Porter vs Stout

b

Guinness never used roasted barley until 1930 which means they had brewed without it for over 170 years!Like many brewers they regarded it as inferior to roast malt. In fact nobody used roast grains at all until the invention of the hydrometer and of patent black malt.Also, until 1880 the use of adjuncts was illegal , even to store unmalted grains in a brewery led to massive fines.

 

I've had both and like both of these. There is only a .2% ABV difference - Stout 5.8% and Porter 5.6%. I'm not sure my taste buds detect a lot of difference but that may be due to the age related decline in my taste buds. I pick up either one whenever I find them because these are my favorite Stout. I'm not really interested in the big ABV bombs but I know many love them.

 

Each is all-malt with the same grist selection except the porter adds a touch of caramel malt (per the description of each on Ratebeer). Each uses different hops. IMO, either could have been called porter or stout, it is completely arbitrary, but since the stout is a shade stronger it makes sense to call it stout.

Essentially in historical terms both these are porter. All stout is porter. If a brewer makes one he can call them either. If he makes more than one, the stronger should be called stout, but it is optional as e.g. the Guinness example shows (Guinness Stout vs. Guinness West Indies Porter. Guinness Foreign Extra Stout is an example in the company's portfolio of strong porter being called stout. In the 1800's, all Guinness Stout was the strength of Guinness FES, 7.5% ABV, IIRC. The 5% beer made was called Guinness Porter).

 

Re: SN Porter and Stout-
I'm just going by memory here, and things could have changed along the way, but I used to brew my own versions of those beers in the 90s so had a pretty good handle on the differences. Porter has 75% apparent attenuation, Stout is pretty low at 66% (i.e. more residual sugars). The Porter features Chocolate Malt, the Stout features Black Patent Malt. Aroma hops on the Porter are Willamette (for a more 'English' feel), the Stout uses Cascade (more citrusy). They stout may be more bitter as well. The main difference seems to be the percentage of total grist for the roast malts- it's quite a bit higher in the Stout, giving a more dominant roasty quality than the Porter.

 

a porter is a stout. a stout is a porter.

there is literally no difference. anything anyone proposes as definitional (roasted malt, thinner mouthfeel, bitterness level, alcohol level) can be found in greater or lesser amounts in various porters and stouts. there is no trend, no rhyme or reason for the name disparity except (MAYBE) most breweries who have both a porter and stout usually call the lower ABV beer the porter (but not always, even within a single brewery).

again, literally no difference. not in ingredients, not in flavor, not in naming conventions by current brewers.

 

There is no historical precedent in British brewing, where the styles started, for any of this. Chocolate and Black Patent Malt are very similar and as made by different manufacturers might even be identical. See also Pahn's comments immediately above, he is exactly correct.

 

I wasn't making generalizations- I was just commenting on the difference between the recipes for those two particular beers. SN in this instance is shorthand for Sierra Nevada- sorry for any confusion.

 

Berkshire makes great beer.
If this beer was made by a more new-school American brewery, with less reverence for European styles, they'd probably call that beer Coffeehouse Stout instead. Marketing plays a role in all this.

 

No problem, understand. And when I said "caramel malt", I meant "chocolate malt". Both the SN stout and porter employ (at least today) caramel malt but only the porter adds the touch of chocolate malt.

 

Speaking from the age old tradition of reading books and many old beer mags prior to the explosion of the internet I was posting based on excerpts I had read, as well as from an old minstrels song referring to a chap in England who combined the first. Will there be a definitive anyone likes....ummm...probably not. Even looking it up finds a myriad of answers that are convoluted and crisscross theories. Was Guinness a porter....yes...that said there is a difference between standard and export, and NOBODY ever called the export a porter as far as my own experiences. I've had a many a stouts that are light and many black porters. It is a matter of reference but the history of it is a moot point considering modern recipes and traversing outside a standard definition.

 

The export version of porter was frequently called "porter" in the 1800's, e.g. the West Indies Porter of Guinness which it has recently re-brewed, but many other examples can be given.

I agree with you that history alone is not determinative, but IMO, the current classifications reflect misunderstandings as to the history, e.g. that Guinness always used roast barley or flaked barley, which are thus markers of dry stout, when it only started to use these in the mid-1900's or so.

 

https://books.google.ca/books?id=B_ujAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA269&dq=best export porter&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2WOoVLyJLYiGyQSauIGQAw&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=export porter&f=false

Here, at pg. 369, Ron Pattinson, the beer historian based in Amsterdam, discusses Barclay Perkins Export India Porter. I believe "EI" may in fact mean, East India, but it doesn't matter, either way it is a porter meant for distant export.

Ron's book is very good, in general, on the distinction between porter and stout and the history of porter.

 

Good comments, I'm with you. Re Guinness, I do prefer the FES, and I'd like to try the West Indies Porter. But e.g. recently I had a super-fresh Murphy stout, in New York at the Irish bar next to Rattle 'n Hum and it was superb, better than 90% of the craft beers I drink. But you need to get it in very good condition and I'd think the same is true of Guinness Stout.

 

Well, that Murphy was just great beer. Pure clean malt flavors, the adjunct was there but did not distract, with a firm, sharp, non-aromatic bitterness. It just worked. I had (I am not trying to be provocative) a Tsiang Tao the other day that was similar. Just really good, appetizing beer flavors, zero green bottle light effect, everything just right. It can be SN Neo-Mexicanus, or the best Imperial Stout in the world, or helles, or adjunct beer, if it's right, it's right. And vice versa.

 

I'd easily take a Murphy's over a Brooklyn Dry Stout, that's for sure. Try O'Hara's, though, it might be the best one out there; North Coast's Old #38 ain't too shabby, either.

 

Can't say I share your appreciation for Murphy's but Tsingtao is the cleanest, most refreshing beer I've ever had.

 

Agreed on many fronts. A good example of this conversation and the deviation of styles and history is Danish beer company Evil Twin who put out the Imperial Biscotti Break and Imperial Doughnut Break brews.....they are....ummmm....porters.....sorta, at least per the brewers website. Odd thing, coulda swore I had an imperial stout last night per the review.

 

I noticed that Imperial Biscotti Break says "stout" on the label. As does Imperial biscotti break bourbon barrel aged but Imperial doughnut break says "porter". I don't have a bottle of IBB Natalie so I'd have to look that one up and I'm still unclear as to whether Lil B(a porter) is the base beer for all of them.