Vienna Lager has seen a bit of interest in the last year or so. Notably, Andreas Krennmair wrote an excellent book dedicated to the style. Jeff Alworth blogged about it here, and in the August-September issue of Craft Beer and Brewing Magazine. I also discussed the revival of sorts in its homeland in this post.

Krennmair’s text succinctly laid out the case to debunk the old story about Vienna Lager rising in popularity in Mexico during Maximilian I’s reign as Emperor of the Second Mexican Empire from 1864 to 1867. Simply put, this was not possible because there was no way to make a bottom fermented beer in Mexico at that time in such a warm climate with no artificial refrigeration available.

After reading Krenmmair’s book, I wanted to have greater clarity of Vienna Lager’s story in Mexico, or its lack thereof. However, most of the readily accessible historic writing speaks broadly about beer, not particular styles. While some Mexican beers now use “Vienna” in their branding for Amber Lagers, it is unclear when this began. I have not seen a single reference to Vienna in any of the historic documents. Further research is needed. That said, here are some additional thoughts and reiterations.

———

Mexican lager brewing didn’t start until in the mid-1880s with brewers primarily from Germany and Switzerland, many of whom had trained in the United States. The growth at this time was due to the completion of a rail line between El Paso, Texas and Mexico City, providing access to grain and brewing equipment, including refrigeration. This kicked off a period of dramatic growth in domestic production.

Some of the literature about these early breweries is incorrect or misleading by confusing when a brewery opened, and when it began making lager. For example, it is true that Compania Cervecera Toluca y Mexico, makers of Victoria, began operations in 1865, but they were producing ales. It was not until two decades later that a new owner, Santiago Graf, began making lager.

This was also during an era of peace and prosperity in Mexico, particularly for allies of the dictator General Porfirio Díaz. Díaz was instrumental in the fight against Maximilian I. Accordingly, there’s a good chance he would not have fostered the success of breweries honoring an Austrian style beer. Maybe he wasn’t so petty. He had really fought against the French, not the Austrians, so who knows.

The USA’s Influence on Mexican Brewing

As noted above, many of the brewers for the original Mexican lager breweries had been trained north of the border. Prior to the domestic explosion in production, the bulk of beer being consumed was imported from the US, though some Germans and other Europeans that had settled in Mexico in the late 1800s were drinking imported beer from their homelands. Around this time, American lager brewers were primarily making their versions of Bohemian Pilsner, Munich Dunkel and Vienna Lager.

Most of these original Mexican breweries were importing barley and hops. The former from the US and Germany, and the latter primarily from Germany and Czechia.

It seems clear that Vienna Lager changed in the United States, and then made its way to Mexico as a different form of amber lager that included adjuncts, primarily rice, but also corn. Adjuncts were part of Mexican lager brewing in these early days, which is contrary to resources that indicate they came later.

Big Business

It must be understood that prior to this growth, Mexico had no significant beer brewing culture or history. Gauss and Beatty (1) note “when Mexico’s modern beer industry sprung up in the 1890s, it did not do so organically…Rather, it emerged due to major transitions in the global economy that coincided with a new era of political peace and economic growth in Mexico.” This is not to suggest that the breweries weren’t making quality products, just that their motive may have been more profit driven than craft and passion for beer.

And it was big business. Toluca, for example, invested $500,000 once Graf took over, and Compania Cerveceria de Chihuahua began in 1896 with $1M. Some were making 100,000 barrels per year. These massive new breweries were able to greatly reduce imports of American companies like Anheuser-Busch.

Vienna Lager versus Amber Lager

It seems quite likely that the overwhelming majority of beer brewed in North America called “Vienna Lager” was (and is) instead a Vienna-inspired beer. The primary commonalities between the original and New World versions would be that they were lager, and that they were amber in color. Beyond that, perhaps with the slight exception of hops, the beers differed.

There is no strong indication that Vienna malt in any significant amount was included in the grain bill for these historic beers in the US. And, there is no indication that it was used in Mexico at all. How can you have Vienna Lager without Vienna malt? Yeast and water profiles likely varied . Finally, adjuncts are certainly not traditional for this style.

Generally speaking, I believe the majority of these beers should not be called Vienna Lager. Amber Lager seems safer. This is reflected in the Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP) style guidelines, which include a category called International Amber Lager. It essentially captures most of the beer sold as Vienna Lager. Dos Equis Amber, for example, is identified as a beer that fits within this category.

Mexican Craft Breweries Today

Unlike the original lager breweries in Mexico, there are newer breweries looking to Old World brewing traditions. One of the first was a small restaurant/brewery chain called Beer Factory, which opened in late 1990s. Beer Factory makes a Vienna called Santa Fe, and they follow the Reinheitsgebot by not using “adjuntos”. Cerveza Minerva is doing the same.

———

Though the increased appreciation of lager in the last few years here in the United States has leaned on the pale side, there does seem to be a growing interest in darker styles. As I noted in my last post on Vienna Lager, the 2015 BJCP style guidelines state it’s on a watch list for potential movement to the Historical category. Since 2015, and since my last post, the beer has put up a small fight here in the US, in Austria, and in Mexico. It might be sticking around a little bit longer.

1 Gauss, Susan M. & Beatty, Edward (2014). The World’s Beer: The Historical Geography of Brewing in Mexico in The Geography of Beer: Regions, Environment, and Societies, Patterson, Mark & Hoalst-Pullen, Nancy (eds).

Ice cream soda in a nonik glass being served by a soda jerk in New York City, 1936. Source: Wikipedia.

Author Martyn Cornell et. al. trace the introduction of the nonik glass in England to 1948 when Alexander Hardie Williamson designed one for Ravenhead Glass. And while many associate this glass with English ales, it was created in the United States decades earlier where it was often used to serve a growing soda market.

In addition to the increasing popularity of soda, and the soda fountains that served them, the Temperance Movement was also on the rise in the US in the early 20th century. Soda fountains could be found as a stand-alone business, but were often in department stores and pharmacies. They began to occupy some bars as well, once the Eighteenth Amendment was ratified and Prohibition began in 1920.

Hugo Pick, of Albert Pick & Company, created the nonik, receiving its first patent in 1913 (some advertisements around the time also indicate a 1912 patent). Pick & Co. was a well-established service industry company based out of Chicago. They also owned and operated a chain of hotels.

The Nonik Glassware Corporation was a licensee, and, according to the Crockery and Glass Journal, sole distributor of nonik glasses to the “jobbing trade”. They advertised widely, emphasizing a glass design that was 38-percent stronger than other glasses, and eliminated breakage and nicking by 40-percent, or 50-percent, depending on which ad you read. Another ad in House & Garden noted the nonik will “almost totally eliminate broken and chipped glassware.” Almost totally! They also created a carton to store the glassware, and a blurb in an issue of The Soda Fountain notes “we are told that breakage during the period of storage is impossible.”

All of this was due to the patented bulge, which helped protect the glass from breaking and the rim from chipping when the glass was knocked over or in storage. Improved grip was another advertised benefit.

Early 20th century ads for the Nonik in The Hotel World, The Pottery and Glass Salesman and The Soda Fountain.

Pick & Co. filed a suit against the Ferd Messmer Manufacturing Corporation when it was found that the latter was selling a glass similar to the nonik. In 1918, the court in Ferd Messmer Mfg. Co. v. Albert Pick & Co. et al., found that the Pick patent from 1914 was valid. This patent was “for an improvement in drinking glasses consisting of a shallow bulge below the rim, etc.”, and the Ferd Messmer Manufacturing Corporation had infringed upon it, according to the court.

However, the court invalidated the design patent from 1913 noting “there is nothing in the bulge of the patented glass which would appeal to the esthetic emotions or to our idea of the beautiful. While the bulge may be new and useful, we cannot say that it has added anything to decorative art.” Ouch. Essentially, they said as an ornamental design, this was not new or unique, but its creation as a means to avoid breakage was.

A great opportunity for growth arose when Pick & Co. partnered with the Libbey Glass Company. The glassware giant had its own line of products seeking to avoid nicks along the rim, which it referred to as “Safedge”.  Pick sold their 1914 patent to Libbey in 1925, and they entered into a contract where, among other things, Libbey would produce nonik glasses for Pick at a favorable price compared to other customers. This agreement would last to 1931 when the patent expired. Ads for the Nonik then appeared using the Safedge branding.

A change in ownership at Pick & Co. occurred in 1926. This may explain some changes in their business. The same year, Pick began selling a new glass called “Dur-Nok”. This glass was similar to the nonik, except the bulge was inward as opposed to out. 

On the left, an ad reflecting the partnership with Libbey and Pick. On the right, the Dur-Nok glass, created by Albert Pick Co.

The Dur-Nok caused the relationship to sour with Libbey, who decided to take Pick to court. The court in 1933 heard Libbey Glass Mfg. Co. v. Albert Pick Co. In this case, Libbey charged that with the Dur-Nok, Pick had infringed upon the 1914 patent, but the court disagreed.

Though it seems that Pick was once again victorious, there is little evidence of them selling nonik or Dur-Nok glasses in the 1930s and beyond.

An example of many variations on the nonik created for Coca-Cola. Source: fanpop.com

While the patent had expired, opening up opportunities for other manufacturers, the rise of the nonik seems to taper off in the United States after this point. Coca-cola and others have used glasses that mimic the form, but these have been an exception for US glassware. Currently, they are more of a novelty for kitschy, retro burger joints.

Further, the glassware business changed as retail and packaging changed. By mid-century it became easier to get drinks into the hands of customers in other places. Vending machines, home refrigeration, and bottles and cans rendered soda fountains obsolete and unnecessary places to have a soda. Plus, bars were (legally) back open.

Pick & Co. simply moved on, thriving for a couple more decades, but ultimately folding as they fell behind changes in the hotel industry.

The nonik moved on as well. It appears in a 1934 catalog from a German company called August Walther & Sohne AG. It does not seem to have been a big hit with the Germans, as I cannot find any other historic trace of their existence in Germany.

The nonik (on the right) as depicted in a 1934 catalog for the German glass company August Walther & Sohne AG (found online here). The glass is identified as “Wulstrandbecher”, which translates to bulb edge cup.

Things were different in England, where Cornell suggests the nonik is likely the “most ubiquitous glass”. As mentioned above, Ravenhead began producing the glass in 1948, and other manufacturers followed suit shortly after.

Unlike its origins in the United States, the nonik has been sold in England as a glass for beer. However, the noted benefits are the same as advertised by Pick & Co. Up to 2007, these had to include a crown stamp, ensuring the glass could hold the volume of liquid as indicated (half-pint, pint, quart).  

Along with the English dimple mug, the nonik is certainly not embraced by all (see Cornell’s post for further comment on the disdain for the dimple mug). Cornell calls the nonik “irredeemably ugly”. Fellow author Melissa Cole has a similar sentiment for the nonik and the dimple, "they are both unattractive - butt ugly."

Despite the fact that the craft beer movement in England is making use of better glassware for beer, similar to the shaker pint in the United States, the nonik is probably not going away anytime soon. 

Libbey continues to sell nonik glasses, some marketed for beer. The glass depicted here, holding 12.75 oz., is far from what most would call a “proper pint”.

Soda fountains, Albert Pick & Co. and Ravenshead are all gone now, but Libbey is still around, and still selling noniks. In the past, the sight of a nonik excited me because it made me think of beer styles I enjoy like mild, bitter and porter. This likely kept me from thinking much about its aesthetics or function as a vessel for beer. Perhaps I need to reconsider this, but I kinda like my noniks.

Advances in glassmaking, electricity and filtration were happening as the Pilsner beer style was created in the mid-1800s. The excitement over all these may have led to the creation of a stately glass for a beer style now seen as humble. Perhaps this is why Pilsner is served in a variety of vessels, not just the one that bears its name.

I thought about this while recently looking at my glassware, which includes several styles that are used for Pilsner. The Willi Becher glass is one that I use most often at home, and an increasing number of breweries in the US are using them as well. I decided to do a quick poll of some of Pilsner brewers to find out their recommended glassware, and to try and determine if the Pilsner glass is fading in popularity. I also threw it out on social media.

Before getting to the topic at hand, I wanted to have a deeper historical understanding of the various glass styles. Turns out there’s little information readily available on the subject, and I got a little carried away doing research. What was meant to be a brief and lighthearted post about glassware trends, has turned into a brief and incomplete history of Pilsner drinking vessels.

Precursors to the Pilsner Glass(es)

The Pilsner glassware types that we are familiar with today have historic precedent predating the creation of the beer style. One example is the passglas, dating from the late 16th century. This was a narrow and tall footed glass that slightly tapers out. The glass is discussed further at this post from Boak and Bailey.

Examples of the historic passglas from the Corning Museum of Glass.

There are a series of rings around the glass, and it’s said that it was designed as a drinking game. Read the comments in the article above for other possibilities and interesting pieces of history. The post notes evidence of the glass in Germany, Denmark, Sweden and the United States. The Corning Museum of Glass website shows several examples attributed to, without certainty in some cases, Germany, Austria, Italy and the Low Countries.

The Corning site also includes historic examples of the pokal glass, and indicates it is a “covered goblet with a flared bowl, made mostly in Germany between the 17th and 19th centuries”. The examples show variations in design, but do reflect aspects consistent with modern Pilsner glasses (see notes for further comments on the pokal.)

The Corning Museum of Glass identifies these as pokal glasses. These examples are from Germany and Czechia from the 18th century to the early 20th century.

Mugs in all different forms have existed for millennia, comprised of a variety of materials such as wood, metal and stone. These are ancestors to the versions we find today.

In German, a mug is sometimes referred to as a Krug (jug), Steinkrug (stone jug), Humpen (tankard), or Seidel (which is essentially a generic term for a mug. In Franconia, Seidla is used in reference to a half liter mug). One particular mug style developed in the 1800s is the Keferloher, a glazed clay vessel with a handle. Historically, lids (called Zinndeckel in German, and used to keep out flies and stop the spread of disease, but also other debris like ash from cigarettes) were common, but they are now less prevalent. That said, they are often still found on the ornate Steinkrug, but those are more of a souvenir for display rather than a vessel regularly used for drinking.

Left: A 0.5 Liter Keferloher. Center: Tübinger "Igel" (hedgehog). Source: Stein Marks Right: Seidel, Steinkrug or Stein. The lid on top is called a Zinndeckel. These are typically made of pewter, and can be basic in design, or highly ornate. Though most common on stoneware, they can be found on glass mugs, or at least they were historically.

Another mug is the Tübinger. These days, some identify this glass as a stout, dimpled mug, most associated with Czech lager, and holding up to 0.5 liters with room for foam, of course (more on this below). This mug evolved from an earlier form associated with an academic association, or fraternity, called the Hedgehog Academic Student Association (Akademischen Studentenverbindung Igel) at Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen in the mid to late 1800s.

Glassware for the Original Pilsner

Pilsner was created in 1842 when the Bavarian brewer Josef Groll first made it for the Bohemian brewery Pilsner Urquell (called Burghers’ Brewery at the time). While they produce a variety of drinking vessels for their beer (see below), their website indicates the Pilsner glass is most appropriate:

The long slender taper of the classic Pilsner glass maximises the amount of light that shines through the beer, showing off its golden clarity. The stem of the glass gives the drinker a place to put his or her hand without warming up the beer. The shape of the glass also concentrates the aroma at the top, much like a wine glass, making drinking Pilsner a multi-sensory experience.

It is unclear when the brewery first used a glass style specifically for this beer. The same page on their site indicates “the most famous Pilsner glass in history was the special Moser crystal chalice that brewery workers made for Emperor Franz Josef I upon his visit to the brewery in 1874.” They sell a reproduction of this goblet style glass, shown below.

Despite Urquell’s glitzy description of the Pilsner glass, the reality is that most Bohemian Pilsner served in Czechia will come in a mug of some type. Urquell recognizes this:

Occasionally you’ll still be served in a classic Pilsner glass, especially if you come to the Czech Republic, but today our tank pubs use more utilitarian mugs with sturdy handles. The stout, round shape and the angular cuts at the bottom of the mug show off the beer’s colour.

Pilsner Urquell sells an extensive array of drinking vessels for one beer. A sample is shown above, and you can find many more at their store. The glass shown on the left is a reproduction of the Moser crystal chalice made for Emperor Franz Josef I when he visited Pilsner Urquell in 1874. When a particular glass is chosen to serve this beer, you are most likely to find it in the mug on the right.

Variety of Glasses Used for Pilsner

The design of the traditional Pilsner glass varies depending on who you ask. Some say it’s a footed glass without a stem, that tapers out with little to no curve. Others will tell you it has a stem. The Oxford Companion to Beer calls this type a pokal (see footnote). Some have no stem or foot at all.

Traditional Pilsner glasses with very subtle differences. The two on the right do not have stems. The two on the left, including the middle one, depicted by the Cicerone Certification Program, are both footed. The glass on the right is manufactured by Libbey.

It seems when the term pokal is deliberately used, it is for a glass that has a short stem and is more squared off at the bottom of the bowl, which has little to no curve at all. I find these, including the examples below, to be most attractive out of all the glasses used for Pilsner.

In 1883, Bitburger (called Simonbräu at the time) was one of the first to brew Pilsner in Germany. Their glass, shown in the accompanying photo, was created in 1964. A Pilsdeckchen (aka beer rosette, Pilsrosette, beer collar, Pils collar and/or drip catcher) is around the stem. This is a circular piece of paper meant to catch beer or condensation. Bierstadt Lagerhaus in Denver serves their Pilsner with a Pilsdeckchen . Stiegl makes a classic Pilsner from Austria. Their Pilsner glass is one of the most unique you will find. Oxbow, known for their farmhouse brewing, has also received praise for their Pilsner. They even host an all-Pilsner festival, Pils and Love, on a bi-annual basis in Portland, Maine. (Images for Bitburger and Stiegl are from their websites. The Oxbow image was provided by the brewery.)

The pilstulpe (Pilsner tulip) is a type of pokal, which has subtle curves, similar to a tulip. The shape may vary slightly, including the width of the bowl. However, they rarely flare out at the top like other tulip shaped glasses.

A traditional pilstulpe from Jever.

Breweries and glass manufacturers continue to put their spin on the Pilsner glass. There are some nicely designed modern versions that are not footed, including Sahm’s Aspen Glass, used by Portland, Oregon’s Wayfinder, and Spiegelau’s Craft Pils glass used by Trumer.

Modern Pilsner glasses, including Sahm’s Aspen Glass, used by Portland, Oregon’s Wayfinder, and the Spiegelau Craft Pils glass used by Trumer. Wayfinder lists the style of each glass they sell on their website, with a little bit of information. They take their glassware seriously, and it shows.

The reality is that there are many variations from different glass manufacturers and breweries looking to design a unique glass with their branding. Generally speaking, a Pilsner glass is tall and narrow, and carries a small volume of beer (usually up to 0.4 liters). Sometimes it tapers in, sometimes out. Sometimes it has curves, sometimes not. If it is straight-sided, it typically has a stem.

Pilsner can also be found in a variety of mugs that are much more robust than the glasses noted above, and usually hold a moderate to large volume of beer (0.5 liters and up). These include the Mass (the one liter dimpled mug you will find at Oktoberfest) and the Keferloher. The previously mentioned Tübinger is favored by many serving lager, including Bohemian Pilsner (Světlý Ležák).

Notch Brewery, from Salem, Massachusetts, specializes in Czech and German lager. If you visit their brewery, you will find they make sure every beer is poured the right way, in the right glass. Their Tübinger is pictured above. Not too far away in Framingham, Massachusetts, Jack’s Abby makes an array of lager beer. This includes traditional beer and modern American, hop-forward releases, all with great execution. They like their Pilsner from a mug. Their Post-Shift Pilsner is pictured here in a half liter mug.

The modern Tübinger that many are now familiar with, was identified as a Tübinger Kugel in a 1934 catalog from a company called August Walther & Sohne AG. The catalog identifies several Tübinger glasses, in slightly different designs. Generally, they are all stout mugs with a handle.

The same catalog uses the term “Kugel” in reference to several other dimpled glasses, including the Mass. These are both depicted below. Tübinger Augenkanne (eye can) is also used to refer to dimpled glasses. This term may be more prevalent in Austria.

I have been unable to determine why the word Kugel is used, though there are a couple possibilities. Kugel can mean bullet, ball or sphere, and the dimples are spherical. It could also be said that the mugs have the appearance of being struck by bullets.

I have also been unable to determine when the Tübinger Kugel was created. As mentioned above, the Walther & Sohne catalog is from 1934. This would predate the creation of the English dimple mug by a few years, which Martyn Cornell indicates first being manufactured by Ravenhead Glass in 1938.

Tübinger Kugel as depicted in the August Walther & Sohne AG catalog from 1934, provided here online.

Kugel-Masskrug, or Maßkrug, also depicted in the August Walther & Sohne AG catalog from 1934, provided here online. The use of the Mass in glass form at Oktoberfest began in 1892, though you’re not likely to find one there filled with Pilsner. Traditionally, the amber lager Märzen was served. These days, Festbier (Oktoberbestbier), a paler lager, is the standard.

Though some note the ability to see your beer as a determining factor for the switch, glass became favored because it was cheaper, cleaner and more durable than other materials. That doesn’t mean that it’s preferred by all. Many locals still drink out of the Keferloher.

The Willi Becher glass was designed by Willy Steinmeier in 1954. Steinmeier worked for a company called Ruhr Glas in Essen, Germany, and the glass was named after him (the translation of becher is cup.)

I’m ashamed to admit that I don’t own a Tübinger. However, the folks at Notch Brewing think the Willi Becher is a good substitute for it when drinking Světlý Ležák, like the one pictured here from Únětický pivovar in my glass from Subversive Malting and Brewing.

The basic design is certainly not unprecedented (in fact, the Walther & Sohne catalog depicts a glass very similar in shape (see footnote), two decades prior to Mr. Steinmeier’s creation), but does reflect themes of that era in post-war Germany. It has a somewhat modern, streamlined appearance that is simple and utilitarian. It’s also versatile, working just fine with an array of beer styles. As it rises, the glass flares out gently to about two-thirds of the way up, where it then curves back in. This promotes good head and aroma. It also makes it comfortable to handle and easy to store.

Vase shapes, typically associated with Weizen beers, are not common for Pilsner. However, I do have a Staropramen glass in that style, and I’ve seen many others serve it in a similar form.

Thoughts on these Styles

I don’t have strong feelings about the styles discussed above, and I wouldn’t complain drinking a Pilsner out of any of them. That said, there are pros and cons to each.

The varying glasses that are usually identified as “Pilsner” are fine, and often quite attractive. But in practice, I prefer a glass that holds more volume. About half a liter feels right for me. Plus, sometimes those glasses feel like you’re putting on dress or tuxedo to go hang out in your friend’s backyard.

Aside from Bohemian Pilsner, I typically don’t like Pilsner in a mug. Using one can be fun, but the beer is too delicate to be in such a robust vessel.

The Sahm glass used by Wayfinder is great, I don’t have many reasons not to use it, except it’s not as ubiquitous as others. Same goes for the Spiegelau glass used by Trumer.

The vase seems inappropriate, in part because it is so closely associated with Weizen beer. While I’m not one to avoid something simply because it’s inconsistent with tradition, the space allocated for the typically robust head on a Weizen beer, is too large for a Pilsner.

The Willi Becher may be a little dull and utilitarian in appearance, but at the end of the day, this is the glass I will continue to use most often for Pilsner. It’s a humble glass for a humble beer.

Survey Results

And what about that survey? The pool was way too small to say anything definitively. Out of forty breweries I contacted, eleven responded. If you tried to identify any themes by combining those results with responses received on Twitter and Instagram polls, there were no clear takeaways. What this suggests is that glassware chosen for Pilsner is very much an individual choice, and this doesn’t appear to be changing anytime soon.

Final Thought

While I use the Willi Becher most often, I love all my glasses, and I’m not getting rid of them anytime soon. In fact, working on this post has made me realize I need to add a few to my collection.

Thank you to the breweries that took a moment out of their busy schedules, during this stressful time, to fill out a survey for a blog.

Notes

A Bockbecher glass as depicted in the Walter and Sohne catalog,

Pokal - There’s a slight inconsistency in the use of the word pokal in the beer world. The Oxford Companion to Beer notes “in Germany, a stemmed pilsner glass is also known as a pokal”. Mosher, on the other hand, depicts a somewhat different style glass that is used for Bock beer in his book, Tasting Beer: An Insider’s Guide to the World’s Greatest Drink. This may be based on the fact that Ayinger, brewers of the classic Doppelbock called Celebrator, use a glass matching the shape shown by Mosher. (He also describes an updated pokal, with an inward taper, which he identifies as more of an all-purpose glass.) Despite pokal being used more frequently for Pilsner, Mosher’s application has greater consistency with the definition of pokal, which means goblet.

I’ve had a difficult time finding other reputable sources outside of Mosher that identify the glass used for Bock beer as a pokal. For what it’s worth, the August Walther & Sohne catalog from 1934 includes this glass shape and identifies it as a “Bockbecher”, or Bock cup. I haven’t found other sources using that name either.

Folkbier Brauerei’s Pilsner served in a 0.25 liter Willi Becher from Suarez Family Brewery.

Willi Becher - Like most styles discussed here, the Willi Becher glass is sold in varying sizes. A smaller sized glass without a stem or handle makes sense in terms of temperature for those that slowly savor their beer, or will be refilling often.

I have two of these glasses. One is a 0.25-liter glass from Suarez Family Brewery. The other is approximately a 0.5-liter glass from Subversive Malting and Brewing. Suarez uses this glass in their tasting room for most of their lagers and ales. I think it is perfect in that setting.

When I purchased the Subversive glass, I had asked for a smaller size, but they were out. In hindsight, I am grateful I got the larger one. It holds the ideal volume for me while drinking at home. I’m not alone. In his Best in 2019 list, Craft Beer and Brewing Managing Editor Joe Stange put large Willi Becher glasses in a category of “Favorite Thing that Ought to Be a Trend”. Similarly, millennial friendly food magazine Bon Appétit recently noted this as a glass “you’ll see everywhere” in an article titled “Beer and Wine Only: America’s 10 Best (and friendliest) Places to Grab a Drink”.

As mentioned above, the Willi Becher did not break ground with its shape. An example of one glass that pre-dated the Willi Becher is the Sigfried, depicted in the Walther & Sohne catalog. A modern version of this, sold by Ritzenhoff, has more of a vase shape.

A Siegfried glass as depicted in the Walter and Sohne catalog, and a modern version sold by Ritzenhoff.

Historic Resources

As noted above, there is not a great amount of literature on beer vessel history. That said, the Corning Museum of Glass is a tremendous resource. Browsing their website provides a wealth of examples of historic glassware. Further, the August Walther & Söhne AG catalog from 1934 was very interesting.

This Zythophile blog post by Martyn Cornell is an informative piece for glassware in England.

The website Stein Marks is also a great resource.

After getting the attention from some reputable beer bars in New York City with their English-style cask ales, Michael Messenie and Tim Lee took their homebrew project to the next level and formally established Dutchess Ales in 2016 as a cask-only brewery. The project began as a means for the two to have the type of beer they had while in the UK, but couldn’t readily find at home.

There are few breweries in the United States with a genuine commitment to traditional English-style ales, and fewer putting their beer in casks (Machine House, Yorkshire Square, Hogshead, Forest and Main and Bonn Place come to mind). Dutchess popped on my radar a couple of years ago through social media, and I was immediately intrigued, especially since their home base of Wassaic, NY (located in Dutchess County) is a little over an hour from where I live.

Cask ale is nearly impossible to find, and these days when it is available, it is often an experimental beer. I’m not against people doing that, but I personally don’t have much interest in it. So when cask beer enthusiasts like myself find a brewery making traditional beer to be served from a hand pump, not too far from where they live, they get excited.

However, I’m sure like many other fans of traditional cask ale, this excitement usually comes with a bit of trepidation as many US breweries have struggled to successfully execute these varying styles. Further, the bars that serve them, often don’t have the expertise on how to properly handle cask ale.

Not surprisingly, it’s tough to turn a profit being a cask-only operation, and Messenie and Lee knew the end was in sight if they continued to be “overly idealistic”, as Messenie put it. Indeed, with just a handful of accounts, limited output, and no public taproom, profits were severely limited.

Accordingly, Dutchess ramped up production in 2019 by brewing their own beer at Great South Bay in Bay Shore, Long Island, and distributing in cans. They went from having just a handful of accounts, to being distributed all over the metro New York market in a short amount of time, and I was finally able to get my hands on some of their beer.

With my first pint, their Pale Ale called GB (previously, Ghost Beer), I was pleased to find that they nail it, making subtle, English-style ale, delicately incorporating modern American tastes. Sure, this concept is not new, and Dutchess doesn’t hide the fact that their beer is really a hybrid of American and English influences. Countless breweries have tried to do it since the craft beer revolution began several decades ago, but few do it well.

It makes sense that Messenie cites inspiration from UK breweries Adnams and Thornbridge. Adnams being a well-established brewery that makes excellent ales, and Thornbridge, a younger brewery that is based on tradition, but has not shied away from modern trends. Dutchess is successful with intentions that don’t stray far from their inspiration, and they completely maintain the spirit of the styles they brew.

While can sales have taken off, cask production continues to do well (at least until Covid-19 hit. The brewery has halted cask production for the time being.) The brewers are strict about accounts they will provide their casks, only supplying those they know are able to properly handle and serve the beer. The names will come as no surprise to cask fans in New York City, including Spuyten Duyvil and Blind Tiger. You can also find them at The Grand Delancey, a recent addition to the city’s craft beer scene that regularly has cask ale. This was where I first had GB from a hand pump. I was there for a special event featuring other breweries, but I couldn’t pass on the opportunity to have a proper cask ale. Or two.

In addition to the GB, I’ve also had Mizmaze, which they call an Extra Special Bitter (ESB), and Augur, which is a Porter. The latter is the most traditional of the three with an aroma, flavor profile and mouthfeel that fits with what many older American beer aficionados would call a “Porter”. Of the three, it’s the only one with an English hop. It includes East Kent Goldings, among others. The base malt for this and GB is Maris Otter from Thomas Fawcett. It’s a very enjoyable beer.

Of those that I tasted, Mizmaze is the beer that I would most like to have from a hand pump. The “Bitter” style, and its subcategories can be a bit fuzzy, but a unifying theme is that they are all quite drinkable, with low carbonation, a good balance between malt and hops, though with a bitter presence. Everything about Mizmaze fits the bill, including its 4.4-percent ABV, and 34 IBU’s. The base malt for this beer is Golden Promise. Perhaps more than any other, this style demonstrates how magnificent traditional cask ale can be.

This is in contrast to what some inexperienced and experimental brewers are putting in cask. Commenting on those that are making weird cask one-offs, Messenie says, “brewers (in my opinion) should maybe consider the fact that not every beer is right for a cask - I think it is a vehicle to show the beauty and subtlety of the best ingredients, not a wow factor.”

I think Dutchess, particularly it’s GB, the Pale Ale, could serve as a gateway for modern craft beer drinkers, bringing some much needed interest to these classic, under-appreciated styles. Messenie, discussing the prospects for cask ale in the United States, optimistically notes, “if brewers and bars can find a nice meeting place and the quality is continuously improving, when consumers are directed to the cask option, I think they will keep coming back for more.”

The 2020 New York City Beer Week Opening Bash was held on February 22nd, and I went in pursuit of humble beer, of course. This shindig kicks off a week long series of events, designed to celebrate the City’s craft beer scene. The NYC Brewers Guild organizes Beer Week, and it’s a great opportunity to sample the City’s beer, and meet the people who are making it.

While I didn’t have to look too far to find it, humble beer was not surprisingly far outnumbered by the bold and the hype (i.e. IPA in varying forms, pastry beers and experimental sours.) That said, there was enough there that I couldn’t try them all before having my fill.

It’s tough to put an exact number on how many beers were poured, as many brewers had other beers on-hand that were not officially listed. The guide indicated 187 beers, and of those, I would identify 18-percent as humble beer. However, well over half of those were Pilsner, and the rest were one here, one there of a number of styles like Helles, Blonde Ale, and Bitter.

A few standouts that I had not previously tried were Strong Rope’s Pub Ale, a Schwarzbier by Big aLICe Brewing Co., and Marx Pale Ale by Circa Brewing Co., but there were many more. I checked in with a few of my other local favorites like Threes Brewing, Keg and Lantern and Folksbier Brauerei., all pouring excellent Pilsners.

There was a notable presence in the use of local/regional ingredients. While this is not directly related to humble beer, most beers made with an intentional use of local ingredients seem to be on the traditional side. I spoke with Jesse Ferguson of Interboro Spirits & Ales who noted how the quality of ingredients in New York State has greatly improved. I can say they do shine in the Pale Ale Interboro poured, made in collaboration with Indian Ladder Farms Cidery and Brewery from Upstate New York.

The event included a number of breweries from outside of NYC. In fact, the majority of breweries in attendance were not local. I’m not sure of the basis for selecting these breweries (though some have done collabs with local breweries, some have staff previously from NYC), but I was happy to see a few of them here.

Maine’s Oxbow Brewing Company had Luppolo, their crisp and delicious Pilsner. As part of beer week, they were also in town for an event at Beer Street, an excellent craft beer bar in Brooklyn. Also from Maine, Banded Brewing Co., was at the event. While I was in Portland last summer, I didn’t have the opportunity to try their beer, so I was happy to see them at the Opening Bash. They were also pouring a Pils that I really enjoyed.

Rockwell Beer Co. was making their first NYC appearance, and I was very excited to try their beer (I briefly discussed this St. Louis brewery in my first Casket Beer post). Rockwell places a strong emphasis on classic styles of beer, and their Pilsner was exceptional. It was also nice to see their head brewer Jonathan Moxey who I had crossed paths with over a decade ago at a few homebrew meetings. He was clearly talented back then, but also courteous with inexperienced homebrewers.

I was also excited that Forest and Main from Pennsylvania were there. A couple of years ago, after having a few drinks with Jess Reaves at Tired Hands (he was brewing there at the time, and is now at Industrial Arts), he said we had to visit Forest and Main. They make amazing farmhouse ales, but I really fell in love with their subtle British ales. I dream about spending lazy weekend afternoons knocking back these beers in their cozy space, and I was hoping they would have brought some to NYC. Unfortunately, they came with the former, though I can’t complain too much, because the one I tried was great.

Speaking of farmhouse ales, while there were plenty of outlandish ones being poured, there were also a number of simple, refined examples. This includes Prescience Farmhouse Blonde from one of the City’s newest breweries, Wild East Brewing. It was the first beer I had from them, and I was impressed. They’re coming out of the gates strong.

Transmitter Brewing, the OG NYC farmhouse brewery, was also pouring their straightforward, Belgian-inspired ales with their Classic Saison and Dry Hopped Golden, in addition to their Pre-Prohibition Lager.

One of the City’s oldest breweries, Brooklyn Brewery, provided a non-alcoholic beer for designated drivers, those looking to downshift for a minute, and others in need of an ashtray.

This event was proof that craft Pilsner is not a passing fad. And the good news is that while it was hard to find decent local examples in the past, there are now a number making them very well.

Sadly, it was slim pickings for anyone in search of humble beer beyond Pilsner. That said, I had plenty of great beer, there were many more that I didn’t get to try, and overall, it was an excellent event. Kudos to the NYC Brewers Guild and their partners.