Should the saison style be divided up?

In my opinion we already have plenty (too many?) beer styles and therefore I am not a proponent of creating more style names.

The feature that I personally look for in the Saison style is a beer that is very, very dry (i.e., a very low final gravity). The flavor profile may vary depending on the specific Belgian Saison yeast strain(s) used and needless to say other aspects (e.g., spice additions, fruit additions, maybe adding some Brett at the end of fermentation and/or bottling,…)

Belgian brewers classically were not hung up on meeting specific style guidelines. They brew beers that suit their whimsy and call the beer something since they need some words on the bottle labels.

If a Brewery produces a Saison and they do something ‘extra’ (e.g., dry hopping) simply list that on the label as well.

There is no absolute need to create more style names here.

I suspect that organizations such as the Brewers Association (and their member breweries) would not be averse to creating additional sub-style since this presents them with an opportunity to award/win more medals.

Cheers!

P.S. I will await Chris (@zid) to post the 'final word' in this thread.

 

I'd say "opinionated" rather than "better." They don't necessarily go hand in hand.

"Final word?" haha, yeah right.

Personally, I probably wouldn't split up saisons into different types in the style macrocosm of BeerAdvocate.

Styles are fuzzy. In this case, I don't think splitting things up will remove the fuzziness, but could actually contribute to it. More division means more lines drawn.

Within a microcosm of the world of saisons (such as writing a book on the subject, or in a judged beer competition, or in a landscape where saisons are the majority of beer on the shelf), if it's advantageous to categorize and divide things up then people should go ahead and do so.

Table saisons, spiced saisons, super-saisons, spelt saisons, sour saisons, hoppy saisons, brett saisons, brown saisons, honey saisons, etc.

Saisons are notoriously ill-defined and it makes sense when you consider that the strength has a large range, the color has a large range, the intended flavors have a large range, and the ingredients have a large range.

I think that openness can become detrimental when brewers or drinkers cling to it like a Get Out Of Jail Free card.

When Sierra Nevada released their Beer Camp Sweet Sunny South beer, it was listed here as a saison. The brewer called it a "table beer" and an "ale." It was made with a saison yeast and corn, tea leaves, peaches, prickly pear, papaya, and guava. I submitted a style change request to this website that the beer is better classified as a "fruit/vegetable beer" since it drew more inspiration from a southern sweet tea with fruit than a Belgian saison. I guess the editors agreed. Maybe I was wrong.

If saisons were ever split on this site, I'm guessing they'd become Belgian saisons and American saisons. I don't think this would add much of anything. Without a clear idea of what would define either of those, things would simply default to place of origin. I don't need an artificial "American saison" category if I can just look at where the brewer is. Did American brewers attempt to differentiate themselves from Belgian product? Not that I know of. Failing that, is there a unifying idea that makes an American saison different? I can imagine many drinkers wanting to label hoppy or acidic saisons as "American" but this would be a bad move in my opinion since this isn't something that American saisons added to the style.

Then on the Belgian side, you see cases of the above. When you look at the listings of Fantome here, you see a case of almost every beer being called a saison. Are they saisons? Or is it a case of the brewery being famous for their saisons and their other beers just being uncategorizable? I don't know. Making more saison categories wouldn't solve this if the beers shouldn't be viewed as saisons. If there is any "either/or" division within modern Belgian saisons, my feeling is that it would be spiced or without spices. I'm saying that based on how the beers are described or marketed.

Anyway, I don't lean towards a split, but maybe I'll change my mind a year from now when I'm embarrassed by this post. Sometimes simple solutions are good for complex situations.

 

Lines aren't fuzzy.

 

But in relation to lines, beers are.

My meaning is this - To use your examples from the quote below, where would you put a barrel-aged coffee stout? That beer wouldn't work well with your classification unless you also added yet another style box for it. An alternative is to just put it in a "stout" category. I'm not saying that one method is better than the other in this case.

 

So you're saying if we start adding a few categories then we might as well add a category for everything else? Kind of like GABF does. Maybe that's not exactly what you're saying, but I get the point.

We do have check pils and german pils, then american double stout and russian imperial. If anything those should be fused into one and something else split up.

 

I'm saying that more boxes don't necessarily make things clearer.

 

I don't care about what category a beer falls in. I do care how it tastes.

 

Hoppy saison
Hoppy Belgian Saison
American Saison
Hoppy American Saison
Imperial Saison
Session Saison
Triple Saison
Barrel Aged Saison
Bretted Saison
Saison with spices
Saison with fruit

Here are some helpful new categories. I am certain they will do an even better job at confusing consumers.

 

Those descriptors are already on TONS of breweries tap lists right now.

you don't typically see "Heady Topper: I-P-A"

 

Nah, as much as I love all farmhouse ales it's an alright catch all. The styles within the category don't really need to be mentioned separately. I've only had one grisette and don't see a reason to list some of those other farmhouse ale styles separately.

 

Wrong

 

I think that it's cool that a North Carolina brewer might devise a product with lots of good local ingredients, kinda like a saison or biere de garde, and call it what they wish. Some come out dry and tangy, others border on sweet. This is not a problem. Sounds like fun drinking to me!

 

Missing the point. The ipa category is so broad that if you hop anything enough you can call it an ipa. Look at lagunitas Dave Murrays Best. Not a trace of Scotch ale in it because it's so hopped up. Dogfish Head changed Indian brown to dark ipa. You shouldn't be able to call a beer a saison just because of a Belgian yeast and simple brewed base and throw anything else in it you can.

 

I really don't think I've ever been mislead by the name of a beer, whether it be typical or a proprietary specialty. I've learned to trust some brewers, and allowed a curious nature to let me explore otherwise. These days, it's a great opportunity. Getting hung up on names and classification rises well above my pleasure level.