The contested definition of "IPA"
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 89,068
    GET OUT OF MY THREAD!

    But surriously this needed to go somewhere else because this debate will rage on.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 122,708
    Hops
    Use Time OZ Hop Variety AA » IBU
    FWH 20 min 1 Centennial ~ leaf 11.5 » 13.3
    boil 20 min 1.75 Centennial ~ leaf 11.5 » 23.3
    boil 15 min 1 Centennial ~ leaf 11.5 » 10.9
    boil 5 min 2 Centennial ~ leaf 11.5 » 8.8
    boil 1 min 3 Centennial ~ leaf 11.5 » 2.8

    59.1 IBU

    no comprende
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 89,068
    Lakewood said:

    Hops
    Use Time OZ Hop Variety AA » IBU
    FWH 20 min 1 Centennial ~ leaf 11.5 » 13.3
    boil 20 min 1.75 Centennial ~ leaf 11.5 » 23.3
    boil 15 min 1 Centennial ~ leaf 11.5 » 10.9
    boil 5 min 2 Centennial ~ leaf 11.5 » 8.8
    boil 1 min 3 Centennial ~ leaf 11.5 » 2.8

    59.1 IBU

    no comprende


    What? The 11.5 is the AA of the hops and the last number is the IBUs from that addition.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 122,708
    C_dubbs said:

    Lakewood said:

    Hops
    Use Time OZ Hop Variety AA » IBU
    FWH 20 min 1 Centennial ~ leaf 11.5 » 13.3
    boil 20 min 1.75 Centennial ~ leaf 11.5 » 23.3
    boil 15 min 1 Centennial ~ leaf 11.5 » 10.9
    boil 5 min 2 Centennial ~ leaf 11.5 » 8.8
    boil 1 min 3 Centennial ~ leaf 11.5 » 2.8

    59.1 IBU

    no comprende


    What? The 11.5 is the AA of the hops and the last number is the IBUs from that addition.


    59.1 IBU IPA... it's like a 13 SRM porter..
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 89,068
    Lakewood said:

    C_dubbs said:

    Lakewood said:

    Hops
    Use Time OZ Hop Variety AA » IBU
    FWH 20 min 1 Centennial ~ leaf 11.5 » 13.3
    boil 20 min 1.75 Centennial ~ leaf 11.5 » 23.3
    boil 15 min 1 Centennial ~ leaf 11.5 » 10.9
    boil 5 min 2 Centennial ~ leaf 11.5 » 8.8
    boil 1 min 3 Centennial ~ leaf 11.5 » 2.8

    59.1 IBU

    no comprende


    What? The 11.5 is the AA of the hops and the last number is the IBUs from that addition.
    59.1 IBU IPA... it's like a 13 SRM porter..

    . It's actually about 70+ IBUs. The first wort hop is calculated at 20 minutes so the calculation is skewed.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 122,708
    Why is the FWH calcuated at 20min?
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • FuzzyFuzzy
    Posts: 49,786
    Lakewood said:

    Why is the FWH calcuated at 20min?



    because the actual 'measured' ibu value is much higher than the perceived bitterness.
    The pinnacle of lame and awesome in one singular moment. -Lake
  • FuzzyFuzzy
    Posts: 49,786
    Lakewood said:


    59.1 IBU IPA... it's like a 13 SRM porter..



    quiet you.
    The pinnacle of lame and awesome in one singular moment. -Lake
  • FuzzyFuzzy
    Posts: 49,786
    malt is king!
    The pinnacle of lame and awesome in one singular moment. -Lake
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 89,068
    FromZwolle said:

    Lakewood said:

    Why is the FWH calcuated at 20min?



    because the actual 'measured' ibu value is much higher than the perceived bitterness.

    This seems to be the 'consensus' among people who know more than I do.

    I think we have a thread on it...
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 89,068
    FromZwolle said:

    Lakewood said:


    59.1 IBU IPA... it's like a 13 SRM porter..



    quiet you.

    Ha!
    FromZwolle said:

    malt is king!


    yes.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 89,068
    Right, Here it is

    http://www.homebrewforums.net/discussion/412#Item_10
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 122,708
    C_dubbs said:

    FromZwolle said:

    Lakewood said:

    Why is the FWH calcuated at 20min?



    because the actual 'measured' ibu value is much higher than the perceived bitterness.

    This seems to be the 'consensus' among people who know more than I do.

    I think we have a thread on it...


    Exactly, so don't claim 70 ibu when it is 59.
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 89,068
    Lakewood said:

    C_dubbs said:

    FromZwolle said:

    Lakewood said:

    Why is the FWH calcuated at 20min?



    because the actual 'measured' ibu value is much higher than the perceived bitterness.

    This seems to be the 'consensus' among people who know more than I do.

    I think we have a thread on it...


    Exactly, so don't claim 70 ibu when it is 59.


    That's your problem? You hop head wackos are all, well, wackos. Any minute now Fry should pop in and tell me that no way does 59 IBUs constitute an IPA.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • FuzzyFuzzy
    Posts: 49,786
    C_dubbs said:

    Lakewood said:

    C_dubbs said:

    FromZwolle said:

    Lakewood said:

    Why is the FWH calcuated at 20min?



    because the actual 'measured' ibu value is much higher than the perceived bitterness.

    This seems to be the 'consensus' among people who know more than I do.

    I think we have a thread on it...


    Exactly, so don't claim 70 ibu when it is 59.


    That's your problem? You hop head wackos are all, well, wackos.


    correct.
    The pinnacle of lame and awesome in one singular moment. -Lake
  • frydogbrewsfrydogbrews
    Posts: 44,679
    Lakewood said:

    C_dubbs said:

    FromZwolle said:

    Lakewood said:

    Why is the FWH calcuated at 20min?



    because the actual 'measured' ibu value is much higher than the perceived bitterness.

    This seems to be the 'consensus' among people who know more than I do.

    I think we have a thread on it...


    Exactly, so don't claim 70 ibu when it is 59.


    yup
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 122,708
    C_dubbs said:

    Lakewood said:

    C_dubbs said:

    FromZwolle said:

    Lakewood said:

    Why is the FWH calcuated at 20min?



    because the actual 'measured' ibu value is much higher than the perceived bitterness.

    This seems to be the 'consensus' among people who know more than I do.

    I think we have a thread on it...


    Exactly, so don't claim 70 ibu when it is 59.


    That's your problem? You hop head wackos are all, well, wackos. Any minute now Fry should pop in and tell me that no way does 59 IBUs constitute an IPA.


    It's just a pale ale. But that's ok, you're new here.
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • frydogbrewsfrydogbrews
    Posts: 44,679
    59 doesn't constitute an IPA though.

    next week i am going to make an english bitter, it's gonna be 8% abv, lots of black patent malt and have 98 ibu's.....that make sense to everybody.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    frydogbrews said:

    59 doesn't constitute an IPA though.

    next week i am going to make an english bitter, it's gonna be 8% abv, lots of black patent malt and have 98 ibu's.....that make sense to everybody.



    no
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • BenSBenS
    Posts: 6,248
    Lakewood said:

    C_dubbs said:

    Lakewood said:

    C_dubbs said:

    FromZwolle said:

    Lakewood said:

    Why is the FWH calcuated at 20min?



    because the actual 'measured' ibu value is much higher than the perceived bitterness.

    This seems to be the 'consensus' among people who know more than I do.

    I think we have a thread on it...


    Exactly, so don't claim 70 ibu when it is 59.


    That's your problem? You hop head wackos are all, well, wackos. Any minute now Fry should pop in and tell me that no way does 59 IBUs constitute an IPA.


    It's just a pale ale. But that's ok, you're new here.


    59 IBUs is most definately an IPA. Just because hop heads have destroyed their palate over the years, doesn't mean they are correct. Hop addiction seems to be the worse addiction.
    There's no starting point. It's just a massive sea of shit to wade through until you find the occasional corn kernel. -DrCurly
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 89,068
    BenS said:

    Lakewood said:

    C_dubbs said:

    Lakewood said:

    C_dubbs said:

    FromZwolle said:

    Lakewood said:

    Why is the FWH calcuated at 20min?



    because the actual 'measured' ibu value is much higher than the perceived bitterness.

    This seems to be the 'consensus' among people who know more than I do.

    I think we have a thread on it...


    Exactly, so don't claim 70 ibu when it is 59.


    That's your problem? You hop head wackos are all, well, wackos. Any minute now Fry should pop in and tell me that no way does 59 IBUs constitute an IPA.


    It's just a pale ale. But that's ok, you're new here.


    59 IBUs is most definately an IPA. Just because hop heads have destroyed their palate over the years, doesn't mean they are correct. Hop addiction seems to be the worse addiction.


    Finally someone with some sense.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 122,708
    BenS said:

    Lakewood said:

    C_dubbs said:

    Lakewood said:

    C_dubbs said:

    FromZwolle said:

    Lakewood said:

    Why is the FWH calcuated at 20min?



    because the actual 'measured' ibu value is much higher than the perceived bitterness.

    This seems to be the 'consensus' among people who know more than I do.

    I think we have a thread on it...


    Exactly, so don't claim 70 ibu when it is 59.


    That's your problem? You hop head wackos are all, well, wackos. Any minute now Fry should pop in and tell me that no way does 59 IBUs constitute an IPA.


    It's just a pale ale. But that's ok, you're new here.


    59 IBUs is most definately an IPA. Just because hop heads have destroyed their palate over the years, doesn't mean they are correct. Hop addiction seems to be the worse addiction.


    The bud light of ipas ;)
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    Funny thing is ..... what we call an IPA ....
    Is like calling the HP copier a xerox machine ... or calling the giant brand tissues Kleenex .....
    The only beers still made today that can legitimately be called an India Pale Ale are both less than 60 IBU ..... one of em is more like 45
    The IPA is less a style ... and more a function of who it was made for and where it was shipped .... and unless it was made for brit soldiers and sent by sail to India ... it ain't an IPA
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    I have long thought that EPA (extreme pale ale) would be a more fitting name ... but somebody already used the letters ....
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • FuzzyFuzzy
    Posts: 49,786
    ceannt said:

    I have long thought that EPA (extreme pale ale) would be a more fitting name ... but somebody already used the letters ....



    double pale ale.
    The pinnacle of lame and awesome in one singular moment. -Lake
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 122,708
    ceannt said:

    Funny thing is ..... what we call an IPA ....
    Is like calling the HP copier a xerox machine ... or calling the giant brand tissues Kleenex .....
    The only beers still made today that can legitimately be called an India Pale Ale are both less than 60 IBU ..... one of em is more like 45
    The IPA is less a style ... and more a function of who it was made for and where it was shipped .... and unless it was made for brit soldiers and sent by sail to India ... it ain't an IPA



    All true. But irrelevant. If it doesn't make your tongue shrivel up and die its not an ipa. Love live the hops!
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • BenSBenS
    Posts: 6,248
    Lakewood said:

    ceannt said:

    Funny thing is ..... what we call an IPA ....
    Is like calling the HP copier a xerox machine ... or calling the giant brand tissues Kleenex .....
    The only beers still made today that can legitimately be called an India Pale Ale are both less than 60 IBU ..... one of em is more like 45
    The IPA is less a style ... and more a function of who it was made for and where it was shipped .... and unless it was made for brit soldiers and sent by sail to India ... it ain't an IPA



    All true. But irrelevant. If it doesn't make your tongue shrivel up and die its not an ipa. Love live the hops!


    Ha! Good quote.

    ceannt
    There's no starting point. It's just a massive sea of shit to wade through until you find the occasional corn kernel. -DrCurly
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    The whole concept of an IPA is to end up with a perfectly balanced drinkable beer after extended aging at often high temperatures and near constant motion
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    Age is the keyword ......

    For a brewer to say "drink it young" is the exact opposite of the style ..
    Kinda like saying the same thing about an Old Ale
    And indeed... most American IPAs are undrinkable under those conditions
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    I like a good hoppy beer too .... but most American commercial brewers have no understanding or respect for the amount of skill it takes to make a REAL IPA
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 122,708
    ceannt said:

    I like a good hoppy beer too ..... but all I'm saying is don't say something isn't an IPA .. when what you are comparing it to is 180 degrees off the mark



    The definition has changed over the last century. What is is not what was and what was no longer is.
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    More like the last 20 years ..... and inappropriately
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    The use of the word "imperial" drives me nuts too ..... the Czars ain't around any more to brew for ....
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 122,708
    ceannt said:

    More like the last 20 years ..... and inappropriately



    I don't make the rules. I just enjoy this one.
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • frydogbrewsfrydogbrews
    Posts: 44,679
    ceannt said:

    The whole concept of an IPA is to end up with a perfectly balanced drinkable beer after extended aging at often high temperatures and near constant motion


    do't forget to cut it with water too, unless you're royalty of course.

    that was part of the style.
  • BenSBenS
    Posts: 6,248
    ceannt said:

    The use of the word "imperial" drives me nuts too ..... the Czars ain't around any more to brew for ....



    Huh? Imperial implies alcohol content/original gravity compared to the 'original' version of the beer, not who it was brewed for.
    There's no starting point. It's just a massive sea of shit to wade through until you find the occasional corn kernel. -DrCurly
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    BenS said:

    ceannt said:

    The use of the word "imperial" drives me nuts too ..... the Czars ain't around any more to brew for ....



    Huh? Imperial implies alcohol content/original gravity compared to the 'original' version of the beer, not who it was brewed for.


    According to unimaginative commercial brewers yes .... and only very recently.
    Technically only appropriate for a RIS
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    frydogbrews said:

    ceannt said:

    The whole concept of an IPA is to end up with a perfectly balanced drinkable beer after extended aging at often high temperatures and near constant motion


    do't forget to cut it with water too, unless you're royalty of course.

    that was part of the style.

    Or lemon juice :)
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 122,708
    BenS said:

    ceannt said:

    The use of the word "imperial" drives me nuts too ..... the Czars ain't around any more to brew for ....



    Huh? Imperial implies alcohol content/original gravity compared to the 'original' version of the beer, not who it was brewed for.


    Ceannt is recalling the definition from his childhood, when a RIS could only be brewed for a Russian Czar.
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 122,708
    ceannt said:

    frydogbrews said:

    ceannt said:

    The whole concept of an IPA is to end up with a perfectly balanced drinkable beer after extended aging at often high temperatures and near constant motion


    do't forget to cut it with water too, unless you're royalty of course.

    that was part of the style.

    Or lemon juice :)

    Tis needed to ward off scurvy
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • BenSBenS
    Posts: 6,248
    ceannt said:

    BenS said:

    ceannt said:

    The use of the word "imperial" drives me nuts too ..... the Czars ain't around any more to brew for ....



    Huh? Imperial implies alcohol content/original gravity compared to the 'original' version of the beer, not who it was brewed for.


    According to unimaginative commercial brewers yes .... and only very recently.
    Technically only appropriate for a RIS


    Yea, but it was still because of strength.
    There's no starting point. It's just a massive sea of shit to wade through until you find the occasional corn kernel. -DrCurly
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 122,708
    BenS said:

    ceannt said:

    BenS said:

    ceannt said:

    The use of the word "imperial" drives me nuts too ..... the Czars ain't around any more to brew for ....



    Huh? Imperial implies alcohol content/original gravity compared to the 'original' version of the beer, not who it was brewed for.


    According to unimaginative commercial brewers yes .... and only very recently.
    Technically only appropriate for a RIS


    Yea, but it was still because of strength.


    And its damn goodness
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • FuzzyFuzzy
    Posts: 49,786
    ceannt said:

    The use of the word "imperial" drives me nuts too ..... the Czars ain't around any more to brew for ....



    export. even though it won't be.
    The pinnacle of lame and awesome in one singular moment. -Lake
  • FuzzyFuzzy
    Posts: 49,786
    and on the cranky old man tangent, i hate the term 'double' ipa, pale, etc.

    nothing is doubled!!
    The pinnacle of lame and awesome in one singular moment. -Lake
  • frydogbrewsfrydogbrews
    Posts: 44,679
    FromZwolle said:

    and on the cranky old man tangent, i hate the term 'double' ipa, pale, etc.

    nothing is doubled!!


    actually, compared to c-doobies IPA's, i make several that are double that.
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 122,708
    @C_dubbs Haha, I was going to split this tonight. But it looks like you beat me to it.
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 89,068
    Once again I have created a beer that I've labeled an IPA incorrectly. Not because you hop/crack heads think you are so relevant to the beer industry that you've actually changed the definition of IPA, but because I am using American ingredients and it more closely matches an APA.
    Oh, and I'm adopting Kenny as my dad.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 89,068
    Lakewood said:

    @C_dubbs Haha, I was going to split this tonight. But it looks like you beat me to it.


    I almost did that on my phone earlier, as annoying as that would have been....
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 122,708
    C_dubbs said:

    Once again I have created a beer that I've labeled an IPA incorrectly. Not because you hop/crack heads think you are so relevant to the beer industry that you've actually changed the definition of IPA, but because I am using American ingredients and it more closely matches an APA.
    Oh, and I'm adopting Kenny as my dad.



    I assume he has so many kids that he won't notice one more.
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    C_B said:

    Once again I have created a beer that I've labeled an IPA incorrectly. Not because you hop/crack heads think you are so relevant to the beer industry that you've actually changed the definition of IPA, but because I am using American ingredients and it more closely matches an APA.
    Oh, and I'm adopting Kenny as my dad.



    Too late ... I have already adopted all you guys .. (good chance some of you may even be biological)
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    Interesting note .....
    The first American IPA ... the one that opened the door ... the first hop bomb made with the first of the new varieties of north American hops (ok it's tame by today's standards) did not market it as an IPA ... and doesn't have those letters on the label .... they simply called it Liberty Ale
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    Without the success that Anchor had with it ..... I seriously doubt that any of the modern IPAs would exist today ... well ... the whole craft beer industry would not exist .....
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    Without Anchor's model .... Sierra Nevada would not have opened in 1980.... and the flood that followed .......
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • frydogbrewsfrydogbrews
    Posts: 44,679
    AIPA FTW!!!
  • FuzzyFuzzy
    Posts: 49,786
    ceannt said:

    C_B said:

    Once again I have created a beer that I've labeled an IPA incorrectly. Not because you hop/crack heads think you are so relevant to the beer industry that you've actually changed the definition of IPA, but because I am using American ingredients and it more closely matches an APA.
    Oh, and I'm adopting Kenny as my dad.



    Too late ... I have already adopted all you guys .. (good chance some of you may even be biological)


    i'll stick with uncle kenny. to avoid the fist fight at the fam reunion.
    The pinnacle of lame and awesome in one singular moment. -Lake
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    FromZwolle said:

    ceannt said:

    C_B said:

    Once again I have created a beer that I've labeled an IPA incorrectly. Not because you hop/crack heads think you are so relevant to the beer industry that you've actually changed the definition of IPA, but because I am using American ingredients and it more closely matches an APA.
    Oh, and I'm adopting Kenny as my dad.



    Too late ... I have already adopted all you guys .. (good chance some of you may even be biological)


    i'll stick with uncle kenny. to avoid the fist fight at the fam reunion.


    Ha!
    that'll work
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • jlwjlw
    Posts: 16,454
    Did someone mention an IPA should wreck your pallet?
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 89,068
    jlw said:

    Did someone mention an IPA should wreck your pallet?


    No. A normal IPA should just be stronger than a pale ale. This palate wrecking crap is where all this started from. Just because some of you think an IPA should start around 100 IBUs and have zero malt doesn't make it so. The rest of us will live in reality.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • jlwjlw
    Posts: 16,454
    C_B said:

    jlw said:

    Did someone mention an IPA should wreck your pallet?


    No. A normal IPA should just be stronger than a pale ale. This palate wrecking crap is where all this started from. Just because some of you think an IPA should start around 100 IBUs and have zero malt doesn't make it so. The rest of us will live in reality.


    :))
  • frydogbrewsfrydogbrews
    Posts: 44,679
    jlw said:

    C_B said:

    jlw said:

    Did someone mention an IPA should wreck your pallet?


    No. A normal IPA should just be stronger than a pale ale. This palate wrecking crap is where all this started from. Just because some of you think an IPA should start around 100 IBUs and have zero malt doesn't make it so. The rest of us will live in reality.


    :))


    yeah, this.

    CB's just a crotchety old man complaining about change.
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 89,068
    frydogbrews said:

    jlw said:

    C_B said:

    jlw said:

    Did someone mention an IPA should wreck your pallet?


    No. A normal IPA should just be stronger than a pale ale. This palate wrecking crap is where all this started from. Just because some of you think an IPA should start around 100 IBUs and have zero malt doesn't make it so. The rest of us will live in reality.


    :))


    yeah, this.

    CB's just a crotchety old man complaining about change.


    ONLY THE CHANGE I DON'T LIKE!
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • Evan_BEvan_B
    Posts: 312
    C_B said:

    jlw said:

    Did someone mention an IPA should wreck your pallet?


    No. A normal IPA should just be stronger than a pale ale. This palate wrecking crap is where all this started from. Just because some of you think an IPA should start around 100 IBUs and have zero malt doesn't make it so. The rest of us will live in reality.


    Pretty sure I moved out of reality a while back, However, I do agree with this. It's like an arms race, but with hops.
    Amigo, lay them raises down.
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 122,708
    Evan_B said:

    C_B said:

    jlw said:

    Did someone mention an IPA should wreck your pallet?


    No. A normal IPA should just be stronger than a pale ale. This palate wrecking crap is where all this started from. Just because some of you think an IPA should start around 100 IBUs and have zero malt doesn't make it so. The rest of us will live in reality.


    Pretty sure I moved out of reality a while back, However, I do agree with this. It's like an arms race, but with hops.


    winning.
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    Ok… Ima get this off my chest and shut up……
    I’m not upset due to change…. I’m upset because of misleading, false, erroneous marketing.
    The IPA is a somewhat obscure, highly specialized, distinct style of beer in the family of Pale Ales. (NOTE: until 1980 Pale Ale was NOT a separate style, it was a family of styles that the malt profile was primarily dominated by the characteristics of Pale Malt…. As opposed to Amber Malt, Brown Malt, or dominated by Roasted Malts)

    The IPA is a Pale Ale intended to be aged for an extended period of time under harsh conditions. Period. The level of hops is NOT what made it distinct enough to warrant it becoming a new style… the hop levels are simply a result of the processes (note the plural) that are necessary to achieve the goal of AGE.

    What is now known as the American IPA…. Is a beer in the family of Pale Ales intended to be consumed young, at the peak of hop freshness, and aggressively hopped with the new varieties of genetically engineered hops developed in the Pacific Northwest of North America…….
    Should not this new bright style, so different than anything that came before, be deserving of ITS OWN NAME???????
    It is not an “Americanized” version of an IPA…. It is as close to being the polar opposite of an IPA as you can get, and still be in the family of Pale Ales….. Like calling Bud Light a Dopplebock (they are both Lagers right? What’s the difference?”


    IF, due to lack of imagination, this wonderful new style had to be called an “American” version of anything…. There is another style (or group of styles) in the Pale Ale family that fits far better…
    A beer intended to be consumed young, at the peak of hop freshness, and aggressively hoped!!! (sound familiar) At one time this beer style was actually hopped to the point of stupidity….. starting around 1850 and up to around 1890… the tax on hops was lifted, hop farms sprang up all over the southeast of England, and hops were cheap, abundant… and brewers took advantage of it. I’m talking, do the math, spend half a day converting units, and you get like 280 IBUs….
    This style is the Bitter.

    “American Bitter” would have been a far more appropriate name for the new style.
    But, some pimply faced, pencil necked geek with a degree in marketing said “You can’t use BITTER in a name! it will never sell!!!” Looking down the list of Pale Ales, the wimbly nerf-ball saw the words “India Pale Ale”… and said, “now that sounds exotic, that will sell!”
    So this is just another sad, pathetic example of the stupid, ignorant masses allowing corporate America to define their vocabulary.

    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • frydogbrewsfrydogbrews
    Posts: 44,679
    but pale ale wasn't a style because it was (and still is) a very generic "catch all" style. if we are going to apply such rigorous structure to one style, then why not all of them.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    frydogbrews said:

    but pale ale wasn't a style because it was (and still is) a very generic "catch all" style. if we are going to apply such rigorous structure to one style, then why not all of them.



    I used pale ale in reference to the "family" of styles .... I didn't use it to reference what has become the "entry level" beer that it has become .... there are many Pale Ales ... all are different enough to warrant distinct styles classification .... if the malt profile is dominated by the characteristics of Pale Malt ... it be a Pale Ale.
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • BenSBenS
    Posts: 6,248
    I like it. The next American IPA I make (the only IPA worth making), I'm going to name it American Extra Bitter.

    (NOTE: until 1980 Pale Ale was NOT a separate style, it was a family of styles that the malt profile was primarily dominated by the characteristics of Pale Malt…. As opposed to Amber Malt, Brown Malt, or dominated by Roasted Malts)


    I always kinda thought everyone was joking about how old you were, but if you remember 1980 like it was yesterday I have a few questions about your service during the Korean War.
    There's no starting point. It's just a massive sea of shit to wade through until you find the occasional corn kernel. -DrCurly
  • BenSBenS
    Posts: 6,248
    Or better yet, Extra Bitter American, in honor of you ceannt.

    Thym
    There's no starting point. It's just a massive sea of shit to wade through until you find the occasional corn kernel. -DrCurly
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    BenS said:

    I like it. The next American IPA I make (the only IPA worth making), I'm going to name it American Extra Bitter.

    (NOTE: until 1980 Pale Ale was NOT a separate style, it was a family of styles that the malt profile was primarily dominated by the characteristics of Pale Malt…. As opposed to Amber Malt, Brown Malt, or dominated by Roasted Malts)


    I always kinda thought everyone was joking about how old you were, but if you remember 1980 like it was yesterday I have a few questions about your service during the Korean War.


    Hahahaha ....... I was old enough to legally drink in 1980
    It was my daddy that served during the Korean conflict though
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 89,068
    BenS said:

    Or better yet, Extra Bitter American, in honor of you ceannt.



    =))
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 89,068
    ceannt said:

    Ok… Ima get this off my chest and shut up……
    I’m not upset due to change…. I’m upset because of misleading, false, erroneous marketing.
    The IPA is a somewhat obscure, highly specialized, distinct style of beer in the family of Pale Ales. (NOTE: until 1980 Pale Ale was NOT a separate style, it was a family of styles that the malt profile was primarily dominated by the characteristics of Pale Malt…. As opposed to Amber Malt, Brown Malt, or dominated by Roasted Malts)

    The IPA is a Pale Ale intended to be aged for an extended period of time under harsh conditions. Period. The level of hops is NOT what made it distinct enough to warrant it becoming a new style… the hop levels are simply a result of the processes (note the plural) that are necessary to achieve the goal of AGE.

    What is now known as the American IPA…. Is a beer in the family of Pale Ales intended to be consumed young, at the peak of hop freshness, and aggressively hopped with the new varieties of genetically engineered hops developed in the Pacific Northwest of North America…….
    Should not this new bright style, so different than anything that came before, be deserving of ITS OWN NAME???????
    It is not an “Americanized” version of an IPA…. It is as close to being the polar opposite of an IPA as you can get, and still be in the family of Pale Ales….. Like calling Bud Light a Dopplebock (they are both Lagers right? What’s the difference?”


    IF, due to lack of imagination, this wonderful new style had to be called an “American” version of anything…. There is another style (or group of styles) in the Pale Ale family that fits far better…
    A beer intended to be consumed young, at the peak of hop freshness, and aggressively hoped!!! (sound familiar) At one time this beer style was actually hopped to the point of stupidity….. starting around 1850 and up to around 1890… the tax on hops was lifted, hop farms sprang up all over the southeast of England, and hops were cheap, abundant… and brewers took advantage of it. I’m talking, do the math, spend half a day converting units, and you get like 280 IBUs….
    This style is the Bitter.

    “American Bitter” would have been a far more appropriate name for the new style.
    But, some pimply faced, pencil necked geek with a degree in marketing said “You can’t use BITTER in a name! it will never sell!!!” Looking down the list of Pale Ales, the wimbly nerf-ball saw the words “India Pale Ale”… and said, “now that sounds exotic, that will sell!”
    So this is just another sad, pathetic example of the stupid, ignorant masses allowing corporate America to define their vocabulary.


    Well said. Here Here!
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 122,708
    C_B said:

    ceannt said:

    Ok… Ima get this off my chest and shut up……
    I’m not upset due to change…. I’m upset because of misleading, false, erroneous marketing.
    The IPA is a somewhat obscure, highly specialized, distinct style of beer in the family of Pale Ales. (NOTE: until 1980 Pale Ale was NOT a separate style, it was a family of styles that the malt profile was primarily dominated by the characteristics of Pale Malt…. As opposed to Amber Malt, Brown Malt, or dominated by Roasted Malts)

    The IPA is a Pale Ale intended to be aged for an extended period of time under harsh conditions. Period. The level of hops is NOT what made it distinct enough to warrant it becoming a new style… the hop levels are simply a result of the processes (note the plural) that are necessary to achieve the goal of AGE.

    What is now known as the American IPA…. Is a beer in the family of Pale Ales intended to be consumed young, at the peak of hop freshness, and aggressively hopped with the new varieties of genetically engineered hops developed in the Pacific Northwest of North America…….
    Should not this new bright style, so different than anything that came before, be deserving of ITS OWN NAME???????
    It is not an “Americanized” version of an IPA…. It is as close to being the polar opposite of an IPA as you can get, and still be in the family of Pale Ales….. Like calling Bud Light a Dopplebock (they are both Lagers right? What’s the difference?”


    IF, due to lack of imagination, this wonderful new style had to be called an “American” version of anything…. There is another style (or group of styles) in the Pale Ale family that fits far better…
    A beer intended to be consumed young, at the peak of hop freshness, and aggressively hoped!!! (sound familiar) At one time this beer style was actually hopped to the point of stupidity….. starting around 1850 and up to around 1890… the tax on hops was lifted, hop farms sprang up all over the southeast of England, and hops were cheap, abundant… and brewers took advantage of it. I’m talking, do the math, spend half a day converting units, and you get like 280 IBUs….
    This style is the Bitter.

    “American Bitter” would have been a far more appropriate name for the new style.
    But, some pimply faced, pencil necked geek with a degree in marketing said “You can’t use BITTER in a name! it will never sell!!!” Looking down the list of Pale Ales, the wimbly nerf-ball saw the words “India Pale Ale”… and said, “now that sounds exotic, that will sell!”
    So this is just another sad, pathetic example of the stupid, ignorant masses allowing corporate America to define their vocabulary.


    Well said. Here Here!


    meh.

    The american IPA "branding" is more about the "dry hop" usage and than anything else. But in the end it's just a name some folks associated with a "new" style of beer.

    And yes, I know post fermentation hop additions were done to cask served beers of all types and styles...

    But the IPA was the one were they really loaded it such that it could keep through the months of storage in adverse conditions.

    And as far as bitters go there is a big difference between the hop and malt profile of a bitter, esb or whatever and an American IPA. You could call the American or West Coast IPA something else, but don't call it a bitter. There are lots of examples of Bitters out there, and they are nothing like the IPAs, and personally I don't care for them. They are pure IBU, no flavor, no aroma and usually malty as hell.

    The "traditional" English IPA is all but extinct. If you want to resurrect the style have at it, but in reality, the old definition of the style is dead. RIP
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    In part I agree .... Bitters too have changed a lot ... and not for the better. Since WWI the emphasis has gone more towards IBU .. and the heavy handed FWH and late additions have been left behind. It didn't help when most breweries were bought out by a huge corporation either .... A good example of this is Bodingtons... just 15 or 20 years ago it was an entirely different beer .... its crap today
    I also agree that the IPA is a pretty much extinct style. I just find it sad that instead of the name being revered as a monument to the exceptional mastery and skill of the art of brewing .... it has been completely forgotten and associated with something totally different.

    If I was a hop head fanatic ... I would be just as offended that the new style wasn't considered worthy of having a unique name of its own .. and seriously .... it is a style more than deserving of a name as unique as the beer itself
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • JayrizzleJayrizzle
    Posts: 90,690
    This reminds me. I need to bottle that batch of dark IPA lager, I guess I won't dry hop it.
    image
  • FuzzyFuzzy
    Posts: 49,786
    Dr_Jerryrigger said:

    This reminds me. I need to bottle that batch of dark IPA lager, I guess I won't dry hop it.



    dry hopping for 8 months is not recommended.
    The pinnacle of lame and awesome in one singular moment. -Lake
  • CurlyFatCurlyFat
    Posts: 71,637
    Dr_Jerryrigger said:

    This reminds me. I need to bottle that batch of dark IPA lager, I guess I won't dry hop it.



    Is that a Cascadian Dark Ale, or a Black IPA?


    I took a short one a couple hours ago. It was nice. --
    C_B

  • JayrizzleJayrizzle
    Posts: 90,690
    FromZwolle said:

    Dr_Jerryrigger said:

    This reminds me. I need to bottle that batch of dark IPA lager, I guess I won't dry hop it.



    dry hopping for 8 months is not recommended.


    I though it was if I was going for a real Indian Pail Ale, but as I"m starting with a American Dark Lager I don't think it matters.
    image
  • JayrizzleJayrizzle
    Posts: 90,690
    Yup, I killed it. TK fo' life!
    image
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 122,708
    Dr_Jerryrigger said:

    Yup, I killed it. TK fo' life!



    good work
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • FuzzyFuzzy
    Posts: 49,786
    ban him.
    The pinnacle of lame and awesome in one singular moment. -Lake
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    Dr_Jerryrigger said:

    Yup, I killed it. TK fo' life!



    Ha! Wrong .... this thread ain't dead ... its merely brooding in silence .....
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • JayrizzleJayrizzle
    Posts: 90,690
    ceannt said:

    Dr_Jerryrigger said:

    Yup, I killed it. TK fo' life!



    Ha! Wrong .... this thread ain't dead ... its merely brooding in silence .....


    HA! well put Kent-a-reno.

    I'm bottling my dark IPA lager right now... well I'm taking a beer break right now. It's truly one of the best beers I've ever had (other than it being warm and flat). I wish I had something less stupid to call it... also some light dry hopping would have been good.
    image
Add a Comment