Beer Styles Have Finally Been Updated!

I'm just worried with a streamlining that we might lose historical styles. We already don't have stuff like Lichtenhainer, Adambier, Kottbusser, etc. that I think deserve to be on here and need preservation at the very least (perhaps that is not this site's job, though? I don't know).

Further, I feel that eliminating more styles serves to undermine the utility of styles being searchable in the first place. Maybe with modifications to the search function one could search within a streamlined "American Pale Ale" category for a specific ABV range and thus find the type of beer they are searching for? I don't necessarily want that, but if we start eliminating categories, we would need much more robust search parameters to make up for the inevitable loss of specificity.

 

Excellent points, and I think you are right we do need to decide what styles are supposed to do. Are they supposed to be ways of preserving something? Are they supposed to be ways to accommodate a lot of entries in homebrew contests? Are they supposed to honor countries who claim heritage?

I am in favor of standardizing and making styles consumer friendly. I believe this cannot be accomplished without cutting the number of styles. Interested to hear opinion how adding more styles will accomplish it.

 

While I agree with all of this on premise, functionally this website operates differently due to all beers being rated.

Maybe some people don’t care, but personally this makes the ratings less useful.

If you lump all New England IPAs into one category it skews the “top styles” list towards higher ABV versions of that style. We already have a list that does that, the “Top Beers” list.

For example, Fort Point Pale Ale is an excellent beer, and is labeled a pale ale by the brewer. If it’s lumped in with all New England IPAs it will get buried behind all the higher ABV IPAs.

I used to find it annoying when I wanted to know what the best “session IPAs” were and since they were labeled as IPAs on this site it would be nearly impossible to find these.

Perhaps instead of more styles we need a way to filter the top lists? By ABV perhaps?

 

I wish we could use a simple convention like the wine world where grape variety determines to a large extent how the product will be labeled. In the beer world we can't simply go by ingredients because diverse grain bills can be used to produce a similar end result. A Stout is still a Stout even if oats or grains other than malt are used and Stout is what the brewer intended. Plus outside of a few exceptions, there is no protective name status. One brewer's Porter is another brewer's Stout and one brewer's Pale is another's IPA, and so forth. I won't even get started on what's happened with Pilsner. So what do we really have to go on? Color, flavor, ABV, historical association, long tradition? I'm a basic guy in such things and lean toward the obvious.

Show me a Pilsner and I expect the color to be some shade of gold.

Show me a Stout and I expect it to be a dark color that displays aspects of roasted malt.

Show me a smoked beer and I'll show you the door.

Other than competition guidelines how important are finely drawn beer distinctions in our daily lives. If a brewer relabels their Pale an IPA I don't care, if I like it I'll buy it and if I don't I won't. Just don't call it an IPA and have it pour out of the bottle black as sin and thick as motor oil.

 

Ya. Loads of Brut beers from Belgium.

 

Then what about the 'white' stouts that were trying to have a life a few years ago? Passe'? I haven't heard that style name mentioned for a while, so it apparently didn't catch on.

 

Imperial Blonde Ale? Sometimes they came across like coffee-infused Pale Ales...they were reaching calling those stouts, adding cacao and nuts and coffee and whatever to try to make them taste or smell like stouts...we still have two places in Cleveland practically using white stouts as their flagships, neither of which get a lot of respect for their beer. Their food, however

 

If they had the words "White Stout" on the label that might explain the lack of interest.

 

LMAO so Brut IPA gets it's own category but Czech lager is still restricted to "Bohemian Pilsner"

......like ok?

 

I like the new layout for the styles page and the new style categories.
To me Red Ales should be in their own category.
I realize you can't make everybody happy but this is a big improvement.

 

I'm fairly happy and easy to please, just pass me the bottle opener.

 

There ya go!

 

Yeah, this is unfortunate. That said, at least there is a sign that maybe more Czech categories will be added in the future. I found this in the Euro Dark Lager category: "This style encompasses a wide range of dark beers including India Pale Lagers, Czech lagers, and lagers brewed with adjuncts or non-traditional ingredients. In time these entries will be moved into more accurate categories."

 

While I do agree, at the same time this site simply doesn't have enough of the different Czech styles in the database to justify separating it into different categories.

Whoa, wait, "Czech lagers" and IPLs are all under the Euro Dark Lager category?

A Czech lager can be a pale lager (probably most of them on this site are), and IPLs are also pale.

 

Yeah, I found that wording very confusing. Why IPL would ever be either Euro or Dark makes no sense. I was mainly pointing toward the mention of Czech lagers and the possibility that they will be moved into more accurate categories.

 

Oh. Is it like a really dry Belgian strong pale ale? Regardless, I'm still supportive of Brut IPAs being their own category.

 

Yes, I am certain that will help end the present confusion of beer style naming conventions.

Can't wait to see the Brut Pale Ale, Brut Belgian Pale Ale, Brut Black Ale (or should it be Brut Black Cascadian Ale? Brut Black IPA? Brut Hoppy Porter?), Brut Session IPA, Brut Double IPA, Brut Triple IPA, Brut Imperial IPA, Brut ESB, etc. We can expand our debates to include what do those new names even mean, and which describes which?

The average consumer is not helped by having so many names that even experts can't agree on what they do, or ought to, mean

All the suggestions of people who think that adding more names to a system that has no consistent method or purpose for the names is like thinking that to get out of a deep hole what one needs is a bigger shovel.

 

Triple Blackberry Brut Milkshake IPA is my favorite beer style!

 

I haven't had a Brut IPA yet, but I keep hearing that they are drier than other IPAs...with nothing else really differentiating them. If that's the case, I don't really get why it's something someone felt the need to label, because there are some West Coast IPAs that are bone dry, and some NE IPAs that are chalky and cottonmouth inducing af, and I don't really think it gets any drier than that.

Dryness is an attribute brewers achieve across the entire beer realm--often intentionally, sometimes not.

Now if the beer is more champagne-like (as many Saisons, Lambic and general sours can often be), then maybe, okay fine. But I really still don't get it being a new style. Effervescence is also a variable in all beer. Unless it's consistently at the extreme with a very, very light body...

I guess I really just need to try one, although they disappeared as quickly as they came through this way and I haven't seen one since.