Black Ale / Porter / Stout

I agree with most of that except for the bit about Black IPA's. Surely it's primarily marketing-driven, but I've had several that exhibit almost no distinguishing characteristics from a "standard" IPA. If I closed my eyes I'd never be able to guess what color it is.

 

In my head, I think you are correct about the difference in mouth feel. I feel that beers labeled stouts are usually a little thicker than porters, and porters are a little thicker than black ale.

 

What category does this fall into? Stout or black ale?

 

Seems to me that stouts have a thicker mouthfeel because brewers, at least currently, tend to label beers brewed with with dark roasted malts that have thicker mouthfeels as stouts. In other words, it's not a stout because it has a thicker mouthfeel, it has a thicker mouthfeel so brewers have arbitrarily called a stout, as opposed to a porter, which they could have easily done as well, but for whatever reason, did not. Now, because so many brewers have followed this pattern, consumers have largely experienced stouts as thicker in mouthfeel and porters as thinner in mouthfeel and thus they have defined stouts as having a thicker mouthfeel and porters as having a thinner mouthfeel, even though they are the same beer.

If you can follow that.....

 

There are the many that use the term Black IPA, but are there really that many beers calling themselves "Black Ale"?

the only one I can think of is Dark Horse Special Reserve, which is labeled "Black Bier Ale".

 

Stouts, porters, and Black IPAs to me would all be considered 'Black Ales'. I know some of our European friends would disagree. I wasn't aware of Black Ale as its own style, I'll have to take another look at the styles list. A Black IPA is just an IPA brewed with roasted malts - nothing like a porter.

Edit: Per the styles list, 'Black Ale' is Black IPA. I personally prefer the term 'Cascadian'. Sets it apart a bit. I do detect and enjoy the difference in flavor that the roasted malts bring, though I haven't had many beers of this style (looking to try more, but they're not particularly available in my market).

 

1. On your first point, I think the black is the least roasty, and the stout is the most roasty.
2. On your second point, the same logic follows -- black is least malty (more toward the hops) and stout is the most (difficult to detect the hops)
3. I agree with points 3,4 & 5.
4. For point #6, see my #2.
5. I think it depends on which brewery whether you are correct on this point. Some stretch the definition, others don't.

 

Yeah. Go figure.

 

You shouldn't expect anything other than the fact they'll likely all be brown to black in color.
One breweries stout is thinner and less roasty than another's Porter and vice versa. Drink 'em to find out.

 

Yeah, I think some brewers just flip a coin.

 

But the main thing that defines a Porter or Stout is the presence of roasted malts.

Sure, the level of roasted malt flavor in Black IPA's varies. But so does the hop levels in Porters - for instance Avery's New World Porter is very hoppy.

 

When I think black ipa I usually think of bitter, piney hop presence accompanying a roasted malt character. Not very sweet at all
When I think of a porter I think of semi sweet roasted malts along with light chocolate notes and some nuttiness.
I don't think the two are very similar flavor wise. Then again I don't have much experience with hoppy porters.

 

It's quite possible to brew a Porter using only brown malt with no roasted grains. That is what was done for a century or so. Hop levels in Porters could be massive , see http://www.oldbeers.com/1855eip/

 

Stout means thick. So anything thick is a stout. Anything thin is not a stout. Porters are less thin than black ales, but thinner than stouts. Black ales are thicker than pales ales but thinner than porters, usually. Double black ales are thicker than regular stouts but thinner than imperial or double stouts. A double porter is likely thicker than a not too thick stout, but just thinner than a thin imperial stout. Got it?

 

The Pretty Things 1855 was a tasty beer. I like their historical beers for both the interesting history and the quality of the beer.

 

This may or may not be constructive criticism, but I really have a tough time understanding why if you are so interested in knowing these differences that you won't read about the history of beer. There are numerous books on the subject (ex. The Brewmaster's Table by Garret Oliver) that will give you enough information to better understand how styles have changed over time. The best advice I can give you is to pick up a book and read it rather than ask an online forum. Sorry if this sounds negative. I seriously believe it is the best course of action.

 

Without the knowledge of history it's very difficult indeed to truly understand the present.For example people ask whether Baltic Porter is a lager because it's bottom fermented.A person with good background in beer knowledge would see this as a meaningless question.