Controversial Beer Opinions Thread

I wouldn't say they're closer to either at this point in time. But they are definitely derived from Pilsners; the pre-Prohibition style featured Pils hopping rates, and up to 20% corn. The malt was domestic 6 row, too, which isn't all that comparable to the malt character in a Munich Helles.

 

But unfiltered beers can be crystal clear.

 

I knew you were going to say that!

 

If I had to place Budweiser on a scale between a Helles and a Pilsner I would place it much closer to a Helles....irrespective of its malt composition.

 

That's what Dr. Prof. Lintner of the "Scientific Station for the Brewing Industry - Bavaria at Munich" (Weihenstephan) thought in 1904 when he compared AB's Budweiser to Pilsner Urquell (likely at the request of AB):


AB had been comparing Budweiser to the Pilsen beers for quite a while. In 1889, their promo booklet, A Simple Story of the Origin and Unprecedented Growth of the Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association*, said:

What's funny is how seldom AB mentioned the beer brewed in Budweis

"Where?"
________
* The book also notes that AB used "more than 800,000 pounds" of hops a year --- to brew 465,000 bbl. of beer (of which Budweiser made up less than a quarter of the total). So, probably safe to say that Budweiser circa 1890 wasn't the 10-12 ibu beer of today ...

 

Good ol' "functional strength" crew, gotta love 'em.

 

Also, Munich Helles was first created by Spaten in 1894.

The classic German brewers opened their US breweries in the early to mid 1800's.
Coors brewing was opened in 1870's.
Anheuser Busch and Miller in 1850's.
Schlitz died before Helles was created.

 

What have we (I) learned from this;

Some Porters use lager yeast and therefore can't technically be an Ale style beer, but if it's not "Lagered" it will appear as an Ale.
(If it looks like a duck).

Marketing....don't wanna go there right now.

I have reviewed one Porter, Raincloud Robust Porter by Foolproof. Brewing Co, tried a few others before I began reviewing. I like dark, above medium bodied Ales or whatever.

I used to drink Guinness back in the day, and it was arguably a Porter all along

I am not going on an explore Porters kick right now, Brown Ales are in season, more Octoberfest's need to be checked out.
Red Ales too, maybe another Pumpkin Ale (could be a lager or a Stout).......Winter Warmers will have to wait.

Porters are available year-round in my region, but I do need some good recommendations.
1) Must be inexpensive, historically Porters were for the working class.
2) ABV needs to be 6.5% or higher, on the dark side, medium-full bodied, not overly hopped.
3) Bitter and old tasting are OK as long as conditions 1) and 2) are met.

 

I used to drink an awful lot of Two Roads' Route of All Evil but it doesn't seem to be available around here anymore. Technically a black ale so it might be a little hoppier than what you're wanting. Anyway, there was just something about it that punched all my buttons and kept sending me back for more. Just thinking about it makes me want one right now.

 

@Amendm Porters were dark beers made in England. They exported them a LOT. The most consumed beers in the occupation of India was porter and not pale ale (IPA)

But porters and stouts were extremely popular along the North Sea and Baltic Sea going to Russia.

Instead of just importing porters from England the breweries along that northern trading route decided to start making their own. But as they were largely making lagers they continued making the Porter the same way...
Hence Baltic Porter.

These are normally strong beers unlike English porters which are very weak at least since the World Wars.

The couple of examples I've had Sinebrichof(sp?) And Carnegie have a more complex less acrid malt profile than english versions with something like an almost licorice flavor.

 

I like Black Ale, hopping something other than old Back-in-Black will appear on the shelves, or maybe a local brewer will cowboy up.

 

Yeah but I'm more concerned with whats available in my region in this century.

 

Guinness isn't arguably a porter, it is a porter - essentially any stout is a porter. That’s why you should actually look for stouts if you are trying to find porters that are at least 6.5% ABV. Most brewers will call a 6.5% (and higher) porter a “stout.”

 

I'm really hazy about this unfiltered thing.

 

Depends on which country's brewing conventions, traditions and industry and government definitions one is going by - and, more importantly, of which era.

The US brewing industry was, for the most part, initially founded by immigrants from the UK or their descendants, but it rather quickly developed its own traditions, techniques, ingredients/recipes etc. Those early pre-lager US brewers brewed common beers, ales and porters.

After lager beer became the dominant product by mid-19th century with the arrival of lager yeast and a mass influx of German brewers, porter was brewed by both ale brewers and, in some cases, by lager brewers (it is assumed that many of the latter employed lager yeast to make their porters).

Even after Repeal, many lager breweries offered bottom-fermented porters - centered in the Northeast, and where they'd eventually be known as "Pennsylvania Porters" (of course, there were numerous PA breweries that still fermented their porter with top ferm. yeast).

By that time, also, the US brewing industry in general (with some individual exceptions) had also abandoned the concept that lager beer could only be brewed with bottom-fermenting yeast and ales and porters only with top-fermenting yeast and US regulations eventually reflected that viewpoint. Porters, legally, were eventually considered a "type" of malt beverage within the class of "Ales" and ales were defined only by warm fermentation, regardless of type of yeast.

In addition, going back to the the mid/late 1800s, what was called "lager beer" in the United States was never defined by the length of lagering period. And, as new ale styles were developed in the US (cream ale, sparkling ale, lively ale, etc.) those beers were also "stored" for similar lengths as lagers were. As a result, by Repeal, US ales and US lagers typically underwent similar length periods of storage/lagering. For ales, that storage often included several weeks for the process of dry-hopping.

 

This discussion is all well and good, but I am still confused as to the difference between a porter and a bellhop?! Which one is bottom fermented again?

 

You didn't.

 

I was explaining why Baltic Porters are lagers even in this century unlike the English porters.

I don't know what's exactly available in Rhode Island. I've never seen the beers I mentioned in Texas but I did try them in Baltimore, Maryland much closer to Rhode Island than here. And in this century.

 

Guinness has in the past used the words interchangeably. Foreign Extra Stout was also marketed as West India Porter.
Porter is the name of the style, Stout is just an abbreviation of Stout Porter , the word Stout simply meaning strong.
Stout was the name reserved for the strongest in the range. Eventually the ranges were cut down and the last one was called Stout irrespective of the strength.
Regarding Baltic Porter, our German friends have long reserved the term "lager" for beers which have been lagered. Logical. And a few of them are top fermented.

 

A Porter works on a train, a Bellhop works in a hotel.