Stout or Porter?

Founders Porter mixed with...Founders Porter

 

The names seemed to be generally used, there were Porter brewers and Ale brewers and the difference between Porter and Ale were well understood.When Porter dropped out of favour the brewers began making ales too , which explains signs saying "Ale and Stouts" or "Ale and Porter"

Pale Ale was named, I understand, when it was brewed predominantly from pale malt. At the time, Porter and stout were made from brown malt.Ales were less hopped than beers but still massively so by modern standards.
Bitter was simply what the customers called Pale Ale.Perhaps this was because Mild was generally pale and it was a way to distinguish them from each other on the bar.
Burton Ale, like the similar Edinburgh Ale, were originally local specialities.

 

Both are in the same family. To me, Stout has more a coffee taste and the other has a wider range of flavor. I like both but prefer Porter.

 

I love me a nice dark stout

 

How about a blonde stout? How do they grab you?

 

Then there's Evil Twin Ashtray Heart, which is either a porter or a stout depending upon which side of the label you're reading.

 

Where/when did the blending of sour and fresh beer come into play?

 

I predict within two years we will have Session Stouts and Double Dry Hopped Imperial Milkshake Porters.

 

2/3 Anchor & 1/3 Founders served in a Pilsner glass

 

BCBS and BCBS since a stout is a porter.

 

In the hypothetical scenario where the bartender said they only have two beers remaining one Porter and one Stout to choose from and they didn't know which ones they were I guess I would pick the Porter. Sorry that's the best I could come up with. I like them both, but, it's hard to beat a Black Butte or an Edmund Fitzgerald. Just sayin'

 

Thanks for the response. I wasn't looking for the history of those styles (I just picked English styles as examples due to your familiarity). None of what you are saying suggests that styles are a recent phenomenon.

I'm a big believer in Martyn Cornell's work (as are you), but when he claims that Michael Jackson invented the idea of beer styles because he was possibly the first person to use the exact word "styles" (instead of types, varieties, kinds, etc.), I just feel like he's letting his fastidious and detailed approach get in the way of the full picture (and yes, I do feel like a misguided idiot for even suggesting this). Michael Jackson's work obviously played a very large role in how we look at styles today, and perhaps he caused an evolution in the taxonomy, but with regard to being the first to use the word "style"... a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. When Cornell claims that, "The expression “beer style” is entirely an invention of the late Michael Jackson," I can't help but feel like he is unintentionally creating a myth that he would otherwise be trying to knock down. What's more important - the expression "beer style," or the idea of beer styles? These aren't the same (to me), but are readers treating them as such? Elsewhere, when Cornell writes, "Burton Ale is almost forgotten as a type of beer; a style famous for a century and a half [...]," not only is he using the terms style and type interchangeably (which Jackson tried to distinguish at one point, but this distinction has no impact on the use of the term today), but he's also saying that a "style" existed long before Jackson used the term.

Looking at Wahl & Henius' 1902 American brewing book, you'll find many familiar references:
Pilsener, California Steam Beer, Porter, Stout, Imperial Stout, Bitter, Lambic, Gueuse, Faro, Cream Ale, Sparkling Ale, Bock, Berliner Weissbeer, Graetzer, etc. You'll even find talk about Irish Stout, London Stout, and American Stout.
Not every style name in that book will look familiar to the average BeerAdvocate user, nor will all of the descriptions perfectly match up with today's, but as we both know, the style names and descriptions will be a reflection of the landscape of the time. Thinking about beers in various categories (and across cultures) obviously didn't start with Jackson. I have no idea why this seems to matter less than Wahl & Henius (or anyone else) not using the word "style."

Sorry for the long post, no need to get into an unwanted back and forth. I'm not arguing with you in the slightest, just discussing.

 

I like big beers, that being said there are more big stouts than porters. If the label says Russian Imperial, American Imperial or just plane old Imperial, I'm all in.
If it's barrel aged, that's good too, but I still think of those as "gimmick" beers.
And I've tried a few Imperial porters and barrel aged ones and they're just fine too.

 

Would that be why Stouts are dryer than Porters?

 

This thread inspired me to call a local beer distributor and ask for a case of SN Porter. Previously I've been told no there but I must have found the right person because they ordered it and had it the next day! I just wish I could call them up and order a case of SN Kolsch . . . maybe someday

 

Not to mention that the US Brewers Association and many US brewers' ads, both pre- and post-Prohibition did use the "beer style" terminology:
https://sites.google.com/site/jesskiddenparttwo/home/beer-style-usage---us-beer-ads

 

Good one. Thanks.

 

Well, ok, I'll wade in. I'm not one to get too much into the semantics of this sort of debate and I'm more in the stouts and porters are the essentially the same camp.........But ...... I just opened a Founders Imperial Stout and took a sip, well, I can't refer to it as a porter. Maybe if I come across a "porter" like this I can be justified in considering stouts and porters as the same. All that being said I still have to say I think porters and stouts are basically the same. ahhh with some exceptions.