and admitted he was stealing it!

I also think he may have been baiting me by his use of that term ‘The British Isles’ in the book.

Trust him to have the last word.

Liam K

Who Did it Better? UK Brewed Guinness Foreign Extra vs. Irish Brewed Guinness Foreign Extra

A while ago Guinness moved the brewing of its Foreign Extra (FE) stout from St. James's Gate in Dublin to an anonymous big brewer in the UK. This was due (allegedly) to capacity issues in Dublin at the time but it certainly seems a little strange to have moved that provenance to across the pond, even if this beer is made in other countries too.

Anyhow, I wondered if the beers were in any way comparable, and I finally found a lonesome bottle of the Irish brewed version sitting amongst the Foreign Foreign Extras (F²E?) in an off licence so I could finally do a comparison. The Irish version is best before July 2026 and the UK one is November, so close enough in age for this experiment.

The Irish version when poured had a nice tight fluffy head, while the UK one has a looser head with bigger bubbles and was a little darker in colour. That head on that UK brewed one starts to disappear quite quickly too.

The UK one was up first for a taste and I got bitterness and a touch of sourness, with a coaldust-like aftertaste. Sure, there were the generic back notes of a stout but there was something else there too? It was certainly a little acrid, and I perceived a dryness that I normally get in my historic homebrews that have sugars added maybe?

Next was the Irish brewed one, and it is completely different by comparison. Sweeter, smoother, softer, more like cola mixed with rich coffee. It was a much more pleasant experience, and although there are similarities to both beers they differences are quite pronounced.

Both are drinkable of course, and they are both so-so beers in fairness, but the Irish FE was the best freely bought stout that Guinness had to offer and it's a shame they have degraded it in such a way. As it's pretty much a different beer.

If I didn't know better, and I don't of course, I would say that the UK one was made by brewing a strong ale or lager with sugar, and then adding Guinness Syrup (Not what it's actually called!) to it?  It also seems to be more hopped regarding bitterness which should be something that's easy enough to get right? Of note is that the UK version has less calories via the recipe—62kcal per 100ml vs 64kcal. 

Another very minor quibble is that they are also using a slightly stumpier, non-embossed bottle, but that hardly matters.

With their new brewery up and running in Kildare hopefully they will pull the production back to Dublin.

They can clearly brew a much better version of FE there.

Liam K

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.