Brewers misusing the term "Trappist"

just because other styles have some variations does not mean that calling a brew a Trappist style is valid.

first, there is the fact that Trappist is not a style. the monks are not building consumer expectations regarding style and in fact the monks do not even have a use for the whole idea of style. the brothers do not often discuss their beers broadly, but it is well known that they don't trade notes. the various Trappist brewers do however have something in common, and that is what they want to protect. the quality is well gaurded.

second, there is no similarity between Orval and Chimay Red. Chimay White is quite different from Rochefort 10. and so on. so if i am buying a Trappist style, what am i getting? something among "5 to 10" different styles? how is that helpful?

the point is, a Trappist beer is brewed by Trappist monks. that is all the name means. that is all the brothers have in the world of beer. like the beer or not, it is brewed by Trappist monks. if BMC makes a "Trappist" style beer, it will suck (almost guaranteed). and nobody will have any clue what kind of beer it is. the genuine Trappist monks know this and don't want anyone to mistake their product for something it is not. that is understandable.

so yes, the word Trappist is significant even if it is vague.
Cheers.

 

yeah but they've been brewing the same set of beers for years now. if you brew a beer like any of those beers (be it chimay red or orval), you could accurately (but casually) say that you brewed a "trappist style" beer.

i mean, you could make a "pahn style" forum post. i've posted tons of different things on this board (far greater variation than the trappist breweries have made beer), but it would still be reasonable to throw together a few common features and call the post "pahn style". it doesn't require that there be 1 particular style of posting that's "like pahn".

like i said above, if mentioning 'trappist' in your beer name or on your label is copyright infringement, that's a whole separate issue. but as for expectations, if i said, "try my trappist style ale," there's absolutely ways it could taste where you wouldn't be surprised (say, like chimay red, or orval), and ways where you'd be like, "trappist style? no...." (suppose it tasted like pliny the elder).

 

sure, i'll agree to this. i'm not a style ****. i get that the word Trappist will get you in the ball park. until everyone starts to brew shitty dubbles, which would inevitably occur. likely what is happening at the less than note-worthy brewpub that is brewing a Trappist "style" brew on a Puglsey system. i think i am just concerned that a Trappist beer, as it currently stands, is going to be a quality example of something, even if it is not strictly within an exact style. i don't have some un-natural attachment to the notion of guidelines; i like the idea of the loose beer affiliation the monasterys are preserving. your point is taken however.

Cheers.

 

If I understand right, Trappist beers are beers from trappist monastaries brewed nonprofit, and donating all excess money to local charities. To use the word, "trappist", or "trappist style" when you are not a trappist and also are making a profit is the same as lying and stealing. When I buy a westmalle or orval, I like to think that some of the money is helping some charity in Belgium. If someone wants to call anything trappist style they should not make a dime on it and donate any profits to local charity. This would be in the style of the trappists.

 

They're not talking about production, they're talking about a legally protected copyright/trademark. The Chimay lawsuit created the Trappist diamond-looking logo years ago to protect their brand.

Americans can make all the Trappist-like beers they want, they just can't package them as a Trappist beer, that's where the term Abbey comes in. Like the article states, Trappist is not a style of beer anyway, the monks brew several different Belgian styles of beers.

 

I don't really see how this is so diffcult to understand, the argument has absolutely nothing to do with style, the monks are trying to protect their brand from trademark infringement. The terms American pale ale or whatever are not legally protected trademarks owned by any one group of people (as far as I know). We MAY THINK of the term Trappist as a style b/c we are Americans and we don't know any better (apparently). Per the article: "The
Trappists monks are more formerly known as The Cistercian Order of the Strict Observance, which is abbreviated as O.S.C.O. The order was formed at the La Trappe Abbey in Normandy, France in 1664. The Abbey of Koningshoeven in Tilburg, Netherlands, is called La Trappe, in honor of that first abbey."

Does that sound like they set out to brew a new style of beers called Trappist beers?

 

I'm totally with you. Was just being sarcastic.

 

why did you quote me when i pointed out specifically that my posts weren't in reference to trademark issues?

as for whether "we MAY THINK" 'trappist' names a style, see above for my explanation as to what it means when someone says a beer is "trappist style" or "in the style of the trappist". that stuff isn't my opinion; that is me explaining how this little bit of language is working. it's not a guess, nor an american bias.

the way the word 'style' works is that if you do something similarly to how a particular other group of people do it, you can say you're doing it in that group's "style".

"but wait, if it's trademarked then--"

no, no, hold on. does what you're saying address what i wrote? not even in the slightest? 'coca cola' is trademarked. if i made a 'coca cola' style drink, would people around me thrown into non-comprehension when i said, "yeah, i made it in the style of coca cola." would anyone respond, "but the word coca cola... is trademarked!"? if so, you see that everyone would sort of look at that person pityingly, right?

 

what?

 

i skipped one word that's obvious from context.

if you need reading comprehension lessons, we can do it privately.