(I)PAs - Overrated, or Mislabeled?

I haven't had either beer.

But my thought is that isn't an upper limit on hop aroma or flavor in a pale ale. But too much hop bitterness, then it's mis-labeled and should be labeled as an IPA.

 

I... disagree. There's certainly a difference in the taste and the mouthfeel of those beers than probably every beer I've had that has been listed here as an IPA. You could add Daisy Cutter to your list. They stretch the definition, sure, but still, there is enough about them that is different, mostly in the malt bill, that separates them, for me, from IPAs "proper."

For me, you could put the exact same hops, in the same amounts, at the same times, into, say, a 5.2% abv "Pale Ale," as you do a 7% abv "IPA," with a somewhat expanded malt bill, and the hops can shine more in the latter (if handled right). But to other persons' palates, well, I'm sure they are looking for different qualities out of the hops than I am, ones that maybe aren't accentuated by the extra sugars and/or proteins from additional malt(s).

Certainly, however, beers such as the recent Boulevard/Cigar City collab Tropical Pale Ale and Lagunitas' Born Yesterday, whose malt bills probably stand toe to toe with any beer labelled as an "IPA," do feel, to me, like they should probably just be considered, and marketed as, IPAs. My two cents.

 

I am nowhere near an expert on this beer style (or any beer style for that matter) but I tend to think the same-- that extent of bitterness separates an APA from an IPA. But somehow I would like to believe there is more to it.

 

Well, usually ABV % as well.

 

Keep in mind that IPAs are pale ales. Unless the brewer states otherwise (I do not know the specifics of the beers you are referencing and can't comment in that regard), it's unfair to assume what kind of pale ale they were aiming for (if any).

 

No.

Modern beer has twisted "categories" and "style guidelines" into pretzels. A lot of the stuff coming out now blurs, if not tramples, the lines between traditional styles.

And I think that's awesome. If you want to get all BJCP on reviews, feel free, it doesn't matter to me. But I'll drink what I enjoy & score it accordingly, regardless of stiff & outdated notions of "style".

 

It's because have an idea of what a style tastes like/ should taste like and brewers are making extremely hoppy versions of them (which are not representative of the style) and people are impressed.

"wow this is so good for a pale ale." Well then maybe it is not a true pale ale.

 

I would have to imagine that the Pale Ale/IPA line is simply a marketing issue with brewers now. As @zid pointed out, they are one and the same. II think another beer style should be looked at besides pale ales and IPAs to show that people are, in fact, not rating to style. La Fin Du Monde is one of the best tripels and one of the best beers in the world. Yet it is a 4.3?

 

Zombie Dust and Pseudo Sue, those are a couple of great pale ales. Wink, wink.

 

Well...

Pale Ale is an extremely broad category. American Pale Ale is just one subcategory within that style guideline and it, itself, is very broad.

Not... exactly. An IPA is, technically, a Pale Ale. It's an India Pale Ale. But a Pale Ale is not necessarily, nor should it be, an IPA. It's like squares and rectangles, or any other question of categorical separation going from less to more specific. B might be an A, but A might not be a B.

Personally, beers such as Boulevard/Cigar City Tropical Pale Ale are very stylistically different from Sierra Nevada Pale Ale, or, yes, even Zombie Dust. While Zombie Dust may be very hoppy, even very bitter, it still feels a lot more like SNPA than it does something like Uinta IPA or even Lagunitas Born Yesterday.

I don't mean to speak for the rest of the beer reviewing community, but when I review beers like Tropical Pale Ale or Born Yesterday, I review them as IPAs rather than APAs, regardless of what the text on the bottle says, because of the stylistic similarities that must exist during the brewing process to create such a beer. Those similarities aren't as simple as adding more and different hops at different stages of the boil (or after boil) that seem, to me, to separate beers like SNPA, Stone Go To, and 3F Zombie Dust. Those similarities, to me, feel like they are enough to constitute a whole new style definition.

But, to others, they may not.

 

I have always been curious myself. When I want a good Pale Ale, I may go for the Sierra Nevada. When I want a good IPA, I go to Stone IPA. I have had the zombie dust and the born yesterday, and although 'labeled' as pale ale's, my palate tells me they are IPA's. Again, I don't care what they are called, but it is a curious question.

 

So then what's the difference between a session IPA and a pale ale?

Terms are stupid. If it taste good, I drink it!

 

Fair enough. And, admittedly, I don't know enough about the specifics that separate the "A might not be a B" part. I suppose my statement was referring specifically to American brewed pale ales and IPAs and my own confusion with the muddying of the two styles. Dale's Pale Ale as an example.

 

Flux, babe. Flux.

How closely does your current favorite IPA resemble your favorite IPA of ten years ago?

 

None my friend, none. Marketing buzz words, nothing more. A session IPA is a hoppy pale ale that sounds cooler than "hoppy pale ale," as determined by marketing, sociological/psychological/economical "experts" in the field.