Many old books explain that to achieve a balanced palate for porter, blend an aged, tart example with a younger or "mild" (sweet) sample, in the proportions of 1:2 or 1:3. I can mention the textual references for those interested. Some Belgian beers are still put together in the same way (Rodenbach Original for example), it's old learning that can be applied today IMO.
Gary
Looking for the original Bar Towel blog? You can find it at www.thebartowel.com.
We have a trivia question in order to register to prevent bots. If you have any issues with answering, contact us at cass@bartowel.com for help.
Introducing Light Mode! If you would like a Bar Towel social experience that isn't the traditional blue, you can now select Light Mode. Go to the User Control Panel and then Board Preferences, and select "Day Drinking" (Light Mode) from the My Board Style drop-down menu. You can always switch back to "Night Drinking" (Dark Mode). Enjoy!
We have a trivia question in order to register to prevent bots. If you have any issues with answering, contact us at cass@bartowel.com for help.
Introducing Light Mode! If you would like a Bar Towel social experience that isn't the traditional blue, you can now select Light Mode. Go to the User Control Panel and then Board Preferences, and select "Day Drinking" (Light Mode) from the My Board Style drop-down menu. You can always switch back to "Night Drinking" (Dark Mode). Enjoy!
Black Creek Porter
I was being a bit of a smart-ass, Gary; if any offence was given by that, I'm sorry. I'm aware of the historical descriptions of porter. My point is merely that what you described is a guess at what a historical porter would have been like. A well-educated guess, certainly, but nonetheless a guess. Your post, however, insinuated that it was beyond question.G.M. Gillman wrote:Many old books explain that to achieve a balanced palate for porter, blend an aged, tart example with a younger or "mild" (sweet) sample, in the proportions of 1:2 or 1:3. I can mention the textual references for those interested. Some Belgian beers are still put together in the same way (Rodenbach Original for example), it's old learning that can be applied today IMO.
Gary
-
G.M. Gillman
- Seasoned Drinker
- Posts: 1486
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:24 pm
Everything I posit is an interpretation based on applying directions in the older books.
I have been discussing the old beers for some time on the board, so I often use a shorthand and say, to see what porter was like in 1830, mix this and that, do this or that, etc. In the end I believe the palate is close to what they drank, but I would never say it was beyond any certainty and that is not what I meant. I didn't take offence and welcome all comments.
Speaking of history, as we know some porter was aged a long time. I bought a few bottles of the Black Creek Porter and intend to let them rest for about 6 months and will then see the results. It may result in a different-tasting drink (I've found this can be so whether a beer is filtered or not). Recently, some St-Ambroise Imperial Stout was tasted after about 8 months and the improvement in the palate was quite marked IMO.
Gary
I have been discussing the old beers for some time on the board, so I often use a shorthand and say, to see what porter was like in 1830, mix this and that, do this or that, etc. In the end I believe the palate is close to what they drank, but I would never say it was beyond any certainty and that is not what I meant. I didn't take offence and welcome all comments.
Speaking of history, as we know some porter was aged a long time. I bought a few bottles of the Black Creek Porter and intend to let them rest for about 6 months and will then see the results. It may result in a different-tasting drink (I've found this can be so whether a beer is filtered or not). Recently, some St-Ambroise Imperial Stout was tasted after about 8 months and the improvement in the palate was quite marked IMO.
Gary
Gary Gillman
-
G.M. Gillman
- Seasoned Drinker
- Posts: 1486
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:24 pm
This will interest many I think, turn the counter to page 260 and read from there:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=3DNFAAA ... EwBg#v=one
It is a discussion by English brewing writer Frank Faulkner on Irish stout, from his late 1800's brewing text.
He states that Irish stout in this period was made from pale malt and black patent malt - anywhere from 90-94% pale malt, the rest patent. No brown malt was used, although for porter in London, brown, and/or amber, malt continued to be used as colouring malts until porter brewing ended in commercial terms in England in the mid-1900's. (London invented porter, and one can see it stayed with its early production methods longer than Dublin, which switched to patent malt in the early 1800's to colour the beer but well into the 1800's also used some amber malt, probably for flavour. By the time Faulkner wrote, I think amber malt was no longer used in Dublin for porter and stout. Today, Guinness doesn't use patent malt or amber malt, I understand it uses roasted barley to colour the beer).
Faulkner writes that for local consumption, Irish stout brewers combined mild porter (newly-brewed, sometimes called running beer), some old vatted porter, and some heading. Mild porter formed the large majority of the mix. The same elements were blended for export stout - what is now Guinness FES in its case - but in different proportions.
Heading was half-fermented beer, so a kind of krausening. Faulkner states that vatted porter - aged upwards of 12 months in the classic way - was not like beer that had soured, the "returns" he speaks of. He says beer vatted under "pressure", i.e., in very large wooden vats, had its own character, which from other reading is I would say, beer that had a dryness just short of acidity - think of dry red wine - and possibly with some brett influence. Faulkner was writing just before the brett yeast had been identified and named.
And so today, if we have a bottle of porter or stout that has gone sour, can we use it in blending? Faulkner would not have approved, but there is no question much porter in the 1800's used such beer, or in part, to help arrive at an equable blend. At least one observer said it was not easy to tell the difference between beer blended using sour porter and beer blended with porter long aged in wooden vats. Indeed it was also said by some that whether black malt or roasted barley was used was not easy to detect in the final result. Whether any of this is true is a subjective matter of course and can only be tested by experiment and experience.
Therefore, to try to duplicate a Faulkner-like blend, perhaps it is best for the aged element to use any well-aged strong stout - St. Ambroise, Rogue's Imperial Russian perhaps, or any other that has a good aged taste but is not sour and has perhaps some brettanomyces influence. For this it should have been aged at least 6 months, 12 or more would be better. Heading is not needed because the mild beer you use should have enough carbonation, but for the requisite freshness, i.e., that the heading would have contributed to, it would be good to use a fresh bottle-conditioned or cask porter as the base.
The beers should be as bitter as possible because hop rates were high in the 1800's, plus stout tastes best that way IMO.
I will try this the next time I'm at Volo with any cask stout Ralph may have on at the time and a strong well-aged bottled stout, Volo always has a good selection of those.
Gary
P.S. Note incidentally Faulkner's use of the term Black Burton beer on page 260. Black IPA is nothing new...
http://books.google.ca/books?id=3DNFAAA ... EwBg#v=one
It is a discussion by English brewing writer Frank Faulkner on Irish stout, from his late 1800's brewing text.
He states that Irish stout in this period was made from pale malt and black patent malt - anywhere from 90-94% pale malt, the rest patent. No brown malt was used, although for porter in London, brown, and/or amber, malt continued to be used as colouring malts until porter brewing ended in commercial terms in England in the mid-1900's. (London invented porter, and one can see it stayed with its early production methods longer than Dublin, which switched to patent malt in the early 1800's to colour the beer but well into the 1800's also used some amber malt, probably for flavour. By the time Faulkner wrote, I think amber malt was no longer used in Dublin for porter and stout. Today, Guinness doesn't use patent malt or amber malt, I understand it uses roasted barley to colour the beer).
Faulkner writes that for local consumption, Irish stout brewers combined mild porter (newly-brewed, sometimes called running beer), some old vatted porter, and some heading. Mild porter formed the large majority of the mix. The same elements were blended for export stout - what is now Guinness FES in its case - but in different proportions.
Heading was half-fermented beer, so a kind of krausening. Faulkner states that vatted porter - aged upwards of 12 months in the classic way - was not like beer that had soured, the "returns" he speaks of. He says beer vatted under "pressure", i.e., in very large wooden vats, had its own character, which from other reading is I would say, beer that had a dryness just short of acidity - think of dry red wine - and possibly with some brett influence. Faulkner was writing just before the brett yeast had been identified and named.
And so today, if we have a bottle of porter or stout that has gone sour, can we use it in blending? Faulkner would not have approved, but there is no question much porter in the 1800's used such beer, or in part, to help arrive at an equable blend. At least one observer said it was not easy to tell the difference between beer blended using sour porter and beer blended with porter long aged in wooden vats. Indeed it was also said by some that whether black malt or roasted barley was used was not easy to detect in the final result. Whether any of this is true is a subjective matter of course and can only be tested by experiment and experience.
Therefore, to try to duplicate a Faulkner-like blend, perhaps it is best for the aged element to use any well-aged strong stout - St. Ambroise, Rogue's Imperial Russian perhaps, or any other that has a good aged taste but is not sour and has perhaps some brettanomyces influence. For this it should have been aged at least 6 months, 12 or more would be better. Heading is not needed because the mild beer you use should have enough carbonation, but for the requisite freshness, i.e., that the heading would have contributed to, it would be good to use a fresh bottle-conditioned or cask porter as the base.
The beers should be as bitter as possible because hop rates were high in the 1800's, plus stout tastes best that way IMO.
I will try this the next time I'm at Volo with any cask stout Ralph may have on at the time and a strong well-aged bottled stout, Volo always has a good selection of those.
Gary
P.S. Note incidentally Faulkner's use of the term Black Burton beer on page 260. Black IPA is nothing new...
Gary Gillman
I suspected that was what you meant. Some people might not have realized that though, which is why I was needling you. I do appreciate all your historical postings. They are intriguing.G.M. Gillman wrote:In the end I believe the palate is close to what they drank, but I would never say it was beyond any certainty and that is not what I meant. I didn't take offence and welcome all comments.
Speaking of history, as we know some porter was aged a long time. I bought a few bottles of the Black Creek Porter .[/quote]
Given Trafalgar's quality control issues, you may want to be careful when opening them if you're going to store them long. i'd put even money on gushers.
... so my understanding is that Black Creek Porter brewed at Trafalgar and bottled in 500 ml brown bottles is plain porter (non BA) and they one brewed in small batches at Pioneer Village is barrel aged yet both are based on same recipe. If that is the case I add bottled version to Data Base as non BA contract brewed at Trafalgar...
Cheers
Cheers
-
G.M. Gillman
- Seasoned Drinker
- Posts: 1486
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:24 pm
What Radek states is my understanding from reviewing the Black Creek Brewing website and related blog. It states that for commercial distribution, porter is brewed using Trafalgar's facilities and bottled there, this beer is brewed in stainless steel. But it's not Trafalgar's beer, the brand is owned by a company they name which I assume is connected to Black Creek Village.
The one sold at Black Creek Village in growler was brewed at BCV and is stored in barrels (wooden barrels). Beppi Crossariol today in the Globe reviews the bottled one and states it uses brown malt kilned on hardwood, which is very interesting.
Many of us know that porter originally used brown malt which often must have had a smoky taste. Porter as it later developed, especially by Guinness, used pale malt and black patent malt or mainly such materials. Still later, patent malt was often substituted by roasted barley. These changes delivered what many regard as the keynote "Worcestershire/licorice/roasty" palate of porter and stout. Sinha stout would be similar and most (I would say) American craft porters. Some porter of course uses a grist that involves some type of amber or caramel malt, I believe this is so of Fuller's porter, which I highly regard as do many on the board.
1700's porter was brown or dark brown but not black and would have had a toasted and possibly smoky taste. Indeed the bottled version of Black Creek Porter is like this, it has an astringent brown ale character that sounds historical to the 1700's. I believe I am right therefore that this porter is a different iteration than the style many associate today with porter and stout.
I like the historical authenticity. I may get out to Black Creek Village today to try some beer there and bring back the barrel aged porter.
Based on reading I've done that suggests porter (any kind) benefits from aging, I plan to buy a bunch of the bottled version and lay it away for 6-12 months. Maybe even the growlers would work for this, I'll need to check how well they are closed.
I don't know if it will re-ferment in growler or bottle (probably not) but likely an amalgamation of flavours will occur. This is what some old books said, that with time you got a perfect merging of the malt and hop flavours of such brown beer or early porter.
Gary
The one sold at Black Creek Village in growler was brewed at BCV and is stored in barrels (wooden barrels). Beppi Crossariol today in the Globe reviews the bottled one and states it uses brown malt kilned on hardwood, which is very interesting.
Many of us know that porter originally used brown malt which often must have had a smoky taste. Porter as it later developed, especially by Guinness, used pale malt and black patent malt or mainly such materials. Still later, patent malt was often substituted by roasted barley. These changes delivered what many regard as the keynote "Worcestershire/licorice/roasty" palate of porter and stout. Sinha stout would be similar and most (I would say) American craft porters. Some porter of course uses a grist that involves some type of amber or caramel malt, I believe this is so of Fuller's porter, which I highly regard as do many on the board.
1700's porter was brown or dark brown but not black and would have had a toasted and possibly smoky taste. Indeed the bottled version of Black Creek Porter is like this, it has an astringent brown ale character that sounds historical to the 1700's. I believe I am right therefore that this porter is a different iteration than the style many associate today with porter and stout.
I like the historical authenticity. I may get out to Black Creek Village today to try some beer there and bring back the barrel aged porter.
Based on reading I've done that suggests porter (any kind) benefits from aging, I plan to buy a bunch of the bottled version and lay it away for 6-12 months. Maybe even the growlers would work for this, I'll need to check how well they are closed.
I don't know if it will re-ferment in growler or bottle (probably not) but likely an amalgamation of flavours will occur. This is what some old books said, that with time you got a perfect merging of the malt and hop flavours of such brown beer or early porter.
Gary
Gary Gillman
Interesting discussion on porter history, thanks Gary.
Speaking of brown malt content in Porter and British malting evolution, I remember reading one of my books that Brown malt was always one of the three original "Three threads" which comprised a porter ale. First as part of the 'mixture' of ales in a porter and finally as a malt component of brewed porter.
As with all beer style history/evolution a big factor in change is economic or taxation pressure. This seems to be the case for brown malt dropping out of porter in the post Napoleanic war recession.
Increased taxation, shortages and a crappy domestic economy sent malt and hop prices skyrocketing in Britain after the wars. Whole brewed Porter was the popular beer style of the time, (1815), and it required a high percentage of brown malt.....To economize, local malters tried making brown malt from lower cost grades of barley but it produced a weak wort and required larger amounts of this cut rate brown malt to bring the beer up to normal strength.
Lost business and a frugal public kept brewers and publicans from raising the price of porter. The consumer was also wary of watered down or cut strength porter and would have none of these short cuts. Squeezed between high prices for malt and public demands, brewers looked for ways to economize in the Porter brewing process. One obvious alternative was to use less expensive and low yielding brown malt and (cheaper) higher yielding pale malt then color the drink to approximate Porter color.
By the 1816 hardly any brewer used brown malt in Porter....brewers experimented in darkening their beers with all manner of things other than malt...sugars dyes, burnt grain husks...none were very satisfactory. The one adopted process to emerge was to use a lot of pale malt and a small amount of highly roasted malt that had been darkened to the point of being scorched and burnt. This darkened the beer but also imparted a burned or smoky taste due to the floor fired malting and roasting process of the day....this could account for the reports of a smokeyness in the beer.
Later, a malter invented a large rotating iron drum to roast malt in to the black consistency needed without scorching it. He patented the process so the black malt became known as "black patent" malt.
Point of the tale is; brown malt was used in porter until about 1815 when it seems to vanish completely from brewers grain bills. Another brewing innovation brought on by taxation and commodity gouging.
Speaking of brown malt content in Porter and British malting evolution, I remember reading one of my books that Brown malt was always one of the three original "Three threads" which comprised a porter ale. First as part of the 'mixture' of ales in a porter and finally as a malt component of brewed porter.
As with all beer style history/evolution a big factor in change is economic or taxation pressure. This seems to be the case for brown malt dropping out of porter in the post Napoleanic war recession.
Increased taxation, shortages and a crappy domestic economy sent malt and hop prices skyrocketing in Britain after the wars. Whole brewed Porter was the popular beer style of the time, (1815), and it required a high percentage of brown malt.....To economize, local malters tried making brown malt from lower cost grades of barley but it produced a weak wort and required larger amounts of this cut rate brown malt to bring the beer up to normal strength.
Lost business and a frugal public kept brewers and publicans from raising the price of porter. The consumer was also wary of watered down or cut strength porter and would have none of these short cuts. Squeezed between high prices for malt and public demands, brewers looked for ways to economize in the Porter brewing process. One obvious alternative was to use less expensive and low yielding brown malt and (cheaper) higher yielding pale malt then color the drink to approximate Porter color.
By the 1816 hardly any brewer used brown malt in Porter....brewers experimented in darkening their beers with all manner of things other than malt...sugars dyes, burnt grain husks...none were very satisfactory. The one adopted process to emerge was to use a lot of pale malt and a small amount of highly roasted malt that had been darkened to the point of being scorched and burnt. This darkened the beer but also imparted a burned or smoky taste due to the floor fired malting and roasting process of the day....this could account for the reports of a smokeyness in the beer.
Later, a malter invented a large rotating iron drum to roast malt in to the black consistency needed without scorching it. He patented the process so the black malt became known as "black patent" malt.
Point of the tale is; brown malt was used in porter until about 1815 when it seems to vanish completely from brewers grain bills. Another brewing innovation brought on by taxation and commodity gouging.
Aventinus rules!
-
G.M. Gillman
- Seasoned Drinker
- Posts: 1486
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:24 pm
That chronology is pretty much as I understand it, thanks for that. When they used 100% brown malt in the 1700's, before the changes you mentioned, it must have been diastatic and contained enough starch to make a decent ABV beer. Once they started to use pale malt, they would not have needed diastase or starch from the high-roasted malt and indeed that and black patent don't have any or very little.
Today I visited Black Creek Brewery up at Black Creek Village and had a good chat with the brewer (didn't catch his name and it was getting crowded in there but I'll be back).
The set-up indeed is very artisan, there is a small mash tun (copper with wood plank lining), small copper boiler and then the beers ferment in a row of ex-whisky barrels to which yeast is added. Once the fermentable sugars are consumed, the beers are decanted into a row of barrels below (just a half dozen or so for both processes).
There is no heat exchanger. The worts in true 1800's fashion are transferred to a shallow pan on top of the two rows of barrels and allowed to cool naturally. They do use some ice to assist cooling, I think the wort is then transferred to another pan under which there is a layer of ice. In the 1800's, ice certainly was used sometimes to assist cooling, or cold water from streams. He said because the building is heated, they cannot wait for the beer to completely cool in the coolship, it would risk infection or acetification. I have seen countless photos of coolships - by the way Anchor Brewery was reputed to use them and perhaps still does for steam beer - and it was a shock to see just such a unit being used today.
From there they put them into growlers. He told me the beers served in the restaurant are made elsewhere so presumably under contract with Trafalgar.
I had a taste of the brown ale from the barrel and it was fantastic: estery, rich, clean, pure English real ale. I bought porter and stout in growlers to take home and also the IPA. The growlers will not contain much carbonation, but I don't mind that.
Here now is the thing: the porter uses some brown malt! Real brown malt from England. He showed it to me and it has a fresh woody smell, not really smoky (maybe a hint) even though kilned on wood I understand. Only part of the grist is the brown, the rest is pale malt and I think he said some chocolate malt (to deepen the colour). The stout does not use brown malt, I didn't have time to ask about its grist but I suspect it is pale malt and patent and maybe some chocolate malt.
The beers are not available to sample there or elsewhere by the pint or half pint: there just isn't enough to make. They brew 3 times per week and are boiling 85 L, part of which gets consumed in the processes, so there is just enough to put in growler for the off-licences.
The beers get one fermentation, there is no secondary. The porter is not really aged in wood because it won't stay in wood more than a few days before being put in the growler (else it might go off).
It was a great introduction to the place and I will be back to learn more but I was hugely impressed. As for the commercial porter (the bottled one at LCBO subject of this thread), I didn't inquire as to the mashbill but would think it is the same as the BVC porter grist. He said a pale ale might be next in the bottled line.
Gary
Today I visited Black Creek Brewery up at Black Creek Village and had a good chat with the brewer (didn't catch his name and it was getting crowded in there but I'll be back).
The set-up indeed is very artisan, there is a small mash tun (copper with wood plank lining), small copper boiler and then the beers ferment in a row of ex-whisky barrels to which yeast is added. Once the fermentable sugars are consumed, the beers are decanted into a row of barrels below (just a half dozen or so for both processes).
There is no heat exchanger. The worts in true 1800's fashion are transferred to a shallow pan on top of the two rows of barrels and allowed to cool naturally. They do use some ice to assist cooling, I think the wort is then transferred to another pan under which there is a layer of ice. In the 1800's, ice certainly was used sometimes to assist cooling, or cold water from streams. He said because the building is heated, they cannot wait for the beer to completely cool in the coolship, it would risk infection or acetification. I have seen countless photos of coolships - by the way Anchor Brewery was reputed to use them and perhaps still does for steam beer - and it was a shock to see just such a unit being used today.
From there they put them into growlers. He told me the beers served in the restaurant are made elsewhere so presumably under contract with Trafalgar.
I had a taste of the brown ale from the barrel and it was fantastic: estery, rich, clean, pure English real ale. I bought porter and stout in growlers to take home and also the IPA. The growlers will not contain much carbonation, but I don't mind that.
Here now is the thing: the porter uses some brown malt! Real brown malt from England. He showed it to me and it has a fresh woody smell, not really smoky (maybe a hint) even though kilned on wood I understand. Only part of the grist is the brown, the rest is pale malt and I think he said some chocolate malt (to deepen the colour). The stout does not use brown malt, I didn't have time to ask about its grist but I suspect it is pale malt and patent and maybe some chocolate malt.
The beers are not available to sample there or elsewhere by the pint or half pint: there just isn't enough to make. They brew 3 times per week and are boiling 85 L, part of which gets consumed in the processes, so there is just enough to put in growler for the off-licences.
The beers get one fermentation, there is no secondary. The porter is not really aged in wood because it won't stay in wood more than a few days before being put in the growler (else it might go off).
It was a great introduction to the place and I will be back to learn more but I was hugely impressed. As for the commercial porter (the bottled one at LCBO subject of this thread), I didn't inquire as to the mashbill but would think it is the same as the BVC porter grist. He said a pale ale might be next in the bottled line.
Gary
Gary Gillman
-
G.M. Gillman
- Seasoned Drinker
- Posts: 1486
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:24 pm
I am trying the growler porter now. It is very good, there is no smoky taste but rather an astringent woody like taste and I recognize it from the brown malt the brewer showed me. He said this malt is only used for 10% of the grist and I think more would not be advisable. The old porters, or part of what went into the glass, were long aged in wood which would have softened that woody element, but at 10% it fits in just right. The hops and a roasty note (probably from chocolate malt) are clearly evident. The beer is quite dry, but you can taste some residual dextrinous sweetness. If allowed to ferment again with priming it would be a classic real ale, as it is it is very nice with good subtlety and roast character. This version reminds me more of a 19th century porter than the bottled Black Creek porter I tasted some weeks ago, but such are the strange ways of brewing (i.e. the Trafalgar-brewed version seemed more 1700's style to me).
It's all good and you guys know exactly what I'm going to do.
I will make a 50/50 blend of the growler and Trafalgar versions, a "light and bitter" in porter terms in other words.
Gary
P.S. A winter warmer will soon be available in the growler.
It's all good and you guys know exactly what I'm going to do.
I will make a 50/50 blend of the growler and Trafalgar versions, a "light and bitter" in porter terms in other words.
Gary
P.S. A winter warmer will soon be available in the growler.
Gary Gillman
-
G.M. Gillman
- Seasoned Drinker
- Posts: 1486
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:24 pm
Pootz, just a brief note that brown malt continued to be used in the 1800's and indeed into the 1900's in England before porter died. This is shown by numerous recipes in period brewing texts, and in original brewing records Ron Pattinson has researched and discussed on his website. However, it was a relatively small part of the grist, the majority being pale malt. Whether it was like 1700's brown malt is hard to say. It may have been smokier because less was being used, i.e., to impart the overall necessary roasty notes.
Black patent from its invention was sometimes used with brown malt, sometimes without it (but always with pale as the base). A common grist in London was pale, amber and brown malts throughout the 1800's.
But the key point as you've mentioned is brown became the minority malt whereas it originally was 100% of the grist for entire butt beer aka porter. Hence the need for colouring agents like caramel, burned wort and ultimately black patent malt. The beer would be have been too pale without such assists.
Gary
Black patent from its invention was sometimes used with brown malt, sometimes without it (but always with pale as the base). A common grist in London was pale, amber and brown malts throughout the 1800's.
But the key point as you've mentioned is brown became the minority malt whereas it originally was 100% of the grist for entire butt beer aka porter. Hence the need for colouring agents like caramel, burned wort and ultimately black patent malt. The beer would be have been too pale without such assists.
Gary
Gary Gillman
Thanks for all this info here. I never knew they brewed more than just the one style at the brewery, I figured it was a small setup. I live just next to it at the university so I'll be sure to pick up some fresh growlers from now on! Curious how it'll compare to the bottled version, but as seems to be unanimous here, the bottled version is pretty good (certainly the best thing to ever come out of Trafalger's doors)
-
G.M. Gillman
- Seasoned Drinker
- Posts: 1486
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:24 pm