IPA - Imperial New England

I'm in favor of adding a NEIPA - Imperial style and then migrate all of the 8%+ NEIPA beers into the new style.

If there is horsetrading of style addition/subtractions to consider I could offer 2 options:
1) eliminate Imperial Pilsners and just lump those beers in with either the German (if lighter in color) ot Bohemian (if darker) pilsners. Seems that there really aren't that many imperial pilsners that are all that noteworthy (none in any top ranking lists I don't think) that would screw up rankings in relating to the traditional pilsner styles mentioned.

2) Eliminate Rye Beers as a style...move all of those rye based IPAs under American Pale Ale, IPA - American, IPA Imperial, NEIPA wherever the beer fits in properly. It's only a malt change and most of the rye IPAs I've had are American or West Coast IPAs with just a hint of added spiceness from the rye perhaps (but not always). Then all those big ABV and barrel aged rye beers (like Rye on Rye), could easilty move to the American Strong Ales with no problem at all...as the description clearly says, "its a catch all". Roggenbier is the unique odd-ball rye malt style but it's grandfathered in I suppose because of history.

Of the 2 probably rye beers would be less controversial so I'd lean towards that choice if had to pick (my preference woudl be to eliminate both however).

 

Yes. This is my point on hazy. I think some brewers do this willfully while others just miss the boat.

My bigger concern is that I think the NEIPA is much more about Smell/Taste than Look. And I disagree regarding the bitterness level. I think a NEIPA should be less bitter, sharp, and astringent, and more citrus and tropical. Perhaps high pine and floral may work too, but I think less-so. I think NEIPA’s should be more drinkable than IPA’s in general.

And yes, my opinions may differ from the progenitor and style consensus. I am vocal about this, precisely because I think the style guide should be tweaked.

 

Here's a vote for just officially expanding the upper limit of the startlingly narrow (6.3 to 7.5) official ABV range for NEIPAs, to include all doubles (and "triples") that fit the profile.

But you may ask, expand to what upper limit? Maybe to 12.00, to match the Imperial IPA?

Or maybe there shouldn't even be an ABV range for NEIPAs?

You can find a number of beers listed as NEIPAs that are bigger than 12, and tons smaller than 6.3. Would those bigger than 12 need a new Triple IPA category? (Do American IPAs generally?) Would those below 5.00 need a new session IPA category? Where would those from 5.1 to 6.2 go?

Someone up the chain, I apologize for not looking back to see who, said that maybe we should focus on style and not so much ABV. I agree, at least until the ABV becomes so different it changes the style.

 

But it's too late.

Historically, pretty much every style across the spectrum changes classification based on ABV, sometimes dramatically altering the name of the style entirely.

It really takes a substantial change to the process and recipe, besides there just being MOAR ALKAHAUL, to make a 6% beer with "similar" ingredients hit 8, 10 or 12 percent.

Unless they plan to kill off all the Imperial, Double, Doppel, Dubbel, Quad, Strong, et. al. classifications--which I highly doubt will ever happen since they are so strongly established--I don't think trying to consolidate or further expand existing style's ABV limits is really going to cut it. Especially considering tons of breweries are already happy to self-classify their NE IPAs as Double, Triple or Imperial

 

I wasn't suggesting the application of any such ABV rule across the board, but, as I acknowledged above, your point that changing the ABV can effectively change the style is well-taken. So many oddly (and even undrinkably) sweet DIPAs have proved that point.

But I would argue that the fact that brewers use the convenient terms double, triple and imperial IPA to designate (or market) the ABV in those beers does not require that the industry adopt additional style categories, if what the brewer is trying to do, more or less effectively, is simply to brew a beer with bigger (or smaller) ABV in the same style.

 

This x100.

There are half a dozen technical hacks that make NEIPAs distinct from old school/West Coast/"American" IPAs:

1. Water chemistry - salty (not chalky)
2. Bitterness - low (not high)
3. Yeast - estery (not clean)
4. Adjuncts - oats +/or wheat (to add polyphenols i.e. body)
5. Clarity - unfiltered (not filtered)
6. Dry Hopping - during primary (for biotransformation)

A ton of breweries - particularly the national + regional ones who are bandwagon jumping - do #4 + #5 and call it an NEIPA, wrongly.
Hazy IPAs are just the modern face of the style; they should not be included in any NEIPA listing, imho.

What to do with NEIPAs of different strengths - which don't really change in balance, character, body, color, etc. as you go up + down in ABV - is far less of an issue for me.
I'm fine having them in one bucket.

 

YUP!

 

This is my thinking as well, and the reason I too agree that an Imperial NEIPA style should be created.

 

But it should be "DNEIPA". I've seen that term used already. Then again the description wouldn't have that in it anyway.

 

I wouldn't mind an Imperial NE IPA style. I just reviewed a good candidate for it Benchtop Brewery (Norfolk VA) Lazy Flocculation. Lots of NE IPAs out there at varying strengths, either rate all NE IPAs (regardless of strength) together or add an Imp NE style. The NE style is not a hop bomb and probably loses ground to hoppy IMP IPAs when compared as the same style. I won't lose sleep either way but that's my 2 cents!!!