[Robert]

You do whatever you want to and call it whatever you want to.

Everybody else does!  That's why it's confusing, and irrelevant unless you're entering a competition.  Brew for you.

And we didn't even talk about "East Coast Porter," basically a dark lager, color from crystal and black malt, kind of an adjunct version of Schwarzbier... or its distant cousin Baltic Porter...

[Megary]

I do do whatever I want to.  But I'll ask again, do you consciously make a distinction between a stout and a porter in your brewhouse?  You make a wonderful Bourbon Vanilla Imperial Porter...did you call it a porter and not a stout for any reason?  If you think the names are interchangeable...that's cool.  I'm just curious as to how other brewers approach these "styles" (assuming there really is two).

[blatz]

I make porter smoother, less or no roasted barley (mostly pale or regular chocolate and other colour malt like, BP,  mid wheat or carafe) and usually lower in gravity.  This usually makes the porter black in the pint but dark garnet when held up to the light.

Stout is heavy on roasted barley, higher alcohol and more highly bittered.  Much more black through and through and chewier.

That's just how I make them distinct.

[denny]

I do do whatever I want to.  But I'll ask again, do you consciously make a distinction between a stout and a porter in your brewhouse?  You make a wonderful Bourbon Vanilla Imperial Porter...did you call it a porter and not a stout for any reason?  If you think the names are interchangeable...that's cool.  I'm just curious as to how other brewers approach these "styles" (assuming there really is two).

Yeah, I called it a porter because it doesn't use roasted barley.  Even if it did, it would have to be a significant amount (10% or more) before I callled it a stout.  Another distinction is that I might use crystal and chocolate malt in a porter, but I never would in a "regular" stout.  Maybe in an RIS.  I definitely distinguish between the 2 and don't feel there's any crossover for me.

[BrewBama]

FWIW I kinda line up with Jamil: “All three porters—brown, robust, and Baltic—are similar in that they have some level of roasty character—less than a stout but usually more than brown ale.”


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[reverseapachemaster]

Yeah, I called it a porter because it doesn't use roasted barley.  Even if it did, it would have to be a significant amount (10% or more) before I callled it a stout.  Another distinction is that I might use crystal and chocolate malt in a porter, but I never would in a "regular" stout.  Maybe in an RIS.  I definitely distinguish between the 2 and don't feel there's any crossover for me.

Same and I think the vast majority of the beer industry and consumers feel the same way. When I see a brewery has a porter and a stout--imperial whatever aside--I expect the stout to have more pronounced roast character and the porter to have more pronounced chocolate or caramel flavor. I see a lot of consumers saying the same thing. It isn't historically accurate but as long as you can buy 3% stouts it is hard to argue the historical terminology has any appreciable value in the contemporary market.

[Silver_Is_Money]

I believe that the word "stout" is (or rather, once was) merely a verbal descriptor of a rather robustly brewed Porter, as in "Wow, that's a rather stout Porter".

[Northern_Brewer]

Stout porter was the stronger brew from a partigyle with porter, but these days the UK commercial stouts analysed by Brewlab were actually weaker (4.9%) than the average porter (5.0%) - presumably as so many customers think stout = Draught Guinness which is 4.2%.

So ABV is no longer a meaningful distinction regardless of the history, and terms like brown porter and robust porter are equally meaningless, at least in the UK. While it's obviously a continuum, I'd expect stouts to be drier and more coffee-roasty, porters to be richer and more on the chocolate end.

[denny]

I believe that the word "stout" is (or rather, once was) merely a verbal descriptor of a rather robustly brewed Porter, as in "Wow, that's a rather stout Porter".

As in most brewing mythology, who knows....

[Robert]

I believe that the word "stout" is (or rather, once was) merely a verbal descriptor of a rather robustly brewed Porter, as in "Wow, that's a rather stout Porter".

As in most brewing mythology, who knows....

No, that one's fact.  But "Stout" was applied to all types of beer.  There were Stout Porters, Stout Pale Ales, etc.  Other names took over for the strong versions of other beers by the heyday of British brewing in the 19th century.

[Kevin]

I believe that the word "stout" is (or rather, once was) merely a verbal descriptor of a rather robustly brewed Porter, as in "Wow, that's a rather stout Porter".

As in most brewing mythology, who knows....

The term "stout" was used to describe any stronger than average beer. Just as "mild" was a descriptive term to identify beer sold young and "stale" meant an aged beer. Those terms are found in brewers logs... in trade publications and in newspaper adverts of the time so it is not mythology.

[EHall]

a portly stout and a stoutly porter?

I went into a brewery a couple years ago and they had a black IPA. I love them so I ordered it. it wasn't an IPA. It was more of a baltic porter, I couldn't even finish it, way to roasty and just bad. The waitress noticed and I told her, she agreed and said most customers were complaining. I told her, this is simple, rename it to baltic porter, change expectations and finish selling it. then don't screw up the next black IPA. I went to same brewery earlier this year, new owner, another black IPA, so I got a taste of it... sigh... so much licorice!

[Silver_Is_Money]

Stout porter was the stronger brew from a partigyle with porter, but these days the UK commercial stouts analysed by Brewlab were actually weaker (4.9%) than the average porter (5.0%) - presumably as so many customers think stout = Draught Guinness which is 4.2%.

So ABV is no longer a meaningful distinction regardless of the history, and terms like brown porter and robust porter are equally meaningless, at least in the UK. While it's obviously a continuum, I'd expect stouts to be drier and more coffee-roasty, porters to be richer and more on the chocolate end.

I've always been of the opinion that Guinness, in usurping the rather manly word "Stout", and applying it to a thin, weak, and alcohol challenged roasted barley ale, has forever tainted the term and denuded (stripped) it of all of its former assertive manliness.  My solution (which clearly no one will adopt) is to transform all "manly" stouts back to their original Porter descriptor.

[Kevin]

I've always been of the opinion that Guinness, in usurping the rather manly word "Stout", and applying it to a thin, weak, and alcohol challenged roasted barley ale, has forever tainted the term and denuded (stripped) it of all of its former assertive manliness.  My solution (which clearly no one will adopt) is to transform all "manly" stouts back to their original Porter descriptor.

If you want to see alcohol challenged stouts look what happened to English stout during and after the world wars.

[Silver_Is_Money]

Despite what I've said above, I cringe at the thought of drinking a Milk Porter.  Give it to me as a Milk Stout and its OK though.