Beer Styles Have Finally Been Updated!

I did not say those Colonial-era pumpkin beers were "like root beer" - only that such beverages, both alcoholic and non-alcoholic, that went by names like "ginger ale, root beer, birch beer, spruce beer..." not being grain-based, were not "beer" in the sense we think of it today - and, unlikely to be added to this website's "Beer Style" page.

Sure, 19th century and older books are full of non-barley malt based alcoholic beverage recipes for "beers" and "ales" brewed with only molasses/treacle or sugar as the fermentable, flavored with hops, spruce, ginger, citrus, sassafras, etc.

Certainly, even if one were to consider those home-brewed products a "beer style", today's pumpkin beers - which use pumpkin (or other gourds or vegetables, often with spices) primarily as a flavoring, rather than a malt adjunct or a malt substitute - wouldn't really fit such a category if added to the BA list.

Well, the thread's topic is the updated Beer Styles of this website, so it'll be left up to the owners and moderators here.

 

Thanks for conceding.

Today's pumpkin beers wouldn't fit a modern definition of pumpkin beers? I think the current definition here is pretty adequate covering where the evolution has landed it currently, but it's a bit wordy and could use a touch of historical reference.

Either way, it's a style that takes up shelves for at least 3 months a year. And again, the pumpkin beers I drink (granted, I drink very few of them as they aren't my thing), contain a massive amount of pumpkin--I'd risk stating they even have a slim majority of pumpkin in the boil vs. tradition malt, but I'm not privy to the recipes/ratio.

The current makeup of the Herb and Spice beer, and the Fruit and Field beer categories are completely incompatible with pumpkin beers. If we recognize that Christmas/"holidays" beers are something worthy of having their own Winter Warmer category, it doesn't seem like a stretch for pumpkin, which would absolutely dominate the totally unrelated Herb and Spice beer or Fruit and Field beer lists they might be folded into.

 

Correct, beer styles, not whether it is beer, which is where you keep wanting to take this. And I say again, your opinion is irrelevant on that matter.

 

Given these quotation marks

I'd say I didn't concede anything.

No, they wouldn't fit the "historical" pumpkin beer of your original post.

That may be, but eliminate "irrelevant opinions" from this website's forum (not even considering the review section) and the place is gonna get pretty lonely...

 

Historical relevance of a beer isn't diminished just because it changes over time, or originally existed as an altnative to traditional malt. Very few styles on BA resemble their original iterations or even abv.

Also, just because we don't like a particular style doesn't mean it should be lumped into another catch all style that is otherwise a total misfit.

What is your argument for it actually not being a separate style? I'm really only hearing arguments for it not being beer, which seems to have also fallen by the wayside in favor of silly quips and nitpicks.

And in that vein I would ask why don't we talk about beverages that really shouldn't be here, like, say, Small Town's junk.

 

So for right now, if we want to add a beer into the system that is described on the packaging as a New England Double IPA and sits at 10% ABV, should we put it into the New England IPA or the American Imperial IPA category?

FWIW I'd also vote in favor of adding NE DIPA and NE PA categories as separate styles.

 

Got it. Sounds good! Looks like I got some edits to make on the ones I added last week lol

 

Carving a squash would really suck. It would also look awkward, and wouldn't stand up straight.

 

"Smashing Squash" would suck as a band name, and would be lame as a form of vandalism.

 

I think we've discovered why people have decided to keep naming everything "pumpkin" despite its lack of use in seasonal products, and the fact that pumpkin doesn't taste good.

 

Looking through the new Top 250, I'm seeing quite a few double IPAs that are now labeled as NE IPAs. For example, Lawson's, Toppling Goliath, Maine, etc. Juicy != NE-style.

 

I do not think milkshake IPAs should fall into the New England IPA category. New England IPAs already face as much backlash as they do love, I think lumping milkshake IPAs into this category will only fuel the fire.

 

Why are British Barleywines "British" but all of the other English styles are "English"?

Also, we have saison listed as "Belgian Saison" but the style is historically both French and Belgian. A saison sub-category is Grisette, and you can argue for or against it's inclusion, but it seems odd to add a grisette that's been brewed with French yeast as a "Belgian Saison"... wouldn't simply "Saison" work to cover both variations?

 

What about winter warmers though? What about gruits? Should they go under "herb and spice" too?

 

Right, but my point is that they aren't NE-style.