New England IPA Style rant

Discussion in 'Great Lakes' started by MNAle, Apr 11, 2019.

Tags:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MNAle

    MNAle Initiate (0) Sep 6, 2011 Minnesota

    This is not a rant about the style per se. That is, it is not criticizing the style, it's hype / popularity, whether or not I like it, etc.

    Also, it is merely a rant. I don't expect anything to change as a result...

    This is a rant about how carelessly and artlessly the NEIPA style is assigned to midwestern beers in the BA database. I don't know if this is unique to the Midwest region or not, but it is prevalent here.

    Let me state, first, I am NOT a qualified beer judge. I am NOT an expert on the minutia of what distinguishes beers styles, especially those that overlap tremendously.

    However, some things do seem pretty obvious even to me.

    A couple of weeks ago, I picked up a four pack of a new beer from Badger Hill that I entered into the database as an American IPA, since the brewer did not call it a New England style, only a hazy IPA (Tiny Tank Hazy IPA). I tasted it for the next NBS thread, and as a result of that tasting, saw no reason to change the style from American IPA.

    Last night, I finally got around to entering my review of the beer. So, imagine my surprise when I went to enter the review and found, that while no one had reviewed it in the intervening 2 weeks, it had been re-classified from American IPA to a New England IPA.

    Did the brewer suggest the edit of the style? If so, I need to change my review, since it is a poor example of the style.

    If the edit to the style was suggested by a member from Minnesota, then did you even taste it first? If so, perhaps you could post what, in your opinion, makes this beer a NEIPA? Even better, post a review of it? Did you have it at the taproom? Is the tap version different from the canned version I had?

    To me, it does not look, smell, or taste like a NEIPA. It is merely an unfiltered, unclarified (hence, hazy) American IPA. It is not a bitter-bomb WCIPA, but it does have a distinct classic IPA bitterness. It is hazy, like a hefeweizen or kellerbier is hazy, but not like a NEIPA is hazy/turbid. So, in my view, it is a nicely done American IPA. It is NOT a NEIPA, IMO. It has none of the style characteristics to call it such.

    This phenomenon of classifying any ol' midwestern hazy IPA as a NEIPA is not limited to this beer, either. Just browse through the Toppling Goliath list, for example. At least most of the TG beers look the part. This Badger Hill beer does not even meet that test, IMO.

    End of (futile) rant.
     
    #1 MNAle, Apr 11, 2019
    Bravak and burlyb like this.
  2. Sabtos

    Sabtos Grand High Pooh-Bah (7,920) Dec 15, 2015 Ohio
    BA4LYFE Society Pooh-Bah Trader

    I've no dog in the Badger fight, but on the other side of the coin, I've come across so many legit NE IPAs that are or were entered as something other than NE IPA that I have unfortunately become numb to the style label here. We really need a bigger effort to overhaul the styles already listed here, and still need more options for some.
     
    #2 Sabtos, Apr 11, 2019
    Bravak likes this.
  3. DNW620

    DNW620 Aspirant (229) Jan 23, 2014 Minnesota

    I don't know why, people seem to be extremely "strict" about this style. I've never seen so much backlash from the public when you call a beer NEIPA and it isn't A. Hazy enough or B. Juicy enough. I don't understand why it's such a faux pas for only this one style.
     
    #3 DNW620, Apr 11, 2019
  4. Bravak

    Bravak Zealot (587) Sep 9, 2014 Minnesota

    I agree that it wasn’t in line with NEIPA, or at least what I think that should be.

    Do the breweries control the listing? I have no idea. If they do, and they listed it as such, it tells me they are trying to market something versus make something they want.

    In addition, there are way too many styles now. It’s almost impossible to know them all, and it seems like anything can be a style. So what’s the point? I think the enormity of the style guidelines have started to hurt things. Maybe slinging back to something simpler might be in order - but just my opinion.

    Ultimately it comes down to one thing - do I like it or not. And I have been as guilty as anyone for trying to rate beers to style, especially traditional ones I love.

    I need to stop overthinking this stuff and get back to just enjoying a nice cold beer.
     
    #4 Bravak, Apr 11, 2019
  5. Hookstrat

    Hookstrat Zealot (728) Jan 15, 2006 Iowa
    Trader

    Not really sure what you mean by "too many styles now"? Maybe more sub-styles or just more available examples? Most styles have been around for a long time. Worrying over splitting hairs within/amongst the subcategories is, I think, a fool's errand. See: the age old debate of porter vs. stout.
     
    #5 Hookstrat, Apr 11, 2019
  6. cmannes

    cmannes Pundit (967) Mar 15, 2009 Minnesota

    No real opinion on this, but I did notice this on twitter. Although in later posts, it just becomes "Hazy IPA"

     
    #6 cmannes, Apr 11, 2019
    maximum12 likes this.
  7. Hookstrat

    Hookstrat Zealot (728) Jan 15, 2006 Iowa
    Trader

    The whole subcategorization of IPA is rather ridiculous. The 2015 BJCP guidelines don't help much in this regard with 7 sub-styles (6 + the provisional NEIPA) mostly based on color. Having said that, there is maybe some ground to stand here with respect to disqualifying hazy beers from designation as American IPA:

    "21A. American IPA....

    Appearance: Color ranges from medium gold to light reddish-amber. Should be clear, although unfiltered dry- hopped versions may be a bit hazy. Medium-sized, white to off- white head with good persistence."
     
    #7 Hookstrat, Apr 11, 2019
  8. MNAle

    MNAle Initiate (0) Sep 6, 2011 Minnesota

    I'm not being strict (or even "strict"), unless objecting because it meets none of the typical style characteristics is being strict.

    That's actually a pretty good description of Tiny Tank.. "a bit hazy." But, just a bit.
     
    #8 MNAle, Apr 11, 2019
    Hookstrat likes this.
  9. DNW620

    DNW620 Aspirant (229) Jan 23, 2014 Minnesota

    To clarify, my post wasn't meant to be criticizing your post. I'm interested in why everyone might think this style has beer drinkers so concerned with style guidelines. You don't hear this kind of debate with any other styles (Maybe Lambic?).
     
    #9 DNW620, Apr 11, 2019
  10. MNAle

    MNAle Initiate (0) Sep 6, 2011 Minnesota

    To my recollection, the debate some time ago was with objections that NEIPA was an American IPA at all, given how different it was, especially in the very low / no bitterness, and that it should be its own style.
     
    #10 MNAle, Apr 11, 2019
    KarlHungus likes this.
  11. MNAle

    MNAle Initiate (0) Sep 6, 2011 Minnesota

    No. The initial style of a newly listed beer is whatever the person entering the new beer enters on the "style" field.

    After that, any member can suggest an edit to the beer listing (including, but not limited to, the style), and after that the site powers that be make the change (or not) as they see fit.
     
    #11 MNAle, Apr 11, 2019
    Hookstrat likes this.
  12. Hookstrat

    Hookstrat Zealot (728) Jan 15, 2006 Iowa
    Trader

    An interesting point, I think, as many of the Belgian categories have wide specs, which can accommodate many variations.

    As MNAle hints at, the existing BJCP specs for the APA or American IPA don't really accommodate NEIPAs. My preference would be to broaden both categories of APA and American IPA with the main distinguishing factor being bitterness and less emphasis on abv such that "NE/hazy/juicy" versions could be accommodated where appropriate.
     
    #12 Hookstrat, Apr 11, 2019
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.