Whats going on with morden IPA's

The Homebrew Forum

Help Support The Homebrew Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

JFB

Landlord.
Joined
May 3, 2016
Messages
934
Reaction score
452
IPA's are what got me into homebrewing they were bitter, strong, mysterious. Just drinking a French rhubarb ipa that's sweet sticky and tastes of mango! might as well of got a four pack of Kopparberg...
 
Then pour it down the sink and go buy yourself a Stone Ruination!

Its funny I thought ipa's were so hip, went on to porters and now i'm on Belgians with strange yeasts! I'm sure ill go full circle and be back on ipa's again just more true to style without the milk shake thing..
 
I think IPA's have a certain cachet about them so I 'spose people are just making stuff and calling it IPA.

I've often though about protected status for beer. There are organisations like the International Trappist Association, which specify exactly the criteria for a Trappist beer, but they have no legal clout. As far as I know the only beers with protected status in the UK are Rutland bitter and Kentish ale. I mean no offence to breweries that brew that, but its not a touch on the AOC designation that protects French cheeses, wines and more. Yanks aren't allowed to make any old fizzy grape drink and call it Champagne, but they've appropriated "IPA" and turned it into something that barely resembles the original. I love American IPA, and I'm not suggesting that we go full reinheitsgebot or start banning EKG if its grown in west Kent. However perhaps a little tighter regulation of trades description would help breweries call their beers by whats in the bottle, and not whatever the whim of their marketing department is? Lambic is Lambic. Gueuze is Gueuze. Berliner Weisse is Berliner Weisse. All are sour beers. If you want to make something similar but add a tonne of Yakima Valley hops, by all means call it a sour beer, but don't call it a Berliner Weisse. But... they do anyway. Breweries have failed at self-regulating. I can't help but think that AIPAs are so good that they would've prospered anyway without riding on the back of British IPAs, and that the we would be more in touch with brewing traditions if they had been enshrined in law. Perhaps if we took a little more care about our traditions CAMRA wouldn't have needed to 'save' British beer, and I wouldn't have to read threads telling me that Boddingtons, or Tetleys or whatever used to be good.
 
I've often though about protected status for beer. There are organisations like the International Trappist Association, which specify exactly the criteria for a Trappist beer, but they have no legal clout. As far as I know the only beers with protected status in the UK are Rutland bitter and Kentish ale. I mean no offence to breweries that brew that, but its not a touch on the AOC designation that protects French cheeses, wines and more. Yanks aren't allowed to make any old fizzy grape drink and call it Champagne, but they've appropriated "IPA" and turned it into something that barely resembles the original. I love American IPA, and I'm not suggesting that we go full reinheitsgebot or start banning EKG if its grown in west Kent. However perhaps a little tighter regulation of trades description would help breweries call their beers by whats in the bottle, and not whatever the whim of their marketing department is? Lambic is Lambic. Gueuze is Gueuze. Berliner Weisse is Berliner Weisse. All are sour beers. If you want to make something similar but add a tonne of Yakima Valley hops, by all means call it a sour beer, but don't call it a Berliner Weisse. But... they do anyway. Breweries have failed at self-regulating. I can't help but think that AIPAs are so good that they would've prospered anyway without riding on the back of British IPAs, and that the we would be more in touch with brewing traditions if they had been enshrined in law. Perhaps if we took a little more care about our traditions CAMRA wouldn't have needed to 'save' British beer, and I wouldn't have to read threads telling me that Boddingtons, or Tetleys or whatever used to be good.

The new BJCP guidelines don't really help either. The "IPA" category has American IPA and specialty IPA, no mention of English IPA because it has been moved to the "pale commonwealth beer" category. Russian imperial stout is in the "American porter and stout" category despite mentioning that its roots are English, and brett beers are in "American wild beers" :roll:
 
I actually wrote an article that touches on this. For me IPA has become more of a Buzz word than anything.

Whilst I'm not one to frown at experimenting. If something doesn't fit a style, don't go trying to shove it in with another style. Eventually the lines will get to blurred.

Just Make a new style...

Like "Juice Beer" , then shove all those milky looking "IPA's" in that category. Seeing as everything is being described as ""juicy" at the moment.....
 
I think style names have lost all meaning now. If I make a beer with Marris otter and EKG, is it a SMaSH, a blonde ale, a bitter, a golden ale or a EPA (English Pale Ale), none of the above or all of the above?
 
I agree beer style names are all but meaningless I wouldn't be surprised if people strt calling myquls smash Indian pale porter.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top