Short & Shoddy | California Common

Author: Marshall Schott

Noted for being one of the first truly American beer styles, the story of California Common is both interesting and shrouded in a certain degree of mystery. One curious fact about this distinct style is that, for years, it was colloquially referred to as Steam Beer due to the fact “steam” could be observed emanating from the fermenting beer during the cool San Francisco nights. The alliterative moniker used today is due in part to the fact Anchor Brewing, who purportedly developed the style in the late 19th century, trademarked “Steam Beer,” and hence they have sole rights to its use.

Whereas there can exist various adaptations of most beer styles, California Common is one that comes with a fairly narrow set of standards. In addition to being fermented with a lager yeast at temperatures typically associated with ale, California Common is known for being brewed largely, if not exclusively, with Northern Brewer hops. The BJCP provides the following description:

A lightly fruity beer with firm, grainy maltiness, interesting toasty and caramel flavors, and showcasing rustic, traditional American hop characteristics.

There are very few things I’m dogmatic about, particularly in regards to brewing, but I diverge from this a bit when it comes to California Common. I began experimenting with recipes for this delicious style many years ago and ultimately settled on What’re We Here For?, which has not only won awards, but the palates of many a non-craft beer drinker. Relying on this recipe as inspiration, I was curious to see how a batch of California Common made using less than conventional ingredients and methods would turn out!

| BREWING THE BEER |

My original plan was to brew up my What’re We Here For? recipe using a bunch of abbreviated methods, but only realized I was missing some of the grains once I started my brew day. So, I made some potentially shoddy substitutions I hoped wouldn’t have too huge of an impact.

Short & Shoddy California Common

After designing the recipe, I went out to the garage and began collecting the full volume of water for this traditional BIAB batch.

Next, I added some gypsum to the water in hopes of enhancing the beer’s crisp hop character.

I flipped the switch on my electric controller to heat the water before weighing out and milling the grains into a fabric filter.

When the water was properly heated, I switched the controller to mash mode, dropped the grain bag in, stirred to incorporate, then checked to ensure I’d hit my target mash temperature.

The mash was left to rest for a short 25 minutes, during which it was stirred multiple times.

I proceeded to measure out the kettle hop additions, all Northern Brewer.

When the mash was completed, I removed the grain bag then brought the wort to a boil, letting it rip for a brief 20 minutes and adding hops along the way.

At the end of the short boil, I quickly chilled the wort with my immersion chiller.

A refractometer reading showed I’d hit my planned OG of 1.050 OG.

The 65°F/18°C wort was then transferred to a sanitized fermentation vessel.

Other beers were being fermented in my chamber, so I placed the fermentor on my utility cart then direct pitched a single pouch of Imperial Yeast L05 Cablecar into it.

The temperature in my garage ranged from about 62°F/17°C to 68°F/20°C during fermentation. Activity was noticed a few hours after pitching and continued for a few more days before dying down. A hydrometer measurement taken after 10 days of fermentation indicated FG had been reached.

I added gelatin fining to the warm beer and let it sit overnight before transferring it to a sanitized and CO2 purged keg. The beer was then burst carbonated in my keezer for 16 hours before I reduced the gas to serving pressure, where it was left to condition for 5 days before being served to tasters.

| RESULTS |

A total of 15 people of various levels of experience participated in this Short & Shoddy evaluation. Participants were first asked to identify the style they believed the beer to be based on their perception.

Tasters were then instructed to rate how hoppy, malty, and dry they perceived the beer to be on a 0-5 scale where a rating of 0 indicated “not at all” and 5 indicated “extremely;” these ratings were then averaged.

Tasters were provided a list of common hop, malt, and yeast characteristics then instructed to select from each the one they perceived as being strongest in the beer.

Hop Characteristics

Malt Characteristics

Yeast Characteristics

Next, participants were asked to indicate whether or not they detected any off-flavors in the beer; those who did were provided a list of common off-flavors and instructed to select the one they perceived as being strongest. A total of 2 out of the 15 tasters reported perceiving off-flavors in this beer with one each noting diacetyl and metallic.

Tasters were then asked to rate how much they enjoyed the beer on a 0-5 scale where 0 indicated they hated it and 5 indicated they loved it.

Finally, the beer style was revealed to participants and they were asked to rate how representative it was on a 0-5 scale where 0 meant “not at all” and 5 meant “exactly.”

My Impressions: I love California Common and was particularly excited about this batch. I didn’t perceive any off-flavors at all, nothing that made the beer unpalatable, but I was a bit surprised with its apparent lack of not only bitterness, but overall hop character. This made the sweeter malt flavor more apparent, and while I found the beer moderately enjoyable overall, I far prefer the original version.

| CONCLUSION |

California Common holds a special place in my biased little heart, not only because it’s one of few recognizably American styles, but it strikes what I feel is an ideal balance of overall character. Toasty malt flavors with a touch of sweetness, woody and earthy hop characteristics with barely a whisper of mint, clean fermentation profile, and of course an assertive yet soft bitterness. It’s truly one of my favorites.

I’ve made What’re We Here For? many times and it’s safe to say this Short & Shoddy California Common was but an allusion to the deliciousness of that recipe. Indeed, as the blind taster data indicates, the beer possessed many aspects one expects in a good example of the style, but it lacked just enough to keep it from being a spot-on version. The most common comment made following completion of the survey had to do with the lack of bitterness and hop character, which left the beer with an impression of sweetness despite being perceptibly dry.

In thinking about the way this beer was brewed, the fact only two tasters reported detecting off-flavors seems to suggest the abbreviated methods had little if any negative impact, which leaves one wondering about possible culprits. I honestly can’t think of a good explanation for the restrained bitterness seeing as the amount of kettle hops was adjusted for the short boil, but I do think even the small charge of Special B made a difference, and it’s not something I’d recommend for those looking to make a classic California Common. I’m also curious about the Honey malt. I’ve used it extensively over the years, often fairly ample amounts, and always described the character as more nutty than sweet, but perhaps that also contributed to the muted hop character.

In the end, most tasters enjoyed the beer enough to finish their entire sample, many asked for refills, and I had no issues kicking the keg with friends. I definitely plan to brew more California Common using Short & Shoddy methods, though in the future I’ll stick with the original grist and up the amount of each Northern Brewer kettle addition by 5 to 10 grams.

If you have thoughts about this Short & Shoddy brew, please feel free to share in the comments section below!

Support Brülosophy In Style!

All designs are available in various colors and sizes on Amazon!

Follow Brülosophy on:

FACEBOOK   |   TWITTER   |   INSTAGRAM

If you enjoy this stuff and feel compelled to support Brulosophy.com, please check out the Support page for details on how you can very easily do so. Thanks!