Style-categorization in non-traditional beers a turn off?

If Longhammer IPA was listed as Longhammer Pale Ale its rating would jump 10+ points.
It's a really nice beer in it's own right, but just not hoppy enough to compete with many IPA's of today, and that's what people put it up against.

If I want a 12 pack of pale ale I often make a decision between SNPA and Longhammer.

 

It's been said in these forums before that styles can be misleading and sometimes a brewery will muddle the waters on purpose. Take Perpetual for example. On the Troegs website, it's described as an Imperial Pale Ale but it tastes and smells like an India Pale Ale and is listed on the BA site as an India Pale Ale. There are hopped up ambers and barleywines that also blur the line with IPAs and DIPAs. If you like a beer but it doesn't correspond with the style you were expecting, what's the problem? You like the beer. On the other hand if you don't like a beer but it conforms to the style you like, will you keep drinking it? Hopefully not.

 

I think styles may alter the beer's rating on sites like this, only because many reviewers tend to rate a beer basic on its proclaimed style, as well as how it stacks up again other beers of that style.

On a personal level, it may provide me with an unexpected first sip, but after that I tend to remember the beer for what it was, and it's doesn't really change whether or not I think it tastes good.

 

That's why I usually have a few of any new beer- the first couple to see where the brewer is going with it, and the next to decide if I think they were successful.

Rigid style guidelines are for judging competitions only (a necessary evil), and even at that they are far from perfect. Don't let them restrict your enjoyment of many of the great beers out there.

 

I balked at buying a Green Flash Double Stout because it said "black ale" on the bottle. Of course once I read reviews I figured out that I made a mistake. And I think I hesitated to buy FW DDBA because the bottle said "Imperial Special Bitter". Although I think after re-reading the OP's post I am backwards in what he was getting at.

 

The more I think and read about styles the less time I have for them.The world of beer functioned perfectly well before the 80s without the notion.
Two things to consider-styles are and always have been dynamic.We often talk about "traditional" beers but these in fact bear little relation to those of the same name a generation or two ago and even less if we look further back.Mild and IPA are two obvious examples.Also most present day "styles" existed in the past even though their names are new.Much beer was massively hopped and much was barrel aged as matters of routine.DIPA and Black IPA existed in fact a long time ago though again they wouldn't taste much like the present day ones.

 

So, let’s consider the four beers that the OP mentioned. I have drunk two of them and the other two I only know from BA thread discussions.

Daisy Cutter is listed as an American Pale Ale on BA and Half Acre lists it as a Pale Ale as well. This beer sure tastes like an American Pale Ale to me and I enjoyed drinking this beer. I am not sure what the ‘confusion’ is here for this beer relative to beer style.

Victory Storm King is one of my favorite Russian Imperial Stouts. I particularly enjoy drinking this beer in the colder times of the year. I have a partial six-pack in my basement right now. Storm King very much tastes like an American version of a Russian Imperial Stout due to it high hopping levels. From the Comments section of the BJCP style guidelines: “Variations exist, with English and American interpretations (predictably, the American versions have more bitterness, roasted character, and finishing hops, while the English varieties reflect a more complex specialty malt character and a more forward ester profile). The wide range of allowable characteristics allow for maximum brewer creativity.” Yup, to me Storm King is a very tasty Russian Imperial Stout (American ‘version’).

Zombie Dust gets a lot of praise on BA threads. I hope to have it someday since I am a fan of Citra hops (I homebrew with Citra a lot). Zombie Dust is listed as an American Pale Ale on BA. With an alcohol level of 6.4% it is just above the maximum level detailed in the BJCP style guidelines for an American Pale Ale: 6.2%. At a hopping level of 60 IBUs this is higher than is listed for American Pale Ales. I personally wouldn't have any issues enjoying this beer with the higher IBUs and alcohol since I really like Amerian style IPAs; this beer gets great scores by BA reviewers.

Alpha Klaus is detailed as a 6% 38 IBU American Christmas Porter on the Three Floyds website. Based upon the additional details of: “brewed with English chocolate malt, Mexican sugar and of course, tons of strange American hops.” I am assuming that the verbiage of “Christmas” solely relates to the release date of November for this seasonal beer. I haven’t had the opportunity to taste this beer but I really like Founders Porter, Deschutes Black Butte Porter and Great Lakes Edmund Fitzgerald Porter (all three of these are American Porters) so I suspect that I would love Alpha Klaus which very much reads like an American Porter to me.

So, in summary with the exception of Zombie Dust (higher IBUs and alcohol) all of the beers are within style to me.

I know there are BAs who are not fans of beer styles. Beyond the aspect of using beer styles for beer competitions I think they have other uses. I like knowing what style a beer is when I try it for the first time to set my expectations. In another thread GregoryVII made some other excellent points for the usefulness of beer styles: “The reason styles exist at all is as a reference point for ordering, conversation, writing, brewing and yes even judging. Otherwise, let's just call everything beer.”

Cheers!

 

I could care less what style it is supposed to be. I care more about how it tastes as beer.

 

This. This is especially helpful when you have no idea what the style is supposed to be, like when I drank DFH Ta Henket earlier tonight. The first sip threw me, but after a few more I began to appreciate it for what it was and not try to judge it against anything else, even the other Ancient Ales. It was just so different, and it has to be judged on a completely different scale.

 

Just take the beers for what they are. After all, thats all you can really do. Beers are good.

 

The classic styles are the benchmark but what I love and so much enjoy about the craft brewers is the ability to creatively push styles to another dimension. I guess I'm just the opposite (and it's all good), but if something is brewed to style, I might just pass it over which isn't always good because there's alot of brewers out there who really hit home runs within the guidelines.

 

I personally consider Zombie Dust to be an IPA, which in all reality is a hopped up higher abv pale ale, so being slightly out of style parameters in this case doesn't bother me much. I love Zombie Dust, but I do not think it should be allowed to compete as a Pale Ale at GABF or if it does, it should be penalized. I find Daisy Cutter to be a perfect example of what I want out of a pale ale. I haven't had Alpha Klaus, so I can't comment on that. Storm King, while not a favorite, might be better classified as an American Double Stout, which can be fairly hoppy.

When rating beers, I do rate to style. I fault beers, if they are classified by the brewer as a particular style, for not fitting the style. If the brewer is going for a particular style and misses, they should be faulted. If they are trying to create something different they should call it something more generalized like strong ale, so that it doesn't create expectations that it will not meet. Often times, how they are classified on this site is related to what it was called by whoever added. I only fault a beer for not fitting style when the brewer classifies it in that style.