Wyeast Thames Valley Ale Yeast #1275

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Yooper

Ale's What Cures You!
Staff member
Admin
Mod
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
75,110
Reaction score
13,258
Location
UP/Snowbird in Florida
I bought this strain a couple of months ago- but I can't remember why. :drunk:

I remember someone telling me it was "minerally". I'm going to make an oatmeal stout next. In the past, I've used 1335 with excellent results on that recipe, and also with Denny's Favorite 50 (1450) for a rich luscious mouthfeel. I have some Denny's, but no 1335.

Would the #1275 be a bad fit for a rich full oatmeal stout?
 
I used 1275 a few months back for an Ordinary Bitter when the lhbs was out of 1028 & 1968. I didn't really care for it in that recipe. I subsequently repitched it into a hoppy British Porter that was much better. I don't think my palate picks up on minerally (maybe b/c I grew up on hard well water), but even on the porter there was something amiss I couldn't really identify.

YMMV, but I'd probably opt for the 1335 on an Oatmeal Stout if you have both on hand.
 
I use it in my pecan porter and really like it. I get about 72% attenuation out of it.To me it is kind of "nutty" so it works very well my pecan porter.
 
This is as close to my "house" strain as you can get - I use it almost exclusively in American and English-style beers.

For me, it provides a fantastic balance of hops and malt, while attenuating right around 74-75%. It gives subtle esters. I think this yeast works amazing in hoppy beers, so I would definitely save some and have a go at it for your next project! I find this yeast to respond exceptionally to mash profiles, i.e., more fermentable in the lower range, less fermentable at the higher range, so I would not hesitate to mash an Oatmeal Stout around 156.

I don't really get any "minerally" from it - I can't see how one could conclusively say that would be from the yeast unless it was side-by-side with the same wort that was merely fermented with a different yeast, but I don't know how that description was arrived at, so I can't really comment.

The only thing I'm not a fan of with 1275 is the flocculation - it does have a tendancy to stay in suspension, but then again, so does 001/1056/S-05 in my hands. After a week cold crashing, it's out, though.

Stores well but gets a tad more neutral once you hit the 4th to 5th generation.
 
I have a starter of this yeast on the stir plate right now... this will be my first time using Wyeast 1275.

I'm planning to brew a strong bitter with it this weekend.
 
I've only made a couple of beers with 1275 and they were all from the same smack pack, so if something was wrong with that pack it could be the problem, but I found it produced a very muddy beer. I know you've said you don't like the "dirt" flavor you get from fuggles, so I imagine you wouldn't be crazy about the mud flavor I got from 1275. Maybe that was just a fluke though. I'll have to try it again sometime and give it a second chance.
 
I've only made a couple of beers with 1275 and they were all from the same smack pack, so if something was wrong with that pack it could be the problem, but I found it produced a very muddy beer.

I've only used 1882 once, but that one beer (and only that one beer I've made), had a very "muddy" flavor, too. That was the exact word I used at the time, come to think of it. I know 1882 is a different strain, but they supposedly come from the same brewery, for whatever that's worth. I had chalked it up to something in my process, but now I'm wondering if it's a yeast driven flavor. In any case, I can see the flavor meshing just fine with a porter or stout, but not with the the bitter I tried it in.
 
Hmmm...kinda bummed. Just kegged a wheat porter using this and was planning on using the yeast slurry for a barleywine. Guess I'll find out in about a week or so...
 
I like the slightly "nutty" note 1275 gives. I think it's an excellent choice for stouts, porters and even brown ales and pale ales!
 
I dunno- I think pseudo chef has talked me into it! BUT I decided I have to make an IPA first, as a keg is ready to kick today and I'll be out of hoppiness. The stout will have to wait until Monday or so.
 
Hold on, confused...

Just a bad joke. My beer wasn't as muddy and dank as a swamp, there was just a kind of earthy, indistinct quality to it, whereas the usual recipe is generally clean and (nearly) bright in flavor. It was almost as if I had poured my usual beer over a dried porcini in the glass.
 
Bumping an old thread...
I'm using 1275 for the first time this weekend in a porter. Anybody using this strain recently, I'd really like to hear your experiences. Do you find it works well for dark beers and does it have a minerally profile as they say? Also, WY website specs 72-76% attenuation, and from earlier posts people are getting both extremes possibly from high/low mash temps. Whay say ye? Thanks all.
 
Attenuation is influenced far, far more by grainbill and mash schedule than yeast. I haven't used 1275 recently, but I need to revisit it. It's not a bad yeast.

And yes...very old thread...
 
As im sure i stated elsewhere in this very old thread, i like this yeast and use it in my pecan porter. Pitched some this morning in a batch i brewed yesterday. First time ive used it in awhile though. I'll report back in a couple months when i get around to kegging. ;)
 
I haven't used 1275, but I have used WLP023 Burton Ale, which according to the Mr. Malty comparison list is an equivalent strain. Based on my notes, 78% apparent attenuation, mashed at 150, grain bill of 94% Maris Otter and 6% medium English crystal. I suppose you could refer to the profile as minerally, but I also used pretty hard water (low chloride, high sulfate, high calcium). Fermented quick at 66F, and the esters were great. It was a decent yeast, but I prefer others and haven't used it since. I was trying it out in the course of dialing in a clone.
 
Thanks for the feedback guys.


Are you using your tap water as a base Qhrumphf, or RO/distilled with minerals?

I use my tap water plus various brewing salts. My water isn't RO, but is fairly neutral from the start outside of higher than ideal alkalinity (~40ppm calcium, ~10ppm magnesium, ~15-20ppm sodium, ~30-50ppm sulfate and chloride, and ~70-90ppm alkalinity as CaCO3, depending on seasonal variation- which I do account for). For Bitters (as in this case), I tend to end up bumping the sulfate to ~175 and the chloride to ~75, using gypsum and calcium chloride, bringing the calcium up to ~100 too. And then use whatever amount of lactic acid I need to overcome the residual alkalinity and hit my target pH.
 
Attenuation is influenced far, far more by grainbill and mash schedule than yeast. I haven't used 1275 recently, but I need to revisit it. It's not a bad yeast.

And yes...very old thread...

I mashed at 156F and ended up with 70% attenuation from 1275. The gravity sample from my brown porter tastes quite nice.
 
Any reports good/bad on using 1275 in pale ales? I'm trying my homegrown centennial hops for the first time, thinking 2 Row with 15% wheat and 4% C40. Reason I ask is Wyeast recommends use in dark ales. Thanks again in advance.
 
Earlier I reported 70% attenuation with a 156F mash. Just sampled another batch today and got 81% attenuation with a 150F mash. What a swing!
 
I've used Wyeast 1275 Thames Valley Ale 4-times, all 4 times the mash temp was 154. Fermentation temp ranged from 66-68 degrees. Attenuation was 73%, 75%, 75%, and 70%. The last recipe had a higher than usual proportion of specialty grains, which I believe resulted in the higher final gravity and thus lower attenuation. I would not say this strain has a mineral flavor profile. It seems more floral or woody to me. YMMV.
 
Back
Top