Your first English Mild

When I was in England several years ago, I most likely had at least one pint of mild. But it was just as I was getting into good beer, and while almost everything I drank over there was cask conditioned, I only remember a couple of specific beers by name and they were all bitters.

The only mild I've had in the last few years was a cask conditioned treat from Wyoming http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/179/29310/?ba=tronester as well as a few batches of home brew that I have made. Though neither of those are really English per se.

 

You state :”Dirty Dicks looks like a mild to me. Problem is that mild has never been defined.”

In my first post to this thread I ‘struggled’ a bit as I was uncertain whether a Stewart’s 60 Shilling Ale I had on cask could be considered a Mild.

Somewhat ironically I have been doing a bit of ‘research’ on the topic of Northern English Brown Ales which lead me to read about Mild beers. I recently received a birthday present of a beer kit for homebrewing a Northern English Brown Ale and I was contemplating make some augmentations to the kit; in other words ‘kick it up a notch’. I read about Northern English Brown Ales on the BJCP style guidelines and took note that it was under the overall category of English Brown Ales where there is the sub-category of Mild beers. I am fully cognizant that you personally disagree with the BJCP style guidelines so there is no need for you to articulate your views on the BJCP; I am simply telling this story to relate how I got to my next step (which you will also find to be controversial). I next read the Oxford Companion to Beer concerning both Northern English Brown Ales and Mild beers.

The author of the Mild beers section is Brian Glover who states: “Mild is today a relatively low-strength, lightly hopped ale, mainly found on (most is keg or brewery-conditioned) draught in some regions of England or Wales. Despite its low alcoholic strength (around 3.0% - 3.5% alcohol by volume [ABV]), it can be full bodied, with a sustaining fruity sweetness, sometimes primed with sugar. Most versions ten to be dark ruby brown, but they can be light colored as well.”

FWIW, the Stewart’s 60 Shilling Ale that I had on cask is very consistent with the above description.

Since Ron was kind enough to start this thread and permit us to relate our experiences perhaps he will also be kind enough to provide some ‘direction’ as well. Ron, could you please offer up your ‘definition’ of what a contemporary English Mild beer is?

Cheers!

 

A.K. Session sounds like an authentic English Mild to me (I am still awaiting Ron’s suggestion for his ‘definition’ of an English Mild beer):

“This is a tawny colored brew that was a favorite among the farmers and laborers of the West Midlands. The alcohol content is 3.9% abv. This beer is a collaboration between Chris Erickson and Cory Buenning.”

It even won the Silver Medal at the 2009 GABF for the English Style Mild Ale category.

Cheers!

 

Ha! I was just doing research on AK last night as I'm planning on brewing the 1911 Russell AK recipe this weekend.

From Ron:

http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2011/08/ak-mistakes-revealed.html

 

Thanks for the link. It was a very interesting read!

I took note of: “It's another example of people not understanding what "mild" meant in the 19th century.”

I know that there are a number of BAs who frequently bring up the topic of the ‘history’ of various beer styles (e.g., what year English IPA are you referring too? Etc.). I am actually a fan of beer history but in the context of discussing a beer style, adding time to the dimension of discourse just makes things more difficult.

I purposefully made the statement to Ron of: “Ron, could you please offer up your ‘definition’ of what a contemporary English Mild beer is?” It seems to me that the ‘definition’ of what constitutes an English Mild beer is confusing enough. If you add the dimension of: do you mean a 19th century mild or a 21st century mild I don’t know how we get there from here.

Cheers!

 

Jack, the study of history is what makes it possible to understand the present. Otherwise we are in a morass of assumptions and generalisations , I know because I've been there.
Most present day mild is of relatively low ABV but by no means all of it. Most of it is dark but not all of it.The consequence is that the general perception of mild is of a weak dark brew and if it isn't then it's not mild.This however is a false generalisation.Mild has gone through a process of evolution but not of complete change.
It always seems strange to me that although people will accept a dark weak beer as a true mild they won't accept a weak low hopped bitter as an IPA.The IPA aficianados insist on the 19th century idea of an IPA as a middling strength highly hopped pale ale but reject a pale strong mild which is an equally valid interpretation of the style from the same period.

 

Marquis,

There is no doubt that you are an extremely consistent fellow with your thoughts on various matters.

The title of this thread is: “Your first English Mild” I found the question intriguing and consequently I participated (although I had some ‘difficulties’ as detailed in my first post).
It seems to me that it would be extremely helpful if there was a ‘definition’ of what constitutes an “English Mild” for this thread to be more meaningful. I consequently requested of Ron: “Ron, could you please offer up your ‘definition’ of what a contemporary English Mild beer is?” His input could help others in obtaining a better understanding of what would constitute an English Mild and they could report their personal experiences as to:

· Whether they have indeed drank a beer which could be ‘considered’ an English Mild
· If they can ‘answer’ yes to the above they can then respond with when they drank this beer (and what it was)

As regards the post question of: “Your first English Mild” this implies that we drank this beer within our lifetime (no BA drank a circa 1870 Mild). Therefore I am of the strong opinion that a definition of a contemporary English Mild is needed here.

Cheers!

 

Ron pretty well answered this; there's no simple definition possible because the horse has already bolted.It seems however to be a reasonable consensus that relatively low hopping is a factor.Even this is a little shaky as many brewers offer a mild which is a caramelised version of their bitter.Like so many other so-called styles it does rather hang on what the brewer decides to call it.There are quite a few milds around 5% plus and of course the delectable Sara Hughes is at 6% and not overly dark.Timothy Taylor's Golden Best is 3.5% but looks like a bitter.
It's confounded even more by the fact that many brewers don't actually describe their beers as "mild" even when they are weakish, low hopped and dark. That's a marketing decision rooted in the unfashionable status of mild.
I've just got back from the pub after a couple of pints of Crouch Vale Blackwater Mild-it's 3.7% , dark, roasty and beautifully balanced.It was exactly what the common notion of a mild says it should be and it was gorgeous

 

Ron states: “I'm happy enough to accept as Mild what a brewer calls Mild. Pertty much.”

Marquis mentions:” … the delectable Sara Hughes is at 6% and not overly dark.”

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/165/439/

I have absolutely no beer literature which ‘supports’ a contemporary definition of a mild being a 6% ABV beer.

I previously made mention of the BJCP style guidelines, I quoted from the OCB for Mild and below is what BA states:

“English Dark Mild Ale

Description:
The quintessential British session beer, like its name suggests, a Mild is known for its low level of hops character. Alcohol content is traditionally very low. Grainy to toasty malts might be present, but expect some body from the high dextrins produced in brewing. Low carbonation with a near still, bubbly head. Colors can range from gold to dark brown. Traditionally a draft beer made popular in London and the Midlands of England.”

So, is it really acceptable for a brewery to ‘invent’ its own description of a beer, e.g., “Original Sarah Hughes Dark Ruby Mild”?

Oh boy!?!

 

I had some pints of AK at Old Chicago last year and yeah, it was delicious and fit the profile of a Dark Mild pretty well.

 

Jack- reading over the All About Beer article I linked up in post #18, I'd say that Sarah Hughes would fall under the banner of a Historical Recreation rather than a contemporary version (even though I can't say I've had the pleasure of enjoying one). If you haven't read it yet do check it out, it does a pretty nice job of explaining things.

 

Not to make anyone jealous... well, maybe just a little, but I stopped at a new local brewery's tap-room this evening. My first visit, though I've heard great reviews and know the brewer's reputation (hell, he lives in my neighborhood). My first beer from them? A dark English Mild: http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/27021/82189

Lightly roasty with a good balance of hop bitterness, just the right esters, and the perfect body for what I like in a Mild. They have a cask-conditioned version, but they reserve it for the weekend because it sells faster then and won't go stale.

 

I've had many a good cask ale from steel vessels. Tradition and exclusivity are one thing, but it doesn't hurt to let the consumer choose.

 

This is something I've always wondered: what is (if any) the difference between a bitter and a mild? I've only ha a couple of milds (both at Magnolia) and they reminded me of bitters.

Thanks for any info.

 

Sarah Hughes as presently brewed dates back to 1921 and called Sarah Hughes Rich Dark Ruby Mild until quite recently.For marketing reasons the brewers left off the mild but the general drinking public still call it by the original name.There was a brewing hiatus from the 50s but the original recipe was used again by Sarah Hughes' grandson.More of a revival than an historical recreation.