Blog Tracker
24-08-2014, 07:10
Visit the Shut up about Barclay Perkins site (http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2014/08/whitbread-bottled-beer-in-run-up-to-ww-i.html)
Bottled beer was big business for Whitbread, even before WW I.
Which explains why I keep coming across adverts for their bottled beer from all over the country. Like this one:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6TwdeAUu4UE/U_X9B5C8Q7I/AAAAAAAAUZ4/uqk3YZrtHW4/s1600/Whitbread_1911_2.jpg (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6TwdeAUu4UE/U_X9B5C8Q7I/AAAAAAAAUZ4/uqk3YZrtHW4/s1600/Whitbread_1911_2.jpg)
Morpeth Herald - Friday 17 March 1911, page 11.
Morpeth in North of Newcastle - about as far away as you can get from London and still be in England. It imples that Whitbread's bottled beers had just about mational distribution.
I can't help wondering what Nourishing Ale was. There are only two beers that fit the bill gravity-wise: 2PA (a slightly weaker version of their PA) and X Ale. I'd be inclined toi go for the latter.
This table shows just how important:
Whitbread Draught and Bottled sales 1901 – 1938
total draught
Bottling
Burton
Year
barrels
%
barrels
%
barrels
%
Total
1901
538,097
73.63%
188,525
25.80%
4,153
0.57%
730,775
1902
546,043
72.92%
198,812
26.55%
3,975
0.53%
748,830
1903
552,383
71.00%
221,651
28.49%
3,998
0.51%
778,032
1904
546,402
69.40%
237,522
30.17%
3,379
0.43%
787,303
1905
538,584
67.67%
254,373
31.96%
2,983
0.37%
795,940
1906
526,766
64.32%
289,898
35.40%
2,361
0.29%
819,025
1907
513,881
61.49%
320,140
38.30%
1,749
0.21%
835,770
1908
477,470
58.97%
330,767
40.85%
1,459
0.18%
809,696
1909
456,638
56.14%
355,212
43.67%
1,481
0.18%
813,331
1910
446,477
55.72%
353,534
44.12%
1,325
0.17%
801,336
1911
459,908
53.81%
392,899
45.97%
1,564
0.18%
854,371
1912
464,539
49.95%
463,938
49.88%
1,548
0.17%
930,025
1913
436,095
51.17%
414,661
48.66%
1,415
0.17%
852,171
1914
418,402
49.38%
427,455
50.45%
1,415
0.17%
847,272
Source:
Whitbread archive document number LMA/4453/D/02/16
By the outbreak of WW I, 50% of Whitbread's sales were in bottled form. That's a huge proportion, far, far more than the average. Which makes it all the odder that Whitbread insisted on bottle-conditioning its beers.
All that bottled beer meant that there were loads of empty bottles knocking around. Which other bottlers were only too happy to use.
"OTHER FIRMS’ BOTTLES.
PROSECUTION OF BIRMINGHAM COMPANY
An interesting case under the Merchandise Marks Act was heard before the Stipendiary (Lord Ilkeston) at the Birmingham Police Court to-day.
John Bailey, trading as Barrett’s Country Bottling Company, 240, St. Vincent-etreet, Ladywood, was summoned for selling four bottles of ale on 12 September to which a false trade description had been applied.
Mr. P. Sandlands (instructed by Messrs. Duggan and Elton) prosecuted, and the defendant was represented Mr. Simmons.
Mr. Sandlands stated that the prosecution wae taken at the instance of the Birmingham and District Mineral Water Manufacturers’ and Bottlers’ Association. On 12 September the defendant's carter delivered to Mr. Q. S. Grubb. Icknield-street, four dozen bottles of ale, and of that number no fewer than four of the bottles belonged to Whitbread and Co., brewers and bottlers. The bottles bore a special label of Barrett’s Country bottling Company, but they also had the trade mark and name of Whitbread’s impressed upon them, and stoppers bearing different brewers’ names. There was no excuse for the defendant using the bottles belonging to other people. Messrs. Whitbread spent no less than £12,000 every year renewing their stock of bottles.
Mr. Simmons admitted that a technical offence had been committed the defendant, but contended that there was no intention to defraud.
Mr. Bailey gave evidence, and said when he took over the business in 1912 he had 1,234 gross of bottles in stock, more than sufficient to carry on the business. He had given instructions to his men not to take or use bottles belonging to other firms. The label he put on the bottles did not bear the name the brewer of the beer he sold.
Another summons was heard against Mr. Bailey for selling three bottles on the same day bearing the name of R. White and Sons, mineral water manufacturer, who it was stated, spent £20,000 on renewing bottles.
A third summons was also heard in respect of the use by the defendant of stoppers belonging to R. White and Sons in bottles containing his beer. This it stated. was the first case the the kind in Birmingham.
The Stipendiary fined defendant £5 and costs on the first summons, £2 and costs on each the other two summonses, and £5 5s special costs.
Three other summonses were withdrawn on the payment of costs."
Evening Despatch - Wednesday 30 September 1914, page 4.
It must have been annoying to spend all that dosh on bottles and have someone else use them. Although there was a deposit charged, it was often less than the value of the bottle. Which means the brewer lost out if the bottle wasn't returned.
With the resurgence of proprietary bottles, it's a problem that could reapper. Except those bottles aren't usually returnable. I can only think of one returnable bottle that bears a brand: Westmalle. And that does get re-used, without complaint, by other brewers, notablt Westvleteren.
More... (http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2014/08/whitbread-bottled-beer-in-run-up-to-ww-i.html)
Bottled beer was big business for Whitbread, even before WW I.
Which explains why I keep coming across adverts for their bottled beer from all over the country. Like this one:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6TwdeAUu4UE/U_X9B5C8Q7I/AAAAAAAAUZ4/uqk3YZrtHW4/s1600/Whitbread_1911_2.jpg (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6TwdeAUu4UE/U_X9B5C8Q7I/AAAAAAAAUZ4/uqk3YZrtHW4/s1600/Whitbread_1911_2.jpg)
Morpeth Herald - Friday 17 March 1911, page 11.
Morpeth in North of Newcastle - about as far away as you can get from London and still be in England. It imples that Whitbread's bottled beers had just about mational distribution.
I can't help wondering what Nourishing Ale was. There are only two beers that fit the bill gravity-wise: 2PA (a slightly weaker version of their PA) and X Ale. I'd be inclined toi go for the latter.
This table shows just how important:
Whitbread Draught and Bottled sales 1901 – 1938
total draught
Bottling
Burton
Year
barrels
%
barrels
%
barrels
%
Total
1901
538,097
73.63%
188,525
25.80%
4,153
0.57%
730,775
1902
546,043
72.92%
198,812
26.55%
3,975
0.53%
748,830
1903
552,383
71.00%
221,651
28.49%
3,998
0.51%
778,032
1904
546,402
69.40%
237,522
30.17%
3,379
0.43%
787,303
1905
538,584
67.67%
254,373
31.96%
2,983
0.37%
795,940
1906
526,766
64.32%
289,898
35.40%
2,361
0.29%
819,025
1907
513,881
61.49%
320,140
38.30%
1,749
0.21%
835,770
1908
477,470
58.97%
330,767
40.85%
1,459
0.18%
809,696
1909
456,638
56.14%
355,212
43.67%
1,481
0.18%
813,331
1910
446,477
55.72%
353,534
44.12%
1,325
0.17%
801,336
1911
459,908
53.81%
392,899
45.97%
1,564
0.18%
854,371
1912
464,539
49.95%
463,938
49.88%
1,548
0.17%
930,025
1913
436,095
51.17%
414,661
48.66%
1,415
0.17%
852,171
1914
418,402
49.38%
427,455
50.45%
1,415
0.17%
847,272
Source:
Whitbread archive document number LMA/4453/D/02/16
By the outbreak of WW I, 50% of Whitbread's sales were in bottled form. That's a huge proportion, far, far more than the average. Which makes it all the odder that Whitbread insisted on bottle-conditioning its beers.
All that bottled beer meant that there were loads of empty bottles knocking around. Which other bottlers were only too happy to use.
"OTHER FIRMS’ BOTTLES.
PROSECUTION OF BIRMINGHAM COMPANY
An interesting case under the Merchandise Marks Act was heard before the Stipendiary (Lord Ilkeston) at the Birmingham Police Court to-day.
John Bailey, trading as Barrett’s Country Bottling Company, 240, St. Vincent-etreet, Ladywood, was summoned for selling four bottles of ale on 12 September to which a false trade description had been applied.
Mr. P. Sandlands (instructed by Messrs. Duggan and Elton) prosecuted, and the defendant was represented Mr. Simmons.
Mr. Sandlands stated that the prosecution wae taken at the instance of the Birmingham and District Mineral Water Manufacturers’ and Bottlers’ Association. On 12 September the defendant's carter delivered to Mr. Q. S. Grubb. Icknield-street, four dozen bottles of ale, and of that number no fewer than four of the bottles belonged to Whitbread and Co., brewers and bottlers. The bottles bore a special label of Barrett’s Country bottling Company, but they also had the trade mark and name of Whitbread’s impressed upon them, and stoppers bearing different brewers’ names. There was no excuse for the defendant using the bottles belonging to other people. Messrs. Whitbread spent no less than £12,000 every year renewing their stock of bottles.
Mr. Simmons admitted that a technical offence had been committed the defendant, but contended that there was no intention to defraud.
Mr. Bailey gave evidence, and said when he took over the business in 1912 he had 1,234 gross of bottles in stock, more than sufficient to carry on the business. He had given instructions to his men not to take or use bottles belonging to other firms. The label he put on the bottles did not bear the name the brewer of the beer he sold.
Another summons was heard against Mr. Bailey for selling three bottles on the same day bearing the name of R. White and Sons, mineral water manufacturer, who it was stated, spent £20,000 on renewing bottles.
A third summons was also heard in respect of the use by the defendant of stoppers belonging to R. White and Sons in bottles containing his beer. This it stated. was the first case the the kind in Birmingham.
The Stipendiary fined defendant £5 and costs on the first summons, £2 and costs on each the other two summonses, and £5 5s special costs.
Three other summonses were withdrawn on the payment of costs."
Evening Despatch - Wednesday 30 September 1914, page 4.
It must have been annoying to spend all that dosh on bottles and have someone else use them. Although there was a deposit charged, it was often less than the value of the bottle. Which means the brewer lost out if the bottle wasn't returned.
With the resurgence of proprietary bottles, it's a problem that could reapper. Except those bottles aren't usually returnable. I can only think of one returnable bottle that bears a brand: Westmalle. And that does get re-used, without complaint, by other brewers, notablt Westvleteren.
More... (http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2014/08/whitbread-bottled-beer-in-run-up-to-ww-i.html)