Brewer’s Style Intent vs. Perceived Style

Right on point, if you don’t know you don’t know, we used to buy Colt 45 Malt Liquor in HS because we thought it was stronger. My palate isn’t all that educated I know that, I can tell when a beer is way off but not a clue what to call it. Minor flaws I probably will not pick up on, If it’s bad enough I drain pour it. If I’m honkey I put it out there exactly what I’m brewing, what I’m using, and what it is. I think I don’t like BW because I don’t like Backwoods Bastard all that much, but what if I really like BW that are quite different? I think home brewers or brewers in general are far more qualified on this subject.

 

I maintain a brewer’s blog and when we are brewing something that I expect to be a little confusing to some people, I write about it. We’ve used QR codes on cans to direct people to the blog for a more detailed description than we can fit onto a can, but every one of our cans has a description as well, normally a paragraph long. Here is the one that includes info about our Pils when we were about to brew it for the first time: https://towntootoughtodie.blogspot.com/2017/02/upcoming-beers-for-march-kveik-pils.html?m=1

Here is the one from my last brewery when I was getting ready to brew my first commercial Pils which is a very similar recipe to the one I brew in Tombstone. That brewery was mentioned in Paste Magazine’s Pils ktasting and ranked as the third best Pils in their competition:

https://drankprettygooddontit.blogspot.com/2014/12/upcoming-beer-german-pilsener.html?m=1

 

They also call their 9% Cimmerian Sabertooth Berzerker a “pale ale”...

 

Right you are, nowadays it seems that if the brewer isn't sure about what to call their beer marketing sticks the IPA moniker on it regardless, thus IPA has almost no meaning anymore.

 

If brewers can't experiment there will be nothing new.

 

Slapping a misnomer style name on the label for marketing reasons only is also not experimentation.

 

In the long, storied history of beer, how much is truly "new?" Sure, recipes can vary and takes on established styles can differ between breweries, but what actual new style has really been defined?

I saw a story about finding an old stash of beer in a sunken ship (this is a new one, not the one from about 20 years ago) that's supposed to be some long lost style that is going to be recreated. Okay, I'll give it a chance... but I'll bet Ron Pattinson has already researched the style from some old tome he found in an English library. And I'll bet it doesn't really taste like anything so new that it will shake up the beer world.

 

Which one's did you compare?

I agree with the one exception being the New England IPA. The specific new age hops alone would warrant characteristics that wouldn't be seen in any style historically.

 

German Pilsners:
Schell's Pils
Ayinger Bavarian Pils
Weihenstephaner Pilsner

Czech (Bohemian) Pilseners:
Summit Dakota Soul
PIlsner Urquell
Czechvar (Budweiser Budvar)

 

But so many IPAs use so many different hops it just becomes variations on a theme. And it even has IPA in its name.

 

I haven't had the Schell's or the Summit. But with the exception of PU, I would think you'd be hardpressed to tell the difference between Czechvar and Ayinger/Weihenstephan. Assuming they were all similar freshness, you might be able to pick up that the latter are more bitter/hoppy and crisper.

This is a good point. Although some have argued that New England IPAs shouldn't even have the acronym "IPA" in the name because there's virtually nothing in common with a more traditional IPA.

The hallmark of an IPA is its bitterness, a New England IPA isn't bitter at all. The look, mouthfeel, aroma, and taste are completely different than a traditional IPA. Heck, even a traditional IPA will have a decent malt backbone to it, a New England IPA barely has a perceptible malt profile in my opinion.

Really the only thing they have in common is that both styles use a ton of hops.

 

This brings up a similar problem to what the OP is talking about (and I've pointed out before) -- I see so many craft-brewed Pilsners labeled as "Bohemian" or "Czech" that are really more German than anything. Why? I can't say other than brewers think "Czech" or "Bohemian" is more sexy because it's the original of the style... even if that's not what they're brewing.

 

So NEIPA tastes like no other beer you can find on shelves. And they all taste the same? What if you set an NEIPA blind in front of someone and asked them to assess it -- how do you think they'd categorize it -- as some new beverage invention, or a beer. That's my basic point.

My first NEIPA was a sampler draft at a beer store. I remember noticing the light body and lack of (strong) bitterness, but it had a lot of citrus fruit hop flavor. It tasted very much like other APAs I've tried. Deconstructed IPA has hit shelves.

 

And, now you never will. Schell's retired their Pils. They replaced it with a Keller Pils (I suppose to get on the haze bandwagon - sort of.)

 

You sure they aren't brewing both? Their Pils is a pretty iconic beer for them -- I'm surprised that they let it go.

FWIW: https://www.schellsbrewery.com/our-beers/pils/
I see the response at Twitter, but c'mon -- it's basically their flagship beer (aside from Deer Brand, I suppose).

BTW -- really digging Schell's new graphic theme. Old-fashioned in style, but fitting for their brewery and its history.

 

Yes, they are retiring it. Sad.

 

Very. But I can't imagine it's a true retirement -- I really can't. Don't you think the Keller Pils is probably the same recipe, but unfiltered?