Stout vs. Porter

[qkslvrwolf]

I've never had anyone be able to explain, in real terms, the difference between a stout and a porter. So i'm having trouble making a decision about which kit to try making. Can someone please out line this, simply and clearly?

Cheers!

sean

[Stodbrew]

Unfortunately, there really is no clear answer. Ask 100 brewers this question and you'll get 100 different asnswers. But I'll give you my opinion. Stouts, specifically, dry stouts should use only 2 row malt and roasted barley, with perhaps a small amount of flaked barley or oatmeal. It should have no hop aroma or flavor whatsoever.

Porters, on the other hand, should use some crystal malts, therefore giving it some definite caramel charecter. They should also have a definite hop aroma and flavor, and can even be dry hopped.

Just my opinion. Hope this helps at least a little bit.

Cheers

Steve

[brewmonkey]

I am with Steve on this, probably one of the simplest answers I have yet to see.

[steveh]

From The Essentials of Beer Style by Fred Eckhardt:

Black Beer: Porters
This style originated in mid-eighteenth century England as porter. As the beer style came to be brewed stronger, the name stout porter came into use indicating stronger porter. These have become known as stouts. Today, porters are usually medium strong beers with rich dry maltiness and intense hoppy flavors. The distinction between porter and stout is somewhat ephemeral, particularly in England, and Jackson is no less confusing on the point. For our purposes we can say that porters are dry, and if not they might better be classified as brown ale or as English (sweet) stout."

I've always found porters to have a more distinct roasted malt flavor to them. Not the sharp, bitter roastiness of a (unfermentable) Black Patent Malt flavor - as Guinness Extra Stout has, but the roastiness common in brown ales - an almost wet cardboard flavor.

Of course, we can always throw in the bottom fermented porters of the Baltic region of Europe for more confusion...

S.

[qkslvrwolf]

Cheers mates! Very good answers, I appreciate them all very much!

[studentofbeer]

interesting-- all i know is i generally prefer stouts to porters. i really dont like the watery body of porters is what the problem is i guess. of course there are some porters i enjoy, but overall the roasty flavor with lack of body really bugs me.

[Richard English]

There are a couple of concise explanations on these two sites:
http://www.camra.org.uk/SHWebClass.ASP?WCI=ShowCat&CatID=298

http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/drink_feat_stouts_history.asp

I can say from my own experience that porter is generally less full and heavy than stout - especailly Guinness which is one of the heaviest.

[Stodbrew]

Funny- I've always found draught Guinness to be rather light bodied and somewhat watery. Great flavor, mind you, and certainly something I can and do drink all night, but definitely very much on the light side.

[Richard English]

Quote "...Funny- I've always found draught Guinness to be rather light bodied and somewhat watery..."

It probably depends on the recipe (see postings elsewhere on this topic).

The Guinness brewed in Ireland is heavy to my mind.

[Stodbrew]

Before they started brewing Guinness in Canada for our consumption here, we used to get it from Ireland. I still found it light bodied. Granted, it still could have been a different recipe for export. And, of course, beer was not meant to travel, so I'm sure the journey changed the beer somewhat. I have not been to Ireland, yet, so I can't say what it tastes like there. Hopefully someday soon I'll be able to make it over there.

[steveh]

I also find the Draught Guinness and Draught Can Guinness to be somewhat light in body. More so than many porters, that is. But the Extra Stout in bottles is quite t'ick.

S.

[Martyartie]

As Steveh says, stout originally simply meant a strong beer, which, since the original porters were around 1055 OG, meant something north of 1070. At Guinness, for example, until World War 1 the porter was 1058 OG and the Extra Stout and Foreign Stout were 1073. The government-imposed restrictions on beer strength in the two world wars, and continued higher taxes when peace came, which meant the beer would have cost too much if brewed again at the original strength, meant gravities crashed by around 25 per cent, so that by the 1950s Guinness porter was around 1036 and Extra Stout around 1044/1042. (British porters had disappeared by this time, but were also much weaker in their final, pre-World War 2 incarnations). Only Guinness Foreign Extra Stout has stayed at the old, 19th century strength. The ingredients in (ordinary) stout and porter were the same, except that stouts normally had a higher hopping rate to match their increased strength. Often 19th century brewers made an X porter and a XXX double stout, and if the customer wanted a XX single stout it was concocted from a blend of the porter and the XXX. After the invention of patent malt, Irish porters and stouts were dry, being made of pale malt and patent malt only, while British ones were sweeter, as they still contained a quantity of brown malt in the recipe. Hope that doesn't raise more questions than it tries to answer ...

[saaz-e]

"I can say from my own experience that porter is generally less full and heavy than stout - especailly Guinness which is one of the heaviest."

Most common examples of stout are quite the opposite. Guiness, for example, is basically a light beer. It is made with mostly two row and some roasted barley. It has a low starting and ending gravity. The roasted barley has a lot of flavor, but this beer is still very light bodied.

A porter is generally made using caramel malts, chocolate malts and has more such flavors whereas a stout is usually just roasted barley. There are of course oatmeal stouts which can be a different breed, but in a nutshell that's your answer.

[zoom6zoom]

I had a draft Anchor Porter a while back which I remember as being thicker and chewier than any Guiness I've ever consumed... also polished off a bomber of Stone Smoked Porter this past weekend, wouldn't call that one thinner than a stout either.

[Richard English]

Reagrdless of the recipe or method of brewing I can say only that, when there was a major porter revival in the UK a few years ago, the porters generally tasted less full-bodied than stouts.

Of course, I am speaking of cask-conditioned draught porters and it may be that some of the porters you speak of are different.

Guinness may have a lower gravity than some of the kamikaze beers now being brewed in the USA, but it is a relatively strong beer by the standards of most UK ordinary cask-conditioned beers (which are generally of less than 4% abv)

[HarkJohnny]

BJCP style guides are always a good reference

http://www.bjcp.org/styles04/

[fretlessman71]

It's good to see you again, Richard!

Interesting how the Stout-Porter line has been crossed over and over by both parties. The only thing I can say for sure is that porters tend to be a little sweeter, and that's about it... and even then there are examples of beers that don't fit that description. Hmmm.... so, do I add stouts to my list of beers to taste, now? ;)

[HarkJohnny]

i say run the gammut my man. do 'em all! hehe

[Richard English]

Quote "...It's good to see you again, Richard!..."

I've not really been away, just very busy. I do try to check in at least once a week.