Triple IPAs

Using that logic, double ipa is also a 'bull-shit made up style.'

 

So double ipa is open ended, but ipa is not?

My point is the label 'double' or triple is arbitrary and only leads to blurred lines and confusion. I would prefer just IPA, and if it has a pronounced hop flavor, it's an IPA.

 

Because they are DIPA's.

 

There's a pretty massive difference between a beer with (typically) 50-60'ish IBU's and 6-7% ABV vs. one that is 17% ABV and has more than 100 IBUs and thousands of theoretical ones.
Calling everything hoppy an IPA is poor descriptor. Why not just call it hoppy? American IPA's have already thrown history out of the window (I've always favored "California Pale Ale"), that would just muddle it further.

 

I don't mind the descriptor as long as the category isn't so narrow .

 

Triple IPA is just a marketing concept not a real style. we all know IPA stands for India pale ale and once the abv of and IPA goes over 7 or 8% it becomes an Imperial India pale ale or IIPA which is where double IPA or DIPA comes from it literally means II(2 I)PA. There for a triple IPA would mean there was a third I in the title which there is not making it more of a way to say this beer is extremely hoppy.

 

It was supposed to be 15% but came in at 12.25%. It was like Hoptologist DIPA with sugar added. He'll get it right soon, and I'm sure it will be pretty damn good.

 

I don't think we need to go to 17% ABV and >100 IBUs, but there's definitely a difference between most IPAs and DIPAs. NB Ranger vs Rampant, Lagunitas IPA vs Maximus, etc.

I've heard some brewers use the double (and triple) designation to imply info about the brewing process (hops, malt used), I think PtY is one. I can't provide others off the top of my head.
Edit: Beaten to it.

 

I know some original American Barleywines were given that name simply because other style names didn't exist when they were first brewed.
Larry Avery called Hog Heaven a barleywine because that was what beers of that potency were named in those days. It was too big to simply be an IPA. Now they consider it to be part of their IPA family tree.

 

Lets do. Drink a 120 minute and an Olde Schoool and tell me if they are the same. I'll save you the time. They're not close.

120 is like a ramped up 90 minute to me. Not a Barleywine.

 

I know if I had a "triple IPA" that I thought tasted like a barleywine, I wouldn't think it was a good one, or a fresh one, or both. The good "triple IPAs" I've had didn't draw near that amount of attention to the malt aspect the way most barleywines do...

 

Holy rooster eggs, batman; beer is beer.

As far as I am concerned, the only difference between a double and a triple IPA is the brewers intent and what they choose to call it.

 

Just because someone makes a shitty attempt at making a DIPA, and the final product is more characteristically an American barleywine, doesn't mean the styles are the same, or that the line between the two is so blurry such as to make it hard to distinguish between the two. It means the brewer who made the beer either made a shitty attempt at making a true DIPA, or decided that they'd sell more beer by labeling their hoppy strong ale an IPA (which is probably true).

Nobody in their right mind would call the exemplars of the DIPA style (Heady, Pliny, Hopslam etc.) an American barleywine, and those beers do not have even a passing resemblance to exemplars of the AB style like, say, Flying Mouflan, Bigfoot, Olde School, Third Coast, etc. Sure, beers exist which might occupy more of a middle ground between the two styles, but the standards by which the styles are defined and judged are very much different from one another.

 

LOL... Man I have been through this debate before... From a brewer's perspective... the DIPA is all about hops, single dimension malts (2 row, maybe a bit of caramel malt) and almost always involves a substantial amount of corn sugar to take away from the malt taste/to add alcohol/to let hops shine.. Hops throughout the boil and massive (and I mean massive) amounts of late hop additions for hop flavor, randal for hops is necessary, dry hop, double dry hop, did I mention hops? Think about the Enjoy By beers... I would put those in the Triple IPA category.. I would never consider saying they're anything close to a barleywine.

On the other hand, barleywine needs to have malt complexity. More bittering hops and less flavor and late addition hops (although I love a nice dry hopped barleywine). More specialty malts, a much longer boiling process, and aging is key with a barleywine. A good barleywine will ferment for at least 4-6 months. A DIPA... 2 months max.

Now... all that being said, I have brewed DIPAs and aged them in bottles for several months to a year and they taste similar to a barleywine. I've even won medals with aged DIPAs in a barleywine category. But to me, they aren't even close to being the same. Similar beer in style? I suppose. Similar argument to stout/porter? Sure (Stout and porter are different). I dont know.. I just don't get the Triple IPA=Barleywine debate... Justify in your own words (in beer/brewing terms) why you think these are the same? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

Quadruple IPAs for everyone!

 

For roughly the same reason an Alligator is not a Chicken. The tendency to say something is a Barleywine because it may taste and look to you like a Barleywine, is a lot like saying a rattlesnake or an alligator are a chicken because they all taste and look alike when stewed and tender.

Regardless of what BA says the recipes are different.

 

So a chicken and an alligator are the same because when stewed properly they taste alike? The recipes are different. Same holds for IIPA and Barleywines.

Because they taste alike and look alike when stewed/brewed doesn't make them the same style beer.