Do we really need the term Triple IPA???

(Do "we" really need 3 question marks?)

I don't know - the US brewing industry got along alright in the pre-Craft era using the terms "Pils", "Pilsner", "Pilsener", "Bohemian-style", "Light Lager", "Lager", "Light Beer" (pre-the low carb/low calorie stuff) and just plain "Beer" for the same basic style beer.

 

I'm trying to remember if this ever bothered me. Nope. Must have had other things to worry about.

 

Triple IPA is arguably the least ambiguous IPA label. You know you’re getting a booze bomb. The distinction between singles and doubles is fuzzy at best, however.

Do we need the term? Sure, why not? If you see it on a menu, you have a pretty good idea of what the beer is like. Mission accomplished.

 

If it indicate som kind of Belgian Tripel IPA I'm in

 

Wish that trend would circle back around again.

 

Agreed with the above. It mirrors the classic Belgian beer descriptors, so the term was not made up out of whole cloth. Is the Triple descriptor on an IPA necessary? No, probably not. Do I know what the brewer is indicating when I see Triple IPA? Yes, so the label is doing it's job.

The pale ale style in particular is rife with very fuzzy lines between "styles." I'm far less concerned with the boundary between double and triple IPA, than I am with Pale ale/Bitter/American Pale Ale/session IPA/English IPA/American IPA/West Coast IPA/Extra IPA...

And this ^^^^ ...when a brewer assigns their beer a style we have to remember that it's part of their marketing of the beer. It's not going to be a rigid structure.


Ponder this.... What would a "pale barleywine" be like?

 

Do we really need to end all of our sentences while conversating about the beer an octave higher than they originally started??
I hope not.

 

Do I, personally, need bitter categorized into subtypes called ordinary, best, and premium... where the ABV difference from one to the next can be measured in tenths of a percent? No.

Apparently, the BeerAdvocate style list doesn’t care about this either... preferring to divide things up by: bitter, pale ale, and ESB. This is probably a reflection of how many beers are labeled here in the States. Dividing things between those three categories is of no use to me too.

Now if I was living in the UK, and I drank nothing but bitter, and I tended to drink in sessions... then dividing bitter by ordinary, best, and premium might matter a lot to me.

Same goes for IPA.

Personally, I don’t even approach IPAs as either IPAs or DIPAs. They are all just IPAs to me.

If I drank nothing but modern US IPAs, then dividing those up for myself into session, ordinary, double and triple would probably be appealing.

 

The terms "Black IPA" and "Blonde Stout" come to mind, as well.

 

Already exists, though, and it's called JW Lee's Harvest Ale .

 

That would be a barley wine.

 

IPA isn't even a style anymore, It's a flavor descriptor.

 

If it's over 8% let's just call them HiPAs'....

 

I like it. Kind of like the Belgians (who we all try to emulate ). They have their PA, along with a dubbel and tripel. The single and tripel are lighter in color (and malts relatively) while the double is a bit more malt forward.

 

Seriously?

"This Imperial Stout is really IPA forward" I'm sorry but that's just dumb. What I also find ignorant is when people refer to (D)IPAs as "hops" or "fresh hops".

 

Well, "pale" to the Brits, anyway. (From M. Jackson's Ultimate Beer [US ed. - 1998]).

 

I'm yet to try a Blonde/White/Golden "Stout" that tastes like a Stout. They don't, they can't and they never will. And they also all contain coffee in them, to make up for the lack of malt. Black IPAs is a bad term as well, but at least it make a little more sense. It's black in color, but it still tastes like an IPA. Cascadian Dark Ale and (American) Black Ale are better terms IMO.

 

If we can have Double, then we can have Triple. Since Double is used to describe beers as low as 7% ABV it stands to reason that a 12% ABV should not also be called Double, because there is a world of difference between the two.

 

It's pretty unbelievable how bent out of shape people get over names of beer styles. Clearly a Triple IPA tends to be "stronger" than a double or imperial IPA from the same brewery. If it describes the beer easily, I cannot imagine why people would be against further clarity.

As for the style itself, I appreciate them designating it as such, because it allows me to weed out the doubles. I tend to like "regular"or session IPAs for everyday, and something stronger (10%+) for special occasions. Doubles (7.5ish-9ish%) just don't have a place in my drinking habits. Given that, I find the distinction useful, and would find it odd if everything from session-15% was just labeled "IPA".

 

Ehh . . . the words "double" and "imperial" are simply used to denote higher ABV and are in no way representative of a specific increase in said ABV, therefor there is no need for triple, quadruple, quintuple, sextuple, septuple, octuple, etc. monikers. Unless you're in marketing, of course.