Porter vs. Stout

Generally a stout is just a stronger, or "stout" porter. I mostly just comes down to what the brewer wants to call it.

 

My homebrewed porter and stout are nothing alike. My porter had smoked bacon I soaked in bourbon for 2 weeks then added it to the secondary for around 3 weeks and my stout had a pound of bakers chocolate and 6 chopped seeds and all habaneros. I can promise those two stood miles apart from each other

But yea, its a topic that's argued up and down. I love a good porter but most fail me. I really enjoy Leiny's Big Eddy Baltic Porter, Edmund Fitzgerald, uuuuuuuuuuh...yea another that I have a case of maybe its time I dig one out and have it so I can remember the name again (its English that's all I remember).

 

Stout is just a variant of Porter ( stoutest of porter, i.e. higher ABV porter ), but today brewers basically choose either or to name their beer based off personal preference. There is no real standardization amongst the brewing community ( at least not one that is consistently followed ). I find that for the most part stouts ( stronger porters, i.e. 8% or higher ) are more enjoyable to my particular palate because they tend to be more complex and interesting. To create a beer with a higher ABV you need to add more malt (or other ingredients that convert to sugars, unless you are freeze fermenting) so therefore in a general sense stouts will have bolder flavors (not all. Hey you, don't get your panties in a bunch). I've basically resorted to classifying them myself regardless of what the brewer says, if it's lower than 8% it's a Porter in my mind, and if it's higher it's a Stout (regardless of what anyone else thinks). Take it for what it's worth, untill everyone actually follows the same guidelines the destinction will continue to be a shit show.

 

porter = stout. differences in brewery labeling are arbitrary, and differences in perception are based solely on "i tried beers A, B, and C called 'porter' and they all were medium bodied [or some other random thing], while beers X, Y, and Z called 'stout' were full bodied [or some other random thing], so THAT's the difference [even though there's fuller bodied porters than X Y Z and thinner stouts than A B C]."

no difference at all. if a brewery calls 2 of their beers porter and stout, expect (maybe!) the stout to be higher ABV or to have more roasted malt flavor or something... maybe.

 

Porter-Mogli, Founders, and personally I enjoy Maui Coconut porter

Stout- Hardywood GBS, Hunahpu, or more likely Founders breakfast, Ten FIDY, & Stone RIS are ones you can grab easier

Porters tend to be thinner in body/abv/mouthfeel but theres always an exception

 

I think of a porter as an amber ale with a tiny bit of dark malts involved to make it black and enough hops to juuuuusssst get it over the balancing act of getting the beer over the sweetness. Hope I described it ok. Porters are pretty neat beers, I know that sounds elementary.

 

An overall perspective.Porters have been around for three centuries and have obviously seen some changes in that time.As already mentioned, the stronger ones were labelled Stouts but these were just names.Brewers of "Stout" would clearly have acknowledged that these were still Porters.There were no rules and no styles, even less were there style guidelines! So brewers interpreted in different ways.In general though, when a brewer had a range of beers that the stronger one was named the Stout.
When WW1 and its aftermath (massive rises in beer tax) caused massive reduction in beer strength, many brewers deleted Porter from their lists and just had Stout.But this Stout was in fact the old Porter relabelled.Here ended any differential betweenStout and Porter, it became simply a matter of marketing.
I mentioned "no rules" but of course the Malt Act existed.Until 1880 it was illegal to use any unmalted grain in brewing. It was even illegal to have any on the premises.So the notion of stouts using roast barley has no basis.Guinness in particular resolutely refused to use it intil around 1930.
The problem is to sift out the wheat from the chaff in beer literature.Many respected sources are sheer nonsense.This comes from the 2008 CAMRA Good Beer Guide which ought to be trustworthy regarding British beer!
"a Dublin brewer called Arthur Guinness to fashion his own interpretation of the style. Guinness in Dublin blended some unmalted roasted barley and in so doing produced a style known as Dry Irish Stout"
Pick your sources with care!
I understand that visitors to the brewery have been fed this nonsense and maybe this is the source of the misinformation regarding stouts and roasted barley.The fact is that since 1880 brewers have chopped and changed their ingredients quite arbitrarily regardless of whether the beer was labelled Stout or Porter.

 

the line is blurry - actually, nonexistent - in the UK too

 

your profile says you're from "PT"... might we inquire where this is, exactly?

 

I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion or who the "we" are but Portugal.

 

FTFY

 

This is a great piece of history, but i can't buy the historical argument. Names and meanings change alot during history and while what most of what you say is correct we are assuming that since at some time there was no difference the same has to be said about today. Porters were also originally made using 3 diferent very specific beers, how many true Porters do you know then?

The fact is that like in most other fields, conventions are dictated by the community and the experts within or guiding a given community. The guys at BJCP, the Homebrewing community and other proeminent Brewing writters share more or less the opinion of distinction and the use of Roasted Barley vs Chocolate Malt. Of course like many have said, there is still a big overlap, so sometimes (many times) it isn't as straightforward.

Of course at the end of the day you can call it whatever you want, and i wouldn't be surprised (in light of how the styles are being made) if in the future a single term was used to describe either.

 

Search function called, he feels underused.

 

Yes, but the last time was more than 7 days ago. It was due.

 

But you make my point for me in your first paragraph (except the bit about 3 beers which is a popular misunderstanding)......because it's been around so long and in so many forms you simply can't pin it down and say "This is a stout, that is a porter" , the two fused so long ago that any distinction is artificial and without validity.
We must not confuse fact with opinion. The history of stout and porter is exceptionally well documented; brewery records are available for centuries.What you mention about the use of roasted barley and the BJCP is pure opinion, frequently based on sloppy or no research , folklore and hearsay.These people have no mandate to ignore the facts and even less to pass on ill founded descriptions as definitions. They have a duty of care and a responsibility to present accurate information and not hide between "Words change their meaning" (roughly translated as "I got things wrong but I'd rather change the rules than admit it"
If you buy a Labrador puppy you don't accept it as such just because the seller believes it to be a pedigree and tells you it's genuine. You look back and check the antecedents , the records and background. Otherwise you'll be sold a pup.Or of course redefine Labrador.

 

Semantics my friend. Would it be any better if they used two other unique names? How many beer styles do you think are made even remotely close to the way they were originally made (very few I'd wager). Noone is disputing that the styles were redefined. This happens in many other fields like Political Science or Music.

No... The BJCP guidelines are arbitrary and not an interpretation of how the styles were being made back-then... You are talking about some of the most brilliant individuals in the brewing industry. I'm pretty sure they have SOME clue on the history of the style. This is what I'm trying to say. Even if they ignored the differences and just assumed Porters and Stouts are the same, i can STILL guarantee you the beers being made still wouldn't even come close to what the British were drinking at the time (Brewing practices, types of ingredients, hygiene). So your notion of what a Porter/Stout is just as valid (historically) as BJCP's.

By the way i was intrigued with this line "(except the bit about 3 beers which is a popular misunderstanding)". Any sources to back this up? Because it's the first time I've seen this disputed.

 

I'll settle this once and for all: porter and stout have the letter 't' and the letter 'o' in common, otherwise they are different.

 

I never said that beers are remotely related to their original styles, just that the difference between stout and porter has long disappeared. This is true to this day, I've had maybe hundreds of them and can see no pattern.Don't forget that around the globe Stout means Guinness and most people haven't heard of the wondrous new dark beers available though they may well know Guinness.
Fuller's brew a Stout; http://www.fullersfinealeclub.net/Brewery-News/introducing-black-cab 4.2% ABV
and a Porter ;http://www.fullersfinealeclub.net/Beers/Favourites/London-Porter 5.4% ABV
See also
http://zythophile.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/so-what-is-the-difference-between-porter-and-stout/
http://zythophile.wordpress.com/fal...ted-porter-as-a-substitute-for-three-threads/

 

I knew a Zythophile link was bond to appear, eheh. All i have to say is even CAMRA, acknowledges the three thread theory. Still, i'l keep an open mind about it, i'll have to do more researching.

Anyway agree to disagree. I usually do find them different (many times they aren't however) and find that the grain bill (when disclosed) does reflect this. I've actually had the Fuller's Porter (Not the stout i think), deli-sh!

Cheers