Porters: why bother?

nothing going on at work today....huhh?

 

Nah...you definitely seem to want to start an argument amongst fellow BAs, otherwise why would you even start a thread like this?

A lot of people have the exact opposite opinion of you on porters, so of course you made this thread to get a reaction out of them. That = trolling.

 

Seems like an honest and civil discussion to me.

 

You're free to have an opinion, and vocal opinions like yours are what make this place interesting. That said, as many have already pointed out, the line between stout and porter is VERY blurry. Some have pointed out Victory at Seas as a porter, but personally I'd call that a stout. As a fun exorcise, grab a few well rated examples of either style and have yourself a blind tasting and see how you rank them.

 

There is no technical difference between a stout and a porter, I'd love for someone to tell me differently. This post is full o fail

 

Because sometimes you feel like a nut...sometimes you don't?

One of my first noob questions was what is the difference and I promptly had to head for the bunker for my flame ******ant skivvies. So as I read and learned, I agree there's really no distinction beyond what the brewery decides to label something. I also said I didn't think I liked porters, but have totally reversed my opinion. Weak stout or robust porter - all on the same spectrum so the distinction is somewhat meaningless. In general I think that is becoming more common with the "crossover" styles - not everything fits neatly into the BJCP cubbyholes anymore.

Why pick one over the other? There's world-class of each available regardless of the naming convention. Sometimes I want something that is a darker beer but I don't want an RIS or barrel-aged behemoth and a Mayflower or Founders Porter (or their kin) fits the bill for what I feel like drinking. I don't feel as though I am settling on anything and I'm not going to pass up trying a beer because it's just a porter. If it tastes good, I'm in. If I don't like it, I don't buy it again whether it's a Porter, IPA/DIPA or any other style. I am selecting a brew to enjoy based on what I want to drink at the time - call the beer whatever you want. Porters kind of fit the bill for an easy drinking, yet flavorful concoction.

 

Arguing about porters vs. stouts is the most pointless activity one could engage in on a beer forum. THEY ARE THE SAME THING.

 

I set out to make a Black IPA homebrew and it turned into a Porter. Too much roasty/coffee malts and not enough dry hopping I guess. Lines are all really blurry.

 

Stout is short for stout porter.

 

accusing people of trolling is the new trolling

 

I love stouts and generally don't care for porters. Usually when I try one I am left with wanting a stout.

 

Although I am very much convinced there's not much of a distinction, I think it is more like they exist on a shared continuum that creates the possibly uncomfortable ambiguity where the distinction isn't so clean cut and defined.

 

Just try to get a stout to carry your bags.

 

Just tried the Ballast Point Black Marlin Porter. Pretty damn good.
beerbellyblogger.wordpress.com

 

You shouldn't draheim. Given two choices, you absolutely shouldn't settle for the one that you like less. This is all about personal preference and you should be comfortable exercising your own.

 

I agree with everything you said (except for the true existence of "styles"). Stout was only used when a brewery brewed more than one porter recipe...case in point = your side by sides.