Stout or Porter?

As per 19th century Bavarian brewing literature the defining feature of the Kulmbacher brewing method was that it was brewed using only a lauter mash (the liquid part of the mash was collected and brought to a boil in a separate kettle), instead of an "alt-Bayerisches" (old Bavarian) thickmash (where two portions of thick mash are collected, grain and all, transferred to a separate kettle and boiled, one after the other, after which a portion of liquid mash, lautermash, is collected and similarly boiled).

Additionally the breweries there were said to focus on brewing beer for export which was brewed stronger for this purpose, whereby they stuck to making fewer barrels of beer from a given quantity of malt (instead of the typical 6 or 7 eimer of lager beer per scheffel of malt they were said to make only 5 eimer of beer, thereby increasing the original gravity of the beer).

In the previously referenced book which made mention of the Schlitz Porter, the author also references the brewing by Schlitz of an all-malt 13% Lager beer (which was brewed using an infusion mash and only used New York state hops), a 12% adjunct lager beer (using a typical American double mash method) and a 14% Export beer (no description of brewing method). I would imagine that by brewing an all-malt beer of a slightly higher gravity than the other lager beers brewed, say 16-17%, and by using a portion of black malt for a darker color, they would have differentiated it enough (for American market conditions) to sell as a Kulmbacher beer.

 

Well, this thread has shown me this:

If the intrusive anti-capitalist Federal Government had not meddled in the affairs of private enterprise, we might have been able to witness the revival of Miller's Budweiser!

Damn those government bureaucrats, anyway!!!

 

Pretty sure I remembered another prominent US brewer of that era that brewed a Kulmbacher but, searching my files, couldn't find it.

Turned out it was Pabst - and the reason it wasn't in my "Pre-Prohibition" brewery files is that it was a Pabst Prohibition era brew, so under 0.5% abv (below - from a1920 ad).



It was one of the many "near beers" reviewed in 1920 by The New York Tribune, which called it a "...dark, heavier, sweeter beer".

Looks like Cincinnati brewer, Christian Moerlein, also brewed and marketed a Culmbacher in 1870s when they were among the ten largest lager breweries in the US.

 

Heineken also brewed a Culmbacher in their early days.

 

Evidently Kulmbach beerin Germany got paler when a court ruled they couldn't colour it with caramel.

 

That muddies the water now, doesn't it?

 

In the Peter Jones & Michael Stein presentation they had an ad from 1892 for “Henry Wagener’s Kulmbacher”.

Cheers!

 

Relevant (although not sure if it is historically accurate...)

 

Oxymoron I detect.

 

I'd like to hear Ron's opinion on this "trend" of Mild Stout.

 

I can't say I really like one type/style better overall than the other. I've had so many great beers of both types/styles.

Eric

 

Some interesting reading here http://barclayperkins.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/how-can-you-call-that-stout.html

 

Of late I've been prone to enjoy a porter more. Seems of what I've had in Orlando don't do it or aren't really that great in regards to stouts. However, Ten10's white stout is solid.

 

I wonder if Beamish and Murphy's went through a similar De construction.