Victorian Mild!

[Sadfield]

I'm finding it all confusing rather than controversial. A thread on 'Victorian Milds' that are more like modern 'bitters' than 'milds', yet apparently not 'milds' in the way Victorians and historians use the term. What are you trying to present? What is our frame of reference? What are we to learn? What are you hoping to discover?

 

[Cwrw666]

Yes I find it odd that a thread to do with Victorian Milds only considers 20th century milds as proper milds.

 

[peebee]

@Sadfield, @Cwrw666 ; That's all exactly what I'm trying to pin down! The title has an exclamation mark because I'm not entirely sure with what I'm saying.

What is the demarcation between the old-fashioned view of "mild" (unaged) and a beer/ale called "Mild"?

I'm confident that there is a demarcation, but not so sure I've found a simple explanation of it. Meanwhile people commonly refer to early milds as if they are referring to 20/21st century mild, which is certainly b*******. (I find the best way to get answers is say something controversial).

 

[Sadfield]

I suspect you are looking in the wrong place, chronologically. Any demarcation probably centres around the war, when gravities were slashed for obvious reasons. Without looking I'd suspect all the xx, xxx and xxxx beers disappeared and x got relabelled mild, or more specifically, people started asking for light mild or dark mild in pubs, and then bitter and mild. And stale or Stock Ales went out of fashion.

 

[cushyno]

Whatever the angle and wherever your investigation end up (there are going to be many twists in the road!), I'm enjoying the historical aspect and intrigued by the thought process.

I can't add anything, but will follow with interest.

 

[peebee]

I suspect you are looking in the wrong place, chronologically. ...

You are probably right. But I'm going to stick with my definition, not because I think you're wrong, but because it will replace one arguable "demarcation" with another arguable "demarcation". But most importantly ( tut, I'm off again) it will end my "Victorian Mild" thread!


On the subject of "Victorian Mild", it's a recurring subject. Very recently there was this thread Sarah Hughes Ruby Mild. Some input from @Northern_Brewer suggesting "Victorian Mild" isn't a myth? On the subject of Sarah Hugh's Ruby Mild in "my book" it appears to cross into "mild..." (i.e. young) "...pale ale" territory, or in other words is not a "Mild"! It also seems to use crystal malt (from GW's BYOBRA book) which was around in late 19th century but not widely used so wouldn't fall into my "Victorian Mild" category anyway (not that it claims to be Victorian inspired?).

But my spin-off "Invert Sugar" thread is being a success, I hope to be coming back with conclusions shortly.

 

[peebee]

Yes I find it odd that a thread to do with Victorian Milds only considers 20th century milds as proper milds.

I hope I didn't suggest that? But I am recognising two types of "mild" and want to determine when one "mild" (adj.) became "extinct" (the use of the word, not the beer) and when "Mild" (noun) rose up to prominence.

 

[Sadfield]

It certainly makes more sense to search for recipes that fit a desired profile than trying to prove a distinct style existed.

I'm reminded by talk of invert sugar, that in his Scottish talk, Ron Pattinson mentioned that breweries would brew a beer and then adjust its colour with caramel/invert at packaging, in order to meet the expectations of drinkers in differ regions. Which suggests 'style' wasn't as homogeneous and defined as it is now, more regional as people didn't travel, yet beer was largely brewed by a small number of large breweries.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

I hope I didn't suggest that? But I am recognising two types of "mild" and want to determine when one "mild" (verb) became "extinct" (the use of the word, not the beer) and when "Mild" (noun) rose up to prominence.

I think you mean adjective rather than verb? Probably in the 1920s - eg Ron's found this advert from February 1929 which uses both forms :

I'd suggest that dark sugar is the characteristic ingredient of 20th-century dark milds (which is certainly being advertised by 1906 and probably came in some time after the Mash Tun Act), wheras it's the crystal that makes Sarah Hughes a *ruby* mild (as opposed to a dark mild or Pennine mild).

From memory there was a bit of a burst of sugar use in the 1850s, then it faded away in the 1860s (supply problems due to American Civil War?), then came back again.

 

[peebee]

I think you mean adjective rather than verb? ...

Geesh! I thought I needed a change of tack to better explain what I mean, so what do I do ...

I right the demand to muddled be.

And perhaps "Sarah Hughes Mild" wasn't a good example? Hang on though ...

I take that back! Okay, it doesn't actually say "Victorian Mild", but what else might they be insinuating?

 

[jMac]

I take that back! Okay, it doesn't actually say "Victorian Mild", but what else might they be insinuating?

I think you’re stretching a bit there .

Heritage pubs are wont to play up their history and I think the key to the inclusion of the Ruby Mild strap line is ‘award winning’. Interestingly, the Sarah Hughes pump signs all say ‘Established 1921’. Interesting maybe only because this is the sort of time period other authorities look to for the elusive demarcation line.

I imagine the Beacon also sells a variety of euro-fizzes as well, and I’m not sure you can class those as Victorian.

ETA: Although, thinking about this all a bit more, in an attempt to bemuddle myself equally... irrespective of the malts used, I don’t think the Sarah Hughes is a bad example of a ‘modern’ beer with ‘mild’ in its name that might not confuse the late 19th C time traveller. As you’ve kind of concluded yourself, there isn’t really a demarcation line - there’s only an evolution and semantics. ‘Victorian milds’ didn’t disappear, they either evolved or rebranded, as the term ‘Mild’ grew to be used to describe a style rather than a technique. As to why this was - I’d take a stab at the 20th C obsession with national- and globalisation and general homogenisation across all industry being a big contributor.

Gosh, I’ve really lost the plot in when to use inverted commas now too!

 

[peebee]

I think you’re stretching a bit there . ...

Okay, I probably did. It's a 20th century beer that 'might' (I can overuse italics, as well as inverted commas! And text-size! And exclamation marks!) of been inspired by early 19th century mild (adj.) pale ales (but leaving describing grammatical word constructs until I'm over 60 was a disaster). I should take heed of what @Cwrw666 said early in the thread:

Basically if the label says it's a mild, then it's a mild

Like:

Ah ... bums!

 

[jMac]

Like:

Ah ... bums!

But...

 

[peebee]

... (I can overuse italics, as well as inverted commas! And text-size! And exclamation marks!) ...

And 'selective' cropping of me piccies!

 

[patto1ro]

Before diving into the "what is 'mild'" controversy, I'll just post these two "Victorian Milds". And I do know they are from a few months after Queen Victoria died, but it was felt acceptable as King Edward VII wasn't crowned until 1902 (@Scrattajack saved me from that blunder - thanks).

View attachment 43746
Boddington's!!! I need me head seeing to (some more?), but it was a long time ago. Here's another, two "Xs" so slightly more up-market, and paler. The XX is what I'm planning to make next (well, I consider I am "up-market"!):

View attachment 43747
(Credit to Edd, Make Mine A Magee's!, for digging out them recipes).

Both of those recipes look wrong to me. No idea why they include Vienna malt, the originals were 100% pale malt. They did include three types of base malt - English, Middle Eastern and Californian - but they were all Californian.
And where are the Californian hops?

 

[patto1ro]

Both of those recipes look wrong to me. No idea why they include Vienna malt, the originals were 100% pale malt. They did include three types of base malt - English, Middle Eastern and Californian - but they were all Californian.
And where are the Californian hops?

No. 4 is a weird choice for the X Ale, too. The brewing records just say "invert" for both X and XX. My guess would be No. 2 or No. 3.

 

[peebee]

Both of those recipes look wrong to me. No idea why they include Vienna malt, the originals were 100% pale malt. They did include three types of base malt - English, Middle Eastern and Californian - but they were all Californian.
And where are the Californian hops?

Ah, you do get the hang of Edd's "conversions" after a bit! And "Vienna Malt" was one of mine anyway; Crisp Vienna = Crisp Mild malt.

(EDIT: The hop choices were mine too, damned if I was getting any "Cluster" hops in!)

 

[peebee]

No. 4 is a weird choice for the X Ale, too. The brewing records just say "invert" for both X and XX. My guess would be No. 2 or No. 3.

Beats me!

(Edd ... there's some amateur here casting doubt on your work) ☺

 

[patto1ro]

Beats me!

(Edd ... there's some amateur here casting doubt on your work) ☺

No. 4 is pretty rare and I can only remember seeing it used in Stout.

 

[chthon]

No. 4 is a weird choice for the X Ale, too. The brewing records just say "invert" for both X and XX. My guess would be No. 2 or No. 3.

Ronald Pattinson, is that really you?