Copyright © 2004 the Brewery History Society

A chronicle of the first 50 years of the Pilsner Urquell brewery was published by the brewery in 1892, in German, under the title Bürgerliches Bräuhaus in Pilsen 1842-1892. The author was the brewery's chief accountant Wenzel (Václav) Suchý. A second volume covering the next fifty years was written by Karel Přikryl, who worked for the brewery from 1905 to 1945, but not published at the time because of the war; it was eventually published in 1995, in Czech, as Měšťanský pivovar v Plzni 1892-1942.

The chapter for 1891 includes the following passage (p. 435) (my translation from German):

In order to take account of the frequent orders from Great Britain on the one hand and the lively demand for genuine Pilsner beer in the capital of that state on the other, the committee decided to set up an agency there, which also had inter alia the task of countering the misuse in the designation of foreign beers as ‘Pilsner Bier’.

On 6 August Mr Joe Cahn was appointed as agent for Great Britain.

(Joe Cahn’s address in London is recorded elsewhere in the book (p. 494) as ‘4 Copthall Court Throgmoston 6 street E.C.’)

There then follows a lengthy footnote:

The Pilsen Chamber of Trade and Commerce discussed this matter at its meeting of 3 August 1891, and we give in full the report taken from the relevant minutes:

7. (Misuses of the description "Pilsener Beer" in London.) The Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Consulate-General in London already in 1889 drew the Chamber's attention to the fact that a large part of the lager beer of German origin (mainly from Bremen and Hamburg) imported in London is put on sale under the description "Pilsener Beer", whereby damage is caused both directly and indirectly to the trade in real Pilsen beer, as a result of a quite ordinary product being put on the market under its name.

This communication was brought to the notice of the two breweries in Pilsen. On relevant information from them, the reply was made to the Imperial and Royal Consulate-General in London, by letter of 13 August 1889, No 901, that the boards of the two breweries would be most grateful if the abuses carried on with the name "Pilsener Beer" in London could be controlled, but that they were not in a position, in view of the extent of this misuse, to take steps in the matter themselves. If the honourable Imperial and Royal Consulate-General were to intervene successfully in this case with the competent authorities in London, our breweries would be gratefully obliged, especially as in that case the introduction of genuine Pilsen beer in London would be facilitated.

The Imperial and Royal Consulate-General has now, on the basis of the provisions of the English law of 1887 on descriptions of goods, under which all incorrect and misleading designations of goods in relation to type, quantity, place of manufacture and the like are strictly prohibited, approached the general customs office in London in this case with a view to eliminating the misuse complained of. However, as may be seen from the reply of that office of 18 October 1889, No 31 769, the latter appears to be of the view that the designation "Pilsener Beer" is generally understood in London speech, and is to be understood, as a particular type of beer regardless of a particular place of production, so that the use of that designation is not contrary to English law, at least in cases in which it is appears supplemented by an additional statement referring to the actual provenance, such as "made in Bremen".

On invitation by the high Imperial Royal Ministry of Trade, the boards of the two Pilsen breweries were now invited by the President of the Chamber to express their opinions on this point.

Both undertakings most decidedly reject the interpretation of the description "Pilsener Beer" by the London customs authorities.

It is also a quite unacceptable view to excuse the abusive designation "Pilsener Beer" on the ground that it has become accepted and that people are to some extent accustomed to regard that designation as merely a designation of excellent quality. The continuing misuse of a delocated designation completely obscures the boundary to a correct assessment of what should be as opposed to what is.

The term "Pilsener Beer" in no way constitutes a collective designation for a certain type of beer which can be produced anywhere at will, but designates a specific product which absolutely must be brewed in one of the existing breweries in Pilsen, if it is to be put on the market as Pilsner beer.

The two breweries therefore rightly protest in the interests of their reputation acquired with considerable sacrifices, in the interests of their production which has by its excellence conquered the world market, against an abusive designation, positively with the sanction of the authorities, of foreign beers as "Pilsener Beer", and are therefore also most pleased that the Imperial and Royal Consulate-General in London will not let the matter rest but recommends further negotiations of the Chamber with the London customs authorities. The Bürgerliches Bräuhaus further intends to establish its own agency in London for Great Britain, which would inter alia have the task of countering the misuse in the designation of foreign beers as "Pilsener Beer".

The committee moves that the statements of the Bürgerliches Bräuhaus and the Erste Pilsner Actienbrauerei be brought to the attention of the high Imperial Royal Ministry of Trade and that the necessary steps be taken with respect to the general customs office in London for the elimination of the abuse complained of. (Carried.)

The English law referred to was presumably the Merchandise Marks Act 1887, under which it was an offence to sell or expose for sale goods to which a forged trade mark or a false description was applied. In one case brought under the act, for example, a person was prosecuted for selling American ham as Scotch ham (Coppen v Moore (No 2)). Does anyone know if any action was in fact taken concerning Pilsen beer?

Dr. Anderson's paper - Microbes and the Origins of Porter (BHS Number 113) - has made me cast my mind back to my early years in the brewing industry. There are two expressions which come immediately to mind namely the perfect secondary fermentation and OBS Vats.

The former of course is the Brett effect of giving beer a pronounced vinous character some might call it matured, aged or whatever. Suffice to say that some higher alcohols and alliphatic esters are no doubt responsible. Brewing Science however at this juncture (1952) had not yet embarked upon the notions of flavour chemistry. Indeed one could honestly say that the analysis of beer was really a measure of its wholesomeness in line with its Original Gravity.

The latter however in the more longhand meant Old Brewery Stock Vats. These contained a miscellany of tank and line residues from all over the brewery together with some recovered beers (barm beers) which of course were pasteurized before being blended off into Racking Vats.

The impact of not only a yeast organism but also a rod and perhaps tetrads of spherical bacteria are vital to the cause of porter's flavour. Sadly the oak vessels are now of generations past these were the warehouses of the micro-organisms responsible. Brewing has moved on. There are few places now in which to store old beer recovered in both brewery and trade for future blending. Science however has provided all the answers necessary to produce good porter in a modern stainless steel fabricated brewery tank farm.

Just for the record I feel it essential to draw all our readers’ attention to the issue of beer flavour. There are three easily measurable parameters that have a primary impact upon the flavour of beer i.e. alcohol, carbon dioxide and acidity. The measurement of bitterness did not become a routine laboratory analysis until circa 1960. I can recall myself working on the measurement of isohumulones (bitterness) in 1958. Like most analytical tests it took time to resolve the minor conflicts associated with different methods that were put forward. As far as bitterness measurement is concerned in the opinion of this writer all credit must go to two great Canadians. In passing also let us not forget two other famous pairs of Canadians who (a) discovered insulin (b) developed the caloric value of food factors. Just a little food for thought as I arrest my case.