The Difference Between Stouts and Porters

Check the descriptions on beer style guide. Then make an excel chart comparison, because knowledge is power

 

I thought the difference was stouts have to use a roasted malt, and porters just use dark malts, not roasted. That's not right?

 

My Stout is bigger than your Porter..

 

Okay there is a difference between what they have historically been and what they are now. There is too much difference to say definitively, now, what the difference is, I think. Some porters are jet black, but some are more caramelly. Historically speaking, porters were once blended beers, usually stale beer and new beer, and drank by the working class (porters, duh). They were dark, before the pale malt was used, as I recall. Then they made 'stout' versions of the porter, which was stronger and darker. So that's how the terms came around. Nowadays I'd say it's pretty hard to tell, except that you can call things closer to brown ale porter which you can't call stout.

 

from my research, historically its seems as if stout came about as grain technology progressed, higher modified pale malts combined with roasted malts created with the roasting tech, during the mid-nineteenth century. similar results, different ingredients.

today the styles are fairly indistinguishable

also- to the post above, stouts like guinness were(are?) blended fresh and stale beer as well.

 

I thought I'd read that porters were a subset of stouts, but they are usually very similar...especially cream stouts. For what it is worth, I seem to prefer porters over stouts--I think porters tend to have a higher malt to hops ratio than most stouts. But YMMV.

 

A stout has trouble getting through a doorway, a porter opens the door for you.

 

Try Berkshire Coffeehouse Porter. I'd take this over any non-imperial stout any day

 

Fuck it, I'll drink either.

 

Next time try that test blind. I blind tested SN Porter and Stout awhile back. I chose correctly, but I got lucky.

 

Stouts are brewed with roasted barley while porters are not.

 

The Smuttynose Baltic Porter with some age on it is out of this world.... HIGHLY recommended! Their regular Robust Porter is nothing to scoff at either.

 

With respect this is not even remotely true.

 

I think I like the idea of porters over that of stouter. I'm not entirely sure what I mean by that but in my head porters have more cultural and historic significance, and I like it.

That being said I like roasty flavors in either type. More roasty equals more tasty.

 

As far as taste goes, I feel like the true differentiation occurs when making a Stout or a Porter an Imperial.

 

Yea its very subjective but I think no one can argue something isn't a porter or a stout when you get to the extremes. The middle is what gets blurry and I doubt it'll ever change. Some porters are dark as night but still have the thin mouthfeel, yet the same goes for stouts. In my mind I just say screw it and anything 9abv and above is a stout and anything below it is a porter. I don't get hung up on the differences though, I just care that it tastes good.

 

No, that's totaly historical, and historically completely correct. "Stout porter" meant "strong porter" and was later abbreviated to "stout". The idea that stouts were stronger than porters was lost in the 20th century with the rise of things like milk stout, but historically, yes, stout was most definitely always stronger. The word "stout" meant "strong".

 

Right there is the answer; it's a matter of semantics. If you try to read any more into this issue than that, then you're just trying to read too much into this issue. End of thread.

 

No.

 

Yes, you're right, I'm not sure why I wrote "not historical" when I meant the opposite. Thanks for the correction.