Grizette vs Patersbier vs Table Saison vs Belgian Pale Ale

I think you'll want to check out the thread on Saisons by @zid who wrote a very nice essay about Grisettes. I'd guess he can also answer your other questions about Saisons as well.

As for Patersbier, that is the name given to the beer brewed by the monks for their own use in the Monastery. As one person has described it, it is the Monk's "lawnmower beer."

https://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/the-750-saison.429632/page-8#post-4930028

 

Well part of his essay argues that Saison and Grisette are basically the same beers that just differ in who they were brewed for. While I've only had one Grisette so far, in a blind tasting I'd have said it was a Saison.

Also from the useage of "table beer" in other contexts I'd assume that the Table Saison is indeed a lower ABV saison meant for home consumption, etc. As a few other peopel have pointed out, modern Saisons are much too high in ABV to be serving to help Farm Hands remain hydrated so Saisons back in the day were probably relatively low ABV.

 

Well from the essay I linked to I'd say that Patersbier hasn't any necessary relationship to the others. If the monks are brewing a "single" for their own use it seems it could be any of several styles given what we see in Dubbels, Tripels and Quads coming from the Monasteries. (e.g., that "single" might or might not be a Saison, but it's key factor is that it is low ABV.)

Edit: But I suppose it would qualify as a "Tablebeer" for monks.

 

Thanks.

The only thing I can do is offer ideas and half-baked opinions... or answer a question with a question. For instance:

Or actually drawing the lines... or maybe ignoring them.

Actually, I didn't mean to communicate exactly that.
First disclaimer - I'm not a historian or a brewer or even very intelligent. I'm just a drinker who gets interested in this stuff. If someone wants to say that I'm not on target I'd welcome it.
Second disclaimer - I tend to view beer styles as very very fuzzy things. I also think it's a mistake to view various beer styles as a collective that works in unison. In other words, if some Belgians decided to name some beers Enkels, it doesn't mean that this was done to distinguish them from saisons (I'm not implying that they are the same).

I view grisette as being an offshoot from the saison tree (both in the historical sense and in the "craft beer" sense). To me, grisette feels more specific than saison (which is a ludicrous idea since we know little specifics). In other words, if I drank any modern beer labeled a grisette, and I was told that it was a saison, I wouldn't think anything odd. On the other hand, if I drank a random modern saison, and I was told it was a grisette, there's a decent chance I'd raise my eyebrow. However, I do believe that this will certainly change as American brewers begin to brew more and more beers that they'll add the grisette tag to. I am starting to see more beers with this tag, and as a result, more variation. Common features would be relatively low ABV, very light in color, not acidic, not spiced, use of wheat, noticeable hop presence. I have had one sour "grisette." Keep in mind that the word grisette might be used as a signal to a buyer regarding beer expectations, but it can also be used for simple trendiness or to help them stand out.

Saison ABV was indeed lower going back. The Vandervelde Act resulted in Belgian brewers making stronger beer in the 20th century. In the last half century, specialty brewers (like saison brewers) also found their modern audience by making specialty product. In the 19th century, the average ABV of Belgian beer was reportedly just 3%. 4% was considered strong. Table beers were far below that. If those numbers are correct, then most of today's "table beer" would be the equivalent of strong beer back then. Personally, I never use the term "table saison" (for no real reason). It just communicates a saison on the low end of the ABV spectrum (by today's standards). I was curious if Dupont actually called Avril a saison (as opposed to a "table beer"), so I just went to their website... but unless I missed it, it's not currently listed as one of their beers on their site.

Regarding Patersbier. I'm very interested in Patersbier and Enkel. I was under the impression that Enkel=Single and Patersbier=Father's Beer, but @kojevergas said that this was incorrect in this post. I would really like to read his thoughts on this and Patersbier and Enkel in general. Whenever I bring up these beer names, it's always just crickets. I'd love it if he can add to this. I was also under the impression that a Patersbier was usually an Enkel, but not necessarily so. That might explain St Bernardus and Corsendonk's use of the word "Pater," but that might be something unconnected.

As far as "Belgian Pale Ales"... the timing of this thread is funny because I just talked about this in my saison thread. I don't view this as a style at all. You can read my thoughts here. Warning - I'm just as long-winded in that post too.

So are there fundamental differences between all of these types of beer? Since I mentioned that my point of view leans towards fuzziness, I really can't say. Others might claim that the differences are A, B and C... and that's a fine perspective too. (As an inconsistent human, sometimes I'm one of those people .)

I tend to view a beer as part of the environment that it exists in. That might sound so obvious that it seems dumb. It's actually the flip from how beer is often viewed on this site... where people view a beer by dissecting it according to their senses. We zoom in rather than zoom out. Belgian beer often comes with romantic stories that we can cling to as consumers. A grisette was for miners. A saison was for farmhands. A Patersbier was for monks. A table beer was for the household. While these ideas are somewhat irrelevant today (the grisettes coming out of Oregon are bought by young men with disposable income ), the ideas still manage to somehow create some synergy with the drinker and the beer. In other words, even if the beers were brewed in New York and they all go into my belly, I'm fine with the idea that the difference between a Patersbier and a grisette is that one references tired miners and the other tired monks.

 

Well since we're all pretty much in the half baked category and trying to learn from others there's no need to feel like the Lone Ranger.

When it comes to naming I think we need to keep track of the fact that way back in the day before Radio, TV and the Internet, regional differences were much more pronounced than they are today. This was even more true for many places in Europe where folks had been living for hundreds of years before the founding of the US. Back in the day when lots of communication took place by people walking or riding horses from point A to point B lots of things didn't travel well and one group of people having different names for what was basically the same thing was much more common. (Especially considering that having the ability to read was pretty uncommon back then.)

So we have to be wary of the fact that two different names doesn't mean they are two different things, just as having the same name doesn't mean two things are not different.

Now if we throw in the fuzziness which we both agree on, style categories are indeed fuzzy and are much like the treeline on a map. On your map it's clean and sharp (often green vs. white), but if you are on the ground there's no such line to be found. Above where it is supposed to be there will be areas with trees. Below where it is supposed to be there will be open clearings where there are no trees. That doesn't mean there is not treeline but just that it is a fuzzy thing.

In otherwords I'd say style categories are "lies" we tell to ourselves to make communication and the world simpler.

 

Now I see why the bit about Patersbier comes up. It's useful to keep in mind that Americans are notorious for taking words and things out of their original context and using them in new and or different ways. The brewer here in the US may call it a Patersbier, but then that term no longer has quite the same meaning is it did when and where the term and it's use originated.

 

I think @zid and @drrth in their more recent posts are getting at what I was going to "add" - I think names do not always equate to styles.

I do agree that at least for styles listed here (or in BJCP or otherwise) we focus on the senses, and there is usefulness in this. To use an extreme example, I don't want to order a porter and get a Gose.

But for the blurred lines I agree exist now for marketing (whereas in the past, it was likely regional or historical), I think it is nice to have discussions like this. Though rarely when discussing a beer on this site will a drinker make a statement on style because s/he feels it "tastes like it was brewed in this region/historical time." I always find it helpful when communicating "style" as a modern consumer to state what you mean when you consider this beer to be one style versus another. As we get to know each other, we will all start to understand each other better, even if we disagree .

 

I'd suggest that in reviewing the focus should be, as you say, on the senses, but I'd also push it a bit further and suggest that given the origin of the style categories used here the style definitions focus also on the ingredients and brewing process with sensory outcomes possibly being secondary. So if we have an amber/red ale that uses a lot of hops (e.g., Troeg's Nugget Nectar) the fact that it tastes to many is if it were and IPA doesn't make it an IPA.

One of my favorite analogies here is if I kill a rattlesnake and cook it properly as one ingredient in a stew the fact that the stew tastes a lot like my chicken stew, doesn't make the rattlesnake stew a chicken stew. (It also doesn't mean that the rattlesnake is really a chicken because I can make two stews that taste similar. :-))

 

Ahh... very apropos as I would tend to disagree a bit here - at least with your specific example.

Does an amber ale "style" have so much hops?

• Traditionally? I'd guess no hard and fast rule, but probably not
• Productionally? (it's a word! ) well, there's never a rule here - but which makes a beer a style productionally? (still a word, the bullet is not done) The fact they used amber colored malts or the fact the hopped it to the nth level - like an IPA?
• Taste-wise? For someone who has had 100s of Amber Ales and likes them - would they typically like this beer and consider it to have a high enough level of "sameness" to the 100s previously imbibed? Flip that to the IPA drinker

To me, production attempts are nice to know, but tend to fall under the "regional/historical" type of information. Each and every bit of information has its purpose - knowing all would be ideal .

I am not sure your stew analogy fits, though. It's more like saying you brewed a peach beer that doesn't taste like peaches. A more direct analogy, I feel, would be if your stew were a soup, chowder, gumbo, or gazpacho.

Either way, to attempt to counter your stew analogy: me trying to make a DIPA with the right amount of malt and appropriate level of hops doesn't mean a whole lot if I get really poor yield from my malts and the hops just don't pop (let's say they were really old or something). The fact I wanted to produce an DIPA is interesting to know, but that I produced a balanced APA is also a "fact" - IMO.

Last point - I would consider Nugget Nectar a style-blurring beer, for what it's worth .

 

I just brewed one yesterday. Bubbling away as I type. With the minimal amount of malt and light hopping schedule, Patersbier is basically the monastic version of Miller Light.

 

I was always of the perspective that the Belgians were never sticklers for categorizing beers. They do (and did) label their beers but IMO they were not conscientious about staying with the lines.

One of the ingredients that is fairly unique for Belgian ales is the wonderful variety of differing ale yeast strains which are very characterful; these differing yeast strains result in very differing beers.

I have a similar viewpoint as Chris (@zid) as regards the beer styles of Grisette and Saison. As Chris stated it: “I view grisette as being an offshoot from the saison tree.” The key ingredient for producing a Saison/Grisette is the yeast strain selected and fermentation conditions. IMO these beers should be highly attenuated (bone dry) accompanied by a pleasant mix of esters (fruity flavors) and phenols (spicy flavors).

Patersbier is the lowest gravity beer produced by the Trappist Monk. The key ingredient for this beer is a Abbey/Trappist yeast strain. Typically these yeast strains produce a very characterful mix of esters (fruity flavors) and phenols (spicy flavors) but since this beer is produced from a lower gravity wort these yeast strains will produce a more restrained yeast derived flavor profile. For folks who are fans of the more robust Abbey/Trappist beer style (Tripel, Dubbel) the Patersbier may be more “boring” in comparison.

The Belgian Pale Ale category is a broad(er) category and arguably could overlap with other moderate gravity Belgian ale styles. In my homebrewing what I choose to do to ‘distinguish’ my Belgian Pale Ales is that I use more hops to produce a more balanced beer. For the other Belgian ales that I brew (Saison, Dubbel, Tripel,…) I use a more restrained hopping schedule to permit the yeast derived flavors to be the showcase. IMO a ‘proper’ Belgian Pale Ale should be balanced from a yeast derived and hop flavor perspective.

Needless to say but the above is just one man’s opinion.

Cheers!

 

More directly back to the OP:
Would a Patersbier or Table Beer in these cases have a vague analogy to Saison as an Oktoberfest has to Marzen?

(Sorry to bring back any SAT / ACT moments for anyone )

 

Well if the chicken stew analogy doesn't work for you, and you like the idea of a Gumbo, simply use the Gumbo stew recipe instead (Gumbos are stews). Some Gumbos use chicken, some use seafood. While they are both Gumbos no way we can say a Chicken is a Crawfish because both stews taste similar. (And if we're looking at a New Orleans restaurant menu there will be two different listings and best the twain do not meet even though both are listed as Gumbos. :-))

Notice that in your final paragraph before your last point you are referencing and talking about a combination of brewing process and ingredients as well as the way something tastes. :-)

 

Yes, I kinda used gumbo on purpose . And yes, brewing process/level of ingredients is inherent in the concept of blurring lines.

Either way, I still respectfully argue there is an anomaly in your snake versus chicken example in that it fundamentally changes the ingredients versus your example of Nugget Nectar that I find more interesting.

To me, the argument is more to me like if something were brewed with honey instead of grain/malt, and people trying to call it a beer because it tastes like beer. I am not sure anyone would call that product (rattlesnake) a beer (chicken). I do think people would agree it was an alcoholic bevereage (stew), though. Maybe this doesn't make sense, but I hope its inanity has a point .

So to a degree, if you produce a rattlesnake stew that tastes like a chicken stew or a shrimp gumbo - I'd say you produced a rattlesnake stew that is equivalent to a shrimp gumbo. Whereas, to use my adjustment: if you produced a too-watery version, you had actually produced a rattlesnake soup versus a rattlesnake stew (to take ingredients out as a variable).

Hope this makes sense and even I will state my arguments have a certain fuzziness in logic... but sometimes I love debating nuances and theory . I will end saying that if I only had one piece of information to go on when purchasing/deciding on a beer to drink in that moment - I would rather know its "taste-wise style" more than either of the other.

 

Analogies are not meant to correspond 100%. If they did they would be identities.

The critical point, expressed a different way is, if a 9 mo. aged DIPA is dominated by malt flavors, that does not mean it is a Barleywine. Its flavor profile may have changed but brewers don't make Barleywines by aging DIPAs. Also at 9 mos. some of us can still tell the difference. (I've aged a DIPA to 9 mos and beyond and have tasted the differences even if I have trouble describing them.)

Yes we as consumers want to know the flavor profile, but the categorization scheme in use is not based on flavor profile alone. So what it tastes like to me does not make it a different style than the one the brewer brewed.

 

Agreed, though to bring it back to the point (as I fear I derailed it a bit), because those 3 breweries in PA call their beer Patersbier, are they? If so, what does that mean?? There is no "purity law" type thing here in the US covering this, as far as I know. Hence, we have these debates .

 

MD not PA.

They can call it a Patersbier, but they should call it a Patersbier style since the term originates in Latin and to this day some low ABV beer is brewed by Monks who brew and they do a low ABV beer mostly for their own use in the Monastery. IIRC the Orval Patersbier is different than the other Patersbiers, so I think what the term means is Low ABV beer brewed in a Monastery.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trappist_beer

As for legal issues, yes we have very few laws about borrowing Foreign words and using them out of their original context. Not much we can do about that. However as I learn more I become increasingly less willing to accept such misuse as a sign the brewer knows best. :-)

 

The science/nature of language and communication is often more interesting that the result of using them. I always try to remember that the name of a thing doesn't make it real. Words, nomenclature, communication in general, are marvels that we live with and alter constantly. It's even possible that I love words more than beer! Maybe.

 

The only Patersbier that I have drank is Chimay Dorée. I think it is a good low gravity beer.

“Dorée used to exclusively be the patersbier; available for the monks’ meals, guests of the abbey, and the brewery’s employees. I had the opportunity to try this beer in September 2012 when I visited the monastery. At that time, the beer was 4.6% ABV and was brewed with coriander and curaçao orange peel and the house yeast. The popularity of Dorée and the growing interest in abbey “singles” has inspired Chimay to release the beer to select accounts around Belgium.”

https://ithinkaboutbeer.com/2014/01/10/chimay-doree/

I thought this article about Patersbier is interesting: https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/how-to-brew/patersbier-the-lawnmower-beer-of-trappist-monks/

Cheers!

 

I think I might know what @kojevergas was referring to in the post I linked to. "Enkel" roughly translates to "only" or "just." If I'm right, an Enkel is literally a name for a beer that would only be available at the abbey. Then this would be a name for a beer based on it's relation to its environment rather than specific sensory characteristics. The same would be true for a "Patersbier." It just so happens that a lighter beer is a good fit for this role. Going through the beers that kinda-sorta fit this definition (some better than others), here are some that I am familiar with (I haven't tried the two Achel beers or Petite Orval, but I've tried the rest):

Chimay has Doree (aka Gold, aka "Speciale De Poteaupré"). It's more or less a 4.8% Belgian Wit, and this shows the flexibility in the designation. It's now available in bottles in the US, but this is a relatively new development.

Achel has smaller versions of both their blond and their bruin. Both called 5 rather than 8 (as a reference to the ABVs). Only available at the abbey.

Orval has their small version of Orval - which is a style unto itself. Called Petite Orval (I think Orval Green is the same thing). It's 3.5% Only available at the abbey.

La Trappe has Puur, a 4.7% blond which I am guessing was never a patersbier but it might qualify as a misfit. Available outside the abbey.

Westmalle has Extra, a subtle 4.8% blond. Not to be confused with Achel's Extras which are bigger than their normal beers. I think there is limited availability of this outside the abbey.

Westvleteren has a 5.8 blond that's bottled. A bigger beer than the others here, and possessing big personality too. Only available at the abbey.

St Bernardus isn't Trappist of course, but it's worth including them. Their Extra 4 was one of the recipes that came from Westvleteren. St Bernardus calls this beer a "Single" and "Enkel." It's a 4.8% blond.

 

The picture emerging is that the Enkel sounds like a descriptive term indicating availability and would refer to a Patersbier or some other beer only available at the brewery or the associated cafe, etc. Since the Monks brew the Patersbier for their own use and they are seldom sold. So I'm thinking at the moment that neither is a style as such and that the terms simply indicate who they are brewed for and where they might be available. At least until brewers who are not Monks get involved. :-)

 

It's worth mentioning that St Bernardus calls their 6.7% dubbel "Pater" and this was a Wesvleteren recipe.

 

And this is why WE should encourage the great number of new brewers and breweries to not only make distinctive brews, but to make them damned well! Some locales will emerge with distinctive styles and be cherished. Right now, I would place Haw River Farmhouse Ales my favorite in forging unique and very cool beers that are area specific.....and excellent.

 

Yeah, it was not only a Westvleteren recipe it was sold commercially, but the St. Bernardus naming convention seems to correspond to a least a part of the heirarchy in the Monastery. Abt is a name for the Abbot who's the man in charge.

So it could be that the Abbey had a low ABV beer for in house consumption only called a Patersbier since that seems to usually be a single rather than a dubbel. After all, back in the day the Trappists didn't have rules in place that applied to more than one Abbey. :-)

 

Absolutely! They don't have to call a Wild Ale a Gueuze since there are other ways to be distinctive with a beer following traditional spontaneous brewing/blending methods. (Although I can understand a brewery wanting to call a beer a Patersbier rather than a Light beer in this era of anti-big beer sentiment I don't think it's the best strategy for the long run.)

 

Call it Patermorgenbrau. I'd buy that one. Maybe Merry Monks is taken as a name, but I'd love a lighter beer with that flavor profile.

 

For those who might be interested in drinking a Patersbier/Enkel/Single type beer one option is to brew your own. Maybe BA TriggerFingers will share his recipe with you.

Cheers!