The difference between Pale Ale and IPA

If one was going to try to create a difference between "American pale ales" and American IPAs, I can't imagine them doing so based on hop profile. The archetypal craft era APA is Sierra Nevada Pale Ale, and SN describes that beer as having "intense aromas of pine and citrus."

 

And, I've always (since the first time I had it, early 90s) thought SNPA to be an IPA.

A lot of folks consider ABV to be the dividing line. I don't. If it's very hop forward/dominant, it's an IPA.

If the flavors/aromas are more balanced, it's a Pale, IMHO.

 

The main differentiator for me has been the prevalence of malt in the APA versus the prevalence of hops in the IPA.

SNPA has a strong piny / floral / citrus hop profile, but also has a strong biscuit / bready malt profile.

I've had Zombie Dust many times and I've always felt it skirted the borderline between APA and IPA, leaning toward IPA.

 

I don't think there is a borderline between an APA and an IPA except in the mind of the brewer or the drinker. IMO it difference is a matter of balance and ABV. I use 6% ABV as a cut off but have friends who say 7%. No one is right or wrong.

 

So all these beers labeled as session IPAs or low-cal IPAs are really just pale ales.

 

Good luck fitting anything newer than 2005 into these guidelines. I used to consider hop and malt balance a contributing factor however now hops have been turned to 11 in everything including kolsch and porters. Its strictly abv for me these days. My quintessential apa Is daisy cutter. Lots of pine and citrus with the grist to carry it.

 

I don’t think there a definable way to differentiate between the two, imo they’re one and the same. I’d say brewers preference on terminology here. Hop forward, abv can go from 6 to low 7s, so I don’t sweat it.

 

Abv is the only difference

 

I think the lines are so blurred and debatable, the only really way for the Brewers Association to end the debates is to just agree upon ABV thresholds and call it a day. Then we can focus on English/New England/American/West Coast/Brut/Belgian/Brett (did I miss any?) debates only as the Session/Pale/IPA/DIPA/TIPA will be clearly defined for both consumers and brewers alike.

 

Lots of overlap and gray area between the 2 categories. Trying to come up with a firm definition for both styles is an exercise in futility in my opinion. Add imperial/English/NE/West coast etc. and it becomes even more difficult to parse. I put pale ales into two broad categories, ones that I like and ones that I do not.

 

The people using 7% as a cut off are clearly wrong . Now I say that a bit tongue in cheek but I've got to imagine that whoever says that hasn't been drinking beer more than 10-15 years. There was a time that a "normal beer" was in the 5-6% range and it was rare to find beers over 7%. ABV has been greatly inflated over the past 30 years. Harpoon IPA is 6% and was released in the 90's. Even modern examples like Sierra Nevada's Resilience was 6.8% or Tree House Julius at 6.8%. Would they consider any of those APA's?

 

Historically, a pale ale was given extra hops as a preservative to keep the beer from spoiling on that long boat trip from England to India, so a purist (me) is going to argue that the abv should not be anywhere near the defining line between a pale ale and IPA.

If extra hops is the sole defining factor, beers would have to meet some threshold for IBUs to qualify as an IPA. Big stouts have more IBUs than some IPAs, so that measuring tool is a bust.

Going back to the OP, Zombie Dust started this discussion, and this topic gets duscussed from time to time and Zombie Dust always seems to be involved. Three Floyds brewed a beer that says on the label is a pale ale, so that is the ultimate deciding factor, regardless whether we like it or not.

In this case the beer happens to be loaded with Citra hops (and is well balanced with malt) which we all love and it causes us to notice how good the beer is, which, in turn, calls our attention to the misclassifying of the beer. Those hops shine, and therefore it seems like the beer should be an IPA. But it isn't because of what is printed on the label. Let the brewer call it whatever he/she wants, and let's live with it. (And stop reading the label.)

 

When I wrote my post, I thought to myself: " @beertunes is gonna post about how SNPA is an IPA to him." Didn't take you long. While yours is an interesting position to take (and I hope you continue to take it), for me it's self-destructive because if SNPA doesn't fall into the APA category, then there's no differentiation or foundation between those two categories and then there's no point in saying it's more one thing and not the other. Just my POV and I know your's is different.

But don't get me wrong. The argument I'm making above is just me trying to look at this through the eyes of someone who wants there to be a difference between the two terms. I'm not the type to look at things like this as two distinct families of beer. I'm the opposite. When folks take a hard line and argue about things like: "Are session IPAs really just pale ales?" or "Zombie Dust isn't a pale ale," I just can't identify with the need to draw a line in that way. IPAs are pale ales. It's all there in the name.

My position: Calling a beer a pale ale doesn't not make it an IPA. Calling a beer an IPA doesn't not make it a pale ale.

 

Quite a few of these hazy IPA are in that 6 plus abv range, they might start ant 6.2 and go up over 7 to 7.5. The India part is at the brewers desecration I suppose, it might even help sales a bit. But Pale= Dry nothing more or less.

 

ABV + malt backbone + dry = yes, a pale ale. Usually under 6% for me (or at) but I start getting suspicious over 6.
Not much of a difference or boundary these days, more like an ecotone (transition, fuzzy border) between pale and IPA.
Cheers...

 

Remember, back before '96-97 there was no American IPA substyle. However, the hair splitting that I recall from the early 90s was that while SNPA was an American Pale Ale, Anchor Liberty was an IPA. The difference being just how "hop forward" the beer was.

To further the confusion, many judges saw the IPA category as primarily English, so what to do with those beers that were starting to feature new world C hops?

The newer American substyle allowed for those kind of beers, but at the same time provided little clear distinction between it and the APA. Being "hop forward" usually puts one in the AIPA side, but stuff like that is always up to interpretation.

Which is still where we find ourselves today.

 

Not to be picky, but you missed Black, and the newest, Midwest.