Stout or Porter?

yes plzen

 

I knew I'd seen reference to bottom-fermented US porter in the pre-Pro era. I imagine it had a relatively low degree of attenuation. Schlitz also offered a bottled "Extra Stout" around the same period (portfolio from an 1891 ad):

That first keg brand probably causes some to think, "Hey, didn't another big US brewery have a beer with that name at the time?"

Yeah, they did. Local Milwaukee/Schlitz's competitor Miller (who also offered a porter):

among others.

 

Not true. I do not know of any brewer who used runnings separately.
Ron Pattinson ( @patto1ro ) has looked through tens of thousands of brewing records and found that in general the only difference between stouts and porters was the amount of water involved.But they were always brewed as separate beers.
Again it needs to be said that the overall style is Porter. Stout (of Stout Porters as they were originally termed) were the stronger ones. But they were still Porters.But even this distinction vanished a century ago.Many Porters are stronger than Stouts , sometimes even from the same brewery.

 

Out of interest what was it known as before it was porter? From what I remember of Amber, Gold and Black it was German settlers that brought the black stuff over. Am I right in thinking it was just known as beer?

 

That's not how parti-gyling works. This a parti-gyle of Double Stout and Porter from 1836:



The top beer is Double Stout, which was a blend of 3 runnings:

Double Stout
60 barrels @ 38.5 (1107.03) (38.5 is the gravity in pounds per barrel)
30 barrel @ 26.6 (1073.95)
40 barrel @ 19 (1052.82)
130 barrels blended @ 29.7 (1082.56)

Then there's the Porter blended from f runnings:

141 barrels @ 38.5 (1107.03)
169 barrels @ 26.6 (1073.95)
176 barrels @ 19 (1052.82)
169 barrels @ 11.7 (1032.53)
655 barrels blended @ 23.2 (1064.5)

As you can see, the Porter contained a considerable proportion of the strongest first running. This is typical; of the way parti-gyling works. And is how Fullers still brew.

 

It was a type of Brown Beer. The full name was Common Brown Butt Beer. Why they would want to change such I great name to just Porter, I can't understand.

 

Interesting that they brewed a Culmbacher. Now there's a totally forgotten style.

 

That is an awesome name. When I start home brewing I shall use that moniker for my dark creations.

 

The Kulmbacher beer style was discussed a bit in the book American Handy-Book of the Brewing, Malting and Auxiliary Trades by Robert Wahl & Max Henius, 1902:

“Bavarian beer is light-brown (like the Munich) to dark-brown (like the Kulmbacher). It has palate-fulness, a sweet taste and malt flavor. Balling of wort about 12.5 to 14.5. Export and Bock about 15 to 18. On account of the pronounced malt taste thebeer should be lightly hopped.

And:

“Kulmbacher. – A very dark beer with the Bavarian characteristics especially accentuated, brewed along the lines of a Bavarian lager, from a very strong, original Balling of wort about 18 to 19 per cent.”

The above verbiage makes me wonder if a Kulmbacher of circa 1900 would be similar to a present day Doppelbock?

Perhaps Patrik (@Crusader) has more information from his sources on the Kulmbacher beer style?

Cheers!

P.S. Perhaps an article about the history of the Kulmbacher beer style would be worthwhile for publication in Beer Advocate magazine?

@Keene

 

Maybe so. Thanks for the suggestion!

 

I for one would be greatly interested in reading this article.

Cheers!

 

I think in American brewing the two styles have been mashed together. A good way to tell the difference between the two is in English/English style ales. An English porter has a clean, dry finish unlike most stouts. Personally I love both styles but lean towards porters.

 

As would I.

 

For those not wanting to wait on a BA Mag assignment and publication, K. Florian Kemp can fill the gap in-between, from 2010.

From the article:
"As a modern brewing center, Kulmbach is a scant 800 years old. The first documentation of brewing there comes in 1174 in the form of a charter letter scribed by the Bishop of Bamberg. That alone demonstrated the skilled hands of the monks, and indirectly a faith in divinity in the brewing arts. Another manuscript indicates that local Augustine monks had a fully operating brewery in their cloister in 1349. Undoubtedly, these were very dark brews, and had to have been ales, as all beers of the period were. (Lagerbier brewing would not become common, even in Bavaria, until the fifteenth century.) The Kulmbacher cloister is the original site of the brewery that today produces Kulmbacher Kloster Mönchshof Schwarzbier."

But maybe a spin-off thread would be appropriate...

 

All the stouts I've had have a distinct bitter taste from dark malt and unmalted barley. So that's what I consider a stout. Not saying that should be the definition, but that's how I classify.
Preference? I prefer porters all the way. Even though the original version is much different, drinking porter makes me think of the people who drank porters back in the day looking for a refreshing drink that wouldn't make them sick (water was contaminated ) and wouldn't inebriate them. It also has a dark roasty flavor without the bitter or the alcohol that a stout would typically have in my opinion. I do have to say I don't believe in the Imperial Porters. Barrel aged imperial porters are Imperial Stouts. Not porters. I also believe that porters can't be aged in whiskey (Bourbon, rum, hard booze barrels) or wine barrels. It can definitely be aged in a barrel, but in a plain barrel. But that's all my opinion. My unprofessional, amateur, enthusiast opinion.

 

It would be interesting to learn about the Schlitz Culmbacher beer.

The book by Wahl & Henius provided some technical details of:

“Kulmbacher. – A very dark beer with the Bavarian characteristics especially accentuated, brewed along the lines of a Bavarian lager, from a very strong, original Balling of wort about 18 to 19 per cent.”

But the history about this beer style as brewed by Schlitz and others in the later 1800’s would be a fascinating read.

Cheers!

 

Jack, I introduced a couple of guys from the DC area at the Baltimore HomebrewCon that covered Kulbacher in their talk. They are historians with a beer hobby. You're might find the presentation on the AHA website.

Edit, the samples poured were tasty, but not as malty as Dunkel, not hoppy like a Schwarzbier.

 

Were they commercial or home-brewed samples?

FWIW -- I've never found a Schwarzbier to be "hoppy," bitter from roasted malts, maybe -- and yeah, maybe a bit more hop flavor note than a Dunkel, but still more roasted.

 

Jeff, thanks for that tip!!

I did not attend that presentation but I just went to the AHA website to 'flip' through the charts; lots of interesting information!

Chart 5 is entitled "1892 Kulmbacher"
Charts 7-9 had ads for Pabst Kulmbacher from the early 1900's.
Charts 10 & 11 detailed recipes for an early 1900's Kulmbacher.

@Keene, maybe Peter Jones & Michael Stein are the fellows to reach out to for the article?

Cheers!

P.S. The title of the presentation was:

"Dark Ages
Baltic, Munich or Kulmbach?
Lost Lagers"

 

I think those were small batch at one of the DC breweries. The beer was served at several events, so bigger than a Homebrew batch.
Schwartzbier is more like a black Pilsner to me, bitter with some noble Hop flavor, low noble hop aroma. Not IPA territory hoppy.