Robust Porter or Stout?

[moski]

I see referennces to either and this noob is wondering is there a real difference beween to two. I know that Stout was originally "Stout Porter", so in the intervening century or so how far apart are Stout and Porter really and is "Robust Porter" just another way of saying Stout?

 

[bleme]

I think this is one of those differences that you know when you taste it. Stouts tend to be a little bit darker, a little bit roastier, a little more mouthfeel.

 

[DirtyOldDuck]

Best thing to do is read the BJCP style guidelines. The comments for Category 12B, Robust Porter, state, in Part: Although a rather broad style open to brewer interpretation, it may be distinguished from Stout as lacking a strong roasted barley character. It differs from a brown porter in that a black patent or roasted grain character is usually present, and it can be stronger in alcohol.

The guidelines can be found at: http://www.bjcp.org/docs/2008_Guidelines.pdf.

 

[Mongrel]

Honestly, there is a lot of overlap. According to Micheal J. Lewis' book Stout, "As far as I can tell, the earliest use of the word 'stout' clearly referring to a beer beverage appears in a letter of 1677 in the Egerton Manuscript now in a British museum." 1677 predates the porter or entire butt. Sorry, I have misplaced my copy of Porter by Terry Foster, I'll update this with a date as soon as I find where I set it down.

BJCP style guidelines are great for picking the contest category, but historically, there's even overlap between Porters and Milds.

 

[DirtyOldDuck]

Although OP mentioned history, I understood his question as "what is the difference between a robust porter and a stout today?" While there is a lot of overlap, I think the BJCP guidelines do a little more than just give you an idea which category to enter your beer. They at least give someone a general sense of the differences (and similarities) between the two styles. Personally, I like them both.

 

[patto1ro]

BJCP style guidelines are great for picking the contest category, but historically, there's even overlap between Porters and Milds.

That's not true. Porter and Mild were always totally separate in Britain.

 

[patto1ro]

Honestly, there is a lot of overlap. According to Micheal J. Lewis' book Stout, "As far as I can tell, the earliest use of the word 'stout' clearly referring to a beer beverage appears in a letter of 1677 in the Egerton Manuscript now in a British museum." 1677 predates the porter or entire butt. Sorry, I have misplaced my copy of Porter by Terry Foster, I'll update this with a date as soon as I find where I set it down.

But that's not Stout in the modern sense. Until about 1820, "Stout" just meant "strong" and wasn't tied to any specific styles. They were still brewing Pale Stouts in the early years of the 19th century.

 

[Dr. Francois]

Here is a very good discussion:

http://www.themadfermentationist.com/2010/02/difference-between-stout-and-porter.html?m=1

I like both, but I like the name Porter better, so that's what I call my 30+ SRM beers.

 

[moski]

Although OP mentioned history, I understood his question as "what is the difference between a robust porter and a stout today?" While there is a lot of overlap, I think the BJCP guidelines do a little more than just give you an idea which category to enter your beer. They at least give someone a general sense of the differences (and similarities) between the two styles. Personally, I like them both.

Yeah, what is the difference in a Stout and Robust Porter today. There seems to be so much overlap.

 

[Mongrel]

That's not true. Porter and Mild were always totally separate in Britain.

"The term mild, then, was used to designate a whole class of beers rather than a distinct and separate style throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and even into the nineteenth century. It is therefore likely that most seventeenth- and eighteenth-century beers existed in both a stock (or stale) form and in a mild form, and that both stock and mild ales could be found in a wide range, albeit a high range, of gravities."

That's from Mild Ale: History, Brewing Techniques, Recipes by David Sutula

 

[patto1ro]

"The term mild, then, was used to designate a whole class of beers rather than a distinct and separate style throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and even into the nineteenth century. It is therefore likely that most seventeenth- and eighteenth-century beers existed in both a stock (or stale) form and in a mild form, and that both stock and mild ales could be found in a wide range, albeit a high range, of gravities."

That's from Mild Ale: History, Brewing Techniques, Recipes by David Sutula

That's using mild as an adjective to describe the level of conditioning, rather than as the name of a specific style. I was referring to Mild Ale, a specific type of beer and what people usually think of when they use the term Mild today.

Sure, there was Mild Porter and Keeping Porter. But, other than both being sold without ageing, there was no connection between Mild Porter and Mild Ale. Just as there was no connection between Mild Bitter and Mild Porter, or Keeping Porter and Stock Bitter.

 

[Mongrel]

That's using mild as an adjective to describe the level of conditioning, rather than as the name of a specific style. I was referring to Mild Ale, a specific type of beer and what people usually think of when they use the term Mild today.

No, not exactly.

That's not true. Porter and Mild were always totally separate in Britain.

My response to you was intended to provide some historic perspective to this.

 

[patto1ro]

No, not exactly.

My response to you was intended to provide some historic perspective to this.

OK, Porter and Mild Ale were always totally separate.

 

[Schol-R-LEA]

Getting back on topic: it was always my understanding that in modern stouts, the defining quality is the use of a significant quantity of unmalted roast barley. Modern stouts will always have a significant roasted flavor from the presence of roasted barley, while porter generally have less roasted flavor, primarily from chocolate malt and black patent malt, and little if any roasted barley.

This is, of course, a purely modern perspective, and has little to do with the historical meaning of the terms. It serves as a functional definition for the styles, but doesn't necessarily reflect what 'stout' and 'porter' were like in the past. With two so closely related styles, a dividing line has to be drawn somewhere, if the two terms are really to mean much of anything; current practice, as I (and BJCP) understand it, draws it on the presence or absence of roasted barley character. But the idea of 'beer styles' is itself a modern one, in many ways, and not all brewers subscribe to it even now. It's not that unusual for a beer to be labelled as being one style even when it doesn't match the formal style definitions, which after all are somewhat arbitrary creations of the beer critics and judges rather than the brewers themselves.