The Difference Between Porter and Stout?

What exactly is the difference between porter and stout? I just had a Dundee Porter. I've never really had porter before, but this really tasted like a stout only not as dark (it wasn't completely opaque).

Found this blog. Says "technically"... there is no difference:

http://zythophile.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/so-what-is-the-difference-between-porter-and-stout/

I think a stout is a beefed up porter. More body, alcohol etc. An Imperial Stout is their bigger meaner, stronger older brother. Darker, maltier, more alcohol and flavors. Too me anyway.

A stout is more stouterer. Traditionally, but not much difference nowadays as some porters are heavier than some stouts. They are related, brother, big brother, etc.

A porters characteristic comes more from dark malts vs a stouts comes from rosted barley.

Or at least that's what "The complete joy of homebrewing" says.

Stout = adjective, Porter = noun

ie, Single Stout Porter; Double Stout Porter; Triple Stout Porter; Imperial Stout Porter

Decent history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_(beer)

The BJCP guidelines are a great resource for what defines a certain style of beer... here's what they have to say about each:

Stout: http://www.bjcp.org/2008styles/style13.php

Porter: http://www.bjcp.org/2008styles/style12.php

Beermaker said:

I think a stout is a beefed up porter. More body, alcohol etc. An Imperial Stout is their bigger meaner, stronger older brother. Darker, maltier, more alcohol and flavors. Too me anyway.

Click to expand...

This is inaccurate. Some stouts are very low in alcohol and some porters are much higher in alcohol. Compare a Dry Stout (1.036-1.050) to a Robust Porter (1.048-1.065) for example. Commercial examples can be found to further back this up.

The dividing line seems to be that porters typically have less roast in them and derive more of their toasty, roasty notes from chocolate malt while stouts use a lot more roasted barley.

MacBruver said:

The BJCP guidelines are a great resource for what defines a certain style of beer... here's what they have to say about each:

Stout: http://www.bjcp.org/2008styles/style13.php

Porter: http://www.bjcp.org/2008styles/style12.php

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting the links.

The stout name started out as a descriptor to mean a "Stout Porter". It was essentially a beefier Porter when it started out. Nowadays they can mean different things.

I generally tend to think of stouts as being darker, but not necessarily heavier. To me a porter is very dark brown, and a stout is nearly to completely black.

I've never tasted them side-by-side to compare the flavors. And, I really don't drink them that often either, so my taste expectations are pretty new each time I have one.

Already been said before, but, as far as I know, it's the roast character that defines a stout.

There is a lot of overlap in my opinion. I think of Porter as generally sweeter and containing dark crystal and black malt to get that rich dark character. Stout uses less crystal but uses roasted barley (not malted) to get roasted, grainy flavor. Of course, a Russian Imperial Stout is more like a strong Stout/Porter hybrid.

Historically stout was a sub-style of Porter, but in 2009 they have become two separate families. The BJCP has done a pretty good job up breaking them up into a lot of separate styles, which is really the best way to look at it because there is quite a bit of difference when you get down to the nitty gritty of very specific individual styles. If you try to just say "what is the difference between 'stout' and 'porter' as major categories" there is a ton of overlap and about the only thing I could say is definite in my opinion would be roast barely.

I find that porters tend to have a thinner mouthfeel than stouts. It's slight but I've noticed in most porters.

Two words...roasted barley.

Soulrebel said:

Two words...roasted barley.

Click to expand...

Correct. At a very, very basic level. Stout=roasted barley. Porter=no roasted barley. After that it gets real confusing....

hamiltont said:

Correct. At a very, very basic level. Stout=roasted barley. Porter=no roasted barley. After that it gets real confusing....

Click to expand...

Some Porters call for roasted barley, at least EdWorts does... Granted, not much - but it's still in there.

All-Grain - Bee Cave Brewery Robust Porter

This will make 5.5 gallons of Porter. Preboil is 7 gallons.

11# 2 Row
1# Chocolate Malt
1# Crystal 40
4 oz. Black Patent
1 oz. Roasted Barley
8 oz. Flaked Barley

The guys at Geek Beer wrote several blog postings on the subject, complete with graphs charting the crossover of porters, stouts, Russian Imperial stouts, etc.

Check it out, if you've got a little while to read.

http://geekbeer.com/articles/the-difference-between-porter-and-stout/

Bjcp is a great place to start. At some point it becomes subjective. So, for my beers it's simple. If I hold the beer up to a light and it shows a red hue, it's a porter. If it's just black, it's a stout. Both look black away from the light however.

My opinion
Porter = CO2
Stout = Beergas

Well this is timely (though it doesn't touch on porters).

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f14/new-york-times-article-144190/

Guinness used to be called 'Guinness extra stout porter'. As some one mentioned, stout is an adjective and it was used to describe a porter, but as beer brands, names, and styles evolved, the term stout became a noun of its own and in some cases the defining characterics were blurred. Its kind of like when speaking of hoppy pale ales, you wonder, is this an IPA?

Generally speaking though when comparing all porters vs all stouts, porters are less dark and have more malty smooth character, while stouts are a little darker and more bitter.

The key element is roasted barley. Yes some porters call for roasted barley, but will usually be like 1% - 3% and stouts usually have more like 5% - 10% or more roasted barley.

Saying that stouts use roasted barley and porters don't is an entirely artificial distinction, and certainly has no historical basis. Until 1880 in Britain using roasted barley was illegal, so neither stouts not porters used it. Guinness never used roasted barley at all, it appears, until around 1930 and when Guinness did start using roasted barley it went into both the stout and the porter. Stout used to be simply the name for strong porter (or strong beer of any sort): today,with many beers described as "stouts" being weaker than some beers described as porters, that distinction has been lost, and there is no meaningful line - certainly not a historically meaningful one - that can be drawn between modern stouts and modern porters.

Zythophile said:

Saying that stouts use roasted barley and porters don't is an entirely artificial distinction, and certainly has no historical basis. Until 1880 in Britain using roasted barley was illegal, so neither stouts not porters used it. Guinness never used roasted barley at all, it appears, until around 1930 and when Guinness did start using roasted barley it went into both the stout and the porter. Stout used to be simply the name for strong porter (or strong beer of any sort): today,with many beers described as "stouts" being weaker than some beers described as porters, that distinction has been lost, and there is no meaningful line - certainly not a historically meaningful one - that can be drawn between modern stouts and modern porters.

Click to expand...

Martyn Cornell! Awesome, another beer historian. :rockin:

Your book is fantastic!

flyangler18 said:

Martyn Cornell! Awesome, another beer historian. :rockin:

Your book is fantastic!

Click to expand...

Looks like another good book is in the works (Amber, Gold and Black). Looking forward to it (and welcome!).

Welcome Martyn, great to have you here!

hamiltont said:

Correct. At a very, very basic level. Stout=roasted barley. Porter=no roasted barley. After that it gets real confusing....

Click to expand...

I guess I was basing my comment on Papazian's statement:

"Porter- A traditional description of this style would be hard to come by and likely to be controversial. It is a dark ale; unlike stout its character does not come from roasted barley but more from dark malts. Generally, it is medium- to full-bodied with varying degrees of sweetness and hop character.

Historically, it was a style of ale that was the granddaddy of today's stout. Porter was the common drink and often homebrewed. Its character was expressed with a wild assortment of adjuncts, hers, and miscellaneous ingredients. Arthur Guinness and Sons in Ireland originally brewed it commercially. When the alcoholic strength of porter was boosted, it was described as stout porter. The name stout was soon soon adopted for this style."

Zythophile said:

Saying that stouts use roasted barley and porters don't is an entirely artificial distinction, and certainly has no historical basis. Until 1880 in Britain using roasted barley was illegal, so neither stouts not porters used it. Guinness never used roasted barley at all, it appears, until around 1930 and when Guinness did start using roasted barley it went into both the stout and the porter. Stout used to be simply the name for strong porter (or strong beer of any sort): today,with many beers described as "stouts" being weaker than some beers described as porters, that distinction has been lost, and there is no meaningful line - certainly not a historically meaningful one - that can be drawn between modern stouts and modern porters.

Click to expand...

I thought Arthur Guinness bought unmalted barley instead of malt, and roasted it himself so he didn't have to pay the tax on malt.

According to the story I was told he accidently roasted the barley too long, but decided to brew with it anyways, and the first dry stout was born.

Of course there seems to be alot of storys surrounding Guinness, and it's hard to tell whats true.

GuitarBob said:

I thought Arthur Guinness bought unmalted barley instead of malt, and roasted it himself so he didn't have to pay the tax on malt.

According to the story I was told he accidently roasted the barley too long, but decided to brew with it anyways, and the first dry stout was born.

Of course there seems to be alot of storys surrounding Guinness, and it's hard to tell whats true.

Click to expand...

I think that's the story they told us when I visited the Guinness Experience in Dublin last month. Then again I was already drinking and I had a lot of questions no one could answer so even if I remember correctly doesn't mean the tour guide was spouting the historical truth.

Simply put.

Stout is a type of Porter.

flyangler18 said:

Martyn Cornell! Awesome, another beer historian. :rockin:

Your book is fantastic!

Click to expand...

I've not read the book, but I am thrilled to have another beer history expert on the forum. I just LOVE the beer history threads when they turn up!

Regarding beer history
BMC have **** us over again.

They have closed the beer Museum at Burton on Trent!

http://www.bass-museum.com/

There is no longer a place where the public can see the history of beer in the worlds brewing capital.

I'm glad I got chance to visit before the wankers closed it!

OT to the OP but here is an interesting read.

http://www.jbsumner.com/offprints/2005-endeavour-powering-porter.pdf

Handle said:

http://geekbeer.com/articles/the-difference-between-porter-and-stout/

Click to expand...

Thanks for the shout out.

Zythophile said:

Stout used to be simply the name for strong porter (or strong beer of any sort): today,with many beers described as "stouts" being weaker than some beers described as porters, that distinction has been lost, and there is no meaningful line - certainly not a historically meaningful one - that can be drawn between modern stouts and modern porters.

Click to expand...

While this might be true for specific examples, I would contend that there is definitely a modern distinction between stout and porter that is useful to the modern beer buyer. Historical examples seem worthless in this context.

In reality, most items on the shelf labeled "stout" are going to be heavier than most items labeled "porter" (both in mouthfeel and ABV), and most stouts are going to have a roasted character that most porters will lack.

Additionally, while you might be able to take a Porter from Brewery A and a Stout from Brewery B and reasonably contend that they are both actually porters, both stouts, that the stout is weaker than the porter, or that they violate the guidelines in other ways, it's a reasonable assumption to make that from a given brewery, their stouts will be weaker than their porters.

(One interesting exception here is Avery, whose standard Stout is weaker than their Porter, probably because they have giant stouts in their Demon line and don't feel the need to make a big stout available all the time.)

Anyway, saying there is no difference to someone that is asking because they want to know how to buy beer is just disingenuous. There are lots of differences that are useful in the modern age.

I disagree. In the UK it really is a mixed bag.
You can taste stouts that taste the same has porters.

What you are saying about the Stout being strong than the porter is the historical context.

Yes, it's a mixed bag everywhere. I maintain that generally, there are rules that brewers follow that make it possible to estimate the qualities of the finished beer.

Yes, you can find examples that don't fit the rule. That doesn't mean there isn't a rule.

It's like trying to define what beer is a bitter and what is not.
Beers can't always neatly be put in a box.

Orfy said:

Beers can't always neatly be put in a box.

Click to expand...

Some beers can: Beer-in-a-box