BeerBorg

The_Professor wrote:I saw something odd at the corner store on the way home today. "Old Tankard Ale" brewed by Pabst.

I had three choices:
1. Google it and pick some up tomorrow if it sounded interesting.
2. Buy it and try it.
3. Nah, no way.

I went with number 2.

Apparently it has it's own web page and video.

To me it does not sound like the recipe is being followed that closely. I actually sent a quick note to the Barclay Perkins guy who is used to reading old beer log books wondering what the recipe really was. While the modern version does actually have some flavor, it tends a bit towards dishwater and, of course, Sierra Nevada Pale Ale blows it out of the water.

It's a nice 5.8 ABV, 35 IBU dishwater though.

mashani wrote:

To me it does not sound like the recipe is being followed that closely

"Utilizing the original Brewer’s Log recipe from 1937"...

But using ingredients that did not exist until the 1980s. I see goldings in the recipe. None of the hops they used are anything like the Goldings in the recipe. They used crystal malts that were not in the recipe and didn't exist. It looks like they wimped out on the sugar. If they thought the sugar was of a dark English candi sugar type, then that's what they should have used, not crystal malts? The NW hops were probably Cluster back then. Or maybe Northern Brewer. There certainly was not cascade or nugget in it.

It doesn't sound like the recipe at all. (not that closely seems to be an understatement!)

So... there you go.

Anyways, I am drinking a half full trub / tester bottle of my continuously hopped bohemian pilsner that I used my last pack of swiss lager yeast in and fermented warmish (60ish). It tasted nice and was smooth out of fermenter, so I didn't think it actually needed any laagering, but I figured I'd try my tester and see if my view changed. So I chucked the tester in the fridge last night (and this is young - it's only 2 1/2 weeks after I bottled it). And it's great as in easy to drink and tasty. So ???? Laagering is overrated???

It is officially in my rotation.

My pitching lots of yeast and semi-open fermenting keeps doing this - giving me beer that tastes good out of the fermenter and that I can happily drink in 2 weeks instead of 4 like "back in the old days". Even though I'm bottling it. I don't know why it cleans up the bottling sugar acetaldehyde so fast where it did not before (more happy yeast going into the bottle?). But it has been like that - and I like it.

The_Professor wrote:That was sort of my take-a-way as well.
From the vocal description it sounded like amber malt (base malt with amber color we do not have today) with invert sugar (malt, grist, sugar in the recipe? Not just pale malt with invert sugar that gave it an amber color?). The hops appear to be listed as Washingtons, Goldings, Oregons. Cluster, Goldings, and?

My guess would be pale malt with invert sugar, bittered with Cluster, flavored with Goldings. Just like a lot of the recipes at Barclay Perkins.

mashani wrote:That would be my guess too and a much better place to start then what they did in that recreation. I know that Northern Brewer was cultivated in those parts back then. So maybe some of that.

Every hop they used in the recipe recreation did not exist.

I have no clue what amber malt was back then, but some RedX might hit the spot in place of it. It might not be right, but it would be tasty. What is called British Amber malt these days is around 40L and has no D-Power, so it ain't right.

The_Professor wrote:All amber malt just does not sound right. An amber plus pale mix would be fine, but that would be for an older recipe. I am considering, for instance, write ups on Kentucky Common wherein something like using dark malt and caramel for the desired amber color is used, not a special malt "not available today".

But, I have made a Porter (and it would be an old style) with home malted Pale, Amber, and Brown malt (1/3 each). Really good. I'd make some amber if that was right, but I don't think it is. Getting into the 20th Century, dark malts are adjuncts, not the base malt. And if the suggested base malt is wrong, how wrong is the suggested sugar addition? Both invert and straight sugar additions were not uncommon (So maybe even just caramel coloring for the amber appearance.). And is anything in the recipe a corn addition?

Ron Pattinson wrote:sorry about taking a while to reply. I've been very busy.

What's listed as "grist" I'm sure means "grits". Especially as it
mentions the cooker. It makes up 26% of the fermentables, which is
pretty high. It looks like they're picking up colour from somewhere
other than the malt. So I'd guess either from the sugar - some sort of
invert perhaps - or from caramel. I'm not too well up on the types of
sugars used in US brewing.

It's interesting that the temperatures are given in Réaumur. That's
typical of 19th-century German brewing. Odd to see it used in the US.

Cheers,

Ron.

It's interesting that the temperatures are given in Réaumur. That's
typical of 19th-century German brewing. Odd to see it used in the US.

bpgreen wrote:I question whether grist was a misspelling of grits. Grist can mean unmilled or lightly milled grains. I suspect that's the meaning here.

Ron Pattinson wrote:....Especially as it mentions the cooker....

bpgreen wrote:Didn't Jon brew with grits recently?

The_Professor wrote:Here's a book from 1914 stating:

The first operation in brewing is to crush, or technically to "bruise," the malted grain by passing it between iron rollers, the ground product from which is termed "grist."

The_Professor wrote:Would rice hulls help with the grits?
.
.
.
2.0 lbs grits (mixed with about 1 lb of the malt for the cereal mash)