There are some home brewers here that may be interested in this.
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/what-was-grog-scientists-analyze-ancient-nordic-drink-2D11926342
QuoteWhat was in that grog? Scientists analyze ancient Nordic drink
Stephanie Pappas LiveScience
7 hours ago
Ancient Scandinavians quaffed an alcoholic mixture of barley, honey, cranberries, herbs and even grape wine imported from Greece and Rome, new research finds.
This Nordic "grog" predates the Vikings. It was found buried in tombs alongside warriors and priestesses, and is now available at liquor stores across the United States, thanks to a reconstruction effort by Patrick McGovern, a biomolecular archaeologist at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, and Delaware-based Dogfish Head Craft Brewery.
"You'd think, with all these different ingredients, it sort of makes your stomach churn," McGovern, the lead author of a study published by the Danish Journal of Archaeology, told LiveScience. "But actually, if you put it in the right amounts and balance out the ingredients, it really does taste very good."
Drink of the ancients
McGovern began the journey toward uncovering the ingredients of ancient Nordic alcohol decades ago, when he began combing through museums in Denmark and Sweden, looking for pottery shards that held traces of old beverages. But in the mid-1990s, the technology to analyze these chemical remnants just wasn't available, he said. [See Images of Nordic Graves and the Artifacts]
More recently, McGovern and his co-authors re-examined the remnants with modern tools. They analyzed samples from four sites, two of which were grave sites in Sweden and Denmark. The oldest of these sites dated back to 1500 B.C. — more than 3,500 years ago.
The oldest sample came from a large jar buried with a male warrior in Denmark. The other three came from strainer cups, used to serve wine, found in Denmark and Sweden. One of the strainer cups came from a tomb where four women were buried. One of the women, who died at around age 30, clutched the strainer in her hand.
Beer brewing goes back at least 10,000 years, and ancient humans were endlessly creative in their recipes for intoxicants. Studies of pollen content in northern European drinking vessels suggested the ancient residents drank honey-based mead and other alcoholic brews. But the exact ingredients were not well understood. Ancient texts written by Greeks and Romans proved that southern Europeans were among the first wine snobs. These authors dismissed Northern beverages as "barley rotted in water."
Complex brew
In fact, Nordic grog was a complex brew, McGovern and his colleagues found. The ingredients included honey, cranberries and lingonberries (acidic red berries that grow in Scandinavia). Wheat, rye and barley — and occasionally, imported grape wine from southern Europe — formed a base for the drink. Herbs and spices — such as bog myrtle, yarrow, juniper and birch resin — added flavor and perhaps medicinal qualities.
The oldest sample, which was buried with a male warrior, was an anomaly. The jug found in that grave contained only traces of honey, suggesting that the occupant went to his grave with a jar of unadulterated mead. Because the warrior had well-crafted weapons in his tomb, he was likely of high status. Pure mead was probably a drink for the elite, because honey was expensive and scarce, the researchers reported. [Raise your Glass: 10 Intoxicating Beer Facts]
Gallery: Eight ancient drinks uncorked by science
The grog was likely a high-class beverage, McGovern said. In the 1920s, archaeologists uncovered a remarkably well-preserved burial of a young blond woman in Denmark. Dubbed "Egtved Girl" (pronounced "eckt-VED"), the corpse was buried wearing a wool string skirt with a bucket of grog at her feet. The young woman's clothes and ornaments suggest that she was a priestess who probably danced in religious ceremonies, McGovern said.
In other graves, wine-serving kits imported from southern Europe are also associated with women, McGovern said.
"That gives the impression that the women were the ones who would make the beverages in antiquity, and they were the ones that would serve it to the warriors," he said.
The imported wine strainer cups and traces of grape wine, which was only produced in southern Europe, suggest a robust trade network in this period, McGovern said. Northerners likely shipped Baltic amber southward in return for the wine and drinking utensils.
Grog re-created
With McGovern's help, Dogfish Head re-created the Nordic grog in October 2013, using wheat, berries, honey and herbs. The only difference was that Dogfish Head's brew contains a few hops, the bittering agents used in most modern beers. Hops weren't used in beers in Europe until the 1500s.
Dogfish Head's grog is called Kvasir, a name that hints at its roots. In Nordic legend, Kvasir was a wise man created by gods spitting into a jar. Two dwarfs later murdered Kvasir and mixed his blood with honey, creating a beverage that was said to confer wisdom and poetry onto the drinker.
The grog tastes sour, like a Belgian lambic, McGovern said. But there are other options available to those who want a taste of Bronze Age Europe. The Swedish brewery Nynäshamns Ångbryggeri created another version of grog called Arketyp, and it is available at state liquor stores in Sweden. Meanwhile, on the Swedish island of Gotland, locals still brew a mixture of barley, honey, juniper and herbs that tastes much like what their ancient ancestors drank.
I was very interested in the North American reproduction until they said they'd added gratuitous hops.
In an old Kentucky home the remains of an ancient HR guy was discovered clutching a mug that was found to contain trace amounts of semen.
Quote from: The Brain on January 15, 2014, 01:04:05 AM
In an old Kentucky home the remains of an ancient HR guy was discovered clutching a mug that was found to contain trace amounts of semen.
Was it human semen
Quote from: Syt on January 15, 2014, 01:04:58 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 15, 2014, 01:04:05 AM
In an old Kentucky home the remains of an ancient HR guy was discovered clutching a mug that was found to contain trace amounts of semen.
Was it human semen
Seemingly.
Quote from: Syt on January 15, 2014, 01:04:58 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 15, 2014, 01:04:05 AM
In an old Kentucky home the remains of an ancient HR guy was discovered clutching a mug that was found to contain trace amounts of semen.
Was it human semen
Well, HR.
I thought Grog was watered down rum. :huh: I didn't think the word had anything to do with the Norse.
Quote from: Jacob on January 15, 2014, 01:03:28 AM
I was very interested in the North American reproduction until they said they'd added gratuitous hops.
Yeah. It seems strange to go to all that trouble to re-create an ancient beverage, and then throw that work away by adding elements not present in your recipe. Dogfish Head has reproduced nothing.
I am sure that the rationale was that this would taste more familiar to drinkers, but the point of reproducing the ancient beverage presumably was to re-introduce what was no longer familiar. Else, why bother?
Quote from: Jacob on January 15, 2014, 01:03:28 AM
I was very interested in the North American reproduction until they said they'd added gratuitous hops.
:rolleyes: Wuss.
Quote from: grumbler on January 15, 2014, 09:08:34 AM
I am sure that the rationale was that this would taste more familiar to drinkers, but the point of reproducing the ancient beverage presumably was to re-introduce what was no longer familiar. Else, why bother?
Their rationale was that they are Dogfish and people expect their beers to be hoppy.
edit: it is 13 IBU, which is practically nothing-- particularly for a 10% ABV beer. It was probably so unpalatably sweet that they had no choice but to throw a handful of hops into the the wort.
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2014, 09:21:22 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 15, 2014, 09:08:34 AM
I am sure that the rationale was that this would taste more familiar to drinkers, but the point of reproducing the ancient beverage presumably was to re-introduce what was no longer familiar. Else, why bother?
Their rationale was that they are Dogfish and people expect their beers to be hoppy.
...which is why Dogfish can go fuck themselves.
Quote from: ulmont on January 15, 2014, 02:01:08 PM
...which is why Dogfish can go fuck themselves.
Suit yourself. But there's a reason their beer is in such high demand.
Even with the hops, it's almost guaranteed to be a near-undrinkable novelty beer, fit for one purchase per interested customer (and those people pretty much know who they are at this point, since there's been a few ancient ales released, not to mention mead), so they might as well not have blown the historical verisimilitude so drastically.
Quote from: Jacob on January 15, 2014, 01:03:28 AM
I was very interested in the North American reproduction until they said they'd added gratuitous hops.
This. I normally like Dogfish Head, too. :angry:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 15, 2014, 03:13:55 PM
Even with the hops, it's almost guaranteed to be a near-undrinkable novelty beer, fit for one purchase per interested customer (and those people pretty much know who they are at this point, since there's been a few ancient ales released, not to mention mead), so they might as well not have blown the historical verisimilitude so drastically.
Having made several batches of historical meads from 13th century recipes, I'm going to respectfully disagree. Though I didn't use well water, I did use period methods and as period ingredients as I could get. The results, while pretty sharp by today's standards as they didn't age their meads then like we do now, was still pretty tasty.
Quote from: merithyn on January 15, 2014, 05:00:08 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 15, 2014, 03:13:55 PM
Even with the hops, it's almost guaranteed to be a near-undrinkable novelty beer, fit for one purchase per interested customer (and those people pretty much know who they are at this point, since there's been a few ancient ales released, not to mention mead), so they might as well not have blown the historical verisimilitude so drastically.
Having made several batches of historical meads from 13th century recipes, I'm going to respectfully disagree. Though I didn't use well water, I did use period methods and as period ingredients as I could get. The results, while pretty sharp by today's standards as they didn't age their meads then like we do now, was still pretty tasty.
Well yeah with that decadent 13th century stuff. We are talking 16th century BC people, they drank fermented bear piss and liked it.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 15, 2014, 04:22:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 15, 2014, 01:03:28 AM
I was very interested in the North American reproduction until they said they'd added gratuitous hops.
This. I normally like Dogfish Head, too. :angry:
Chances are you wouldn't notice any hops if you tried it. 10 IBU is practically nothing.
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2014, 05:08:47 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 15, 2014, 04:22:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 15, 2014, 01:03:28 AM
I was very interested in the North American reproduction until they said they'd added gratuitous hops.
This. I normally like Dogfish Head, too. :angry:
Chances are you wouldn't notice any hops if you tried it. 10 IBU is practically nothing.
Which, again, is an excellent reason not to add any hops at all, and retain authenticity (such as it is).
Quote from: grumbler on January 15, 2014, 05:18:26 PM
Which, again, is an excellent reason not to add any hops at all, and retain authenticity (such as it is).
I said DSB probably wouldn't notice it. Apparently their brewmaster felt that he needed to throw in a handful of hops to make it drinkable. I'd trust his judgment on that.
I'd say a handful of hops is going to matter a lot less in terms of authenticity than the water chemistry. I wonder if they did anything to try & replicate the water from back whenever :x
Quote from: Jacob on January 15, 2014, 01:03:28 AM
I was very interested in the North American reproduction until they said they'd added gratuitous hops.
Every culture has its own mating rituals.
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2014, 05:26:18 PM
I said DSB probably wouldn't notice it. Apparently their brewmaster felt that he needed to throw in a handful of hops to make it drinkable. I'd trust his judgment on that.
How could they not know that they were making an undrinkable beverage before they started? If it was undrinkable, why make it? If you are not going to make it authentic, then why bother making it at all? I mean, as soon as people discover that it is a "Disney" version of the real drink, they lose interest, and the market was small as is.
QuoteI'd say a handful of hops is going to matter a lot less in terms of authenticity than the water chemistry. I wonder if they did anything to try & replicate the water from back whenever :x
I'd say that water quality varied considerably from place to place in the ancient world, just as it does in the modern. There would have been places with fairly pure water back then, and an authentic reproduction of their beverages would reflect those from a place like that. Water has been just H2O for more than 3500 years.
Quote from: grumbler on January 16, 2014, 07:30:57 AM
How could they not know that they were making an undrinkable beverage before they started?
Because nobody there had tried it yet?
QuoteIf it was undrinkable, why make it?
Brewers experiment with new (or really old) ideas all the time. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
QuoteIf you are not going to make it authentic, then why bother making it at all? I mean, as soon as people discover that it is a "Disney" version of the real drink, they lose interest, and the market was small as is.
I think you're getting a little nitpicky here. Craft brewers release limited editions or experimental beers all the time. Remember their market is beer geeks, not necessarily history geeks. I haven't tried this one, but some people like it, some hate it. Overall it seems to be rated favorably on ratebeer.com and beeradvocate.com
QuoteI'd say that water quality varied considerably from place to place in the ancient world, just as it does in the modern. There would have been places with fairly pure water back then, and an authentic reproduction of their beverages would reflect those from a place like that. Water has been just H2O for more than 3500 years.
My smiley at the end aside, what I was saying is that the water chemistry (specifically, levels of calcium, sulphate, magnesium, sodium, chloride, and carbonate) can have a big impact on how a beer tastes. You could hold 100% true to that ancient recipe and still have it taste differently than it did back in the day due to water chemistry. And that could throw things off for a batch of beer more than a minuscule amount of hops would.
Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2014, 09:52:15 AM
Because nobody there had tried it yet?
I thought that we were trusting the brewmaster.
QuoteBrewers experiment with new (or really old) ideas all the time. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
I am talking about what Dogfish Head making a commercial beer, not some experiment. Making a commercial beer requires investment. If you are throwing away the only real selling point for the beer, then why make the investment?
QuoteI think you're getting a little nitpicky here. Craft brewers release limited editions or experimental beers all the time. Remember their market is beer geeks, not necessarily history geeks. I haven't tried this one, but some people like it, some hate it. Overall it seems to be rated favorably on ratebeer.com and beeradvocate.com
I think that you are evading the question here. Craft brewers release limited edition/experimental beers all the time, but this beverage is not a craft brewer's experiment with beer, it is a "re-creation" that has been deliberately turned into a unauthentic re-creation. That's not really an experimental beer at all. The question is why would Doghead make it, knowing that they can't really get away with claiming that it is authentic. Beer aficionados, as DH knows well, care about even tiny additions to any "classic" formula.
QuoteMy smiley at the end aside, what I was saying is that the water chemistry (specifically, levels of calcium, sulphate, magnesium, sodium, chloride, and carbonate) can have a big impact on how a beer tastes. You could hold 100% true to that ancient recipe and still have it taste differently than it did back in the day due to water chemistry. And that could throw things off for a batch of beer more than a minuscule amount of hops would.
I understand how water can change the taste of beer (as well as other beverages made from water). What you need to understand is that water chemistry varied in the ancient world. No two batches of "grog" made in 1500 BCE would taste the same, especially iof they were made in different locations. The DH water is likely going to match someone's water, somewhere, and so potentially match that specific batch of grog (except that they deliberately depart from the authentic formula).
Quote from: grumbler on January 16, 2014, 11:45:33 AM
I thought that we were trusting the brewmaster.
Yeah. Point?
Quote
I am talking about what Dogfish Head making a commercial beer, not some experiment. Making a commercial beer requires investment. If you are throwing away the only real selling point for the beer, then why make the investment?
I think you lost me. Experimental beers and 'commercial' beers are not mutually exclusive. I'm not sure what unique investment they'd be making beyond the myriad of other special release beers they brew or have brewed.
QuoteI think that you are evading the question here.
No. It's more likely we're just not on the same page.
QuoteCraft brewers release limited edition/experimental beers all the time, but this beverage is not a craft brewer's experiment with beer, it is a "re-creation" that has been deliberately turned into a unauthentic re-creation. That's not really an experimental beer at all.
It sure is. Nobody knows the exact recipe. They just have an idea of what different ingredients may have been used. I'm sure the brewer experimented with different measures in very small batches before they came up with their recipe for the production run. Just like they do with any other new beer they make. And at some point they decided to add a small amount of hops.
QuoteThe question is why would Doghead make it, knowing that they can't really get away with claiming that it is authentic. Beer aficionados, as DH knows well, care about even tiny additions to any "classic" formula.
None of the tasters' notes I saw mention anything about the hops or the fact that there was a tiny deviation from what is thought to have been the original recipe. So I don't think any beer geeks are bothered by the fact that hops were included. The negative comments seem to be that it's a bit too sweet/fruity, in fact.
But if you're really that vexed and curious as to why they made it, email them at
[email protected] or hit them up on twitter at @dogfishbeer. Or just keep bitching about it here.
FWIW, I'd probably try it out if it were less than $10 for a 22 oz bomber of it. But $13.99? Not interested enough.
QuoteI understand how water can change the taste of beer (as well as other beverages made from water). What you need to understand is that water chemistry varied in the ancient world. No two batches of "grog" made in 1500 BCE would taste the same, especially iof they were made in different locations. The DH water is likely going to match someone's water, somewhere, and so potentially match that specific batch of grog (except that they deliberately depart from the authentic formula).
It's possible, but not likely.
They may make your head spin a few times, g: http://www.dogfish.com/brews-spirits/the-brews/occasional-rarities/index.htm
They have a whole "Ancient Ale" series with gimmicky "based on analysis of dust scraped off such & such drinking vessel" beers. One-- Midas Touch-- was popular enough to be made into a year-round ale.
I will say personally, and not a beer aficionado, that I thought their historical ales seemed interesting until I realized that they just modified the recipes as they saw fit.
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2014, 01:00:43 PM
they just modified the recipes as they saw fit.
From the article in the OP, it sounds like something brewmasters have always done.
I wasn't ever interested in them either way. Gimmicky beers don't tend to draw me in, and I would imagine most painstakingly recreated historical brews would taste kind of nasty compared to what we drink these days.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2014, 01:05:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2014, 01:00:43 PM
they just modified the recipes as they saw fit.
From the article in the OP, it sounds like something brewmasters have always done.
Modified? Sure. Modified with modern ingredients while be mentioned as recreations?
Semi-related and I haven't had it in ages, but Flag Porter is made from yeast* salvaged from sealed ale bottles aboard an 1825 shipwreck (I think they originally called it Shipwreck ale) and brewed according to an 1850 Porter recipe. It was tasty stuff.
*they found live yeast cells in the bottles and cultured the strain under sterile conditions to make more of it
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2014, 01:32:53 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2014, 01:05:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2014, 01:00:43 PM
they just modified the recipes as they saw fit.
From the article in the OP, it sounds like something brewmasters have always done.
Modified? Sure. Modified with modern ingredients while be mentioned as recreations?
Modified with ingredients at hand.
I doubt anyone is going to be able to find ingredients that are true in every respect to what had been used. Well, unless Grumbler kept some from the old days but by now those will have gone bad.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2014, 02:57:17 PM
Modified with ingredients at hand.
I doubt anyone is going to be able to find ingredients that are true in every respect to what had been used. Well, unless Grumbler kept some from the old days but by now those will have gone bad.
I guess it is good that no one is asking for that.
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2014, 03:08:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2014, 02:57:17 PM
Modified with ingredients at hand.
I doubt anyone is going to be able to find ingredients that are true in every respect to what had been used. Well, unless Grumbler kept some from the old days but by now those will have gone bad.
I guess it is good that no one is asking for that.
Might as well be, though.
Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2014, 03:17:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2014, 03:08:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2014, 02:57:17 PM
Modified with ingredients at hand.
I doubt anyone is going to be able to find ingredients that are true in every respect to what had been used. Well, unless Grumbler kept some from the old days but by now those will have gone bad.
I guess it is good that no one is asking for that.
Might as well be, though.
I think there's a difference between that and pointedly adding an ingredient that wouldn't have been used in any form.
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2014, 03:08:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2014, 02:57:17 PM
Modified with ingredients at hand.
I doubt anyone is going to be able to find ingredients that are true in every respect to what had been used. Well, unless Grumbler kept some from the old days but by now those will have gone bad.
I guess it is good that no one is asking for that.
Dont call Grumbler a nobody :mad:
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2014, 03:19:24 PM
I think there's a difference between that and pointedly adding an ingredient that wouldn't have been used in any form.
Even if you're not likely to notice?
Do you also take issue with the fact that it's carbonated according to modern standards? Or that it's been kept in a properly sealed container? Or that hardly anyone will drink it at ambient temperature?
Quote from: grumbler on January 16, 2014, 07:30:57 AM
How could they not know that they were making an undrinkable beverage before they started?
I'd guess that they did a number of "practice" batches before they settled on the one they actually sold. In short, they probably did try the "original" recipe, determined it to be too far off the beaten path (or their taste testers did), and modified just enough to make it palatable for more people but still be able to say that it's "pretty damn close" to the original, and sell it as such.
Some people like grumbler will be offended that it wasn't "true" to the recipe, but most people will care more that they've bought something worth drinking that also has a historical basis.
Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2014, 01:09:12 PM
I wasn't ever interested in them either way. Gimmicky beers don't tend to draw me in, and I would imagine most painstakingly recreated historical brews would taste kind of nasty compared to what we drink these days.
They do. And they're also very weak.
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2014, 03:19:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2014, 03:17:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2014, 03:08:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 16, 2014, 02:57:17 PM
Modified with ingredients at hand.
I doubt anyone is going to be able to find ingredients that are true in every respect to what had been used. Well, unless Grumbler kept some from the old days but by now those will have gone bad.
I guess it is good that no one is asking for that.
Might as well be, though.
I think there's a difference between that and pointedly adding an ingredient that wouldn't have been used in any form.
I'm not sure that's 100% accurate. Hops was actually used in beer that early (it's documented back to the 900s AD), but only by a very small segment of the population. If it wasn't hops, though, it would have been some other form of bittering, preservative item like wormwood (which is illegal to use now).
Basically, hops isn't too far outside the considered "norm" for the item they brewed.
Hmm... meri and derspiess taking the same side of a disputed issue... and they've made me reconsider my position. :hmm: I feel pretty sure this has been prophesied in the Languish Book of Revelations somewhere.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 16, 2014, 05:44:07 PM
Hmm... meri and derspiess taking the same side of a disputed issue... and they've made me reconsider my position. :hmm: I feel pretty sure this has been prophesied in the Languish Book of Revelations somewhere.
It's brewing. We've agreed multiple times on brewing. :D
I'm actually going to be faithfully recreating a 13th century beer recipe later this month. I'll take detailed notes and report back. ;)
Is 10% ABV realistic for something this old? Seems awful high to me.
Quote from: merithyn on January 16, 2014, 05:22:33 PM
that also has a historical basis.
Most recipes have a historical basis. :secret:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 16, 2014, 05:49:07 PM
Is 10% ABV realistic for something this old? Seems awful high to me.
Only if you let it ferment longer than would have been done in period.
Period beers - in general - were very short fermentations, as in two or three days, tops. That was for three reasons: the fermentation was just to make the liquid drinkable, too much alcohol was considered bad for kids and women, and there were limited places to store the alcohol that would keep it from going bad. Some beers were developed for longer keeping - and higher alcohol content - but not many, not often, and only the wealthiest of folks could and did use this practice. Some beers, wines, and meads were made for holidays, but those were very special occasions, and there are a lot of notations about how special they were in the text we have from that period. In other words, it was pretty unusual to do so.
That means that, in general, most beers would be in the 1-3% range, similar to O'Doul's. They would also have been less sweet, more watery, and barely bubbly.
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2014, 06:05:53 PM
Most recipes have a historical basis. :secret:
Yes, but few can be traced back 1000 years. :) When they can, it's pretty special to try to recreate them, even if imperfectly.
Quote from: merithyn on January 16, 2014, 06:36:33 PM
Yes, but few can be traced back 1000 years. :) When they can, it's pretty special to try to recreate them, even if imperfectly.
Probably even more special if one didn't pointedly add "imperfections". ;)
But agents to add a bitter element were common. The Franks had hops (for instance), and if they were growing them I would think they used them. Adding something to add to the bitterness would be perfectly natural. Given that there is no recipe, but only residue, the whole question is moot anyway - analysis will always be imperfect in this respect.
Quote from: PDH on January 16, 2014, 07:46:11 PM
But agents to add a bitter element were common. The Franks had hops (for instance), and if they were growing them I would think they used them. Adding something to add to the bitterness would be perfectly natural. Given that there is no recipe, but only residue, the whole question is moot anyway - analysis will always be imperfect in this respect.
:yes:
Quote from: garbon on January 16, 2014, 07:33:06 PM
Probably even more special if one didn't pointedly add "imperfections". ;)
But I'm not sure that they did. As I said, they did use bittering agents that preserved the beer, just like hops. And we know that hops was used in some beers as far back as 900-ish AD (it's documented by monks of the period). It's not a huge leap to use some hops to approximate the taste of the period.
Speaking of beer, the US now has its own Trappist brewery :punk:
Quote from: PDH on January 16, 2014, 07:46:11 PM
But agents to add a bitter element were common. The Franks had hops (for instance), and if they were growing them I would think they used them. Adding something to add to the bitterness would be perfectly natural. Given that there is no recipe, but only residue, the whole question is moot anyway - analysis will always be imperfect in this respect.
You are being very pointed.
Quote from: merithyn on January 16, 2014, 06:36:33 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 16, 2014, 05:49:07 PM
Is 10% ABV realistic for something this old? Seems awful high to me.
Only if you let it ferment longer than would have been done in period.
If you'll forgive my cynicism, I think they feel the need to crank up the ABV since the brew is going to taste so...distinctive...that most people won't be able to drink it in volume, and the brewery still wants to give them the requisite buzz.
Honestly, the alcohol level, if it's anachronistic, would strike me as the biggest distortion. If it used to be a beverage that Joe Norseman quaffed from midnight sunrise to midnight sunfall, it's now closer to hard liquor than anything he drank.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 17, 2014, 10:22:35 AM
Quote from: merithyn on January 16, 2014, 06:36:33 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 16, 2014, 05:49:07 PM
Is 10% ABV realistic for something this old? Seems awful high to me.
Only if you let it ferment longer than would have been done in period.
If you'll forgive my cynicism, I think they feel the need to crank up the ABV since the brew is going to taste so...distinctive...that most people won't be able to drink it in volume, and the brewery still wants to give them the requisite buzz.
Honestly, the alcohol level, if it's anachronistic, would strike me as the biggest distortion. If it used to be a beverage that Joe Norseman quaffed from midnight sunrise to midnight sunfall, it's now closer to hard liquor than anything he drank.
I agree on both counts.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 17, 2014, 10:22:35 AM
If you'll forgive my cynicism, I think they feel the need to crank up the ABV since the brew is going to taste so...distinctive...that most people won't be able to drink it in volume, and the brewery still wants to give them the requisite buzz.
I sort of agree. Nobody is going to pay $14 for a bottle of 2.5% ABV beer. But people aren't just chasing a buzz, per se, when they buy Dogfish Head. It's more of a taste thing.
I stopped by one of my local beer stores last night & they actually had the Kvasir for $11.99/22 oz. bottle rather than the $13.99 price tag most places have. I was tempted to try it but bought another bomber of Dogfish's Miles Davis Bitches Brew instead. Tasty stuff.
QuoteHonestly, the alcohol level, if it's anachronistic, would strike me as the biggest distortion. If it used to be a beverage that Joe Norseman quaffed from midnight sunrise to midnight sunfall, it's now closer to hard liquor than anything he drank.
Yep. Joe Norseman was a session ale guy.
Ok, all this beer talk has me wanting a cold historicaly inaccurate beer. Any beer will do, it is Friday after all.
Quote from: lustindarkness on January 17, 2014, 01:08:27 PM
Ok, all this beer talk has me wanting a cold historicaly inaccurate beer. Any beer will do, it is Friday after all.
I've been told by my boss that "a beer with lunch is fine, so long as that beer doesn't get you drunk". Guess what I'm having with my sammich for lunch today....
:cool:
With the increasing trend of canned craft beer (which btw tends not to look so much like a can of beer), it's a matter of time before I grab beer from the fridge instead of a Coke Zero to take in with my lunch :ph34r:
As cool as the idea sounds, I'd feel odd drinking even a single session ale with lunch.
I generally find wine, champ...sparkling wine, beer and cider all fair game for lunch.
Wait, is beer/wine non-kosher for lunch nowadays?
Depends on the company and/or manager. I've worked at places where they allow you up to 2 drinks at lunch and I've worked places where they're completely strict about it. And then I've heard of several smaller companies where they have a beer/wine fridge and everyone drinks all afternoon on Fridays.
Quote from: celedhring on January 17, 2014, 02:04:07 PM
Wait, is beer/wine non-kosher for lunch nowadays?
It's a cultural thing - country-wise, industry-wise, and company-wise.
Quote from: celedhring on January 17, 2014, 02:04:07 PM
Wait, is beer/wine non-kosher for lunch nowadays?
I've always abstained to keep a clear head while I work. Today, I knew that I was done before I went to lunch. :P
Great Boo's up.
I always have a beer/glass of wine when having a social lunch (aka, not eating my sandwich alone) with workmates or whoever. Heck, one of the companies I worked for provided beer/wine/cider for free at the office lounge alongside non-alcoholic beverages. People are expected to know their limits.
Quote from: celedhring on January 17, 2014, 03:16:08 PM
People are expected to know their limits.
That's un-American! :mad:
Quote from: celedhring on January 17, 2014, 03:16:08 PM
I always have a beer/glass of wine when having a social lunch (aka, not eating my sandwich alone) with workmates or whoever. Heck, one of the companies I worked for provided beer/wine/cider for free at the office lounge alongside non-alcoholic beverages. People are expected to know their limits.
Here we are expected to know that our limit is zero. :)
Quote from: DGuller on January 17, 2014, 03:18:30 PM
Quote from: celedhring on January 17, 2014, 03:16:08 PM
I always have a beer/glass of wine when having a social lunch (aka, not eating my sandwich alone) with workmates or whoever. Heck, one of the companies I worked for provided beer/wine/cider for free at the office lounge alongside non-alcoholic beverages. People are expected to know their limits.
Here we are expected to know that our limit is zero. :)
How un-Ukrainian.
Quote from: PDH on January 16, 2014, 07:46:11 PM
But agents to add a bitter element were common. The Franks had hops (for instance), and if they were growing them I would think they used them. Adding something to add to the bitterness would be perfectly natural. Given that there is no recipe, but only residue, the whole question is moot anyway - analysis will always be imperfect in this respect.
If Dogfish Head or derspiess were to make the argument that the hops were added to replace another, unusable, bittering agent, then adding the hops wouldn't be an issue. That's not the case, though. We don't know why DH added the hops, and spicey's argument is that the drink would taste bad without hops (of course, he also argues that one could detect the hops in the taste, but I don't expect perfectly consistent arguments :D ). The issue of imperfect analysis is valid to the extent that DH shouldn't really be claiming that they are re-creating a drink to which they lack a recipe, but I think that everyone in the discussion (and the story) is assuming that the analysis is good enough to re-create the brew. The point is that even perfect analysis wouldn't show hops in the ancient recipe, which by itself makes the "re-creation" something of a fraud.
Again-- if you really want to know the answer, by all means ask them.
If they were making a batch for a bunch of history professors to try, that would be one thing. Otherwise, you're just being way too nitpicky.
Quote from: grumbler on January 17, 2014, 03:20:07 PM
Quote from: PDH on January 16, 2014, 07:46:11 PM
But agents to add a bitter element were common. The Franks had hops (for instance), and if they were growing them I would think they used them. Adding something to add to the bitterness would be perfectly natural. Given that there is no recipe, but only residue, the whole question is moot anyway - analysis will always be imperfect in this respect.
If Dogfish Head or derspiess were to make the argument that the hops were added to replace another, unusable, bittering agent, then adding the hops wouldn't be an issue. That's not the case, though.
No, but I did. :glare:
QuoteWe don't know why DH added the hops, and spicey's argument is that the drink would taste bad without hops (of course, he also argues that one could detect the hops in the taste, but I don't expect perfectly consistent arguments :D ). The issue of imperfect analysis is valid to the extent that DH shouldn't really be claiming that they are re-creating a drink to which they lack a recipe, but I think that everyone in the discussion (and the story) is assuming that the analysis is good enough to re-create the brew. The point is that even perfect analysis wouldn't show hops in the ancient recipe, which by itself makes the "re-creation" something of a fraud.
It would be a fraud if the hops weren't mentioned. Since they were, it's simply a stylistic change from one understanding of the ancient recipe.
The small town firm I worked at not only had a well-stocked beer fridge for after work, but the senior lawyers would routinely have a beer for lunch (as long as you weren't in court in the afternoon).
No way that'd fly at the Crown's office. :(
Quote from: Barrister on January 17, 2014, 04:29:21 PM
The small town firm I worked at not only had a well-stocked beer fridge for after work, but the senior lawyers would routinely have a beer for lunch (as long as you weren't in court in the afternoon).
No way that'd fly at the Crown's office. :(
Scotch, then? :unsure:
Quote from: derspiess on January 17, 2014, 04:33:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 17, 2014, 04:29:21 PM
The small town firm I worked at not only had a well-stocked beer fridge for after work, but the senior lawyers would routinely have a beer for lunch (as long as you weren't in court in the afternoon).
No way that'd fly at the Crown's office. :(
Scotch, then? :unsure:
Crown Royal, they're expected to obey cultural content laws.
Quote from: celedhring on January 17, 2014, 03:16:08 PM
People are expected to know their limits.
Off switch? What's that?
Before we were bought out by Evil Corporate America, my workplace held weekly Wine tasting on Friday Lunch times.