Do we really need the term Triple IPA???

Yes we need the triple IPA designation. Some beers, in my opinion, definitely go above and beyond some of the double/imperial IPAs - such as Stone's RuinTen.

 

Fruity/spicy/floral- definitely! Not joking, either . The designation may venture into the absurd, but the beer would be nice, if done right.

 

Triple IPAs are a bit antiquated arn’t they? We all know Quadruple IPAs are all the rage

 

I am looking forward to the session NE White IPA.

 

Wow, that is pretty ambitious, considering they can barely serve their market here. I recommend Fluctuation if you ever see it, probably my favorite of their regular lineup.

 

IIPA = Imperial India Pale Ale.

That said the whole designation system for beers is totally archaic now, I mean why are we still using "India Pale Ale" for beers that aren't even get shipped for consumption in India?

Also "Imperial" relates to beers that were shipped to the imperial court of the Czar in Russia, it's been a while since the Czars have been around hey?

And a personal gripe of mine - there are no Australian styles of beer (listed here or elsewhere), yet we do a Pacific Pale Ale (i.e. Stone & Wood Pacific Ale) that uses Australian cultivated hops (such as Galaxy) which gives this style a unique stonefruit/light tropical fruit slant that doesn't really get recognised outside the auspices of American Pale Ale.

Come on America - give us some f**king credit over here!

 

True. I should have said that I can’t believe I bothered to read through 3 pages of yes, no, yes, no, yes, no posts.

 

Say Triple IPA....who cares?

 

I just randomly thought of one piece of marketing that might make sense as a distinction b/t double and imperial, if you take the fact the brewer doesn’t care to make the distinction in the first place: IIPA isn’t as aesthetically different from IPA as DIPA; I’m thinking chalkboard menus at tap rooms for instance. I don’t think brewers classify based on this reason, but someone might’ve realized from any distance DIPA is easier to see as “not IPA” than IIPA.

As to the reasons for I/DIPA, III/TIPA in the first place, I’ve got nothing new to add that people haven’t already said, but my opinion is that I don’t quite care, appreciate at least the attempt of differentiation by the brewer, and totally prefer to just see the ABV.

 

Isn't that what the abv info on the label is for?

 

Haha Triple IPA is for when you only want to know a rough guesstimate of the ABV.

 

The spirit of modern "IPA" or the original etymology ? I had a '14 Devil Dancer the other night, and it was still very much hop forward and crisp. No booze, a little fig, but mostly grapefruit and orange . If traditionally , IPA meant "hop forward/fresh taste for longer" , double meant "even longer" and triple "we dont even know how long" , I would argue that the " triple ipa classification is very much in the spirit of "IPA". Also, I believe Devil Dancer is one of the few to actually have a ~3x bigger recipe, not surprisingly given how much efficiency plummets with such strong brews.

.. That said, I don't like the double/triple distinction, or "IPA" that much . I'd much rather simplify them to actual descriptors of the flavor, " hoppy strong pale ale" , "hoppy strong amber (for much caramalts and darker malt bills), red, black ale" etc for others. I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I'd rather "strong" and "barleywine" become distinct classifications for >7% and barleywine for >10%; Or, maybe even distinction by the malt bill. I'd be happy with simply "imperial /strong hoppy amber/red/black) ale " meaning >7%, too . The "imperial/strong" descriptor is enough IMO to tell the consumer to look at the ABV, and if at a bar or otherwise mostly unknown , to be careful .

 

Yet, it's still classified as a DIPA on BA and isn't even the highest ABV or hoppiest incarnation of the DIPA style.

 

Because it's a description of a style of beer which allows consumers to have an expectation about the beer itself. No reason to change it because it's not made in a place or shipped to a place.

The Russian Imperial Court doesn't need to still exist for the designation to mean something.

 

I agree RuinTen is not THE hoppiest of IPAs that fall into the official "DIPA" category bu it definitely is hoppier than a large majority of Double IPAs. The triple designation does give the unaware beer drinker/buyer some idea that, "hey this is a really strong IPA, maybe even stronger than your typical double IPA." That said, I see where some might think well if triple IPA is the new thing, then all the hoppy IPAs will arbitrarily be classified as triples (everyone loves to jump on the bandwagon), and then where does it stop? Long story short, I see the use of the "triple IPA" designation, but at the same time it seems like it may be overkill and could lead to a slippery slope (which isn't the best argument against the designation). Overall, I think the triple designation is of use though.

 

You had me until that last bit.

 

Haha more so that it will help aid the beer novice in making a choice about whether or not this is a beer for them. I for one love RuinTen but if someone who was just getting into IPAs tried RuinTen or a similar beer I feel like they'd be like "man I wish I knew this was a little more hopped/stronger than your standard IPA haha.

 

We need to be sure when we make Triple IPA official that it is never used consistently enough, or defined precisely enough, to prevent people from coming on this forum to complain that their Triple IPA is really a Double IPA.

We also need to not educate folks they can figure out exactly how much alcohol is in their beer by observing the ABV listing on it, 'cause if folks know that what fun will they be?

 

Especially if the Triple IPA is brewed in Vermont!

 

I love Vermont beers, always happy to raise a good Vermont beer while remaining in the state of New York