Substituting 1028 for 1728- What can I expect?

[StittsvilleJames]

I am going to brew the following strong beer on Sunday, but I can't get any wyeast 1728 scottish ale yeast for it. I decided to just use some wyeast 1028 london ale I saved from a previous brew.

What sort of character can I expect from the 1028, and what would I be missing from not using a 1728? I have never made this recipe before (it's actually my first self-designed recipe) and any insight would be helpful.

Also, any advice on what I should ferment this at? Should I try to keep it on the low end of the range of 1028, or in the upper end?

And can I still call it a Strong Scotch Ale if I don't use the 1728, or would that be a damn dirty lie?

Thanks so much for any help. It is appreciated!

Style: Strong Scotch Ale
Batch Size: 18.93 L
Boil Volume: 24.28 L
Boil Time: 60 min

Estimated Original Gravity: 1.083 SG (1.070-1.130 SG)
Estimated Final Gravity: 1.023 SG (1.018-1.035 SG)
Estimated Color: 17.6 SRM (14.0-25.0 SRM)
Bitterness: 27.1 IBU (17.0-35.0 IBU)
Alpha Acid Units: 1.8 AAU
Estimated Alcohol by Volume: 7.9 % (6.5-10.0 %)

8.8lbs / 4.00 kg Pale Malt (2 Row)
4.4lbs / 2.00 kg Pilsner (2 Row)
1 lbs / 0.45 kg Crystal 77
1 lbs / 0.45 kg Smoked Malt
2 oz / 0.05 kg Chocolate Malt
2 oz / 0.05 kg Roasted Barley

2.00 oz Fuggles [4.50%] (60 min)

**what I was going to use - Wyeast Labs #1728 Scottish ale - Starter 2 L -
**what I am going to use now Wyeast Labs #1028 London ale -Starter 2 L

 

[Ølbart]

1028 has a minerally, dry character, and leaves a somewhat loose segment in the bottles. 1728 is has sweeter esters and probably slightly lower attenuation. Contrary to popular belief, Scottish ale does not use any smoked malt and has no smoked character whatsoever.

 

[ghpeel]

What kind of smoked malt is that? The Weyerman smoked malt is very subtle, and so a pound will just barely make itself known in a batch. The peat smoke malt, by contrast is EXTREME. There's a cherry wood smoked malt thats kind of in the middle between those two as well.

And as long as it's a clean, malty brew, you can still call it a scotch ale. Ive used Munich malt in a scotch ale before, and it was delicious.

 

[StittsvilleJames]

1028 has a minerally, dry character, and leaves a somewhat loose segment in the bottles. 1728 is has sweeter esters and probably slightly lower attenuation. Contrary to popular belief, Scottish ale does not use any smoked malt and has no smoked character whatsoever.

I guess I should probably try to ferment it at the upper end of the 1028 range than, to try to produce some esters? I noticed in the BJCP guidelines that the strong scottish ale was allowed to have an optional smokey character, and I figured, what the hell. It may not be historically accurate, but as long as it's tasty, I'm happy.

What kind of smoked malt is that? The Weyerman smoked malt is very subtle, and so a pound will just barely make itself known in a batch.

It is the weyerman smoked malt, so if it's really subtle thats great, because I don't like the overpowering smokey taste, just enough to give it that tiny zing, ya know? I just hope it is at least a little bit noticeable, or else it would just be a waste.

Thank you both for the info!

 

[GuldTuborg]

I guess I should probably try to ferment it at the upper end of the 1028 range than, to try to produce some esters?

On the contrary, if you're using 1028 and going for a Scottish ale character, I'd definitely ferment this on the low end of the recommended range, or even a bit lower. That will suppress the esters and may lead to slight underattenuation (for this strain, which may help in achieving something like the Scottish yeast character). Overpitching a bit may help as well.

I'd also ditch the smoked malt, if you want this to be like a Scottish/Scotch ale. Smoke is just way out of place in something like a wee heavy. I can only imagine it would take away from the malt character, if it were present in anything more than a minor background note.