Homebrewer's Guide to Vintage Beer
- Thread starter patto1ro
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
It will be my pleasure to sign it for you.
myerstyson
Well-Known Member
I ordered mine a couple weeks ago from Amazon. Just got it this week (I'm stationed overseas) and it was so beat up I had to get a refund. The spine was broken so badly that you couldn't turn the pages without ripping them.
So I just went and bought the Kindle version instead. So fun to read through it, especially since I intend on making a Kottbusser in a couple weeks!
So I just went and bought the Kindle version instead. So fun to read through it, especially since I intend on making a Kottbusser in a couple weeks!
Me too. Waiting to get paid to get the ingredients for my version of Kottbusser after some research into it.
McKnuckle
Well-Known Member
Just got the book and read through it pretty quickly. Pretty neat stuff, and I want to brew some of course...
Wondering if anyone has actually brewed any of the recipes using modern malts such as the brown that's available from Crisp? I've been searching the web but have not found any tasting notes or real world experiences trying to piece these together. Odd for a book from a well-known blogger/author that's been out for a year already.
Anyone?
Wondering if anyone has actually brewed any of the recipes using modern malts such as the brown that's available from Crisp? I've been searching the web but have not found any tasting notes or real world experiences trying to piece these together. Odd for a book from a well-known blogger/author that's been out for a year already.
Anyone?
myerstyson
Well-Known Member
McKnuckle
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the info. Folks are welcome to reply here or post a new thread in the Media section linked above. I'd just like to know if any actual beer has been brewed using the "Guide to Vintage Beer" recipes yet.
My grains, hops, yeast & pilsner LME just came in from Midwest today to brew the Kottbusser. Maybe this weekend. Yeast was about half frozen so I'll have to make a small starter to proof it. I did some research with others in the thread about the beer & averaged a PM recipe for it in BS2. May just buy the book after looking at it a 2nd time! lots of interesting stuff in there!
I've done a bunch of Ron's recipes from his books and blog. I started a thread a while back here https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f12/subp-lets-brew-wednesday-thread-384441/ but I've brewed a lot since then.
I have brewed the guinness recipe in the book 3 times before the book was out (it was a blog post and a brewing tv episode a few years back) using TF amber and using sp. aromatic as per a blog comment from Kristen England that special aromatic was closer to the 19th century diastatic amber malt. In terms of brown malts, considering that every modern maltster's brown tastes very different, you definitely wont be "cloning" any of the beers in the book but you might get a reasonable style approximation or at least a unique beer. ...and Thomas Fawcetts brown malt is fantastic and any recipe that provides an excuse to throw large quantities in a beer is fine by me
I have brewed the guinness recipe in the book 3 times before the book was out (it was a blog post and a brewing tv episode a few years back) using TF amber and using sp. aromatic as per a blog comment from Kristen England that special aromatic was closer to the 19th century diastatic amber malt. In terms of brown malts, considering that every modern maltster's brown tastes very different, you definitely wont be "cloning" any of the beers in the book but you might get a reasonable style approximation or at least a unique beer. ...and Thomas Fawcetts brown malt is fantastic and any recipe that provides an excuse to throw large quantities in a beer is fine by me
McKnuckle
Well-Known Member
Ah, yes I remember that BTV episode but didn't make the connection to the blog. Must find it and check it out.
So basically you're saying to use aromatic malt in place of amber, and today's labeled "brown" malt for the brown in the recipes. My LHBS stocks Crisp brown malt and Munton's amber malt FWIW. Thanks for the info on Fawcetts as well.
Really what I was looking for is a practical set of modern alternatives for the amber, brown, and black that are in most of the recipes. Maybe folks can chime in as they brew from the book. I'd love to hear impressions.
So basically you're saying to use aromatic malt in place of amber, and today's labeled "brown" malt for the brown in the recipes. My LHBS stocks Crisp brown malt and Munton's amber malt FWIW. Thanks for the info on Fawcetts as well.
Really what I was looking for is a practical set of modern alternatives for the amber, brown, and black that are in most of the recipes. Maybe folks can chime in as they brew from the book. I'd love to hear impressions.
Its the MFB special aromatic, its discussed here http://barclayperkins.blogspot.ca/2012/10/lets-brew-wednesday-1834-vassar-double.html And that is for older recipes in which the amber malt would have been diastatic. definitely 20th century recipes you could probably go with modern amber and I actually liked the 1883 guinness better with the modern Fawcett's amber malt.
There isn't a commercially produced diastatic brown malt but some people have made it to some success (bierhaus, are you here? http://perfectpint.blogspot.ca/2012/05/making-diastatic-brown-malt-again.html and google "brewing beer the hard way") probably once pale malt started being used the brown malt would have been more like what we can buy today. I haven't tried the Crisp malts as nobody carries them here. I've tried the Baird's brown and its alright but not as yummy as the TF and I'm told Simpson's brown is even better.
Black malt is another weird one as it could have been black malt, chocolate malt or roast barley. I think a lot of times they just wrote "roast" in the logs and what that was depended on their suppliers and the time. I've used chocolate in the 1883 guinness but I liked it better with black malt. Its all black and unless you are submitting the beer to a BJCP comp, nobody will care (don't submit these beers to a BJCP comp btw)
And Ron is on the thread. Is that right? Did I miss anything?
yohoe
Well-Known Member
That's funny I discovered thread. I met you/bought your book at ChuckAlek Brewery in Ramona, CA and got it signed.
Cheers!
Cheers!
Interesting reading about old vs new malts. Especially the really old ones where the malted grains were dried with wood, straw or both to dry/roast them. I found they said the straw malted tasted better back then. I'm using German grains (Weyermann) for the kottbusser when I can get out in the arctic tundra to get the spring water. Maybe not exact, but at least kindred. I've been finding that German malts have some unique flavor/aroma qualities. Like toasted bread & lightly toasted nuts to name a couple.
I brewed the 1867 Barclay Perkins EI a while back which used 2.0 lbs brown malt, and it turned out very well. I've also used 1.5lbs brown malt for Fullers London Porter. I buy mine at Northern Brewer.
The 1867 EI (Export India) is a porter and quite strong and hoppy for the style. The brown malt imparts a very distinct highly toasted bread crust type taste, almost bitter. Im definitely going to rebrew it at some point.
McKnuckle
Well-Known Member
I've got a question about the recipe format in the book (in general).
I know how to modify a recipe for my system, so I'm fine. But something doesn't make sense to me regarding the water volume assumptions. The recipes seem to be for 6 US gallons in the kettle after the boil. If you reference the original mash schedules that are provided, Pattinson lists water volumes for each mash and sparge step. If you total these up, it comes to 6.5 gallons. That is the case for every recipe.
So if we mash/sparge with 6.5 total gallons of water, and we figure an amount lost to grain absorption - which, it turns out, is approximately 0.5 gallons in every case (averaged for simplicity), we put 6 gallons of wort into the kettle.
Now we have to boil it. We're going to lose anywhere from 0.75 to 2 gallons in a boil lasting 60-90 minutes. Many of the boils are 90 minutes. That leaves, say, 4 to 5 gallons in the kettle at the end.
Is this right? What efficiency is assumed by the author? If I use 70% in my recipe tool, then I need an ending kettle volume of 6 gallons to make it match the OG and IBU in the book (which seems reasonable). I have to drop below 60% to produce only 5 gallons in the kettle with the target OG, and then the IBU are too high. I'd really like to know from the source what the assumptions are... I can't find this important info in the book.
I know how to modify a recipe for my system, so I'm fine. But something doesn't make sense to me regarding the water volume assumptions. The recipes seem to be for 6 US gallons in the kettle after the boil. If you reference the original mash schedules that are provided, Pattinson lists water volumes for each mash and sparge step. If you total these up, it comes to 6.5 gallons. That is the case for every recipe.
So if we mash/sparge with 6.5 total gallons of water, and we figure an amount lost to grain absorption - which, it turns out, is approximately 0.5 gallons in every case (averaged for simplicity), we put 6 gallons of wort into the kettle.
Now we have to boil it. We're going to lose anywhere from 0.75 to 2 gallons in a boil lasting 60-90 minutes. Many of the boils are 90 minutes. That leaves, say, 4 to 5 gallons in the kettle at the end.
Is this right? What efficiency is assumed by the author? If I use 70% in my recipe tool, then I need an ending kettle volume of 6 gallons to make it match the OG and IBU in the book (which seems reasonable). I have to drop below 60% to produce only 5 gallons in the kettle with the target OG, and then the IBU are too high. I'd really like to know from the source what the assumptions are... I can't find this important info in the book.
McKnuckle
Well-Known Member
Bump 5 days later... nobody has info about the assumed base parameters of the book's recipes? (Efficiency, batch size and target, assumed boil-off rate, etc.)
For the BP EI I didn't follow the given mash schedule, just did single infusion per Brewers friend quick calc. That got me spectacularly off recipe but was a fantastic beer.
But yeah it does look like all the recipes target 6.5g total water which seems a bit low. I'd probably add the missing gallon or more at the start of the mash since using only 2 gallons of water for 10.5# of grain (1953 Truman PIB) wouldn't even wet the grain let alone allow it to mash...
But yeah it does look like all the recipes target 6.5g total water which seems a bit low. I'd probably add the missing gallon or more at the start of the mash since using only 2 gallons of water for 10.5# of grain (1953 Truman PIB) wouldn't even wet the grain let alone allow it to mash...
Sent Ron a question about it on his website form, let's see what he says...
Ron says:
"I've used the proportions of water for each mash, aiming to come out with a volume of 6.5 gallons. I probably should have taken absorbtion/boil off more into account. I'll adjust the volumes when the book is reprinted. I'd suggest upping the volumes so that you get 7.5 gallons pre-boil."
"I've used the proportions of water for each mash, aiming to come out with a volume of 6.5 gallons. I probably should have taken absorbtion/boil off more into account. I'll adjust the volumes when the book is reprinted. I'd suggest upping the volumes so that you get 7.5 gallons pre-boil."
By "proportions" I assume he means calculating the proportions of water amounts in the industrial brewing records and then scaling them down to 6.5 gallons.
McKnuckle
Well-Known Member
I really appreciate the legwork taken to get that answer. Thanks! I assumed that the 6.5 gallons was too low, and also that it had been scaled from original records to obtain a total water volume for each recipe. Ron probably should have scaled to a higher amount allowing for absorption/evap as he says. But as long as it's explained, I'm good.
Well, I'm going to brew the 1804 Barclay Perkins TT (first recipe in the book). I've got it set up in Brewer's Friend for 3 gallons, so we'll see what happens...
Well, I'm going to brew the 1804 Barclay Perkins TT (first recipe in the book). I've got it set up in Brewer's Friend for 3 gallons, so we'll see what happens...
It occured to me just now that it's probably Ron that started this thread (patto1ro) but maybe he doesn't actually hang about the forums at all...
McKnuckle
Well-Known Member
Yes I see that too. I think once I finally brew one of the recipes, the sense of mystery will evaporate. Also, I'll relax and remember that it's always going to be an approximation of a historical recipe, no matter how much we try to follow things to the letter.
I really appreciate the legwork taken to get that answer. Thanks! I assumed that the 6.5 gallons was too low, and also that it had been scaled from original records to obtain a total water volume for each recipe. Ron probably should have scaled to a higher amount allowing for absorption/evap as he says. But as long as it's explained, I'm good.
Well, I'm going to brew the 1804 Barclay Perkins TT (first recipe in the book). I've got it set up in Brewer's Friend for 3 gallons, so we'll see what happens...
I never use the quantities in any homebrew recipe as my batch size and efficiency never matches what they give. I just use the grist percentages. My one complaint would be that the hops aren't given as weight per volume (as was done in Mitch Steel's IPA) but it doesn't really matter with historic recipes as they are just an educated guess.
McKnuckle
Well-Known Member
I brewed a small batch of the 1804 Barclay Perkins TT today, and kept the grist accurate to the percentages in the book. I used Fawcett Pearl for the pale malt, and Crisp products for brown and amber. I must say, the brown malt is a unique grain and my eyebrows were raised as soon as I smelled/tasted it. It's very dry and astringent, with almost no perceptible sweetness. My expectations were immediately reset a bit... that stuff is 46% of the bill!
I managed to hit the OG of 1.055 and I used whole leaf EK Goldings hops in three additions, 90, 45, and 15. This differs a bit from the recipe, but it's acknowledged that the hop schedules are mostly educated guesses anyway.
Tasting the hydrometer sample, the wort is quite bitter, but oddly pleasant in spite of itself. It's like drinking toasted pumpernickel bread with the crust slightly burnt. I'll follow up with a tap report in a few weeks, sooner if anything interesting happens.
(The hydrometer is lit by ambient light, so the beer appears orange. It's really the dark brown color visible in the carboy.)
I managed to hit the OG of 1.055 and I used whole leaf EK Goldings hops in three additions, 90, 45, and 15. This differs a bit from the recipe, but it's acknowledged that the hop schedules are mostly educated guesses anyway.
Tasting the hydrometer sample, the wort is quite bitter, but oddly pleasant in spite of itself. It's like drinking toasted pumpernickel bread with the crust slightly burnt. I'll follow up with a tap report in a few weeks, sooner if anything interesting happens.
(The hydrometer is lit by ambient light, so the beer appears orange. It's really the dark brown color visible in the carboy.)
I actually just brewed this last Sunday, though adjusted for a 60 min boil and subbing Victory for Amber. I'm interested to hear how yours turns out, as mine was my first AG/BIAB attempt, and I ended up mashing a bit higher than I would've liked. Certainly smells/tastes different to what I was expecting.
McKnuckle
Well-Known Member
That's great and I'm most interested to compare notes. What did you use for pale and brown malts? I mashed in at 151 and left my cooler/tun alone for about 75 minutes, and when I returned the mash was at 146. Odd because normally, it loses no more than a degree in an hour. I'm hoping it stayed reasonably close to target for most of the mash. I got lower efficiency than usual, but boiled hard and hit my OG anyway.
The main thing is the taste of this sucker... Dark toasty bread all the way, maybe a hint of Goldings too. Perhaps this is what you actually got at the pub at the turn of the 19th century!
The main thing is the taste of this sucker... Dark toasty bread all the way, maybe a hint of Goldings too. Perhaps this is what you actually got at the pub at the turn of the 19th century!
McKnuckle
Well-Known Member
The 1804 TT is five days into primary and slowing way down; it's already quite clear although I'm holding off on a gravity reading for a couple more days. It tastes and smells as close to coffee as I can imagine anything other than real coffee actually tasting and smelling! It's got an interesting tangy backbone as well. I hope these qualities continue to hold up as it finishes and matures, because it's quite good. It's way more spicy and interesting than it was right after the boil.
kelvarnsen
Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2015
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 1
My wife got me this book for Valentine's day. I am excited to try it. I am curious to see how these recipes with 100+ IBU's turn out. Anyone else try any of the recipes in it?
Also anyone have any luck, or have a good process for making (or better yet buying) and using brewers caramel? Does it add any flavour or just colour?
Also anyone have any luck, or have a good process for making (or better yet buying) and using brewers caramel? Does it add any flavour or just colour?
I don't think anyone sells it, here is how to make it http://www.unholymess.com/blog/beer-brewing-info/making-brewers-caramel
I did this once but often omit the caramel or use a debittered black malt like carafa special or midnight wheat to hit the SRMs if the beer really NEEDS to be darker (ie. nobody outside of the BJCP wants a porter to be brown)
...and while there, here is a good method for making the darker inverts http://www.unholymess.com/blog/beer-brewing-info/making-brewers-invert
...and if you get through all of the recipes in the book, here is a list of all of recipes Ron posted on his blog: http://www.unholymess.com/blog/lets-brew
They are worth reading for the discussion and brewing notes from Kristen England.
McKnuckle
Well-Known Member
That's a great compilation website - thank you!
My 1804 B.P. TT is bottle conditioning now. Couple more weeks til I crack one open...
My 1804 B.P. TT is bottle conditioning now. Couple more weeks til I crack one open...
McKnuckle
Well-Known Member
Finally time for a tap...er, bottle report. Fourteen days conditioning and carbonation is perfect with a long lasting head. This is good beer! Very roasty with a seriously authentic and unique coffee aroma/flavor. There is NO coffee in this beer, I swear! Just 46% brown malt, which is certainly an uncommon ingredient, especially in such high proportion.
Beer finished at a fairly high FG of 1.021, leaving it nice and malty with a low-ish ABV under 5%. Even so, the bitterness is balanced with the rich flavors. I will be enjoying this one. Good luck with your vintage recipes, all... I'll be looking into brewing another one soon.
Beer finished at a fairly high FG of 1.021, leaving it nice and malty with a low-ish ABV under 5%. Even so, the bitterness is balanced with the rich flavors. I will be enjoying this one. Good luck with your vintage recipes, all... I'll be looking into brewing another one soon.
kelvarnsen
Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2015
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 1
So I ended up making the Reid 1839 IPA. It was crazy. I made like a 2.5 gallon batch and used 4 ounces of hops. When I made the 30 minute addition, and the hop pellets broke up I thought for awhile that I might end up with green beer, since there was so much hop material in the kettle. When I transfer the fermentor I just dump though a funnel with a wire mesh screen on it. I think I must have had to clear out the screen 2 or 3 times if not more. When I bottle I usually get at least 23 bottles, but I think this time I only got 20, and I have to think at least part of that is because of all the wort the hops absorbed.
All in all though it is a good beer. Surprising at how drinkable it is at 177 IBU with no late addition hops. Plus you still get some actual hop flavour (not just bitterness which surprised me).
All in all though it is a good beer. Surprising at how drinkable it is at 177 IBU with no late addition hops. Plus you still get some actual hop flavour (not just bitterness which surprised me).
Great review, thanks.
deere322
Former Sloper
I brewed up the 1916 Whitbread KKK last Saturday and nailed the target OG of 1.070. Tossed in a slurry of 1318 and it fermented vigorously till last night. Can't wait to try it.
I really like this book and plan on brewing quite many more recipes from it.
I really like this book and plan on brewing quite many more recipes from it.
deere322
Former Sloper
View attachment ImageUploadedByHome Brew1468451541.024912.jpg
Brewed this up with 4 base malts.
3lbs 4 oz. Crisp Best Pale
3lbs Fawcett Optic
3lbs Fawcett Pearl
3lbs 12 oz. Muntons Mild
57 g Goldings 90
57 g Goldings 60
57 g Goldings 30
760 g Lyles
32 g Golden Barrel molasses
London Ale III
Finished at 1.011
7.6% abv
Very complex flavors with the 4 base malts.
This is a brew again beer, I'm really liking this one!
TasunkaWitko
Well-Known Member
Apologies for the blatant tarting about to take place. My book about home brewing historic beers is published today.
http://www.amazon.com/Home-Brewers-Guide-Vintage-Beer/dp/1592538827/
In addition to the recipes, it covers brewing techniques, ingredients and the history and development of each style.
Subscribing to this thread, so that I can get this book on payday. It's absolutely right up my alley....
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder if it's on Amazon Kindle? I'd like to add it to my collection? I've got the English gruit ale version of the old German Mumme finishing up fermentation atm. Can't wait to bottle it up for a bit of aging! It was said to be sweet, dark & strong as six horses, coach & all...a strong ale resembling a barleywine.
Baja_Brewer
Well-Known Member
If you click the link, you will see that it is, indeed on Kindle...
Similar threads
