Beer Appellations?

Newly acknowledged by whom?

 

Me. Come try this beer and tell me you don't love it. Duly acknowledged!!!

 

I'm not saying beers of the American Pale Ale style made in NC aren't delicious, what I'm saying is that that has nothing to do with an appellate (nor a beer style, which it seems is more what you're talking about anyway).

Anecdotally, I've had 3 APAs from NC and all three were mediocre, though I freely admit these were not the best three (or even close) that the state has to offer.

 

Actually this beer was granted "protected geographical indication" some years ago. Then the brewers wished to move production out of Newcastle. After a hassle and plenty of controversy it moved and now has no appellation.

The whole essence of Kolsch is its origin.Show some respect for the inventors and those who sought to protect it from false imitation and fraud. Because it is fraud for any brewer outside the region to pass off a beer as Kolsch regardless of the legal situation.

 

And who determines what this essence is? And who says that someone else in a different region can't brew it? How does brewing it in a specific location make it any different? And why should it not be subject to change?

And I'll have to disagree with that sentiment regarding fraud. Fraud is a legal term. Misleading? Maybe, but it depends on the frame of reference.

 

Fraud is passing something off as something it isn't.It can be a crime.Although it isn't legally protected (and to its shame the US government doesn't acknowledge protected origin status issued overseas) it was clearly the intention and wish of the originators to guarantee the product.The whole point of the Kolsch Konvention was to prevent the beer from being altered.
Even if legal it is disrespectful, ignorant and arrogant for a brewer to label other beers as Kolsch.
A beer may only be called Kölsch if it meets the following criteria:

• it is brewed in the Cologne metropolitan area
• pale in colour
• top-fermented
• hop-accented
• filtered
• 'vollbier' - 11 - 14% plato

 

I just fail to see the relevance of the location criteria being met. Obviously that's what Kölsch brewers want, but who says that they want that for anything more than their own economic interests (i.e. a market oligopoly)? And what about other styles, do such criteria not apply just because there was no convention? I fail to see the merits in this logic.

 

Some did but many did not until a US law was put in place applicable to US wine naming. That's relatively recent and came only after international trade negotiations. It was instigated by one or more European wine producing countries, and even then some US wineries were "grandfathered" in their use of certain names. Within the last year I've purchased more than one bottle of a US produced sparkling wine labeled "Champagne."

 

Not applicable to US brewed Koelsch then since US labeling law requires a clear indication of where the beer is brewed and/or who is responsible for it being brewed. Basically this is done with the intent of allowing the US government to be able to trace each bottle of beer back to its location of brewing so that the ingredients can also be tracked back to their source of origin.

 

^ Which is probably another good point. And in relation to that I don't think the Kölsch Konvention was - even by its original initators - thought of as something that would or should ever apply outside of Europe. It's not like there are a gazillion U.S. breweries importing Kölsch.

 

Not for imports, for which the TTB regulation only requires the importer's info, not the actual brewery unless required by state or foreign laws (see below). Most import labels do voluntarily note the actual site of the brewery (if not always the true name, using a 'dba' instead) but some private label brands are particularly non-revealing.

 

Thanks for the caveat! Duly noted. Didn't know that.

Plus, I'd actually not given any thought to labeling of imports as I was focused on US brewed Koelsch.

 

I wonder whether there are any streamlining provisions in TTIP regarding things like this. Unfortunately none of those shenanigans are public access except for leaked partials.

 

In Belgium there is the HORAL organization of lambic brewers who have more or less agreed on naming conventions and tried to get an appellation in place, but the last I'd heard that had not succeeded either in Belgium or the EU as yet.

http://www.horal.be/en/welcome

 

I tasted a really good one being brewed in a new brewery in Mills River, NC.

The one from Pisgah was pretty nice.

 

bayerisches bier and münchner bier are also protected terms, but only limited to the area of brewing, not to any specific methods or styles like kölsch.

for me, beer apellations are a difficult topic. also being interested in wine, i love the idea of terroir- and for wine, terroir is central for how it tastes. but for beer, in my opinion,not so much. with kölsch for instance, most central ingredients like malt or hops are not really produced locally, only the water is what links it to the region- and cologne water is not that speciall, trust me.
compare this to champagne,for instance, where the microclimate of the region and the soil play a huge part in how the end product tastes. so despite other winemakers producing sparkling wine in other regions of the world with the same production method, they are still very different. so for me, it makes sense to have champagne and cremant. but with kölsch,to be honest, you cann see producers elsewhere making products which are produced the same way and taste very similar. but in the eu they can not be called kölsch and for me, this is kind of....bullshit,excuse my french. stuff like troilsch, gemünder obergärig and lahnsteiner obergärig should be called kölsch.

 

If there's nothing special with Cologne water why does my wife spend so much on 4711 ?
I see nothing wrong with the founders of a style wishing to determine exactly what it is.They wished to maintain continuity and standards.I find the Konvention criteria strangely similar to that of Bourbon;
What Makes a Bourbon:

• Must be made in the United States.
• Must contain 51 percent corn.
• Must be aged in new oak charred barrels.
• Must be distilled to no more than 160 proof and entered into the barrel at 125 proof.
• Must be bottled at no less than 80 proof.
• Must not contain any added flavoring, coloring or other additives. So presumably it's bullshit too; corn is available everywhere after all so let's begin distilling and selling "Bourbon" round the world where the US law doesn't reach.

 

Modest corrections:

Must contain *at least* 51% corn.

Distilling elsewhere has been done in the past, which is why there is a US law prohibiting the import of anything produced elsewhere and lableled "Bourbon" into the US and why most all trade agreements between the US and other countries stipulate effectively that Bourbon is only produced in the US.

 

the thing is that when you look at some documents and interviews about the history of kölsch, the kölsch we know and love today is modern, let's say post-wwII, and kind of different from what was called kölsch before that. so I would argue that this kölsch convention is also "freezing" or at least slowing down the further change and development of the style, which i think is kind of sad.
I mean, why should beers like Gaffels Sonnen- and Winterhopfen or Braustelle's Helios not be called Kölsch?
why shouldn't there be an amber Kölsch?
compare the huge differences in style between Dunkles or Helles in Bavaria with the narrow style of Kölsch- is this something to aim and protect?
I do not think so.