The difference between Pale Ale and IPA

@ding would be a third voice in support of ale, stout and lager I’m sure. RIP

 

I usually classify it based on three things: hops, malts, and ABV. On an ABV scale I see there at the lowest an IPL, followed by a pale ale, followed by an IPA+ at the highest. IPA has more hops, more bitterness, and higher alcohol than a pale ale. If you take an IPA and add malts and decrease the alcohol it trends toward a pale ale. If you decrease the malts and alcohol then I classify it as an IPL. A pale ale for me trends between 4.5-6%. An IPA between 6-8%. A DIPA, anything 8%+. I despise any IPA greater than 9%. My preference is an IPA and thus between 6-8%.
Pretty clear differences between a pale ale and IPA for me, but I guess I should examine further an IPL vs pale ale because those could trick me, other than the malt body of a pale ale.

 

Look, if I start taking my own advice on matters great and small it is going to be, shall we say, life changing?
I'll take a pass thank you.

Kidding aside, I admire BA Zid's unfailing ability to insert a relevant and unique take on whatever topic we are beating. Honest.

Cheers

 

At the risk of beating a dead horse. Let's beat a dead horse. Sure. Why not?

Language is evolving and it is important. Somewhere between geologic time and the latest K-Pop sensation lies beer terminology. It's evolution is maybe just slow enough for us to notice and comment.

@JackHorzempa has provided an excellent and relevant example.

Where are the BA's who are ranting about the lost distinction between ale without hops and beer with hops? These have different meanings today, but we are going to challenge their meanings as of 1850 and not 1250? Or 2012? Kind of absurd don't you think? This could go on.

Where I am from, the beer world I live in, there is no special category for Stout. And I do think as much as some of us would like to challenge my observation they too are living in the same world.

Lastly, let's be honest, the GP of England today is not walking around mentioning Beer, Ale and Stout as their forefathers did. This is purely academic.
Cheers

edit -
and I posted reply immediately after I posted a reply which is my cue to exit stage.

 

The conversion of the misused term into a.clunky, awkward adverb is a petty, though predictable, kick in the shins from the group that misappropriated a technical term in term in their quest to (I believe) appear respectable while throwing children's cereal in the mash tun.

I'll never understand what's wrong with "flavored stout".

 

Um, not to call out the English Police again, but... moot?

Just sayin'.

 

Because Stout is already full of flavor, why does it need "additives?"

 

You're correct, of course, (or, should I say "your correct") but please note the quote to which I was replying!

 

Ah yes, missed the counter-parody.

But, my correct what?

(yours, mine, hours)

 

But you are using terminology like beer, ale, and hops with the assumption that we agree on their meanings, no? There have to be concrete definitions that can not change or communication would be rendered impossible. I agree that language evolves, but we are talking about changing the name of a style of beer overnight to sell more product. That's not evolution, that's marketing.

 

You won't get an argument from me, I just mean that I don't see any reason why stouts that have the entire pastry display at.your local 7-11 dumped in them couldn't be called " flavored stouts ". The whole cooption of the word " adjunct" just sticks in my craw and doesn't do anything but make communication around the topic more confusing. The only benefit being the air of sophistication that jargon engenders being bestowed upon what is ultimately a specifically and intentionally approachable beer style.

"Don't like beer? What if it tasted like your favorite childhood cereal?! Or your grandmas snicker doodles?! How about that Halloween candy you used to love!? Don't worry, we adjuncted up a beer for every sugary source of nostalgia! Cause we're crafty!"

 

Please don't take this discussion also to "craft"

I can spot one "on-topic" post needing more love

But I have to admit "flavored stout" looks a bit artificial also to me. Sometimes you don't want the truth in your face. Maybe better take a bit obscure term like adjunct, just maybe.

 

Good points. Yes, words have to be agreed on.

So, the English are defining Ales Lagers and Stouts as beer, these three domains from all other beers is derived. That is generally agreed to not be the case in American English and more practically, not an assumption used by contemporary writers, virtually all BA's included. I am not so convinced that all English disagree either.

So we do have agreement of the meaning of words.

As for hops, beer and ale, these have changed over time. Maybe not hops, I imagine these have always been hops. Point being we are not stuck with the original meaning of words. But yes indeed Beer is not Beer of 1650. Ale is not Ale of 1400. And so what?

Again, you must speak and write in Shakespearean English if you think differently, or you are being hypocritical.
Cheers

 

What about Chaucer? Doesn't he count? (ber, ale, berkyne ...)

 

Confirmed - many of we *British don't.

However we're not talking about the proper spelling of favour/favor, or the correct meaning of "pants". It's not as if you have 330m people standing behind you, vs Marquis' 67m. It's probably about 20 people in the US and a maximum of 5 in the UK, that have any sort of opinion. They likely all have BA accounts. The other 99.99% neither know nor care about any sort of distinction.

 

Would you agree the use of the term session ipa instead of pale ale is a legitimate evolution of language? I find it to be a bastardization of previous definitions of ipa for marketing purposes. It is however a harkening back to @marquis point that IPA was originally sessionable. So were Americans wrongfully calling the lower Plato heavily hopped ales a pale ale or were Americans wrong in calling the higher Plato heavily hopped ales IPA?

 

Looks close to everything is forced to be called an IPA of some sort.

 

I certainly would. A session IPA usually denotes a beer that is intentionally lacking the balance between hop and malt flavors that a good (IMO) pale ale has. It may be a silly and redundant term if you start from the original English meaning of the term IPA, but if you see it as a progression coming out of the modern American meaning of the term IPA its a useful term.

 

Well, I suppose we all can define what the term "sessionable" means but from my perspective the original IPA (i.e., Hodgson's Pale Ale) at around 6.5% ABV would not be what I consider to be "sessionable".

The above figure of 6.5 % ABV is from Mitch Steele's IPA book - page 36.

Cheers!

 

In the 1400s, beer was hopped and ale was not.

So any variation of an Ale that contains hops, a Pale Ale or an IPA, is not correct as the word Ale tells the buyer that this product does not contain hops. Or so goes the idea that the meaning of words are not fluid, or shouldn't be anyway.

Which means we don't have any obligation to rigidly follow definitions now or in the future.
Again, a Stout is a type of Ale. Despite Chaucers understanding. You may however disagree.
You'd be wrong. But you may disagree.