How many sub-styles of IPA should exist on BA?

I'm glad I don't drink IPA's, it's too complicated.
BTW what's the difference between New England IPA & Vermont IPA, maple syrup?

 

American IPA
English IPA
DIPA
Belgian IPA

I'm satisfied with that

 

What if it's a New England DIPA?

 

In the past few weeks I've seen references to German IPAs which are unique because of the use of German malts and hops to give them their own taste character. I had one and it was good, but not great (kind of like the English IPAs). I suppose if we have English IPAs, then we can have German IPAs, then Austrailian IPAs, and then New Zealand IPAs, and then .....

Maybe the source of the ingredients should not be a factor when creating a sub-style, ragardless of whether it has its own unique taste. Let's drop the country of origin in the name and just create IPA sub-styles based on taste descriptors (juicy hop, mellow hop, bitter/sharp hop).

 

Brooklyn IPA - it's like a NEIPA but a lot better. So should have it's own category I think. Also NEIPA should be subdivided. I want to know if I'm about to drink dross - so MA NEIPA would be helpful

 

Okay, thanks. TBH until your lists I didn't realize just how many IPA variations were out there.

 

Good luck with that.

Look at the reviews for Fire, Skulls, and Money, for example.

Calling that a NEIPA is darn near laughable. That is a bitter beer. Even the brewer says, "Inspired by a trip to the west coast." Yet, it is classified as a NEIPA here, to the point that it is down-rated... here is one quote from a review:

"Juicy and bitter and bitter and bitter. Blech. This is garbage, especially when you are getting cans of Tree House, Trillium and Other Half....Not a fan of the back end spicy bitter thing."

I can't blame the reviewer... This reviewer was expecting this to be a NEIPA, it seems. This is the fault of whoever decided to re-classify this beer from AIPA to NEIPA.

What we have now is a mess. If it is hazy with "juicy" aroma, it is a NEIPA, even if it is 9.5% ABV and bitter as hell.

 

I'm comfortable with the styles we currently have, although I would like to add a Session IPA style for any IPA's that are 5% or less abv.

 

Tough one. I definitely think less is more here; it's just a matter of how much less.

I strongly believe New England IPA needs to go because way too many non-New-England IPAs are being jammed into the "style," including beers that predated the style's existence and aren't a part of its lineage. Also, now that the vast majority of newly released IPAs are at least somewhat hazy in appearance and somewhat juicy in aroma and flavor, "NE" increasingly is becoming a superfluous and misguided prefix ahead of "IPA" (i.e., many modern non-New-England IPAs have enough NEIPA influences to be mistaken for them). If the people adding beers were directed to use "New England IPA" very sparingly, only when they're quite certain that there would be almost universal agreement that the designation applies, and otherwise to use "American IPA," and a large proportion of the many past mistaken classifications were corrected, I could accept it as a separate style.

Brut IPA seems like a temporary fad that lacks the longevity to be granted a style; give it at least a few years to distinguish itself (I'm dubious).

There's no need to distinguish West Coast, East Coast, and Midwest; those are mere historical regional variations, as happens in many styles. They're more accents than dialects, let alone independent languages.

I think searchable tags are appropriate here. For instance, the style for a beer could be "American IPA," and then it can be given a tag of "New England IPA."

 

I'll let the Bros and Admins decide that. My head doesn't need to explode.

 

There really should be:

Milkshake IPA
Sour IPA

Dunno why you'd want that crazy shit mixed in with "American IPA"

 

Oh, and there should not be a Brut IPA. A couple of those were made for a few months and we make a category for it, but these other IPAs have been around for years and nothing? Brut IPA was barely different from regular anyway. Passing gimmick to try to start a new fad that didn't catch on.

 

Completely agree on this. This will (likely) fall into the Black/White/Brett/Sour/Milkshake IPA boneyard of short-lived trends. A few will probably still stick around, but not enough to necessitate their own style. Maybe "Experimental IPA" as an umbrella? Just because I think "Current fad IPA" would be a tough sell...

Also agree regarding the West Coast/East Coast/Midwest IPA classifications. West Coast IPA is basically American IPA; there are far fewer stylistic differences between a Stone IPA and a DFH 60 Minute than there are between either of those and a true NEIPA.

To me, less is better. I see it as American IPA (including all regions), Hazy/NE IPA, Double IPA (clear or hazy, and including triple IPAs), Session IPA, and Experimental IPA. Let the reviewer parse out the individual variations under the large umbrella, rather than creating a bunch of really little umbrellas.

 

At what point do we just call everything that someone deems to be somewhat hoppy an IPA? I'd like to dial some of these back.

 

Wait... isn't it appropriate for all those beers with all the tropical aromas and flavors to have little umbrellas?