Session IPAs

I think they're ALL just IPAs. You're just using different malts as a vehicle to deliver hops to the consumer.

It's like all the extra cream, extra sugar iced coffee drinkers. Who cares what type of bean you use in the coffee, the coffee is just a vehicle to deliver cream and sugar to the consumer.

 

Now you're just being silly.

 

I couldn't disagree more. I think all-day has a better hop taste and aroma that most of the DIPA's out there. Show me a pale ale that's available on this scale, that's hoppier. I've never had one. Frankly, I think it's Founders' best beer.

 

This is absurd. "Average" IPAs and DIPAs often aren't as hoppy as All Day.

 

I don't get it. Regular IPAs are already easy to drink too many of and they taste way better.

Less alcohol and less calories? Not for me. I like my drinks intoxicating and full of sugar.

 

Greene King IPA has been around for at least 60 or 70 years longer than any modern IPA. You could argue that it has a better claim to authenticity because of that pedigree than a modern West Coast IPA.

And, of course, back in the 19th century IPA was a session beer. If you look at the whole history of IPA, it's the modern ones that are anamolous.

 

I have been drinking beer labelled as IPA for about 50 years now.Back then, every local brewer offered one. And probably a Light Dinner Ale or a Luncheon Ale. They were just names.
As Ron says above, these beers have been round for so long that they can't be dismissed as not being IPAs.They aren't like the beer sent to India but then neither is a West Coast one.

 

if all you want is alcohol, drink vodka

I LOVE the theory behind All-Day. Too often it seems a premium is placed on high ABV, but the higher the ABV, the less you get to drink in a session. So Founders gets huge credit from me for trying to give us some big-hop American IPA taste in a session form.

And if someone would rather drink a BMC brew than an All-Day IPA, I say drink BMC all the time and save us the good stuff. There is NO comparision between All-Day and Bud Light ... to suggest such a thing is well short of the mark.

 

Session IPA's--no thanks.

 

The first US craft beer labeled "India Pale Ale" * was Grant's India Pale Ale released in 1983 and, according to most sources, was only 4.2% ABV - so less alcohol than the better known examples of today's "session IPAs" like All Day IPA, Lagunitas Daytime, Carton Boat, etc. It was pretty much the same ABV as the newish "light" beer from Anheuser-Busch then called Budweiser Light.

Grant's IPA was even much less alcoholic than the only surviving US IPA, Ballantine India Pale Ale, which, though in it's period of being dumbed down, was still stated as being around 6-7% ABV in the 1980s. IBUs had been lower quite a bit for BIPA - down to around 40-45 - while Grant's (called "the hoppiest brew in America..." by Michael Jackson at the time) was in the 50-60 range.

* (It was preceded by both Anchor Liberty Ale, which some consider an IPA, and by SN Celebration Ale, which the brewery now calls an IPA).

 

Thanks for saving me the effort of having to reply as you have done. Doubtful I could have done it as well, nor with citations as excellent as you include.

The naming of beer styles has become less a helpful tool for beer consumers and more an argument waiting to happen.

 

Did you even read my last post in regards to what's called an ipa and what isn't? I clearly stated that what's called an ipa now, or called one traditionally should continue to be called the same with new styles not being called an ipa for clarity's sake. You should go back and reread what I posted earlier. I would think after agreeing with the two of you I could get a high five or something. Sheesh.

 

I was at a wedding recently where they were serving Two Brothers SideKick extra pale ale. I thought it was a great tasting session beer.

 

Would you say in terms of how the beer was brewed (not the name), either Anchor Liberty or Celebration were the first IPAs in the US? Or maybe Sierra Nevada Pale Ale, which much like Liberty Ale, could be considered an IPA by some.

 

As a lightweight when it comes to alcohol tollerance, I appreciate session beers. It's a perfect beer for playing poker (and not losing all of my chips) with the neighbors.

 

I'm having a hard time grasping how putting a modifying adjective in front of the title IPA "muddies the waters", seeing as how the intent of a modifying adjective is to increase specificity. But more to the point, can you explain why "white IPA" is apparently an abomination of naming, while "hoppy Wit" is apparently okay?

Both approaches involve adding a descriptor to a term that has a fairly well-understood meaning. IPA typically means (in modern context) a beer with an aggressive hop presence/profile. Wit typically means an unfiltered wheat beer with spices. By adding "white" or "red" or "black" to IPA, you impart that you have an aggressively hopped beer with caramel malt, or roasted malt, or with spices and a higher-than-typical wheat bill. Adding the word "hoppy" to Wit signals that your beer is an unfiltered wheat beer with spices, but with a larger hop profile than normal. It's a half dozen in one, six in the other type of situation.

Both approaches are nothing more than an attempt to accurately describe the product that the consumer is about to buy. The element of capitalizing on the popularity of IPAs right now--or more accurately, the popularity of big hop profiles--is secondary to naming the product in a descriptive way.

 

You don't feel the naming of the style is second to the trend of aggressively hopping in itself then? Interesting. I feel that the majority of these styles (Ira and iba coming to mind) were already named but were renamed to get on the bandwagon. India red ales were American red ales first, India brown ales as well were American brown ales. American styles have, for he mos part, been aggressively hopped compared to the unamerican counterpart. In my eyes this just proves that these are gimmicks to capitalize on current beer trends and not intuitive do describing the beer itself.

 

All Day and Bitter American are both low ABV and very tasty in my opinion.

 

It seems to me, lately, that some of the best breweries are pulling back the reigns with regard to aggressive hopping in favor of some finesse and concentrating on flavor nuance instead of bitter face melting. I am a huge fan of this trend, as I think many beers are a little ham-fisted in their approach to hops.

I would like to see some sort of international beer naming convention to nail down criteria for certain styles, but I think the inherent creativity and diversity of the craft beer industry prohibits that. When is a black IPA just a hoppy porter? When do we start calling hoppy barley wines quadruple IPAs? Why does everything in the craft beer world need to have IPA in the name? Is India getting kickbacks? Stop the madness, people, or we will end up drinking India Pale Stouts!!!!!!

I would also like to ban breweries from using stupid hops-based puns in their beer names. We get it, you're cheeky.

 

You're right that American styles, as a general rule, tend to be more aggressively hopped than their non-American counterparts. However, that is a general rule, and not something that is specific enough to supplant a stylistic description, imo.

For example, there are still tons of American Amber/Red Ales and American Brown Ales out there that are not aggressively hopped. Some might even note that the most well-known versions of those styles are hoppier than their German and English ancestral counterparts, but compared to the hop profiles that I think a lot of people expect from the American IPA, they don't stack up. Beers like Fat Tire, Bell's Amber, and Boulevard Amber are all classic American Ambers with a moderate hop profile. Or beers like Smuttynose Old Brown Dog, Avery Ellie's Brown and Moose Drool on the American Brown side of things.

I like the fact that Levitation, Hop Head Red and the like are distinguished from both IPAs and American Reds, because it tells me more about the beer I'm about to drink. It's only a gimmick if there is no value to the added descriptor, and I think a solid case can be made that it's about more than that, even if the decision to start labeling these various beers as "[descriptor] IPA" began with a desire to capitalize on the popularity of the IPA.