Do we really need the term Triple IPA???

It's funny you bring that up, part of the rationale for the IPA is a descriptor are several classic hop-forward beers that were not called "IPAs" but have been rebranded as IPAs to fit current description expectations. The market now expects a certain taste from "IPA," and when a brown or red or wheat beer exhibits those hop-forward characteristics, even when brewed to style, the market respond differently to the label of "IPA" on the same beer. It's a marketing thing, but it overlaps with describing the beer to customers.

 

I'll go one step further. They're all just pale ales to me. Categorizing a beer as an American pale ale, Belgian pale ale, English pale ale, etc. tells me more about what to expect from that beer.

 

Quite possible in that circumstance, but that doesn't explain double (or imperial) stouts.

 

The double in this case originates from doubling the amount of Malt needed to get higher ABV. The Imperial comes from a different set of circumstances than IPA. Some folks began to use them interchagably despite their different origins, so we see both DIPA and IIPA used interchangeably to refer to the same things.

 

@denver10 has it right; meaningless objectively, but subjectively, a useful way to plan (or not plan!) your day's habit. IPA, 6-8. DIPA, 8-9.9, and TIPA, 10 and above.
All about what kind of day/night you want to have, and how long you want it to last.

 

Here's the issue that I have with this expectation. If you look at the BA listing of DIPAs, there are a whole spectrum of ABVs, but there are not many that are above 10% and very few above 12%. There's a reason for that. Once you start getting into that 10 - 12% range the beer, by its nature, starts getting away from being hop-forward and starts being something else, so not only is the "Triple IPA" moniker unnecessary, it's probably something that isn't in the spirit of IPAs in the first place.

 

Yep! Some turn into American-style Barleywines and others become American Strong Ales, like Arrogant Bastard.

 

According to Mitch Steele's IPA book, in the modern craft era in the US, in 1994 Vinnie Cilurzo brewed the first beer labeled a Double IPA at the Blind Pig brewery and, around the same time, Rogue first brewed it's I²IPA.

US ale brewers used the "Imperial" terminology in the 19th century.

(Earliest example for Taylor I've found is 1837)

And imported British IPA's had been labeled "Imperial", at least when marketed in the US, during the same period.

 

The story of this beer is an entertaining one.

 

I had DDH RuinTen from Stone, and I thought that beer came off clearly as a Triple IPA. Not a double/imperial, and still distinct from an American Barleywine. Probably helps that it was fresh at the brewery, so the hop aroma and flavor was still really great.

Interestingly, Stone actually explains on their website why they changed the name to include "Triple":
"We first released this decidedly indelicate beer in 2012 as Stone Ruination Tenth Anniversary IPA to celebrate the 10th anniversary of our beloved bitter Stone Ruination IPA. Stone RuinTen Triple IPA uses the same recklessly hoppy recipe as the 2012 release; only the name has been changed to include “Triple,” which helps describe the over-the-top hop profile and elevated alcohol by volume."

 

'Imperial' relating to beer has limited relevance and has been generalized to mean 'strong'. The 'triple' in your example just means 'stronger', there is no extra 'I'.

 

What about a Triple New England IPA?

 

I think at this point we're not getting anywhere. Just keep going back-and-forth.

 

Wait, were you expecting for something to be resolved or for everyone to come to an agreement?

 

Welcome to every thread on BA the internet.

 

There’s no such thing.

 

What made you think "Triple IPA" as opposed to any other 10 or 11% DIPA on the BA list?