Controversial Beer Opinions Thread

At least in mycology/mushrooms (another hobby with naming conventions) there is an improving method to oversee taxonomy, and folks who constantly correct others who use the outdated names are doing so in an effort to make the study more regular and easy to use for everyone. With beer it seems it evolves to be more confusing and less user friendly as new understandings and styles are discovered.

 

If you have a way to classify them that is better than the current taxonomy, I'm all ears.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...cs-on-brewing-2155-9600-1000448.php?aid=66512

Though I'd agree, in principle, that using a lager yeast does not a lager make, nor does using an ale yeast make an ale.

 

What in the world do you mean by asking me this? Of course I know that. I was asking when does a malt beverage stop being an ale and start being a porter. They're both English beverages and made with the same recipes just different proportions of the ingredients so I have no idea where the transition line is and why people are so adamant about it.

The reason I used 200 years was a guesstimate from when the invention of hydrometers lead to the abandonment of porters being made with brown malt as a base.

From Ron Pattinson's book on vintage beers the Brown Ales were exactly the same as porters made with just amber and brown malts. But they were sweeter because they didn't have as many hops.

Noakes and Maclays mild ales from the early 20th century were made with black malt. It's not a universal definition that black malt = Porter.
I know more modern British brewers make their dark ales with specialty grains instead of just sugars. My Cornish friends also say their local breweries milds taste of roasted malt.

If you're so insistent that the Ale/Porter categorization still exists why do you even allow that Ale still exists?

How have you accepted that ales are now being brewed with hops? There is no more Ale in the world, just beer.
Why do you think that Porters still exist when there are no more beers being made with diastatic brown malt?

All malt beverages are made with pale base malts with specialty grains or sugars for color and flavor. As the two breweries I mentioned use Black malt (and brown malt) in their ales that was just a very quick perusal of the one book and a recipe I've followed before.

I understand that this distinction is one that you grew up with and you insist on saying that it's important to maintain the history... But that history has been destroyed by the British brewers by the continual changes to what the terms actually meant. Ale and Porter have no difference because the brewers have homogenized the beer making process to the point where they are exactly the same. And insisting there's a difference just breeds confusion.

Why are some breweries able to make mild ales with black malt and at what point do they change to no longer being an ale and suddenly being in a different family of malt beverage.

 

1948 Lee's Mild - Look, a mild with black malt.
1946 Shepherd Neame - a pale ale with black malt
1948 Lee's C -another Lee's ale with black malt
1914 Courage X Ale

Crowley Porter -and look a porter without brown or black malt. It has chocolate malt but that's also more common with ales.

I'll stop here but there are other examples. They are in the minority but you can't say absolutely that malt beverages made with black malt are porters and otherwise are ales. There is more overlap.

 

With the Oktoberfest season winding down...

If your brewery does not normally make lagers, or if you do not practice a decoction process, do not waste your time making one. I know they suddenly become popular, I know they're meant to be a homage to the traditions of brewing and beer consumption and the biggest beer celebration in the world, but if it cannot stand up even fractionally with the imports, then why bother?

 

Although there are some US breweries that make lovely lagers/Oktoberfests, the majority of them suck because not many put forth the time and energy to learn how to make them well. They just think, "I'm a brewer. I can do this." Tossers.

 

What I mean is, if history in the UK shows the two as being under two classifications and industries, then who are you to argue that? Don't answer that. I now know

 

It is easy to understand why a lot people don't like pilsners since arguably the vast majority of pilsners do in fact suck. IE: Most of the common cheap swill are AAL/ALL pilsners.

There are certainly the exceptions like this one but they are still the exception. A good question would be what are some other good exceptions to common crappy pilsners?

 

When you make cheap swill, marketing is all you got!

But I do agree, they have made some of the greatest commercials...

 

It's be easier to just name the breweries that make solid ones. Outside of the classic Europeans, places like Victory, Troegs, Fathead's, Penn, Great Lakes, Sly Fox, and Summit all do a bang-up job. Hell, Sierra Nevada makes some lovely pilsners.

 

Actual Pilsners and not AALs .

Two different things completely.

 

A stupid discussion is the perfect place for you.

 

While I agree with you, a lot of the AAL/ALL's are marketed and labeled as "pilsners".

 

What they are and how they're marketed are also two different things. Look at what category they compete in, and it's not a Pilsner. They may be derived from Pilsners long ago, but losing a substantial amount of character of hops and malt took them in a different direction.

 

The AAL/ILL makers call those beers Pilsner but there's no resemblance to anything that Pilsner is.

They even fall short of the color that actual Pilsner is.

Granted, when those beers were first created in the 19th century they may have been closer to an actual Pilsner but have been dumbed down so much over time.

If you can get to Austin then Austin Beer Garden Brewing makes exceptional Pilsners evidenced by their Gold's at GABF and winning the Medium Brewpub of the Year the past few years.

Live Oak Pilz is also a great classic style one and a bit easier to find.

Pearl Snap Pils from Austin Beerworks hasn't ever struck me as one of the more traditional Pilsners but because I find a kind of biscuit malt flavor that I love combined with the hops.

Everyone loves Real Ale Hans' Pils but I find such extreme amounts of Tettnang (or Saaz) hops build towards to much of a fruity hop profile for me.

I haven't found any really good ones in North Texas though. But I was really surprised by Braindead Brewing but they're a small brewpub so I can't find it anywhere else.

 

Sometimes the answer to a simple question can reveal a lot to the person asking the question. Similarly what people say about a beer can tell you what they do and do not understand about the beer, e.g., claiming adjucts are used in brewing what is actually an all malt beer.

 

Most of the common cheap swill are all lagers or light lagers and marketed as such. I believe only Miller Lite has the word "pilsner" on it's label, the others don't. What other ones say or market that they are pilsners?

So it's my opinion that the vast majority of pilsners are actually pretty good and that the AALs if marketed as a pilsner is the exception, not the norm.

That being said, here is my list of excellent pilsners that I've personally had, many are PA beers as we are pilsner rich here in PA.

Victory Prima
Sly Fox Pikeland
Troegs Sunshine
Stoudts Pils
Sixpoint The Crisp
FW Pivo
SN Summerfest
SN Nooner (if still brewed)
Neshaminy Creek Trauger
Tired Hands Trendler

And of course a bunch of great German and Czech pils.

 

Not as common as it once was in the US and some of the brewers who used the term often had more than one "adjunct lager" - say, also a Vienna style (like the Coors' ad in the second image) that might be a bit darker and less hoppy (and many of the brewers and beers are long gone, as well) but, for example:

 

AALs are much closer to Helles, which was Germany's initial response to the Czech Pils. It's all about evolving and devolving from a happy point

 

Was in a company meeting the other day and the topic of buzz words came up. Everyone was carrying on about words that irk them within business (optics, bandwidth, green etc.). Losing sight of where I was and who I was talking to, I blurted out "hazy".

That was an awkward moment to recover from.

Anyway, I miss the word "unfiltered". Seems more mature and technical.