I have been on a bit of a Stout kick lately. I have been sampling new stouts, tweaking my homebrew recipe for the spring brewing season start-up (I brew outside), and generally renewing my love affair with the blackest of beer. That has naturally led to some spill-over into my beer columns. My last CBC column started a three-part series on stouts (you can find the mp3 here) – and the next one is this coming Friday (March 4). I also started a two (or maybe three) part series in Planet S Magazine, the first of which hit news stands late last week and which you can read here.
The history of stout is murky (no pun intended). I personally like re-telling the story of it being a mistake at the Arthur Guinness’ St. James Gate brewery and becoming a huge hit – which I do in both pieces but end up being more careful in the CBC column. I am well aware that there is no full historical confirmation of that particular event, but I am convinced that in some general fashion that was how stout was borne. We all know it was a bigger, bolder version of porter, but that classic roasted barley burnt flavour had to be the byproduct of an over-roasted batch. Beer history is littered with such fortuitous mistakes. Maybe it wasn’t Mr. Guinness who first did it, but he certainly jumped on the bandwagon pretty early.
Either way you can’t speak of stout without beginning with Guinness, for it really is the legitimate grandfather of the style. Despite having seen better days, Guinness is still a reliable stand-by. Plus the mystique around the beer is unparalleled. In the CBC column I try to dispel some myths about Guinness and stout in general (like it is higher alcohol). I also try to move on to some of the key sub-styles of stout, distinguishing between dry, sweet/milk and American.That is part of the reason it is a three-part series. I want to expand people’s sense of stout; I want them to realize it is more diverse than Guinness. So in future parts I will go through some of the other sub-syles, both official and unofficial.
Finding a beer to sample on air for CBC revealed a problem – at least for those of us in Alberta. I didn’t want to do a dry stout, as that is what Guinness is. I wanted a Sweet stout. But, I must admit, I really struggled to find one – at least one that is half decent (I know there are couple English imports that simply don’t hold up). I settled in with the Eight Ball Stout from Lost Coast, even though it is more of a sweet/American hybrid. Charlevoix has Vache Folle Milk Imperial Stout but that seemed too big to display the style character (I do know they also have a regular milk stout, but we can’t get that here).
So, did I miss something? Is there a milk stout available around these parts that I skipped over? Make a comment if you know of one.
Otherwise stay tuned for Part Two of the stout odyssey.
February 28, 2011 at 11:15 AM
I think Hitachino has a sweet stout in our market.
February 28, 2011 at 3:48 PM
Hoser,
You are right. I had considered that one, but to be honest am not a big fan of it. Then it promptly left my brain. Thanks for the reminder.
Jason
February 28, 2011 at 9:18 PM
What about McAulcan’s St. Ambroise Oatmeal Stout. I think this is by far the best Canadian Stout.
February 28, 2011 at 9:30 PM
Kurtis,
It is, indeed, a bloody marvelous stout. In fact (preview for onbeer readers…) I will be highlighting it on my CBC column this week.
However, it is not a sweet stout. It is an oatmeal stout – and a classic version at that.
Such is the problem. There are very few traditional sweet stouts around these parts. However, on the positive side, lots of great other kinds of stout.
Jason
February 28, 2011 at 11:38 PM
Um you could try Rogue Chocolate stout… i’m not a fan of it, especially for it hype, but i haven’t tried Dieu De Ciel’s Aphrodisiaque… would that work? ummm Young’s Double chocolate stout too i guess? Would any of those work?
March 1, 2011 at 9:35 AM
Hi Chris,
Good suggestions. In particular I suggest you get some of the Aphrodisiaque as it is fantastic.
Each of those beer would lean toward the sweeter side, and so could apply, but I am choosing to cluster stouts with “other” additions – chocolate, cocoa, vanilla, coffee, etc. – on their own. I do this not so much for purist reasons as for practical ones. I wanted to start the stout discussion with a sense of the “traditional” stouts – the early origins of the beer. That then leaves space – this Friday – for the experimentation we see today. I am not going to say that “chocolate stout” or “coffee stout” are their own sub-style, but they are reflective of newer approaches to the style. There, you now know half my CBC column for this week!
Thanks for commenting.
Jason
March 1, 2011 at 1:06 AM
Damn BJCP purists!
Kurtis depending on where you look for resources some consider the Oatmeal and the Chocolate infused stouts as sweet stouts. So in some people’s world your answer is correct. The BJCP however doesn’t agree but these same hypocrites add more style to the guidelines every year with.
March 1, 2011 at 8:26 AM
Not to start a debate, but I think classifying oatmeal stout as its own sub-style makes sense. In my opinion is should be sweeter than a dry stout and drier than a sweet stout, plus the silkiness from the oats gives it a unique mouthfeel.
Hoser is right that some people consider oatmeal stouts as sweet stouts. I just think classifying it on its own makes sense.
I also think Hoser might be a bit harsh on the volunteers who work for the BJCP (for those who don’t know, that is the Beer Judge Certification Program – the organization that tests and certifies judges). While it is clearly a worthy debate to discuss how many styles there should be, the BJCP is not the worst offender in the style inflation game.
That said I stand by my opinion that oatmeal stout deserves its own sub-style categorization. I say that as a person who has brewed one many times, and I am convinced the character is different than any other stout.
Jason
March 1, 2011 at 10:22 AM
Think I touched a nerve:) I was only pointing out Kurtis’s point holds some validity.
For United Kingdom styles of beer such as the stout and porter families I would trust the writings beer historian of Ron Patterson more than the BJCP guidelines. BJCP is great starting point for people new to beer to learn the styles. I stand by the starting point comment.
I do agree with Jason that Oatmeal Stouts are a style on to themselves. They have a silky smoothness added by the Oatmeal part of the gist bill that is not replicated by any other fermentable.
March 1, 2011 at 6:58 PM
I have to agree about Dieu du Ciel’s Aphrodisiaque being a great example of a sweet or dessert-type stout. But*sigh*true the chocolate & vanilla…’complicate things’.;-)
March 2, 2011 at 4:08 PM
Jason, I read your stout article in the newest Prairie Dog (this edition also features a handsome picture of yours truly as a side bar column in the music section), and instantly thought, “boy, I hope Ron Pattison doesn’t read this, he will rip you a new one.”
Regardless, great column and great discussion as always.
I know of a few “oatmeal” stouts that contain no oatmeal, and several “oatmeal” stouts that contain trace amounts.
I would be fine with ditching the oatmeal classification from the BJCP guidelines, or at least doing a major rewrite, as they are way too vague and have way too much overlap with the other stouts. I also feel the differentiation between stout and porter is poorly articulated, but this is not just a BJCP issue. Again, run this past the illustrious Ron P, and you will be bombarded with historical facts, figures and ranting that will make your head spin to the point that you don’t want to think about it ever again.
In my mind, there is session, export and imperial strength stouts, which can be dry, sweet or hoppy. Feel free to call them whatever you want.
March 2, 2011 at 4:41 PM
Mark,
Yeah, I am worried about Pattinson too. In the CBC column I was careful to note that the “brewing mistake” story was not historically sound, but somehow neglected that caveat in the Saskatchewan piece. My bad. I regretted it after submitting the piece. I hope it doesn’t detract too much.
Your approach to the style question makes sense. In general we need to do a rethink on how we break down styles because there are so many brewers out there doing so many different things. Your proposal of moving to a simpler breakdown has merit. Part of the BJCP’s struggles are its attempt to create firm lines between beer that are a natural continuum (both historically and today) – like porter and stout. My personal favourite is the dubbel/trippel vs. dark/golden strong Belgian. The style differentials work best when based on a simple criteria, like strength or colour. The American Ales and English pale ales are two examples.
As usual your thoughts are insightful.
Jason
Maybe I am just loyal to oatmeal stout as a style because it is my favourite homebrew recipe.
March 2, 2011 at 8:51 PM
A stout afterthought, Surely you have Dieu du Ciel’s Peche Mortel slated as a prime example of a coffee stout. Even Kansas City resident(& Desert Storm veteran Mark Starr-at http://www.thehopry.com )was impressed.