How did IPAs become so popular?

I can think of numerous examples among friends, family, and coworkers of exactly that phenomenon: People who generally dislike or are indifferent to craft beer who find NEIPAs delightful. There's a reason that NEIPAs have become the stereotypical favorite style of the new entrant into the craft beer hobby, this generation's gateway beer: They're inordinately and widely accessible because they rely on familiar flavors that people don't expect in craft beer and lack the aspects of craft beer that many find off-putting. A local brewer once told me (jokingly) he wanted to name an NEIPA "Mom's Choice" because previous NEIPAs had garnered so many compliments from middle-aged to elderly women (untraditional craft beer customers) who had been dragged to his taproom.

All that said, I haven't encountered many of these "moderate bitterness" NEIPAs you're referencing (at least in terms of experienced bitterness, not necessarily IBUs); I expect they're rare. Perhaps you're thinking of Vermont IPAs and other hazy West Coast IPAs such as those produced by Toppling Goliath ("pre-New-England IPAs"), "Hazy IPAs" ("post-New-England IPAs"), or non-milkshake fruited IPAs, which function differently in the market from true NEIPAs even as there's some overlap in their fanbases.

 

Which doesn't really describe any American IPA brewed... ever?

 

Paging @jesskidden , and the history of Ballentine IPA .

 

Two of my favorite Tired Hands Juicy/Hazy IPAs have notable bitterness: Alien Church and Pineal.

Cheers!

 

There was a time when we were extremely excited that New Belgium Fat Tire would be distro'd East of the Mississippi River. Craft beer options have not always been so ubiquitous as they are now. 12 years ago most bars in Chicagoland would have your macro lager offerings from Bud and Miller and if you were lucky you'd see Sierra Nevada Pale Ale and that was the extent of craft beer if you weren't going to the one craft brewery in your region. IPA demand didn't just blow up over night to this level of going mainstream there were a lot of variables that went into it. The first was just getting them exposed to the consumer which was like a regional grass roots movement for all the local brewpubs at the time.

 

Do you notice how Roguer can make similar points to yours without being a condescending ass?

ETA: Probably not worth mentioning since you're impervious to new information or deliberately obtuse (honestly can't tell which) but the style guideline for your nemesis states the following:

• Perceived Bitterness: Low to medium. Perceived impression of bitterness is soft and well-integrated into overall balance, and may differ significantly from measured or calculated IBU levels.

Source; https://www.brewersassociation.org/resources/brewers-association-beer-style-guidelines/#223

 

"Juicy or Hazy IPA" is not the same thing as a New England IPA. The Brewers Association intentionally went broad with its style designation,* and it includes many, many beers that aren't New England IPAs. If you want to say that New England IPAs are a subset of Juicy or Hazy IPAs that are flawed by being under-attenuated and inadequately bitter, I'm open to that uncharitable description, although I don't think NEIPA enthusiasts would find it agreeable.

* Much too broad, in my opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of IPAs being introduced in 2019 qualify as either "juicy" or "hazy," often both.

 

Sebastiani was at the forefront of white zins. They had a Pinot Noir Blanc named Oeil de Perdrix- eye of the partridge- that was dry and pinkish and quite good. They produced great red Zinfandel way back, but this rose struck a note. Sutter Home was soon to follow....

 

Well said. I am in exactly the same place.

 

Sierra Nevada Pale Ale was the gateway drug that helped lead many of us to IPA’s. I remember drinking them many years ago and couldn’t believe how hoppy they were. Hoppiness was an acquired taste for me, but now probably 60% of the beers I purchase are IPA’s.

 

The question was about the original IPA style.
If what is brewed in the US can no longer fits the profile of an India Pale Ale maybe it should be called something else.

 

They are. From GABF categories:

1. English-Style India Pale Ale
2. Australian-Style Pale Ale
   1. Subcategory: Classic Australian-Style Pale Ale
   2. Subcategory: Australian-Style Pale Ale
3. International-Style Pale Ale
4. American-Style Pale Ale
5. Juicy or Hazy Pale Ale
6. American-Style Strong Pale Ale
7. American-Style India Pale Ale
8. Juicy or Hazy India Pale Ale
9. Imperial India Pale Ale
10. Juicy or Hazy Imperial or Double India Pale Ale

 

You'd be hard pressed to find a beer labeled with any of the recognized beer "styles" that date from the 19th century right up to mid-20th century that fit the profile of the originals.

 

The beers within a style should be variations on a theme, share a similar flavor profile, and be true to their historic meaning. India Pale Ale is a particular style of Pale Ale, but breweries tend to just slap IPA onto pretty much any high-hop beer without considering whether or not it truly fits the India style of the Pale Ale category.
Take NE IPA and West Coast IPA as examples; calling them NEPA & WCPA would be more accurate than calling either style IPA.

 

Or you get ambers, pales, browns, etc. that are really IPA in disguise...

 

This is what I'm getting at. People seem to think that the stuff being shipped to India in the 1800s was Sierra Nevada Celebration or something, when it was probably something they'd hardly recognize as beer, much less IPA.

 

Maybe it's the beers I drink, but I'm pretty sure that if you took an Old Rasputin, Dirty Bastard, Edmond Fitzgerald, Fin du Monde, Three Philosophers, Sierra Kellerweiss, pretty much anything other than an IPA or lager back 150 years the drinkers might think it "tastes funny", but they would recognize the style.

 

The closest commercially brewed beer that I am aware to an ‘original’ IPA is Town Hall 1800 Old English IPA. Below is how this beer is detailed on BA:

“Recreated from an IPA recipe Mike Hoops found from the year 1800. The recipe was altered slightly with the british style hops additions (5 lbs per barrel) spaced out more during the boil to allow the beer to be drinkable now instead of months after a sea voyage.”

https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/1177/19041/

You can read above how the brewer decided to ‘tailor’ the hop additions since he was not aging this beer. The IPAs of circa 1800 would have been aged for one year in barrels constructed of Northern European Oak (with no pitch lining) and while the brewers would not have known it at the time the maturing beer would have been exposed to Brettanomyces which would be living in those wood barrels. After the one year of aging at the brewery, the beer would have been shipped to India which could take up to 6 months. Needless to say it would be a challenging task to replicate this maturation/transport aspect in contemporary brewing.

Cheers!

 

Not quite so. High hopping agreed but Ron Pattinson ( aka patto1ro) analysed tens of thousands of brewery records from around 1800. onwards.
He found out that IPAs were almost invariably the weakest beers from a brewery.
This continued until the present day. With the reduction of strength because of wartime shortage IPA remained as another name for weaker Bitters. So Greene King IPA remains at 3.6% ABV.
Sparkling? After a year in cask (done to ensure Brett to remove all traces of fermentable materials) and following an extensive sea journey this was unlikely.

 

This recipe has several difficult questions to answer. First of course there are no IPA recipes dating back anything like this far back. It was stronger than other 19th century IPA.s
It is rather like finding a Roman coin dated 50BC.