Should barrel-aged Quads be recategorized?

I totally agree. There are many categories on here with non barrel aged beers that deserve to be in the top 5 at least, but end up being 10th or so because of the 8 barrel aged beers before them.

 

1. Unless I am wrong, you can age any beer inside of a barrel. If it tastes good or not is a different story. This makes it not unique to any particular style, though it may suit more styles better than others, and even enhance some styles.

2. Unless I am wrong, you can dry hop any beer. If it tastes good or not is a different story. This makes it not unique to any particular style, though it may suit more styles better than others, and even enhance some styles.

3. Unless I am wrong, you can put adjuncts in any beer, unless you are brewing by purity laws. If it tastes good or not is a different story. This makes it not unique to any particular style, though it may suit more styles better than others, and even enhance some styles.

4. I can probably keep going on and on with this.

In my opinion if you are creating a new style it should be something that cannot be described by another style's description. by my logic, a barrel aged beer can be described by several beers descriptions. The only way to say it is not in another style's description is to make just a "barrel aged" style. This would be a catch all for every single barrel aged beer. But then again you can make the logic for dry hopping. The adjuncts are somewhat trickier, but shouldn't be. For whatever reason on this site there is a "chili beer" style.

So basically any beer with pepper in it. But then why is habanero sculpin an IPA and not a chili beer? "Chili beer" just seems to be a catch all category for exactly that type of beer. There really is nothing else to go on with that category, except the use of peppers, hell, it can be either a lager or an ale, dark or light in color.

To me, Chili beer is not a style. Neither is barrel aging. They both almost the same thing to the base beer, in that the flavor is changed a bit (sometimes a lot). But neither are styles. They are just basically what you do to/add to the beer to make it stand out from other beers that are similar.

 

No. The base is the style.

 

Woo-Hoo! The research has appeared!!

Cheers!

 

Yeah, but that still doesn't tell us which use of the name came first, La Trappe Quadrupel, or the casual use as a style name (since its not, for example, in the BJCP guidelines). The Belgians seem to have been quite comfortable with double and tripel as an alcohol level label, but I still haven't seen anything that tells us when/where the term quadrupel came into play or when it became a style descriptor.

Edit: On a different topic, I'm having that Stillwater Classique, but I think its too "mature" to be given a fair review since it was canned late last August. A saison should last that long just fine but I'm going to wait till I get a fresher one to describe this beer since, like you, I'm not convinced Saison is the best category for it.

 

Yes, when it takes over the category completely, but, until then, no.

 

For your consideration there is a Brewers Association style labeled as Belgian-Style Quadrupel. When this style was first added to the BA style guidelines I have no idea.

I do think it is worthwhile to point out that the label is Belgian-Style Quadrupel despite the postings of Crabbie.

Cheers!

 

I think the two I've checked so far were 2004 and 2008 and both of them put things like La Trappe and Westvleteren 12 under BSDA. Haven't gotten forward on that to 2015 yet. But remember, his point is basically that the name for the style was American, not that the first beers brewed now listed under that style was American. (The Westvletern Abbey beers were being brewed even before St. Bernardus got the contract to do it for them back in the 40s, so there were examples of the "style" long before the La Trappe gave the name to one of their beers.)

 

You'll have help me find this or point out the location of this for me as so far my examination of the 2015 guidelines finds that they are using BDSA as the category name, that they mention that sometimes some Trappist ales are called Quadruple, but more often by a number designating their strength, and they do not list the La Trappe beer as a commercial example, despite using La Trappe beers as examples of at least three other styles.

Do you have a link to where I should be looking? Thanks!

 

https://www.brewersassociation.org/...brewers-association-beer-style-guidelines.pdf

Page 18.

 

And my more recent point was: Belgian-Style Quadrupel.

 

That's right and who but Americans call it that or use that as a style designation?

 

Thanks!

 

Ah, I was looking at the BJCP guidelines not realizing that BA and BJCP guidelines were different. Since the two do not agree, do we know why they differ on this?

 

Ok based on all the subsequent comments after my previous post, it seems like my idea solves everyone's problem: adding a tag for BA beers or those brewed with special adjuncts. No extra styles.

 

Every time I look into this I get the feeling that Quad is indeed an American invention that became (as a lot of American inventions), profitable, because it gave English speakers a readily acknowledged description of what it is, High ABV Belgian ale. Anytime you can make a product familiar increases the likelihood that you can sell it. In this case I think the egg (new idea of a style) preceded the chicken (the stuff had been brewed long before anyone thought it was a "style")
As far as the OP's question. No. Too many "styles" already

 

A 'quad' doesn't really exist. You have the strongest beer that a monastery makes. Call it what ever you want, but the "style" doesn't exist beyond the fact that the strongest beers tend to be 10-12% ABV and dark. That's it. Some, like koningshoeven sometimes BA it, and of course breweries like De Struise do their own version that they sometimes barrel. BA/BJCP/etc just try to make a category that fits them all. That's all that Quad/BSDA is. It's not like these monasteries all sat down and decided what they'd all brew and what it'd be called!

Labels suck, that's what it always comes down to. It doesn't matter whether it's beer, music, or politics. Labels aren't always right.

And this is where information becomes important. Lost Abbey is very clear with what they did to the track #10/8/whatever 'Belgian style quad/whatever'. Knowledge is WAY more important than stupid style categories and labels. You make your decision based on the information you have. I think it's the responsibility of the brewers to be as descriptive as possible with their beers, especially when it deviates from the norm. If everyone can follow this, then beer categorization is no longer an issue.

As I see it, the only need right now for strict style guidelines is for rating/judging. I couldn't care less about other peoples official judging of beer. Why do us Americans have to categorize and rank everything! It's beer, just f*cking drink it!

 

Tom,

The short answer is that I do not really know the reason for the difference between the Brewers Association and BJCP style guidelines.

As I have previously posted in this thread (via a copy of a previous post), I am personally of the opinion that a Quad is a sub-category of Belgian Dark Strong Ale beer style. In the latest version of the BJCP there is 26D. Belgian Dark String Ale which ‘covers’ beers of varying alcohol strength (8-12% ABV). In my basement I have a homebrewed beer that I call a Quad since it is 10% ABV. If I were to enter this beer into a BJCP competition I would submit it under category 26D.

The Brewers Association has two categories of Belgian-Style Dark Strong Ale and Belgian-Style Quadrupel. Why did the Brewers Association choose to use two categories vs. consolidating into one? Your guess is as good as mine.

For completeness I will once again point out that both categories of Belgian-Style Dark Strong Ale and Belgian-Style Quadrupel are contained under super-category of Belgian and French Origin Ales Styles. You may be of the opinion that since the Brewers Association is not a European organization it does not ‘understand’ the origin of beer styles. I personally do not subscribe to that thinking.

Cheers!

 

ADD got the better of me, so forgive me if I repeat, reiterate or outright steal any thought expressed previously....

My knee jerk reaction is to say that yes, barrel aging certainly could be an all inclusive singular category for such treated lagers and ales, but then how would you rate a BA'd stout v. a BA'd DIPA? Seems like you are holding two completely different beers to the same standards without regard to it's interpretation amongst its peer. Not good in my book.

On further contemplation, I contend that BA'd versions are no different than two IPAs using different hops to achieve a certain flavor profile. Sure, the spectrum is pretty wide between simply using different hops v. barrel aging, but you are still creating the same beer yet giving it a different flavor profile , i.e., interpretation. Mosaic v. Citra is an interpretation, BA'd v. non-BA'd is an interpretation.

 

I'd guess the fact that the BA is predominately a trade association for professional brewers and is reflecting the desires of their members (commercial breweries), and BJCP is predominately focused around training judges for home brewing as well as professional brewing competitions has something to do with the differences.