How to classify India Pale Lagers?

means its an imperial version of a pale ale, so for like the hook at 5.5% the turnt hook is 8.5. turnt is the 8.5, imperial version of a pale ale we make at 5.5 called the hook. just trying to use the words for what they mean rather than what marketing has confused them into.
like when we called Sit Down Son a dry hopped lager rather than an IPL. it could have gone either way we landed on the side of calling it what it is rather than what people are paying for

 

Looking through the BA list of Imperial Pilsners I realized that I've had 4 or 5 of them, but the brewery labeled them as an IPL, not AIP, and none of them had much of a malt presence.

I think the AIP description is just a broad catch-all for American style pilsners and the category could easily expand to cover IPL's. Look at the description of Belgian Dark Ale

 

IPLs>Session IPAs, for the most part.

 

What @officerbill said is what I was going to suggest.

With one addition.

I would just make an American Pale Lager and American India Pale Lager category.

 

And what about the Imperial Pilsner? No Imperial Pilsner I've ever tasted has been similar to an IPL -- the IPLs just aren't malty enough. Sure, I haven't tried them all, but those I've gambled on weren't the same.

 

That's a weird "catch-all" category with many beers listed that have long been considered standard "American Adjunct Lagers" - the most glaring examples being pre-craft era beers Yuengling Premium, Shiner Premium (13 IBU's according to the brewery), Hudy 14K, Minhas' Huber, Gibbons and Stegmaier (The Lion) Olde Frothingslosh from Pittsburgh, etc.

I guess being declared a "Craft Brewer" somehow elevates these sorts of beers?

 

Well, I didn't want to have to add yet ANOTHER category of "American Imperial/Double India Pale Lager". There simply aren't enough examples out there of IPLs to warrant THREE separate categories.

Regarding Imperial Pilsners specifically, I feel like there's even less of these. In fact, I don't even know if I could find one on my local shelves.

As @steveh said, calling them a Maibock might be fine (although I'm not sure that's what you were suggesting). So either place them in the Maibock category, or the IPL category.

Each style is on a spectrum. So it's ok for one to be more hop forward, and another more malt forward.

That being said, I do agree with @jesskidden. Putting something like Yuengling Premium in the same category as Hoponius Union (or even more extreme, Mass Rising from Jack's Abby) is insane.

 

One of my favorite beers from when I studied at Doemens was Augustiner Pils. I didn’t see it often, but one pub always had fresh bottles of it. It was incredibly hoppy. One of my professors told me that it was hopbursted entirely with Mittelfreuh at a rate between 2-3 lbs per bbl with a target IBU of 33. So while it was at a pretty standard bitterness level, the hop aroma was through the roof. I used that as a guideline for my Pils, but I dry Hop with Perle instead of Mittelfreuh and the result is similar to what I recall drinking there. All

 

I was in Darmstadt last year and the fresh Bitburger Pils I had on tap was one of the hoppiest Pilsners I've ever had. I drank a lot of it at the hotel bar.

Despite that, it still didn't detract from the Pils malt. It still held onto that excellent sweet bready flavor.

 

Out of the 100 most rated American Imperial Pilsners only 26 (mostly in the 50-100 group) are called an Imperial Pilsner by the brewery (I think DFH was the only one to call theirs American).
Most are sold as IPL, followed by APL, and a mix of things like über or double pils (Southern Tier calls Krampus an "Imperial Helles").

An Imperial Pale Lager style could easily cover AIP & IPL, especially since most of the beers listed as an AIP are sold as an IPL.

 

Wow, 2-3 pounds per barrel? That would certainly be a generous hopping rate.

 

Okay, to be clear: my bottom line (also referred to as my opinion -- albeit an opinion from years of beer advocacy -- even prior to the web site) is that IPL and Imperial Pilsner are not the same style of beer (debate on either of them being legitimate styles is another thread). Look up any history of the two "styles" and you'll find articles about one or the other, but never anything equating the two as the same beer. They were developed as separate ideas.

No matter what even BA lists as a style -- remember, they're most often input by members and often into catch-all pigeon holes -- that doesn't legitimize anything (at least until executive order overrides us all).

All that aside, I don't really recognize either as true styles. Imperial Pilsner (or any of those brewery labeled gimmicks like Imperial Helles) is nothing but a Heller Bock recipe with more hops added -- if it's American Hops added, it's nothing but a mess.

IPL is really just another way to sell IPA -- it really is a gimmick, it's not really all that different from the onslaught of so many different IPAs you can find on shelves -- it's not some new innovation, it's a variation on a theme.

Okay, I'm off the soap box -- said enough on the subject, back to my Helles, Pilsner, and Heller Bock... in traditional forms.

 

I fully agree with each point you make. With the exception of stout, adding Imperial to anything is a marketing gimmick, IPL's are intended to convince IPA drinkers that ales can be "cool" (and over hopped) too, and that neither AIP nor IPL really deserve their own categories.

The problem is that many breweries make up or appropriate styles for marketing purposes while BA relies on consistent style definitions for ratings & reviews.

Currently BA lists 99 separate styles in 13 different categories (excepting Specialty Beers). As more beers called IPL enter the market and more lager brewers chase IPA drinkers the reviews are going to have to go somewhere.

Take Von Trapp & Jack's Abbey (both lager brewers) as examples.
Von Trapp has their Double IPL (https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/22512/318275/) at 8%/55 IBU. The closest to this is Bohemian Pilsner at 5.4%/42 IBU.
Jack's has Kiwi Rising Double IPL (https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/26520/75414/) at 8.5%/105 IBU followed by Hoponius Union IPL (6.5%/65 IBU), then Post Shift pilsner at 4.7%/30 IBU.
Von Trapp & Kiwi are both listed under the AIP style while Hoponius is filed under American Lager; along with Michelob, Molson Golden, PC Pils, and SA Double IPA.

IPL, DIPL, and AIP don't merit individual styles, but there is enough of a difference that these beers no longer comfortably fit an existing label. How about a catch-all HHL (High Hopped Lager) for any lager with over 50?

 

How many more beers called "IPL" are really entering the market these days though?

 

Without a rating system, no, you don't need "imperial".

But because we have a rating system, I think you do need to draw the line somewhere, and have separate styles.

Otherwise it makes the rating system useless, because you'd have to sift through 200 double IPAs before you found out what the highest rated "regular" IPA was.

There's Beglian Dubbels and Belgian Quads.

We have German Helles and "Festbier" (I call it a pale Oktoberfest, but I feel like the word "Festbier" would resonate with more people here).

Heck, the Czech's call their different pale lagers by different names if one has a starting gravity of 10P, 12P...etc. and those aren't even huge differences in ABV.

 

Maybe I'm just noticing them more

 

Ha, well can you name three on your shelves right now that aren’t from Jacks Abby?