The British IPA

What about East India Company troops?

 

They had a half n half with a lemonade top and a cherry.

 

Boy, you got me there! I can see that I am no match for you!!

Maybe Ron (@patto1ro ) can provide more details here.

The picture I have in my mind's eye is that the 'upper class' folks drank the IPAs while the 'grunts' drank the Porter. I am uncertain where the East India Company troops fit into this scheme.

Cheers!

 

It's a toughie. Always happens when you go for generalisations I guess.

 

For your consideration:

“At this time, the market for alcoholic drinks was almost entirely European, as most Indians did not drink alcohol. The principal market for pale ale was for the officer corps of the army stationed in India, not for the private soldiers, who preferred porter and spirits. The British army consisted of 20,000 men, which was augmented by the East India Company, who recruited their own European army of 15,000 men. The daily allowance for British soldiers was three quarts of porter, a third of which could be taken as spirits if they chose.

They could also buy a limited amount of extra drink from the regimental canteen if they could afford it. However, if they were prepared to disobey orders, they could buy unlimited supplies of spirits, such as rum or arrack from primitive stills in the Indian villages.”

Above is from a paper you can download here: http://www.commodityhistories.org/resources/working-papers/indian-pale-ale-icon-empire

So just a reference to “British soldiers” which maybe is confined to just the British Army?

Cheers!

 

From Cornell's IPA myths:

 

To be honest I was just pissing around when I said that. Because of how it was all East India Company and not British Army at the time.
This whole thing is interesting though.

 

But it was a mix of both: "The British army consisted of 20,000 men, which was augmented by the East India Company, who recruited their own European army of 15,000 men."

The 'advantage' of the troops in the British Army was they were given a daily ration of beer as part of their benefits package. Since the East India Company 'soldiers' were mercenaries maybe they had to get pissed using their own money?

Cheers!

 

Ah well, and we still know shit all about what a British IPA should be like.

Cheers!

 

At the 2015 National Homebrewers Conference Mitch Steele discussed the Historical British IPA of 1820 – 1900. He stated:

· An original gravity of 1.065 – 1.070

· Very dry (i.e., a low final gravity)

· 70 IBUs

· Hops: 100% East Kent Goldings

· Malt: 100% Extra Pale (White) Malt

An OG of 1.065 and a final gravity less than 1.010 would result in a beer of 7+ % ABV.

 

I've posted some stuff on my blog - can't be arsed to look it up - about an army doctor noticing units where the men drank Porter had far fewer die compared to those where they drank spirits. Not sure I've seen a ration of Porter that large quoted. It would have varied from unit to unit, anyway. And across the Presidencies, which all had their own rules. I would look it up, but I need to write some 1930's Manchester Mild recipes. My life is so glamorous.

 

My day's coming to an end, a quick search of "Army" at Barclay Perkins yields:
http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/search?q=Army

Interesting note buried in the search results, under the article India Pale Ale vs. India Porter:

 

He's about right. But it varied across that timeframe. Before 1850, 100% malt, after that, sometimes sugar. After 1880, always sugar. Pale Ales tended to have a higher sugar content than cheaper beers like Mild because they were trying to keep them as pale and light as possible.

I've analyses of Bass with an FG of 1065 and FG of . . . . . oh bugger I was going to guess that. Trapped by my own obsessive nature.

I should be writing Mild recipes.

Just remembered I've another table of Bass analyses. But my arse is feling disinclined to further number fiddling.

You'll have to make do with this:



Impressive attenuation.

 

What makes that particular time frame traditional? What about before and after? Same name, different beers.

 

Beers like GK , Lowers, Charrington IPAs were around for about as long.
Like CAMRA talking about "traditional mild" meaning the low ABV dark stuff.

 

I was replying to your statement of: "...what a British IPA should be like."

In that post you made no mention of "traditional".

 

Yes, impressive attenuation and subsequently impressive alcohol content as well (most years > 7% ABV).

Cheers!

 

It was sort of implied. It wouldn't really be regarded as a British IPA in terms of style without some sort of historic precedence specific to the UK, I.e. a tradition

 

What about Well's/Young's Special London Ale? My daughter brought me a bottle back from London a couple of years ago. It was not as hoppy as it was when I drank it in the late 1990s, but it was still 6.2% and hoppy. It was also bottle conditioned. Unfortunately, we only get Young's Chocolate Stout in Texas these days.