Beers in disguise

Ommegang has a “kölsch” in collaboration with Prison City calls Prost Cologne (https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/42/423708/) that is so over-hopped that it bears no resemblance to an actual kölsch, they brag about it having “the juicy flavor profile of modern dry-hops".
It's not a bad beer, but it's also not a kölsch.

 

Well, this went down the "specific" route pretty quick. I had a beer last week that was labelled as a grisette by the brewery and as a Belgian saison here on BA. Described thusly by the brewer:

"a gently salted grisette brewed with American hops, wheat, and fresh limes. Azacca hops lend a distinct lemon/lime character which is complemented by the bright acidity of fresh lime juice, all enhanced with the salinity of Maine sea salt."

I can see why it lands as a Belgian saison (where a grisette would fall under stylistically, I think), but the description leads me towards this being a riff on the Leipzig gose more than anything else. To me it was like biting into a lime, rind and all, with no salt and no sign of the "parent" beer which was possibly just overwhelmed, so it missed the mark on all counts in my opinion. So (as to the related thread on rating to style) how do I score that against any style category - it's a bit difficult. But I had another Belgian saison (according to BA - the brewer labeled it barrel aged dark ale with an awesome description) for NBS this week that seemed a cross between saison and porter, yet I could still detect elements of the Belgian saison yeast signature in the flavor and aroma - I'm more OK with that. But you couldn't have two more disparate beers captured within the same style framework. To me, one at least loosely fit, the other didn't and it points out the inherent difficulties of strict categorization.

Not being a style ****, I believe brewers have the god-granted right to experiment and blur or even obliterate the lines that delineate styles. But as a consumer paying good money for the products, the style designation (if used) should give me some framework of what to expect when I drink the beer. Riff all you want - but give me some clue where my expectations should lie. If you are going to use the style moniker, then the beer needs to have some minimal basis in said style. If it doesn't fall near a style "neighborhood" or "crosses the beams" then give me a good verbal description - which actually is provided in both my examples even though one beer (to me) missed all the marks except the lime/low ABV, and the other landed rather loosely within the category with a higher ABV than you'd expect.

 

The Saint Arnold Oktoberfest is and wins awards as a Scottish Ale. Most recently it took Silver at the 2018 GABF for "Scottish style ale".

I've no clue why they call it an Oktoberfest then.

 

Agreed, I've had several APAs recently that are juicy and cloudy like a NEIPA and a few APAs that are strongly hopped yet semi-clear like AIPA West Coast style.

A NE Pale Ale style category might help.

 

Michelob Ultra. It's labeled as light beer. It's actually beer flavored water.

 

The brewer probably feels that calling it an Oktoberfest causes higher sales numbers, and entering it in competitions as a Scottish ale gives it a better chance to medal. They are giving it it's best chance in two different arenas. This looseness is more inherent to beer categorization than people seem to think. Rather than just condemning brewers that do the above, I find the practice illuminating.

 

So it must taste more like a Scottish Ale then per your experience? (And you deliberately used 'Scottish' instead of saying Scotch Ale?)

 

I mean...I'm a gentleman, I don't twitch and tell

 

I guess I was being facetious. Because I did realize they were trying to boost sales by calling it an Oktoberfest.
I had been pointed to that a while ago but I wasn't sure.
Last year I bought a pack to try it and was struck by how I did think it tasted more like Belhaven then a German Oktoberfest märzen.

I did mean to say Scottish Ale and not Scotch Ale. It tasted more like a Scottish pale ale than a wee heavy.

 

Isn't Saint Arnold's standard-issue amber ale an award-winning ESB? While "amber ale" is actually a decent description of what most ESBs (and beers in the English pale ale family) look like, "amber ale" has quite a different connotation in American craft beer circles.

FWIW, I've grown to love SA's amber ale. Not a bad English pale ale fix in a pinch.

 

Regarding the part I bolded, "amber ale" can mean quite a large range of things and the default connotation can depend on the year in the fast changing craft landscape. No matter the year, amber ale is part of the wide ranging pale ale family, but back when craft brewers were actually more focused on making American versions of English pale ale, it was not unheard of for a craft brewer to choose the name "amber ale" instead of "bitter" for such a beer (partially due to the negative connotation of the word "bitter").

Come to think of it, I wonder if the initialism ESB took hold because of the same negative connotation. Going down the rabbit hole, now I'm wondering if the initialism IPA took hold to avoid the use of the word "India" since it can confusingly signify place of origin to some. Or if that wasn't a conscious decision by some, I wonder if IPA would have ever grabbed the hold that it has if it was never initialized as such. I'm really thinking out loud here.

What's funny (or telling ), is that of the styles being discussed (Oktoberfest, Scottish ale, amber ale, ESB), I personally don't even really think of any of them as "styles" the way people use the term. In some ways, this is me being dumb, pretentious and a hypocrite (take your pick).

 

I think the British October Ale (I never saw "brown" mentioned as part of the name) was a stock ale - well hopped, pale, and aged for a long time. And it got it's name from being brewed in October (initially?). Do you have any details on the American beers?

 

I was really surprised the first time I had an Irish Red. I was thinking of Killian's Irish Red. I like both, but they're different.

Shiner Bock also comes to mind.

 

Well, "Brown October Ale" was a somewhat popular "drinking" song from the opera "Robin Hood"- many US brewers' ads referenced it or quoted lyrics, so I guess that's where the usage came from. (Of course, lots of US brewers of stout in the same era labeled it "Brown Stout" - maybe they just liked to forewarn US drinkers that it was going to be an amber-to-gold-to-yellow beer?)

Some brewers (like Indianapolis' Gold Medal in the ad above) did say their October ale was both brewed in October and then marketed the following October of the following year. Harvard OTOH noted their first post-Repeal BOA was brewed in June, 1934.

Rainier uses the term for their Stock ale and Drewry's mentions a high alcohol content (of course, the same brewery also stressed the higher alcohol content of their flagship Stock Ale). Other brewers used the term for their standard ales, like Schmidt's Tiger Head Cream Ale and Feigenspan's P.O.N. Amber Ale.

From what I can glean (since ABV listing was prohibited) they were higher alcohol ales, around 6-7%, similar to a brewer's IPA or stock ale - just darker. (One industry article even lumps them in with the general "dark beer" category).

Most of the ads for the beers were in October. The style was even mentioned within the industry after Repeal as a seasonal beer than could be brewed to replicate the success most brewers had with their spring-released bock. Some lager brewers also released "October Beer" * (Trommer's and Yuengling's crosstown rival, Mt. Carbon are two I can think of off-hand) and there were many Winter beers and Christmas beers.

*Oddly, have never found evidence of a packaged beer labeled Oktoberfest brewed in the US until C. Schmidt's & Sons of the late 1970s. Not saying they didn't exist - I imagine there were some draught beers - Heileman, for one, had a quite well-known Oktoberfest celebration in La Crosse WI.

A lot of seasonal beers of that period tended to have very short marketing periods compared to today's "quarterly" schedules. 6 weeks to 2 months are commonly cited.

 

Thanks for that great post. The above could be the use of British terminology - where "brown stout" was used as a name for strong porter in the 17 and 1800s... but for the opposite distinction as your guess for the American market. Martyn Cornell states that it was to differentiate it from "pale stout."

 

Oh, damn - typo, left out a word.

...but, yeah, it could have been just maintaining the British term long after it was abandoned there. A coupla examples of US Brown Stout. A large number of post-Repeal US-brewed ales, porters and stouts made heavy use of British imagery and terminology in ads. As well at least one infamous malt liquor:
"From a centuries old formula of Merrie England comes the secret of this delicious malt liquor".
--- 1958 ad for OLD ENGLISH 600 (yeah, "six hundred" - before it grew up).

And in the US, "stout" was used on some beer labels to suggest (and get around the prohibition of ABV labeling?) a high alcohol beer like a malt liquor, especially in the mid-west and west coast.

One of the earliest malt liquors, Gluek's Stite was originally called Gluek's Stout (note the glass's slogan "Pale and dry as champagne") until the feds made them change it, since by then in the US, "stout" was legally "...a malt beverage produced by top fermentation, possessing the characteristic flavor and aroma distinctive of stout, having an original gravity of not less than 13.50 Balling, containing not less than 5 per cent of alcohol by volume, and of a very dark color."

But.... I ain't gonna make the leap that the "brown stouts" after Repeal were trying to distinguish themselves from those "stout" malt liquors...

 

But it has zero grams of sugar!

 

I was just poking around, and thanks to a blog post by @patto1ro , I see that "The London and Country Brewer" from 1736 makes a mention of brown and pale October beer. From the book:

(March and October were considered the best months for brewing keeping beer)

 

Unlike Europe there products like wine and cheese have very specified requirements like Appellation d'origine contrôlée, European Protected Designation of Origin, Denominazione di Origine Protetta, or denominación de origen that are very specific about what can be called a Gorgonzola or a Beaujolais there are not such standards in the US and none that I know of for beer. The Beer Judge Certification Program has a set of style guidelines that are established for amateur competitions and do not apply to professional brewers. The Brewers Association has a set of style guidelines but there is not requirement that anyone follow them. There are guidelines here, and on Untapped and Ratebeer and other beer evaluation sites that are set up so that people like you and I can rate beer but brewers have no obligation to follow these guidelines. The brewer can call their beer whatever they want. If they are smart, they will call it whatever sells. If not, they will eventually be found on a freeway entrance ramp with a cardboard sign saying "Will work for food."

 

Sure there are. TTB Malt Beverage Labeling Chapter 4 CLASS AND TYPE DESIGNATION:
For Bavarian, Dortmund/Dortmunder, Kulmbacher, Munich/Munchner, Salvator, Wein/Weiner, Wurtzburger produced outside of Germany or Vienna produced outside of Austria, the class and type designation “Bavarian,” “Dortmund,” etc., must include the word “type” or “American” or other adjective or statement, e.g., “Brewed in the U.S.,” indicating the true place of production.

(F)or Pilsen/Pilsener/Pilsner produced in the Czech Republic or the U.S. For Pilsen/Pilsener/Pilsner produced outside of the Czech Republic or the U.S., the class and type designation “Pilsen,” etc., must include the word “type” or “French” or other adjective or statement, e.g., “Brewed in France,” indicating the true place of production.

Yeah, granted, a bit outdated nor as strict as the European rules.

There were also initially conflicts after Repeal over "India Pale Ale" and, more recently, over "Russian Imperial Stout", IIRC.