Porter vs. Stout

"some clue on the history" gets trumped by actual primary source documentation, like zythophile. that's how history works.

(EDIT: note that this in no way means that the "brilliant individuals in the brewing industry" aren't still brilliant brewers. but being a brilliant brewer doesn't automatically make you a brewing historian.)

 

why are we insisting on using historical records from 100-200+ years ago to define what a certain style(s) have evolved into today? it's interesting from a historical perspective to see the changes but a bit irrelevant for todays standards.

 

plenty of documentation from the past couple decades too. the problem is that people are using unsubstantiated "folk history" to explain the supposed difference, TODAY, between stout and porter. but there is no consistent, meaningful way to distinguish them, TODAY. do a blind taste test of any number of these beers, and it will likely be impossible to do better than pure chance in saying it's one or the other.

 

I don't see how a single blogger dropping literary sources (that seems to me few will bother to check out and validate) and making his own conclusions somehow trumps anything. I'm not about to just blindly trust his interpretation of whatever sources he read. I'll read it myself, see what both sides drew from what they used as a primary source of information, what the primary source of information was and make my mind.The Onus is still on him in my opinion but I'll keep an open mind.

 

For anyone who is going to quote the BJCP you should know that BJCP doesn't even have a category for plain "stout" or "porter." the BJCP splits the "stout" category into 6 styles, and "porter" category into 3 styles, so there's a problem with your argument there. Furthermore your insistence on "chocolate vs roasted malts" being the difference isn't backed up by the BJCP guidelines either. There's a lot of chocolate and roasted malts in the descriptions for the 3 different porters and 6 different stouts.

Look for yourself: http://www.bjcp.org/docs/2008_Guidelines.pdf

Keep in mind too that, the Beer Judging Certification Program (or BJCP) was established to judge beers at competitions. Brewers like to win medals, and the BJCP likes to award medals. Some would argue the BJCP relentlessly creates new beer classifications so that they can hand out more medals, which is fine by the brewers because they have more opportunities to win medals, which in turn helps them promote/sell their beer. Now there are a lot of porter/stout style beers produced, so clearly there is an incentive to split up that style in various categories. I think many would argue that the BJCP is as much a marketing tool for brewers as they are a standard of judgement.

Don't cite homebrewing experience as proof of your opinion either, because that's incredibly circular logic.... it's like arguing with a creationist.

The only position in this debate that has historical basis and sound footing in logic is that the difference between a stout and a porter is whatever the brewer chooses to call it. Those that want to make a distinction between stout and porter just have too many conflicting opinions with little facts to back up those opinions.

 

ROFLMAO - i was trying to find a descriptor for how i felt! this is perfect!

 

I think the onus on you is to prove he is in error. Martyn is a thorough and impartial historian.He might be a single blogger but his conclusions do dovetail with other beer scholars.He does quote sources so the rest is up to you.
When you assume that prominent people in the brewing industry know their stuff we have to ask "what was their source of information?" It's possible and probably usual to research a beer topic and find lots of totally incorrect though often repeated material, often from highly respected organisations or writers.CAMRA is a prime culprit.
To ncaudle - what happened 200 (or even 300) years ago served only to set the ball rolling.History is the thread which explains the present and the thread shows that by the mid 20th century nobody bothered whether a beer was a porter or a stout.It's only since the invention of "styles" that anyone gives a toss.

 

Martyn Cornell is one of the most respected beer historians. He has a rigorous, evidence based approach and does not make claims he cannot back up with evidence from primary sources.

He's much more than just a single blogger. He has published two books on the history of British beer: "Beer: the Story of the Pint" and "Amber, Gold and Black" The latter is easily the best history of British Beer styles to have been published.

Check out the primary sources the BJCP used? As they don't reference any of their claims there's no way of knowing what evidence they based them on.

 

Theres plenty of members with published books and referenced books. But you are right. I didn't even though who Martyn Cornell was to be honest :s. Seems like someone to follow, then. Cheers.

 

@marquis - I wasn't questioning the historical info. I was a history major in college so I value its relative importance. however, history doesn't fully explain the present; it merely provides context as to how the present formed. they should not be confused. what was "X" in the past doesn't necessarily mean the present is still, or should be, "X".
all things evolve over time...

please don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing what a porter is (or was) versus a stout.
if I feel better this evening after work I may open up a Evil Twin Lil' B - a 11.5% roasty porter

 

I'm was merely trying to cut down on the text. My point was, that if you check the Stout and Porter sub-styles you'll find somewhat of a pattern on the Roasted Barley vs Chocolate malt/darker malts thing. Sorry you took it literaly.

I think they are more well intentioned than that, but sure that could be the case.

I never said that because i brew Stouts in a given way, that means Stout are to be defined that way. Then you'd be right, it would be extremely circular. What i was trying to point out is how the homebrewing community follows those guidelines and they do make the distinction. I don't agree that only history is to be used when classifying genres and styles. Usually the experts and community have a strong say, and that was what i was trying to point at.

The fact is Porter and Stout were once upon a time the same thing. Then eventually Beer organizations and beer communities chose to differentiate. No one is right or wrong on this. It's like the people who see no difference between the term 'Thrash Metal' and 'Speed Metal' because they were once the same thing (and are now by and large considered distinct genres) or 'Socialism' and 'Communism' because they were once synonyms. If you see no difference or think the difference isn't enough to warrant distinction, more power to you, all i can say personally is that i do pick up on Chocolate/Coffee notes and that most European Porters or Stouts will usually comply to what I'm expecting.

 

With respect to my many friends in Camra, their take on beer history is shockingly out of date. Apart from Feltham in 1802, and all those many who blindly copied him since then, you won't find ANY evidence for the idea that porter began life as a mixture of three separate types of beer called 'three-threads'. Instead the evidence is that porter was an improved version of the London brown beer that had been brewed for quite some time. Something called 'three-threads' certainly existed, but the evidence is that (1) it was actually a mixture of two beers, not three and (2) it has nothing at all to do with the development of porter. I've been digging around this subject for 15 or 20 years, and I was shocked when I couldn't find anything to actually back up the claims about three-threads and porter that every book on beer seemed to repeat, but there we go: it's a myth.

 

unless you have done this blind with commercial examples of similar strength, then the potential for confirmation bias is too high for anything other than personal anecdote.

 

What type of stouts and porters are we talking about here? The 'lighter than/stronger than' argument is not relevant if there is no point of comparison (Dry Stout, Sweet Stout, Oatmeal Stout, American Stout, Russian Imperial Stout, Brown porter, Robust Porter, Baltic Porter).

 

Stout was historically a sub-species of porter. Now it seems the line has been blurred and there no real boundries