2 replies to this topic

[Yeasty Boy]

Timothy Taylor.I'd bet my favorite pair of holey socks on it.I made a split batch of pale (see "Landlady" thread) with 1026 and WLP's West Yorkshire, reckoned definitely from TT.Between the two of these, there's not a lick of difference. Attenuation was basically the same, beers taste like - put two of one and one of the other in front of me and ask which is the odd one, and I'd lose.Wyeast is tight-lipped as usual, but I really, really think this is the source.The name ("Cask Ale") kinda figures, since TT's Landlord cask ale has one awards hand over fist in the real ale comps around the UK.Thoughts?

[Stuster]

1469 is the TT yeast though. Can't see them releasing two the same.I've made beers with both 1026 and 1469 and they don't seem the same. I made different beers at different times though so couldn't be 100% sure. Are you sure the WL one is the TT yeast?

[Yeasty Boy]

Dang it. There goes that half-baked blurry-eyed theory. I got myself confused. 1469 IS the West York. I had just used some Nottingham from a slant, that originally was from WLP and mixed them in my head. So - let's start over:The batch was split between 1469 and 1026. I've used the 1026 a fair amount, but this was only my second go with the West Yorkshire (made 5g of the pale and 5g of IPA.) These two pales definitely taste very much the same, surprisingly since it's such a delicate beer, you'd think the yeast profiles would assert and distinguish themselves.Anyway... yeah, so I don't know where 1026 comes from. But I did for about a day and a half. That was cool.