In 1904 in a newspaper in Billings, Mont., Anheuser-Busch advertised its famous Budweiser and gave it a new twist. The company referred to a recent study of medicines which showed many had very high alcohol content. A-B invited the public to consider Budweiser a temperate and family drink in comparison and cited the alcohol content of the beer as “only 3 89/100 per cent. of alcohols” (3.89%).
In an earlier blog entry, I suggested this was effectively 5% abv (alcohol by volume). If you do the conversion, 3.89 abw equates to 4.93 abv, to all intents 5% particularly considering that final tallies for this purpose were never consistently accurate to the decimal point and fraction 100 years ago (nor are they today, for that matter).
In this period too, there was no rule, particularly in general publications, whether alcohol was expressed by volume or weight, unless the writer told you. Where it is not stated, sometimes one or the other can be inferred by calculating from other data given especially starting and finishing gravities, that is, the ratio of fermentable and other solids in wort and beer to water.
The ad in question doesn’t give such other data, so 3.89% alcohol could be either weight or volume. I thought it must mean weight, giving a final 5% alcohol in volume, because in 1884 a published analysis by the Kansas Pharmaceutical Association stated “Budweiser, St. Louis” contained 5.32% alcohol by volume. This was the strength of the beer as sold in Kansas.
However, I now consider that in 1904, the 3.89% figure must have meant by volume. The reasons are the following.
In the 1889 company publication I mentioned recently, Budweiser is described as “exceedingly light”. This had to mean in alcohol, not colour. The various beer descriptions use the term pale to refer to light colour, and frequently in Victorian times, light for alcoholic drinks meant light in alcohol.
While alcohol content is always relative in different times with a correspondingly different view of what light and heavy meant, it is unlikely 5% abv was “exceedingly light”. This is because other analyses, both in America and Europe, show lager beer then was frequently approximately 4% abv, sometimes less, sometimes a little more. In a time when litigation occurred in various places whether lager was intoxicating, 5% abv, the standard of commercial (and much craft) beer today, would have been too strong for something “exceedingly light”.
On the other hand, 3.89% abv, just under the strength today of most light beer (4% abv), made more sense as the true alcohol by volume of Budweiser in 1889 and 1904. Also, I was reading again a December, 2014 blog post by American brewer Mitch Steele, formerly of Stone Brewing and A-B. He reproduces a letter from Augustus Busch in 1893 which contains an analysis of both a Budweiser knock-off and A-B’s own, genuine Budweiser. The letter was written to brewing scientist Anton Schwarz in New York, whom we have met before in these pages. Clearly A-B was a client of Schwarz’ consultancy.
In Busch’s letter, A-B’s Budweiser is stated as 3.7% alcohol by volume. Therefore, 1904’s 3.89% must be by volume, too, taking too the 1889 statement that it is exceedingly light.
Where does this leave the 1884 analysis of reputed source that “Budweiser, St. Louis” was 5.3% abv? I think there are two explanations, one more plausible than the other. One explanation is, the Budweiser analyzed in 1884 for the Kansas pharmacists was not from A-B, but rather was factitious, a knock-off. In the late 1800s, it is true A-B was bedevilled with numerous counterfeits or passings-off of its product. The problem is referred to, with sample offending labels, in the 1889 company booklet mentioned.
For example, even famed Fred. Miller Brewing Co. of Milwaukee introduced its own Budweiser, styled Original Milwaukee Budweiser, until a court in 1898 stopped it. But that beer was not sold until about 1891, before that, Miller was distributing the real Bud for A-B in northern Wisconsin. Perhaps the 1884 Budweiser in the pharmacists’ journal was produced by another imitator? We can’t rule it out, but I think this is unlikely.
How else then to explain that 1884 Budweiser was stronger than certainly the 1893 Budweiser? I think the simple answer may be, the beer was reduced in strength some time after 1884. First, 1884 was only a year after A-B acquired rights from Charles Conrad Company to the beer. True, A-B had always brewed it, but initially for Charles (or Carl) Conrad who sold it originally as CCC Budweiser.
Perhaps under Conrad, the beer was stronger and as part of rolling it out nationally once it acquired full distribution, A-B decided to drop the strength. The increasing Prohibition environment may have encouraged this, as well perhaps as simple economics. Pitching, too, to the female market – the 1889 hagiography refers to Bud as a ladies’ beer – may have impelled this strategy as well.
Budweiser today, at least in Canada, is 5% abv – pretty much back to where it started. For many years in the U.S. it was, AFAIK, 4.8% abv which effectively is 5% abv and now I think it is an even 5% abv anyway.
Later, I’ll look at other characteristics of Bud back in the day.*
Note re images: the image above was sourced at this website, the Federalist. All intellectual property therein or thereto belongs to the sole owner or authorized licensee. Use believed available for educational and historical purposes. All feedback welcomed.
*With no temerity intended, I think there is an error in the Augustus Busch letter. On the Plato scale, extract at the stated 5.045 and an abv of 3.7% give 1020 FG, not the stated 1010. If 1010 is right and the 3.7% abv is, the Plato extract number must be wrong. I think probably though the Plato number was right, so was 3.7% abv, and therefore 1020 was the FG. As the beer in this period was being promoted to women, a sweet taste and fairly low alcohol made sense. And the 1904 Billings, Mont. ad stated the beer was endorsed by the Ladies Home Journal…
Also, most of the indubitable beers in the 1884 analysis (excluding ginger ales and like) were higher in extract than Budweiser (1015). Only one was lower (1011) but Schlitz was 1016 and others more, up to 1026. So 1020 for Bud by 1889-1904 makes sense, it’s not a “crazy” number, and marries with the 1889 booklet’s “very strong in nutritive quality”. And Busch had to be right about the 3.7% abv because he gave the alcohol both by weight and volume, the conversion is correct for those numbers, and once again the 1889 booklet states the beer is “exceedingly light”.