So how did our Samuel Smith’s Oatmeal Stout Clone turn out?

Samuel Smith'sWell, the temperature has definitely dropped here in Toronto, and winter has  arrived after much delay. At this time of year, a look in my beer cellar has me seeking out the darker side of the spectrum. In particular, a nice dark stout. That would do the trick nicely to warm up my cold bones. Just so happens I have the Samuel Smith’s Oatmeal Stout clone myself and fellow homebrewers David Thompson and Peter Caira brewed back in November.

Question is, is it any good?

As you will recall from the original post, we tried out WhiteLabs’ Platinum Series Yorkshire Square yeast which we had hoped would bring out a complex yeast character reminiscent of Samuel Smith’s Oatmeal Stout. We also attempted to mimic the water from North Yorkshire (or at least our best estimate of it’s make up) with generous amount of chalk and gypsum.

Tasting Results

This time around you won’t have to just rely on my opinion, Peter & David, both avid, award winning homebrewers in their own right, have given us their opinion on our collaboration brew.


Straight out of the gate it was evident that there was a massive yeast/chalky character. To me it was pretty overwhelming. My guess it’s from the water additions that we added to the boil and the unique character of the Yorkshire Square yeast. The original has a very subdued yeast presence compared to ours. There are so many factors affecting fermentation, that it would be incredibly difficult to get it exactly as Samuel Smith’s does; open fermentation in slate tubs, pitching rate, oxygenation rate, temperatures, etc. The reason I’m citing this is because yeast performance and the resulting flavour characteristics are dependent on these factors. Perhaps we aerated the wort too much, which brought out a greater amount of esters? Over pitched? Underpitched?
Another thing I noticed is that it’s not as full tasting as the original, and it lacks the rich, chocolatey flavour. There is a touch behind the chalky/yeast character, but it pales in comparison to Samuel Smith’s. I thought for sure with all those oats and minerals in the water that it would have a much bigger mouthfeel, but it doesn’t. Then again, we did mash low at 150F. Next time I’d like to mash higher and see how much it changes things. The head didn’t last as long as I’d hoped for either.
David Thompson:
I have found that the estery quality has subdued a bit; gone is the initial slight banana notes, but has developed into a pleasant fruityness.  It’s nice drinker for sure, but misses the rich chocolately notes of the real deal.  Not sure how to quite account for that; use some brown malt or pale chocolate?  Either way it’s fine beer.

Peter Caira:

Everyone who’s tried it says something like “this is mild for a stout / I could drink that all day” and in one case, a well-informed friend of mine asked if it was a schwarzbier! When I let a pint warm up a bit I get some faint notes of raisin or fig but very subdued.  Roastiness is also in the background there but again, very subdued.  Mouthfeel is nice – I like the level of carbonation and the oatmeal certainly smooths things out.  Aroma is mostly roast/nut quality but again, subdued.


All in all I’d like to try this one again. I’d omit the water additions, bump up the mash temperature, and try a more standard yeast like White Labs 002 – English Ale. Perhaps I’m being a bit too harsh on my assessment of this beer, as David & Peter enjoyed it. Although I thought we had made an honorable attempt at cloning Samuel Smith’s Original based on what we knew, I don’t think we succeeded this time around.


6 Responses to So how did our Samuel Smith’s Oatmeal Stout Clone turn out?

  1. Long time! Reading your comments about yeast, I wanted to note that under pitching would increase esters. Much of the yeast esters are developed when the yeast is growing. If an appropriate amount of yeast is pitched, there should be less of a growth phase which would result in less ester development. The same can be said regarding aeration. Poorly aerated wort would stress the yeast resulting in esters and other (unfavourable) by-products.

    With respect to the use of Chalk, I understand it requires a fair amount of acid to become soluble. The mash might do a decent job but even better would be to prepare an acid mixture before hand to completely dissolve the chalk and and that to the mash, keeping in mind it’s effect on mash pH (increases). Adding chalk to the boil kettle would likely result in it clumping and dropping out. Great discussion on brewing with chalk:

    • Hey Craig!
      Yes, been quite a while. Been busy with a newborn recently. Hopefully I can get some more posts soon.
      True enough on the yeast. It was a bit nuts, might not have been just yeast character, but it was way overpowering.
      I don’t generally use chalk because of the solubility issues.For increasing mash pH, I picked up some calcium hydroxide which is much easier to use (just have to be careful handling it, it’s very alkaline!) T
      hanks for the link!! I’ll give it a read right now. Good point on it probably just dropping out when I added it to the boil, didn’t think of that.
      Will have to try that one again…
      Hope all is well,

  2. I know it’s been several years but did you ever have the chance to rebrew this?

    I am curious to see if you might be able to nail down the water. I have become quite a fan of slaked lime (calcium hydroxide) for two reasons: 1. It’s extremely effective. 2. It’s extremely cheap. It seems like a common theme among the taste testers was a lack of punch from the roast malts and I’m wondering if maybe the same water profile using slaked lime instead of chalk and using the exact same recipe might put this beer where you’d like it to be.

    Regardless, I enjoyed reading this because who doesn’t love a Samuel Smith Oatmeal Stout?!?!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>