Stout or Porter?

What makes you think that that is the more common way of viewing them (as opposed to just one way of viewing them)? I'm really asking... not trying to make a point. Wouldn't we need to know every brewers' recipes rather than just Sierra Nevada's?

 

OTOH, a tree model, while a current snapshot, can be changed over time to reflect growth or change from one time to the next. Just as a movie is just a series of snapshots shown in succession to create the appearance of movement, the same could be done with a dynamic tree model.

 

does anybody have any experience with a "milk porter"? I don't. Does anybody know of a commercially available porter which utilizes lactose?

Other than that rhetorical question I have nothing to add to this thread which, as usual, explicates perfectly the history and current lack of consistently distinguishing characteristics well summed-up in Roguer's post. But to me, perhaps because I was incorrectly taught a non-existent distinction when I first started homebrewing, porters are a little thinner and maltier than stouts (which are a little heavier bodied and can be roastier, sometimes to the point of near-astringency (but in a nice way!), [other than milk stouts, that is, which are heavier-bodied because of the unfermentable lactose but non-astringent (also in a good way!)]. Although both/either can use varying amounts of chocolate or black patent malts, or roasted (unmalted) barley, stouts are more likely to make use of the regular (i.e, unroasted) unmalted barley which tends to give them a slightly "thicker" mouthfeel. More body, that is.

But that's my individual taxonomy, and it has absolutely no danger of being adopted by any other person, let alone any commercial brewer! And there are doubtless dozens of cases in point

(FWIW I did read the better part of 3 pages of content and still posted this, which I hope doesn't come across as "look at me!" at least any more than any other internet message board post, that is.)

 

I thought about this more after I posted and the tree model is also weak because it's hard to account for overlap/connections in very different styles. Something like this is more like reality:


...As complicated as the above may appear, even that is just a snapshot in time. Beer styles live at a point in history too, so to account for history one needs to add a third dimension of time for above style dots and lines to move through. Like the GIF below, but far more complicated.


Which gets to the root of this entire discussion and why people have such trouble categorizing beer, beyond the porter/stout question. Beer names and styles simultaneously exist in the present and past, but our language typically fails to accurately describe that duality.

 

oops: perhaps a ten second search of this very site would have been a helpful exercise, before I hit "enter".

 

Interesting that you'd pick for your GIF one of the classic visual illusions to include the dimension of motion since it also emphasizes that what one sees can depend very much on where one stands when looking.

The real trick to a tree model isn't the multiple connections it ignores but in knowing which connections to cut when creating the tree. (I'd suggest that a strong case can be made for the idea that any taxonomy is set up to ignore certain connections and emphasize others.)

 

Charlie Papazian just rolled over in his grave and isn't even dead yet.

 

Well said.

 

This diagram contains so many false connections and misunderstandings that one doesn't know where to start.
Back to the original question. Porter is the overall style.Stout is a Porter.
For some reason Stout is a more prestigious name than Porter.When beer strengths were drastically cut after WW1 there were few Porters available. They were still brewed but labelled as Stouts.

 

Yes, I would argue about many connections and groupings in the diagram too, but I posted it more for its concept of grouping and linking styles, as opposed to other conceptual systems of categorization (i.e. trees, static lists, plots, etc.). The diagram also lent itself well to my point and example of adding time as a third and mobile dimension. Concepts were more important than the details.

 

Perhaps you could post a link to a better or an improved diagram without those false connections and misunderstandings? A simple assertion that something is "wrong" doesn't resolve misunderstandings.

 

Victory at Sea, which has been mentioned in this thread, would be a rather good one to compare.

 

Robust Porter is a totally made up style with not a shred of historical basis.

 

I had a brewer-proclaimed "robust porter" last night, and I suppose that moniker is more marketable than "mild stout". It was a Bell's Porter.

 

"Robust" as an adjective is fine but when used as a compound noun it muddies the waters.I am afraid that many brewers (who may well create exquisite beers) sadly have little background knowledge of our brewing heritage to guide them.

 

Or, at least ignore it when naming their creations...

 

When presented with a choice of Porter or Stout from the same brewer I generally prefer the Porter. This has happened often enough that I can say it's a preference.

 

Well,of course it used to simply be the weaker of the two. But these days anything goes. Fuller's Black Cab stout is weaker than their London Porter.
Sometimes it just sounds better when naming brews. A favourite of mine is Stilton Porter. Stilton Stout doesn't sound right.

 

Bleah -- neither of them sound right! Cheese and beer, not cheese in beer!