I have a rather irrational fondness of recipes from around the time I first got into craft beer (early 2000s)…as a result, I’ve been going through the digital back issues of Zymurgy, and having some fun. I know that the world of ingredients and recipe design was very different 20 to 25 years ago, so I’m curious as to opinions on some of the “prehistoric” recipes.
The 2000 NHC winner for the Scottish Ale category was a Scottish Export beer called “Fearless Scottish Export,” by Ken Johnson of Boring, Oregon. The recipe is below.
5 lb. Munich malt
4 lb. Scotmalt Golden Promise malt
3 lb. Carastan malt (they don’t give the weight in pounds due to a typo, but list 1.36 kg, so I am assuming that 3 lb. is correct – it gives me the right target gravity)
1 lb. CaraMunich malt
2 oz. Willamette whole hops, 4% alppha, 30 minute boil
Wyeast 1338 (European ale yeast)
Mash for 60 minutes at 150 degrees, target of 1.054 o.g., 1.012 f.g., 3 hr boil(!), ferment at 66 degrees
I’m somewhat intrigued to try brewing this recipe, BUT I’m a bit skeptical as to the sheer quantity of crystal malts involved (~30% of the grist!). It seems like it would be a bit syrupy…but maybe that’s supposed to be? Is this just an artifact of brewing preferences and style expectations nearly a quarter of a century ago?
If I do make it, it will probably be a half batch (2.5 gallons)…
It sounds like a super malty, sweet background beer. Obviously must have been very good or it wouldn’t have scored well.
Ron Pattinson has a chapter on Scottish ales in his Home Brewers Guide to Vintage Beer. I’ll quote the opening paragraph.
[quote]Forget everything you’ve ever heard or read about Scottish beer. All that stuff about long caramelizing boils, minimal hopping, and lager-like fermentation temperatures is nonsense.
[/quote]
The early recipes appear to all be single malt recipes, with later recipes moving to using some six row along with the two row, and adding some invert sugar as well. The first recipe I see in the book with caramel is from 1928. But that’s not caramel malt, it’s listed as caramel and it is there for color only, it is not considered amongst the fermentables.
The early recipes appear to all be single malt recipes, with later recipes moving to using some six row along with the two row, and adding some invert sugar as well. The first recipe I see in the book with caramel is from 1928. But that’s not caramel malt, it’s listed as caramel and it is there for color only, it is not considered amongst the fermentables.
[/quote]
As I look through the old recipes, I do think many/most would not do well in competition these days when stacked against contemporary versions (even if they were good beers and would still be good beers). Especially for things like Scottish ales and I suspect the Belgian ales, I wonder if they leaned into modeling recipes after the kinds of oxidized/aged beers that might be available commercially in the late 1990s.
I’ll have to check Pattinson’s chapter when I get back home…definitely yet another take on the styles.
The recipes in THGtVB quite frankly look pretty boring. I agree that today’s pseudo style of Scottish ale is going to be far more palatable than the traditional stuff. In the next paragraph of that chapter he points out that today’s interpretation of what Scottish ale is, couldn’t be any farther from the truth. And that the entire style of today is completely contrived with no historical reference point whatsoever. And at least from the brewing notes, it looks like he pretty well nailed it.
When you compare things like 1800s Porter to the 1800s Scottish ale, it’s kind of interesting that the porter recipes almost look like something of today, while the Scottish ale recipes look like something you’d see from a first time brewer. Well all except trying to replicate the fermentation. I see some of these are an OG north of 1.100 but with finish gravities also north of 1.040. I don’t know what yeast you could do that with or what was going on there, but that’s where they had to be getting their sweet finish that evidently started all the myths and conjecture. I don’t know how else you could explain today’s idea of Scottish ale versus what it actually was years ago.
that’s 4 lbs of crystal malt lol,
munich malt (scottish?)
european ale yeast?
why call it a scottish export?
imho its some mishmash recipe from that time period, that might not have even been brewed. i definitely dont see what makes it a “scottish export” lol
if youre adding munich malt to some english style beer you might as well just stop pretending its historically based at all. just call it an ale or whatever
what?
1800s porter looks nothing like porters today, if only because today saying “porter” is almost meaningless as it litearlly just means a dark beer with whatever a brewer wants to add to it - i have never found consistency in all the years ive been drinking beer re: “porter”
this is a completely common scottish ale recipe from the 1800s - ron pattinson has explained that generally scotland was brewing whatever was in vogue and exporting it to england or other countries. ie. a strong pale ale like this. i wish this was like the first beer i brewed.
If you’re just brewing this beer for your pleasure I’d brew it as written. It did win at NHC and was from the time period. Like you, I’d brew a small representation because it doesn’t look very appealing.
If I was trying to recreate a representation of an actual drink from the country of origin, or I was brewing this for a competition, I’d do more research.
Not sure what you mean? The recipe you linked was exactly from the book, single malt (pale) and 2 hops. I suppose they could dry hop with the same variety to make it simpler, but that’s about it.
That recipe from Zymurgy sounds like it might get you in the ballpark to Founder’s Dirty Bastard. Have you tried that beer? Very malty, very sweet. Imo, it’s very much a one-and-done type beer, or one that you might split with someone. Maybe try and find one and see what you think.
I often wonder how much of that is present in beer judging, not that I care one way or the other. But I’ve seen where beers with radical recipes might do well because it’s so unique and strikes a chord with the judges that day. Now that doesn’t mean it’s not a really well made beer, and I might love it too, but that doesn’t mean I’d sit and drink 5 in a row. It’s like you hit flavor overload or something.
I like caramel malt in beers, but in moderation. I could easily see this finishing out too sweet for my taste. (but I’d still try it!)
(edit) and besides the caramel malt, the most neutral base malt is Munich… Whew
OK, now that I’ve digested both the original post AND all the responses of others, including Ron Pattinson’s historical data… shoot… maybe just brew it as the author intended! It’s going to be very sweet (no way you’re going to end up at FG 1.012!!!), but that was also traditional! I used to love Scotch ales but these days I prefer something not so sweet. But perhaps this is only my personal preference, and I need some recalibration… as does the BJCP apparently since they only allow maximum 1.016 FG, which history dictates ain’t right but rather only the current industry trend I guess. Belhaven in particular seems to my palate to be WAY sweeter than 1.016. But what do I know.
I do think I’ll probably try making this recipe – as mentioned in my initial post, I’m just having fun with revisiting old beers, even if they wouldn’t be to style or “authentic” these days. It will be a small batch, though, in case it’s not to my taste. I’ll probably wait until winter for this one…no way that it’s a summer/early fall beer!
Ron Pattinson’s book A Homebrewer’s Guide to Vintage Beer covers the early 1800s to around 1960.
You are asking about Scottish export ale from around 2000. To me, that means McEwan’s Scotch ale. That recipe looks like it would get you in the ballpark of McEwan’s from around that period. I should know, I bought a boatload of it back in the day.