Educate me: IPL vs Pilsner

It has to do with which hops and which malt(s) are used. A Pilsner requires a particular subset of hops, the typical IPL uses mostly different hops. A pilsner requires that most or all of the malt be of a particular style popularly known as Pilsner malt (which refers to how it is malted) and an IPL can use a wider variety of different malts.

 

So a pilsner is just an IPA with lager yeast now?

 

Thank you for saying this. I've been meaning to post the same response. There should be a 3 day ban if you reply to a thread with "Drink what you like."

Of course we all fucking drink what we like, that response is useless and doesn't contribute to any thread in a meaningful way.

 

But to be quite frank, I don't want to see a US facsimile of a great hefe - if I want one, i'll buy a Weihenstephaner. No US brewery will ever come close to making a hefe as good as that. Ayinger Celebrator also springs to mind. Can't ever see a US dopplebock comparing. Why not experiment if you are never going to be able to compete with the years of brewing culture and tradition that have made certain breweries masters of their craft?

 

With all of the informative posts, where did you get that?

Or maybe you meant an IPL is just an IPA brewed with lager yeast? Closer to the fact.

 

If pilsners were of the same strength and IBU level as IPAs. Last I checked IPAs were not 4.4 - 5% abv at 25 - 45 IBUs.

 

Sierra Nevada and New Glarus are doing it now -- without added "innovation."

Capital Brewing in Wisconsin and Gordon-Biersch do very good jobs.

Because there's no such thing as "never." And by your theory, you shouldn't even try to be good, just be different?

 

It's in the Brewmaster's Table several times. He wanted to call American IPA's "California Pale Ale" and he gave a few other alternative naming ideas to keep things amicable with the pacific northwest.
He used to post on BA here and there and would typically say the same things whenever the topic came up.
He is one of the reviewers in "All About Beer" magazine and he mentioned that he hated the whole India thing in one of his reviews this month.

 

I've always wanted that book, don't know why I never grabbed it up. Off to Amazon…

One more good reason to like the man.

 

Because IPL is an IPA brewed with lager yeast. so if IPLs are actually just pilsners then does that mean pilsners are just IPAs with lager yeast?

I was just trying to point out why this was a dumb thread.

 

@kdb150 posted: “…until the letters IPL convey meaningful information regarding the contents of the bottle/glass of IPL that is so labeled, it's not really a style.”

@Dupage25 posted: “Beers called IPL, generally speaking, are just bottom-fermented American IPAs. That's it. So they will be considerably hoppier than pilsners, have American or New Zealand hops, and there's a good chance they won't contain any pilsner malt at all.”

IMHO, Dupage25 did a pretty good job describing the IPL ‘style’.

Cheers to Dupage25!

 

Eye rolls are good for that!

 

American craft brewers have for some part abandoned the whole "Stye" paradigm for flavor descriptors. Thus anything with IPA after it indicated a hoppy flavor, same is true for just an I in front Thus we get BlackIPA, and IPL (India Pale Lager) If you look at it from that perspective it makes sense.

 

An IPL is essentially just an American IPA made with a lager yeast.

typical czech pilsner = pilsner malt + saaz hops + lager yeast
typical german pilsner = pilsner malt + hallertau hops + lager yeast
typical IPL = American 2-row or pilsner malt (or a mix) + American hops + lager yeast

 

You'll find some pretty good condition used copies. Don't debate it, just pull the trigger. You'll not regret it.

 

Well, then there's the "American Pale Lager" or "American pilsner" which also uses American 2-row + US hops + lager yeast, but isn't heavily hopped like an IPL. I find these more palatable, and just as, if not more, innovative than IPLs. Not many brewers have the skill to pull this one off though, Anchor is one of them. See below.

Unfortunately this one is only rated a 3.66 because it isn't 7% abv, 50+ IBUs, and aggressively dry-hopped with Citra.

http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/28/90090/

 

Really? Can you document this claim? That isn't the way the reviews read.

 

Says the person whose highest rating (4.88) is a 8.6% pumpkin flavored beer.

Point being, not every beer has to be a 4% abv, clear, clean, crisp lager either. You just proved that. Nothing wrong with high ratings for hopped, flavored, high ABV beers.

 

But why are they all rated high? Does high ABV and high IBUs have to mean an outstanding beer? I think that's the point.

If you're rating to what the beer ought to be (as I'm sure Alcaheute probably did), then it should get a high rating. It shouldn't get an automatic WOW just because it's in-your-face.

 

The guy has rated 27 total beers, and only one within the last 5 years. Are you really going to try throw his ratings in his face like that means anything? He posts all the time and you know where his preferences lie. It's not false that beers like the one he described and other hot styles skew way higher than lagers in general/German and English style beers and so forth.. People mostly rate to preference, not style on this site. It's not a false statement no matter what a 6 year old rating says.