Should barrel-aged Quads be recategorized?

I think every style that gets barrel aged should be recategorized it is a whole new style.

 

The base beer is still the same, I don't see why it would need to be re-categorized. When it is initially brewed it is brewed to a specific set of style guidelines, what happens in the barrel dousn't make it a different style of beer, it's still a Barleywine, or Stout, etc... Just happens to be BA. Would you then extend it to a new category for each different type of barrel used (bourbon, scotch, tequila, armagnac, etc...)?

 

You're not the first to suggest this and you won't be the last. But based on what's been discussed in earlier threads it's not likely to happen.

 

Nope. There's enough styles already, and the variance within each is easily big enough to encompass those BA'd.

 

It could always be like the wee heavy category, where the top 1 - 5, along with at least 7 and 10, are all barrel-aged. Some of the others may be as well - I'm not familiar with all of the top ten.

I haven't looked at any of the imperial stout categories lately, either, but I'd be willing to bet there's a strong BA showing there as well.

(I have no opinion one way or the other, just observing.)

 

I wouldn't go that far. I'd just treat barrel aging (for flavor, be it bourbon, wine, etc.) the same way that spices, smoke and whatnot have always been treated. The flavoring is the overarching category, and whatever the base style is is subordinate to that. Just one new style, in other words.

ETA- it seems the BJCP already treats Wood Aged Beer the same way, Category 22C. The 'base beer' is then categorized under that and noted in the entries.

 

If, for example, a quad is classed under a category by the official beer categorizers (whoever they are) as, let's say #77 just to pick a number, then a BA quad should be a category #77a at best, regardless of whether it is a bourbon or wine or tequila barrel, etc. This gives it its own category, but really it doesn't. Judge it as a category if you want, but don't compare it to the others in the base #77 category. They really are not comparable.

 

As I understand the single, double, triple, and quadruple fermentation process/identifier http://marcstroobandt.blogspot.com/2009/02/so-what-is-triple-beer.html
I don't think that a change in the primary style is called for. An addition of a sub-style would only confuse the issue further.

So, in answer to your question, no.

 

Yeah it is a bit of a stretch, but why not? Barrel aging does make it a different. The changes are big enough to consider it.

 

Pannepot Reserva and Grand Reserva (numbers 7 and 8) are both oak-aged. Hardly seems like it's strictly American..

 

You had me at Pannepot... Wait - what are we talking about?

 

I really don't understand some people's aversion to adding more styles. What exactly is the threshold for "enough" styles? Is there a hard number? All that adding new categories would do is making beers easier to compare. How could anyone complain about that? I think the OP makes a great point that I've been meaning to bring up in a new thread myself (but I won't for the sake of avoiding redundancy). Barrel aged beers should absolutely be their own unique styles, or at least the site can have a special tag for barrel aged beers that allows them to be included or excluded from their base beer styles. If I want to get a ranking of non-BA imperial stouts, I can't do that without spamming the forums.

 

What is a 'traditional' Quad? A 'Quad' is a modern American 'style'.

 

There's plenty of oak aged non-US quads like La Trappe, St Bernardus alongside the aforementioned De Struise.

There's no separate category for barrel-aged or adjunct imperial stouts or barleywines and I'm pretty most of the top examples of those styles are barrel-aged also.

 

Stickee monkee needs to be reclassified. Otherwise I'm good

 

While I'm understanding your point, and sympathetic to the problem you want solved, I'm thinking that adding a new style category or feature marker isn't a workable solution.

Suppose that barrel aging is added, why stop there?

Why not dry hopping? Dry hopping isn't universal to all beers and makes a difference in flavors.

And then why not method of dispense? On tap, in bottle, in can and on cask, all can make a difference.

And then why not whether the brewey used treated vs untreated water? That can make a difference.

And then why not whole cone hops vs hop pellets? That can make a difference.

And then why not single hopped vs multiple hops? That can make a difference.

And then why not consumed fresh at the brewey beer garden vs shipped unrefrigerated by truck over 1000 miles of Interstate? That can make a difference.

And then why not aged for less than 6 months, more than 6 months, more than one year, more than two years, etc.? That can make a difference.

And so on indefinitely. (E.G., where hops are grown, when they are harvested, etc.)

The bottom line is that cobbling in one more feature to create a new style or a new marker to add to styles leads to the need to do it for all styles and for all markers that can or do make a difference. Thereby dramatically increasing the complexity and unworkability of an already flawed taxonomy.

Now throw in the fact that this site relies heavily on consumer, crowd sourced input for getting a beer put into the appropriate style listing in the first place.... There are very good reasons why we are allowed to report to the site operators that a beer has been miscategorized, or has two different listings under two slightly different versions of the same name, or that bartenders one time only mix of two styles of beer from the same brewery is not a new beer from that brewery, etc. If BAs can't get it right now, what happens with increasing complexity? (And I don't think any one is going to pony up the money to hire full time staff to fully fact check every entry in the database. .)

TL;DR. There are reasons for reluctance to add new styles simply based on flavors and/or popular request.