The Capacity Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) Regulations 1988 gave an allowance (in excess or deficiency) of 17 ml for pint line measures. This had the effect of making it legal to mark the crown stamp & a “pint to line” marking on any line measure which contained any amount between 551.3 ml and 585.3 ml when tested with water and filled to the line (figures rounded to 0.1 ml)

Similarly, the Measuring Instruments (Capacity Serving Measures) Regulations 2006 currently give an allowance (in excess or deficiency) of 5 ml + 2.5% for pint line measures. This has the effect of making it legal to mark the CE mark & a “pint to line” marking on any line measure which contains any amount between 549.1 ml and 587.5 ml when tested with water and filled to the line (figures again rounded to 0.1 ml)

So, in other words, the tolerance window was identical, but distributed around the line on a line measure instead of in excess only as in a brim measure.

I’m not aware of any efforts to exploit the tolerance by the glass manufacturers. I don’t know the verification procedures at the large UK glass manufacturers when they were still in business, but on the few occasions I verified pint brim measures, the easiest way was to make sure it didn’t overflow when a pint was poured in, and that it did overflow when you added a further 34 ml. As such, the individual errors were not worked out.

A manufacturer who wants maximum tolerance would set his target at about 585 mL, but with tighter tolerance control, might choose any target in the range 570 – 600 mL. Is a manufacturer allowed to advise his customer (the pub owner) of his actual average capacity? Clearly, the pub owner would prefer glasses that average toward the low end, without imposing such tight tolerances that the cost has to be significantly increased. Lower cost glasses would tend towards the middle of the range.

I can envision optimization around a minus zero, plus “x” tolerance where the customer wants x small and the manufacturer wants it large, and they haggle over a cost function. For the pub owner, the question is “how much beer will the glass serve before it is discarded” and what savings on beer would smaller x provide.

You appear to be confusing the actual definition of the pint with the physical difficulty of manufacturing a cheap product that can be used to measure pints of beer in a pub.

The actual size of a physical glass “pint” measure used in a pub must fall within specified allowances. These allowances are set out in the Capacity Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) Regulations 1988 (for crown stamped pint glasses) and the Measuring Instruments (Capacity Serving Measures) Regulations 2006 (for CE stamped glasses)

The Capacity Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) Regulations 1988 gave an allowance (in excess only) of 34 ml for pint brim measures. This had the effect of making it legal to mark the crown stamp & a “pint” marking on any brim measure which contained any amount between 568.3 ml and 602.3 ml when tested with water and filled to the brim (figures rounded to 0.1 ml)

Similarly, the Measuring Instruments (Capacity Serving Measures) Regulations 2006 currently give an allowance (in excess only) of 10 ml + 10% for pint brim measures. This has the effect of making it legal to mark the CE mark & a “pint” marking on any brim measure which contains any amount between 568.3 ml and 606.7ml when tested with water and filled to the brim (figures again rounded to 0.1 ml)

As a result of these allowances, Jeremiah is totally correct. A 568 ml measure would be just under 0.3 ml too small to be stamped as a pint glass, while a 570 ml measure would be comfortably within the allowances.

Incidentally, there is no provision for marking a supplementary metric marking on a stamped imperial pint glass. It would, however, be perfectly legal to mark a 250 ml wine glass with a supplementary imperial marking, but I’m not aware of anyone that has done this.

The variation in the size of the brim measures used in UK pubs explains why some test purchases are found to contain a full liquid pint. If the stamped brim measure is actually capable of containing 600 ml and has a 5% head, the actual liquid content will be around 570 ml.

Unfortunately, the more common scenario is that the stamped brim measure is nearer the 570 ml end of the tolerance, and the head is nearer 10%, resulting in a measure of around 520 ml.

On average, surveys have found the average “pint” delivered in a brim measure to be around 540 ml. Personally, I would not permit any new brim measures to be placed on the market, instead replacing breakages with new line measures. In a few years time, I would then get the publicans to remove the few remaining brim measures from use. Problem solved!

It also has to be sold in approved glasses.

Markings in ml are legal but only as a supplementary indication.

The pint is defined in UK law as 568.26125 ml …

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19951804_en_2.htm

Is the metric indication just not required or is it illegal? How would such a marking be accepted in a metric country where the amount of millilitres must be noted?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=570+mL+pint+glasses&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS367US355&ie=UTF-8

Even disposable glasses are in 570 mL increments:

http://www.cater4you.co.uk/acatalog/Disposable-Pint-Half-Pint-Plastic-Glasses.html

So why claim 568 mL is the glass size when it is 570 mL?

LACORS is the Local Authority Coordinators on Regulatory Services and their comments are scathing against the Government proposal. I would say that any right thinking person who reads the LACORS comments and fails to demand measure to line glasses must be overly influenced by the licensed trade.

The following was sent to me in answer to my question to Government as to what had happened to consultation CA 003/02.

“The answer is that the outcome of the consultation conducted in 2002 was inconclusive, as was the case with the previous two consultations on the ‘full’ pint of beer. You will have seen from the Ministerial reply to your letter of 25th May that the current Government is not planning any change to the policy on the ‘full’ pint.”

This raises the question – What is the Government Policy on the “full” pint?

I have written again to my MP asking what is the policy – as it has been mentioned. I have also demanded that the consultation be properly completed as it should never be the case that because the Government does not get the result it wants it can stop the consultation and not publish the results.

They are CE marked disposable plastic 12oz and 22oz (oversized) tumblers, lined at 20oz and 10oz, approved by weights and measures.

For info, when we asked weights and measures if we could display both metric and imperial measures on the glasses we produce they would not let us, (they thought people would be confused) and we had to remove the metric measurements from the glasses (so much for being part of the EU)
We are expected to manufacture a separate glass just for the rest of the Europe (we dont bother)
Cheers