Historical Mild Ale

Get advice on making beer from raw ingredients (malt, hops, water and yeast)
User avatar
PeeBee
Under the Table
Posts: 1575
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Historical Mild Ale

Post by PeeBee » Tue May 04, 2021 2:10 pm

A while ago I started a thread Historic Porter's, Stouts and Milds - Brewing Methods not realising the subject of Mild would be so convoluted. So I'm paring it off here so I can leave the old thread concentrating on Porter while this one can collect thoughts on Mild without the two subjects confusing each other. I'll open with a summary of where the other thread got to with "Mild". As I warned in the other thread, watch out, this post is a whopper (a whooper being "a thing that is extremely or unusually large --or-- "a gross or blatant lie" ... and could still be!).
Historic Milds - SUMMARY
I included "Mild" in the subject-line because I thought it was a related dark beer like porter and wanted to brew some. I didn't like the description it was the oldest beer type, I wasn't taken in by "Sarah Hughes Dark Ruby Mild" authenticity, I thought "X-Ale" or "XX", etc. meaning "Mild" sounded unlikely, I didn't even drink "Mild" except when I was a spotty youth, but at that time I'd drink martinis 'cos I thought I was James Bond. So I started with what I thought I knew (WARNING: List contains some RUBBISH!):
"X-Ale" or "XX", etc., did not mean "Mild".
The likes of "Sarah Hughes Dark Ruby Mild" being a "Mild" was hogwash.
"Mild" began to appear late in Victorian times.
Connection between "Mild" the beer and "mild" meaning unaged didn't exist and was only confusing.
It was dark in colour but a light version developed, and it could be a lot stronger in alcohol.
It was a favourite after Porter and before Bitter came about.
And the fun began! I learnt so much going through this, the tragedy if "Mild" did slip into oblivion and the lack of knowledge about what "Mild" is (including my own ignorance). Where-upon I become a keen supporter of "Mild" (there's some mid-Victorian style stuff brewing downstairs)!

It's "Mild Ale", the last remnant of this style (as opposed to "Beer"). Up until the 20th Century "Ale" was different to "Beer" in that "ale" predated use of hops in the UK, and still meant less hops than in beer during Victorian times. In the 17th and 18th Century there would be Brown Ale, Amber Ale and Pale Ale, all disappeared although all resurrected to mean something else (even "pale ale" which is now really "pale beer").

The likes of "Sarah Hughes Dark Ruby Mild" is (technically) rubbish. An unaged strong ale would be horrid. Okay, it could exist but it wouldn't be worth replicating as home-brew. Why spend all that time and effort to drink horrid home-brew when it would taste 10x better if left alone for a few months (but making it technically not a Mild). Likewise, I don't think Sarah Hughes brewery seriously puts it out as a real "Mild".

"Mild" didn't suddenly appear in Victorian times. It steadily evolved throughout most of the Victorian period.

"Mild", the "style" of ale, is different from "mild" meaning unaged. But "Mild Ale" was to develop from a "mild" pale ale (note ale, not "pale ale" the beer we know these days).

Mild Ale may have begun light, but was darkened to perhaps satisfy a belief that workers drank dark beer/ale, the bosses drank lah-dee-dah pale beers/ales (?). Colour remains a mystery, how it was done, where it was done, why it was done, will probably not be concluded? But it's a minor detail as I think many of us will be happy brewing and drinking the pale stuff. The alcoholic strength is well documented as falling during the World Wars, it's low strength even became a desirable feature amongst workers in heavy manual industries. About 6% ABV seemed tops for an XX ale mid-Victorian times, about 4.5% for an X-Ale (one X) outside London (where it might be stronger) by late-Victorian times. There's XXX and XXXX ales if you want to believe in them as "Milds".

It wasn't a favourite after Porter, it gradually replaced Porter as the preferred drink during Queen Victoria's reign. Note, Porter was a Beer and ales and beers were not generally made at the same brewery. New breweries opened up and old ones converted during the latter parts of the Victorian era. "Bitter" was also developing about the time of Mild Ale but wouldn't replace Mild Ale as the more popular drink until the 1950s and 60s.
Cask-conditioned style ale out of a keg/Cornie (the "treatise"): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwzEv5 ... rDKRMjcO1g
Water report demystified (the "Defuddler"; removes the nonsense!): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

User avatar
PeeBee
Under the Table
Posts: 1575
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Re: Historical Mild Ale

Post by PeeBee » Tue May 04, 2021 3:18 pm

Here's the sort of conundrum I want to avoid in defining "Mild ale": Edd posted a historical Porter recipe on his Blog site recently: https://oldbeersandbrewing.blogspot.com ... orter.html.

Cracking looking recipe. But contains some anomalies. It's a "running" porter, so will be consumed "mild", another word for "unaged" in the period this recipe was created. But it's bitterness is only 24 IBU, somewhat low for a porter? So it is a "Mild"? (Don't answer that! It's a rhetorical question, and thanks to Google I can spell "rhetorical").

This is a reply from Ron Pattinson to one of my posts on a similar subject on a different forum:
patto1ro, post: 1027402, member: 9642 wrote: I find it very easy to differentiate between "Mild" and "mild". One is an adjective and the other is a noun. Really Mild is shorthand for Mild Ale. The style is really Ale, not Mild. Whereas the adjective mild can be used to describe any style of beer. There's no confusion at all in my mind between the two. ...
https://www.thehomebrewforum.co.uk/thre ... st-1027402

So its "Ale" ... eh?

There's a lot of uncertainty (cobblers being spouted even?) revolving about "Mild" and I'm all for figuring it out! And it just happens to be CAMRA's "Mild Month" at this moment.
Cask-conditioned style ale out of a keg/Cornie (the "treatise"): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwzEv5 ... rDKRMjcO1g
Water report demystified (the "Defuddler"; removes the nonsense!): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

User avatar
PeeBee
Under the Table
Posts: 1575
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Re: Historical Mild Ale

Post by PeeBee » Wed May 05, 2021 4:54 pm

Okay, I think I have this "mild" definition figured. Simply by accepting Ron Pattinson's view! Hooray ... ? Except a lot of people are not accepting his definition and Ron doesn't seem to bother much that people are abusing his point-of-view.

So there is no "mild". It's all a messing about with "semantics". You drink "mild Ale" not "mild". Drinking "mild" is the same as planting a "red" in a pot. A "red" what? Rose? Poppy? Etc.

If you are drinking Ale and it's unaged, immature Ale, it is "mild" Ale. More times than not an "X-ale" is a "mild Ale", an XX ale ... perhaps, an XXX ale is only a "mild Ale" if you are very unlucky or if you made it, and you are impatient and perhaps like drinking cr&p immature strong ales. "Sarah Hughes Dark Ruby" a mild? Only if it makes you buy one!

"Imperial Mild"? I hope Ron's reference to this is a joke?

I back-down because although "Ale" might cover a huge family of beverages, they are all along similar lines. Malt is Pale, Amber and/or Brown. Hops are "not many", perhaps a quarter or a third of what goes into "Beer"; I frequently see "mild" X-ale recipes with only rated with 12-24IBU, stronger and aged ales may have more. From this spun off a variety of different "ales", including "mild ale", "old ale" (aged), "Burton ale" (aged), "pale ale" (mild or aged: These are the ales not the beers), "amber ales" (mild or aged) and "brown ales" (mild or aged). The brown ales include the much earlier "common brown ale" (usually mild) and legendary "stitch" (often aged, I remember references to this stuff in my early days of brewing back in the 1970s when one could dream of making such stuff, along with "mum", whoa, get the beans and malted wheat in the mash-tun, and one of the earliest ales/beers I made ... "Cock Ale", complete with remains of Sunday dinner, sultanas and bottle of white wine).

Not much brewing here! It's all semantics. If you're drinking a historic unaged X-Ale it's an "adjective" ("unaged") followed by a "noun" ("ale"). But the same ale can be described in a "compound noun" of "adjective" + "noun", like "Mild Ale". It's up to you. Just don't push it, if you've got a "mild ale", another is very likely to have a different view. Neither will be right, neither will be wrong.

After all that, I wonder if "Muttonchops" will be friends with me now? :D
Cask-conditioned style ale out of a keg/Cornie (the "treatise"): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwzEv5 ... rDKRMjcO1g
Water report demystified (the "Defuddler"; removes the nonsense!): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

User avatar
PeeBee
Under the Table
Posts: 1575
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Re: Historical Mild Ale - COLOUR

Post by PeeBee » Wed May 12, 2021 10:36 am

One subject I could not resolve was the colour of "Mild Ale". Ron Pattinson does mention "Only after 1900 did X Ale start becoming darker. At first it was the use of crystal and amber malts." (https://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/200 ... -mild.html). I managed to glean a few bits that even suggested Black Malt was used: Black Malt was a colourant developed to darken Porter. Some hints of Brown Malt being used in small quantities. And an assumption that mention of sugar might mean No.3 Invert Sugar Syrup, and black Brewer's Caramel being used. But not much evidence, even if using coloured invert sugar there never seemed to use enough.

Another "nail in the coffin" was that most of the information I could use was sourced by ... Ron Pattinson! If he says early Mild Ales are pale in colour, who am I to argue?

So I turn to why I think Mild Ale is dark? It comes from something I learnt studying IPA a while back. Whatever I was reading stressed the majority of ale/beer sent to India was Porter not IPA, because the biggest group of drinkers was the soldiers and they wouldn't drink pale drinks (IPA) because the toffs and officers drank them. So the simple conclusion for me now is that idea was "rubbish", or at least how I interpreted it was rubbish. With one small readjustment to my thinking, my head finds everyone is drinking pale "Mild Ale"!

There must be some truth in "the toffs drink pale beers" 'cos "Mild Ales" did deepen in colour as the 20th century progressed.
Cask-conditioned style ale out of a keg/Cornie (the "treatise"): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwzEv5 ... rDKRMjcO1g
Water report demystified (the "Defuddler"; removes the nonsense!): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

User avatar
Cobnut
Drunk as a Skunk
Posts: 758
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:23 pm
Location: Ipswich
Contact:

Re: Historical Mild Ale

Post by Cobnut » Wed May 12, 2021 7:23 pm

I brewed a mild...or perhaps it’s a mild ale...a few weeks ago. No black malt. No crystal malt. Pale malt, down rice malt syrup and invert No. 1.

Banks’s mild from 1953.

Coloured with a bit of brewers caramel.

Categorise that!
Fermenting: nowt
Conditioning: English IPA/Bretted English IPA
Drinking: Sunshine Marmalade, Festbier, Helles Bock, Smokey lagery beer, Irish Export StoutCascade APA (homegrown hops), Orval clone, Impy stout, Duvel clone, Conestoga (American Barley wine)
Planning: Dark Mild, Kozel dark (ish), Simmonds Bitter, Bitter, Citra PA and more!

McMullan

Re: Historical Mild Ale

Post by McMullan » Wed May 12, 2021 7:47 pm

Goodness me! It's 'mild' as in 'mild' vs 'mature' cheese, FFS! How far can the idea be stretched, FFS? Why the f*ck would anyone want to stretch it this far? =;

User avatar
Eric
Even further under the Table
Posts: 2873
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:18 am
Location: Sunderland.

Re: Historical Mild Ale

Post by Eric » Wed May 12, 2021 9:12 pm

McMullan wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 7:47 pm
Goodness me! It's 'mild' as in 'mild' vs 'mature' cheese, FFS! How far can the idea be stretched, FFS? Why the f*ck would anyone want to stretch it this far? =;
Well, that was how Graham Wheeler one time put it to me. Later, I put it to Ron Pattinson, who tentatively agreed.

Imagine if BJCP had existed 200 years ago, all this would have been sorted in advance. #-o :D
Without patience, life becomes difficult and the sooner it's finished, the better.

User avatar
Cobnut
Drunk as a Skunk
Posts: 758
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:23 pm
Location: Ipswich
Contact:

Re: Historical Mild Ale

Post by Cobnut » Wed May 12, 2021 9:57 pm

Cobnut wrote:I brewed a mild...or perhaps it’s a mild ale...a few weeks ago. No black malt. No crystal malt. Pale malt, down rice malt syrup and invert No. 1.

Banks’s mild from 1953.

Coloured with a bit of brewers caramel.

Categorise that!
Sorry typo: brown rice malt syrup.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fermenting: nowt
Conditioning: English IPA/Bretted English IPA
Drinking: Sunshine Marmalade, Festbier, Helles Bock, Smokey lagery beer, Irish Export StoutCascade APA (homegrown hops), Orval clone, Impy stout, Duvel clone, Conestoga (American Barley wine)
Planning: Dark Mild, Kozel dark (ish), Simmonds Bitter, Bitter, Citra PA and more!

User avatar
Cobnut
Drunk as a Skunk
Posts: 758
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:23 pm
Location: Ipswich
Contact:

Re: Historical Mild Ale

Post by Cobnut » Thu May 13, 2021 11:59 am

Eric wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 9:12 pm
Imagine if BJCP had existed 200 years ago, all this would have been sorted in advance. #-o :D
:lol:
Fermenting: nowt
Conditioning: English IPA/Bretted English IPA
Drinking: Sunshine Marmalade, Festbier, Helles Bock, Smokey lagery beer, Irish Export StoutCascade APA (homegrown hops), Orval clone, Impy stout, Duvel clone, Conestoga (American Barley wine)
Planning: Dark Mild, Kozel dark (ish), Simmonds Bitter, Bitter, Citra PA and more!

User avatar
PeeBee
Under the Table
Posts: 1575
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Re: Historical Mild Ale

Post by PeeBee » Thu May 13, 2021 1:28 pm

You know ... I sit and babble this stuff out thinking "surely no-one will read this?" but then I'm only doing my normal trick of thinking aloud. My way of evolving my thoughts into something usable. At least - I fool myself - it wont get read my ignorant trolls who will hound me with foul-mouthed abuse. And then I'm proved wrong with:
Goodness me! It's 'mild' as in 'mild' vs 'mature' cheese, FFS! How far can the idea be stretched, FFS? Why the f*ck would anyone want to stretch it this far? =;
Damn ... but hang-on, I can't make any sense of this? So I'm not wrong, it isn't being read by ignorant trolls! Doesn't stop them replying though.


" 'Mild' as in 'mild' vs 'mature' cheese" is a good analogy. I'll have to remember that one.
Cask-conditioned style ale out of a keg/Cornie (the "treatise"): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwzEv5 ... rDKRMjcO1g
Water report demystified (the "Defuddler"; removes the nonsense!): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

User avatar
PeeBee
Under the Table
Posts: 1575
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Re: Historical Mild Ale - NAMING

Post by PeeBee » Thu May 13, 2021 1:46 pm

This is one I was preparing earlier. Thanks for the comments everyone, although I don't expect replies when I'm in verbal-diarrhoea mode, it's encouraging to know people are paying it attention!

I might be accepting the frequent claim that X-Ale = Mild Ale? So I'm throwing the towel in? After all, modern "Mild-Ale" is the last beverage to have direct links with the family of "Ales"? Perhaps I should crawl back in my box and accept it's all hokum ... Na! I don't do that. And this pursuit of "Mild Ale" has reinforced the adage "one door closes, another opens" (Alexander G Bell). I had no intention of pursuing "Mild Ale" when I started (a thread on Porter) but Mild Ale is proving to be such an interesting subject.

Even my suggestion of referring to "Mild Ale" is limiting appreciation of a vast family of beverages ("Ales") isn't right: Ale might be a vast family of beverages, but it's quite a tight knit family in terms of variants. there's three base malts and no adjuncts (excluding the likes of malted wheat and beans in "Mum"!). Pale, amber and brown. There's three magnitudes of strength (small, common, stout), and two magnitudes of aging (mild, keeping). 3x3x2, 18 basic types. Of course, the lines between types are "smudged", the words may have different meaning from now (alternative words used too), and some combinations couldn't exist (a keeping small ale?). Personally I'd rather believe some combinations didn't exist (e.g. a "mild stout ...", or Ron Pattinson's "Imperial Mild", but unfortunately they probably did).

They'd all have got "X" designations when that system was introduced (end of 18th Century?) and a smattering of "Ks" (for aged) either as a modifier ("XXXK", or "K" somewhere or other) or as a replacement ("KKK"). What winds me up is the whole system (perhaps skipping the "K" ones) gets tagged to the last remaining example of ales from near the beginning of the 19th Century ... namely "Mild-Ale". It's bo11ocks, why do people keep repeating it? "Mild-Ale" is just one combination, a "mild, common, pale ale" (chuck in "mild, stout, pale ales" for the loonies).

So what of the "Small Amber Ales", "Common Brown Ales". etc. etc., all swept aside by the "Mild-Ale" nonsense?

Do you see where I'm going with this?
Cask-conditioned style ale out of a keg/Cornie (the "treatise"): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwzEv5 ... rDKRMjcO1g
Water report demystified (the "Defuddler"; removes the nonsense!): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

Muttonchops
Tippler
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 9:01 pm

Re: Historical Mild Ale

Post by Muttonchops » Thu May 13, 2021 4:50 pm

Hey-up, PeeBee! You seem to be keeping the controversy going nicely! I'm not sure if you were throwing down a gauntlet to me or a soft woolly mitten, but I'll assume the latter. I’m coming in a bit late on this and I get the impression opinions are softening, but for what it’s worth I’ve prepared something to throw at the discussion. Sorry, but it’s a whopper so I'll do it in 3 parts!

I think you are clouding the issue a little by introducing the strict difference between Ale (Germanic roots 'Alu', Anglo-Saxon 'Alo') and Beer (Middle Dutch roots 'bier' and Old High German 'bior', but interestingly also Old English 'beor' and Middle English 'bere'). Strictly speaking, ale was bittered by 'gruit' (various mixtures of bitter herbs, which may have included wild hops) whereas beer was (and is) only bittered with hops. However, the two words have been used synonymously since at least the time of Samuel Pepys (late 1600s) and beer brewed in Burton has been referred to as 'Burton Ale' since at least 1790, so I suggest that we put that one to one side.

So, the lines remain drawn between the two camps of 'pre-1914 mild ale' believers and 'Mild Ale only post-1914' believers. The Lilliputians are facing the Blefuscus (which end of the egg do you open?).

I'm afraid that I remain devoted to 'Mild Ale' being a post-1914 beer, even though the term 'mild' pre-dates that. The reason that I stick to this is because at this time Mild Ale became a very particular style (despite the absence of the BJCP) every bit as distinguishable as Porter, Stout or India Pale Ale. The reason that it did so, and its subsequent popularity even after the end of the war, had a very clearly defined historical and social context.

I've no problems with the brewing of historical beers that are mild (other than that many of them are likely to taste pretty horrible) and in that context 'Sarah Hughes Dark Ruby Mild' could well have historical precedent as a mild beer; I don't know, sadly I haven't tried it, I'm sure it's good. But Mild Ale is a piece of British history and to my mind deserves its place.

So I'm going to follow this with a couple of posts to present my argument. They are not academic articles and I only declare one reference, but I'm not going to spend time hunting for the sources that left little tid-bits of information in my head. After that I will fall silent - I'll not be convinced otherwise any more than I may convince the Blefuscus of the error of their ways.

And PeeBee, if friendship depended on agreeing on the origins of Mild Ale, or, for that matter, opening the egg on the sharp end (which is, of course, the correct thing to do), then there would be no friendships left!

Muttonchops
Tippler
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 9:01 pm

Re: Historical Mild Ale

Post by Muttonchops » Thu May 13, 2021 4:52 pm

Mild Ale - 1 - Pre-1914

The term 'mild' has been used to describe beers in the UK since at least the beginning of the 18th century, most probably well before then.

In the CBA Factseet No. 6 'Old British Beers', Dr John Harrison wrote an article entitled 'Mild ales - what are they and where did they come from?'. He noted that in trying to define beers styles in clear and unambiguous term, 'Mild ale is a particularly difficult case'. He tabulated and discussed the characteristics of 16 examples of 19th century beers that, from name or formulation, suggested a mild ale. Of these he discounted four as not meeting his criterion for 'mildness', based on a 'mildness index' in which he attempted to take into account hopping rate, OG and likely FG.

The characteristics of the 12 remaining beers in his sample varied in colour from 'Very Pale' to 'Brown', in OG from 1.031 to a whopping 1.125, and in BU:GU from 0.3 to 0.8. Clearly, these are all very different beers and their only common characteristic is a low (or low-ish) hopping rate. Interestingly, he does not discuss the idea of 'unaged' as a criterion for a mild ale, although it is often used as one by others. Indeed, with an OG of 1.125 the 1805 Wicklow Ale that he describes as a 'genuine high gravity Mild' would have been unlikely to be drunk in an unaged state; and with a BU:GU of 0.3 it is likely to have been a very sweet, claggy beer totally unsuited to any modern taste. Keeping properties of this beer would come from its high alcohol content - without a goodly dose of hops lesser beers would not have such properties. From what I understand, the 'unaged' designation for mild ale goes back much further than 1800 and was possibly less of a defining characteristic for the 19th century 'milds' that Dr Harrison had researched.

So, prior to 1914, the term 'mild' basically meant any beer with a low hopping rate; it in no way denoted a particular style as did Porter or Pale Ale or Amber Ale. It had no particular context whether social or regional, or even historical (other than, perhaps, the low usage of hops in beers prior to about 1680 due to availability, cost and some suspicion on the part of those who drank it). 'Mild' was nothing more than a general descriptor, an adjective.

Muttonchops
Tippler
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 9:01 pm

Re: Historical Mild Ale

Post by Muttonchops » Thu May 13, 2021 4:59 pm

Mild Ale - 2 - Post-1914

By the time of the First World War many things had changed in the brewing industry. Technological advances had made it a more scientific process, and easier, cheaper, inland transport extended the reach of large breweries. The small ale-house breweries had all but died out. Malting had changed radically, too, and the introduction of crystal malts extended the 'vocabulary' which had previously been restricted to various grades of pale, amber and brown malts and roasted grains.

When the First World War came along it was, though, Government laws and policies that forced a real change in the approach to brewing beer. Most of our grains were imported so the war resulted in shortages; the quantity used in brewing had to be reduced significantly, as did the evil of drunkeness. In February 1915, Lloyd George told the people of Bangor that 'Drink is doing us more damage in the war than all the German submarines put together'. And a delegation of shipbuilders begged the Government to introduce prohibition to improve production because "We are fighting Germany, Austria and drink, and the greatest of these three deadly foes is drink". The Government had to step in.

Severe restrictions were placed on the strength of beer. This was not done by defining an upper limit on all beers, but by defining a limit on the average alcohol content of beer leaving a brewery. At 2.8% ABV that limit was draconian, if a brewery wanted to brew 10 barrels at 3.6% it had to brew 10 barrels at 2% ABV. Breweries needed to be able to brew beers that were sufficiently flavoursome to be acceptable whilst having exceptionally low original gravities (and ideally relatively high finishing gravities). They also wanted to continue brewing strong beers because they were more profitable.

Mild Ale as a style in its own right was born. Mild Ale brewed in these war years commonly had an OG of 1.025 or even less. A thin, weak beer, with little body, but the crystal malts and roasted grains could provide a good flavour. For such a beer hopping had to be low to let the malt and caramel flavours through and as such it merited the name 'mild' both in terms of low hops and being unaged - it needed virtually no ageing, which suited the breweries. And being weak you could drink a lot of it whilst retaining the use of your legs, which also suited the breweries. The use of crystal and, usually, roast malts for imparting flavour meant that it was most commonly, but not exclusively, a dark beer. The nearest equivalent prior to 1914 might have been 'small ales' from second (or even third?) runnings from the mash tun; but I doubt if these would have had as much flavour to them.

The Government intervention worked and had a lasting impact on drinking in the UK for decades after the alcohol limits were lifted after the war. Aided by a goodly dose of marketing, Mild Ale became a popular drink, though with regional differences and the OG rising a little bit. Drunkenness, such a defining characteristic of the English throughout history, was no longer socially acceptable. (It is said that the Norman army spent the night before the Battle of Hastings in prayer whilst the English spent it getting drunk!). However, its popularity began to wane in the later 1950s after the second world war. With social aspirations growing fewer folk wanted to be seen drinking a 'working man's (or woman's) beer'. This posed a problem for landlords and breweries alike - the keeping properties of Mild Ale were very poor. It retained some popularity in some regions, the Black Countries of the West Midlands for example, but it was very much in decline by the mid 1960s. It was an age when 'Double Diamond Worked Wonders'! But ironically, it was probably saved from oblivion by that much maligned (and rightly so) move to kegs by the breweries (it would keep better in a keg). In the early '70s when my pub-going life began, it was rarely seen as anything other than a keg beer and it was best avoided. My only recollection of it being served from a hand pump was on visits to the West Midlands and I recall the revelation of discovering how good it was. It had the added advantage of being able to drink three pints in an evening and still be comfortably below the legal limit for driving (admittedly the limits were somewhat higher then).

Finally, to summarise my argument. The First World War (and the 'flu pandemic that followed it) resulted in huge social and political changes in the UK. These, together with changes and technological advances in the brewing industry over the previous few decades, resulted in the development of Mild Ale. Yes, it shared its name with a descriptor that had been used for a couple of centuries, but it was very much a new beer. It became associated with the working classes - flat caps, collarless shirts and "Hey-up, duck!". It has a very strong context in the history of our nation (no other nation was daft enough to take it up) and with a particular sector of society. Whilst there were undoubtedly variations and regional differences, it had clearly defined characteristics and, courtesy of the big breweries, could be found across the nation. That is why I believe it takes its place as a truly historic beer (alongside Porter and India Pale Ale) and why I do not believe it existed before 1914. Before that a beer could be 'mild', but it was not Mild Ale.

So, for what it's worth, that's my take on it. I doubt it will be an end to the Lilliputian wars, but I'm sticking with it and will continue to open my egg at the sharp end. Cheers All!

User avatar
PeeBee
Under the Table
Posts: 1575
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Re: Historical Mild Ale

Post by PeeBee » Thu May 13, 2021 6:28 pm

Oh Gawd. "Muttonchops" is back! Hawking the same old tied argument about "mild-ale". For such a prolific writer you'd expect him (her, it?) to at least research their facts. Not suggest to us that there was no difference between Ale and Beer in the 19th century. Reflect on work by Dr John Harrison from 1/2 century ago suggesting no-one has done anything useful since. Blah, blah, blah.

I don't think we need take any notice of the clap-trap "Muttonchops" regurgitates.

I better go over to my Porter thread as no doubt he's telling everyone Porter came about as an attempt to sell "three threads" as a single "entire" beer.
Cask-conditioned style ale out of a keg/Cornie (the "treatise"): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwzEv5 ... rDKRMjcO1g
Water report demystified (the "Defuddler"; removes the nonsense!): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

Post Reply