(I)PAs - Overrated, or Mislabeled?

@Hop-Droppen-Roll You're hitting on a larger issue of beer classification that no one in the beer community will ever complete agree about. In the broader view of all possible pale-ale-like beers, where would one clearly draw the lines to separate English bitter/ESB/English PA/American PA/session IPA/English IPA/American IPA/Extra IPA/Double or imperial IPA? And if you think you can draw hard and fast lines between those styles then let's throw the red/black/wheat/white/belgian PA and IPA varieties in the mix and see how the lines hold up. When you think you have it all figured out then you have to convince the rest of the world that they should follow your classifications- Good luck, you'll need it! Some people liken beer styles to a rainbow, but that's too simplistic, because if you consider all of the possible malt and hop variety combinations it's more like a web. Trying to draw hard lines for beer classifications is like hammering square pegs into round holes.... it's hard, it's ugly, and you're probably going to break something in the process.

That said I'm not a nihilist who would throw out all beer categories and just call everything "beer." When a brewer labels their product it does give consumers some general idea what to expect, but I would avoid placing too many expectations or unnecessary rules on the stated style.

 

If Tree House decided to call Good Morning a pale lager I'd still rate it 5 out of 5.

 

I think there might be room for a "Strong Pale Ale" style. It exists at the GABF. Brewers who can't or aren't winning medals in the American IPA category are entering their beers in that style, or, well maybe they're dishonestly labeling their strong pale ales as IPAs when they sell them in the market.

 

While adding "American" makes it more specific, I would still give some leeway with that label. Some styles feel like they are a more firmly agreed upon "thing", but this isn't the case across the board. Does the brewer buy into a definition of an "American pale ale" as seen on a website, or is their beer simply an American pale ale.

Actually, I meant my comment the way @BradenMK took it.

 

We went back and forth on what we should call Collaboration No. 5. I pushed for Tropical Pale Ale instead of Tropical IPA because while I felt that the ABV (7.2) was certainly high enough to be considered an IPA, the IBUs (55) were fairly modest considering the alcohol level. We also felt that the hop character was more focused on big, bright, fruity notes versus having a strong grassy/green presence. We're admittedly bad at thinking about style when creating/conceiving beers and choose to brew to flavor and designate a style once we've tasted the beer.

 

I think your post is a prime example of misusing the idea of rating to style. A beer style is not an arbitrary set of attributes, it's a classic profile that has great structure and balance. Rating according to style and rating according to merit should go together. When a beer is born that has individuality, but doesn't adhere to a style, like Arrogant Bastard, Liberty Ale, or Alaskan Smoked Porter, then a style is born. If a beer lacks personality, but vaguely resembles an off balance version of a previous classic, rating to style is relevant.

That being said, how would changing the beer label of Zombie Dust from APA to IPA or vice versa affect your review?

 

I just drank a PseudoSue for the first time and I agree with it calling itself a Pale Ale. Its hoppy, but the body is very light and I felt the hops and malt were very balanced making a very (dangerously) easy drinking pale ale.

 

I don't think that's a bad approach at all, and I guess I assumed the IBUs on Tropical Pale Ale were a little higher for some reason. But the concept of the American IPA is changing from being defined by extreme bitterness or even pleasant piney herbalness and is fully embracing that concept of bright, fruity notes almost regardless of IBUs. Just another reason the definitions and distinctions become murkier and murkier.

 

I haven't had either of those beers, but if the brewer claims it to be a certain style, then I review it to that style standard. If FBS was claimed to be an IPA, I would not give it a high rating for example. I would mention in the review that it would be a world class stout if so classified.

 

A brewery is going to call it what they feel works and how that fits according to their beliefs and what they already are brewing and selling. Highly opinionated people who follow other things and seem to think this temporal and ever shifting consensus of taste and don't actively seem to want to understand that a brewery will probably know better than them how to handle this daunting task of actually selling it will call shenanigans. I do not doubt that they are smart and deeply committed to this. But, take it with a salt shaker handy.
While reviewing things or judging things to style is its own fun, and possibly even very educational. In all honestly. It's one big dead end if you forget that you actually are enjoying what you are drinking. This is the hardest part about judging as well because sometimes it is truly amazing, but the box it's being put into is big enough to handle it.
Carry on reviewing what you enjoy, and if it gets dinged because it doesn't fit into a sea of text some group decided to assemble for it to be placed within some stylistic box, so be it.
If 3fff wants to call Zombie Dust an APA, not one kcu given from this drinker.

 

FFF also labels Permanent Funeral a "Pale Ale" and Cimmerian Sabertooth Berzerker a "Cimmerian Pale Ale"

Good luck finding "Cimmerian Pale Ale" on the BJCP Style Guidlines

I think the whole thing is hilarious.

 

Good point about how people's understanding of styles change over time. I said before that beer styles are like a web, but even that is too simple because a web only represents a snapshot in time. When one adds the dimensions of history and the unknown future to beer styles, then it becomes more apparent that assigning strict rules to styles is futile.

 

Oops. I meant the box it is being put into is NOT big enough to handle it. Huge change of tone, But. That implies that perceptions have changed, progress has happened. etc. The hops being used and adored now are not what the hops of yore were, and the technics where they come alive and shine in the brewery process are not typical of how historically these styles may have utilized them.

 

If the brewer calls it a pale ale, then to me it's a pale ale.

 

Right.Pale ale is the overall family name.
When does a Pale Ale become an IPA ? It depends upon which manifestation of IPA you choose.There were beers labelled IPA in 1850 , 1900 , 1950 , 2000 and today. All quite different and equally valid.
"Styles" are a recent introduction. They evolve from simple names which brewer used to differentiate their products.IPA was being sent to India for decades before they were called IPAs. Many brewers such as Bass brewed and exported IPA but simply labelled it Pale Ale.Others didn't send their stuff to India but called it IPA just the same.
Many beers have over time been labelled differently.
The horse bolted years ago but people are still not only trying to shut the stable door but arguing over which one to shut.

 

There never really was a door for the horse to leave out of either until people decided to build one. It was quite content just hanging out, cos they fed it and brushed it every day.

 

And the fact that IPAs are one of the best selling categories within craft beer certainly doesn't hurt! I've been saying for a long time that Session IPAs are really just super hoppy Pale Ales, but it's marketing.

 

They are a little bit of their own special thing, though, to be more genuine. For example, a Session IPA will have less of a malt backbone as well as lower abv than a typical American Pale Ale, yet higher IBUs and a much more prominently hoppy taste.

If you were using an online brew calculator, like brewersfriend, it would tell you that a Stone Go To clone did not fit the style of either a Pale Ale or an IPA.