What does "malty mess" mean?

Yeah you're right, if I'm being honest the lack of carbonation was part of the disappointment with the beer. It was just flat and too sweet and unbalanced.

 

Mostly that I have had other Old Ales that were much better fresh, and that the maltyness got to be cloying and mildly unpleasant.

 

If I recall correctly, that beer has a really noticeable hop presence... like an APA. You should try a new one when it's released - it might taste totally different to you. ​

 

As a malthead, I imagine this means one of two things...

1.) A beer I might like.

2.) A beer that I still consider too hop-forward to be enjoyable, but which those who enjoy hops find to be malty with not nearly enough hop presence.

 

Underattenuated in a way that presents too much sweet, too thick of a body, is often cloying, molasses flavored, and can stick so the palate like wallpaper glue. It unbalances any hope of deliciousness in its overpowering presentation. See also Dark Lord, ST Creme Brulee, SA Triple Bock.

Note: there are those who love beers of this nature. These folks are known as "people whose opinion on beer I disregard completely and utterly."

 

Malty mess is when the hops fade on a very hoppy brew the malt takes over and makes it taste overly sweet for the style. Sweet, kinda stale, old. And there are overly hoppy messes too, ie: pick a session IPA. They're the polar opposite, horribly bitter at the expense of the malt balance and it drives down the ABV a bit, not much going om except bitter, and palate fatigue which is opposite of its intended use.

 

There is a difference between sweet and malty. Oktoberfest beers are malty but have dry to neutral finish. Sweet comes when the beer is unbalance d or underattenuated.

 

I guess the definition of "Malty Mess" is subjective to each individual. In my book, this is the more logical definition.

 

As with all else in language I would assume that context is key. If someone uses that descriptor when talking about an IPA that is too old then perhaps they have a a point - the malt was a rude intrusion to the flavor profile they were expecting and simply didn't blend well with the other flavors present.

Now if they are describing some malt-heavy lager then perhaps it is a statement just revealing their bias against the malt flavor as a whole. A third option might be that there are beers in existence that intend to be malty, but they fail to blend flavors well. At that point perhaps what people are saying is that there is a lot of malt but it doesn't taste correct in this chosen brew and once all together tastes like a mess (things thrown together but don't belong).

I don't think it is fair to assume that this statement ALWAYS reveals bias or ALWAYS implies some characteristic about the reviewer, especially when you have no context to go off of.

 

But that is exactly why it tells you more about the commentator than the beer. Malty mess w/o explanation or context always implies something about the persons inability or unwillingness to provide context for their comment. :-)

 

Depends on the style, I love the maltiness of a nice Pils it's supposed to be there, I don't like IPA's and DIPA's whose hop presence has been degraded and the malt kinda stands there. Style counts.

 

I would only use this term to describe a hop-forward beer that is either past its prime, or otherwise failed at its purpose.

 

That's a different context, then, as drtth said above- that's just a beer that's past its prime. The malt in an IPA does serve a purpose, and for the most part those 'juicy' qualities rely on the interaction between the malt and the hops.

I also get the feeling that people use the general term 'malty' to describe the presence of caramel malt, which is only one aspect of the flavors that malt provides. Usually when I see "that IPA is no good- too malty" I read it to mean "that IPA is in a style which uses caramel malt, which I don't prefer".

 

I really don't know since I haven't read every comment that uses this description. You presuppose that they use it without explanation however I doubt that is the case in each use.

 

Malty mess = any IPA that is too old.

 

The first thing that comes to mind when I hear the words "malty mess" is Dogfish Head and their so-called "IPAs."

 

I spilled some of a beer and my wife said I was a mess. Does this count?

 

I have mentioned before, I will ignore most peoples opinions once the term "malty mess" comes out of their mouth (or their fingers). I find this term is often misused and often applied to a beer that display some semblance of balance when the individuals preference would desire something more hop forward. This term is most often misused when it comes to IPA/DIPAs with any malt presence at all, these folks who use the term will likely compare these beers to Barleywines, while the comparison is not usually valid.

If the term is to be used it should be referring to an under-attenuated, poorly crafted beer or a beer that is excessively malt forward, not balanced, such as a DIPA that utilizes specialty malt heavy bill.

 

Probably not, and perhaps I should have put the word 'usually' in my original statement. But it does tend to come up all too often that "too malty" is used without context, as if that simply says it all. I'm all for contrary or differing opinions- providing that explanation or food for discussion is really the crux of the matter. I'd rather that that particular shorthand statement not be encouraged.

 

What @kzoobrew and @TongoRad said.

With the addition that for me the same applies to "hop bomb." Particularly since so many people seem to think that the only contribution of hops to flavors of beers is the bitterness.

Edit: And yes I am focused on those cases where the term "malty mess" or "hop bomb" are used without explanatory context as to what the individual means by the term. But they are, so far as I can tell, the most frequent uses on this site.