TOPIC:

"TheBeerNut":210w6so3 wrote:

"Paddy Bubbles":210w6so3 wrote: I can't stand breweries calling regular pale ales "IPA" when they're under 5% ABV. Pure marketing BS, I suspect.[/quote:210w6so3]"Marketing", yes. Everything on a beer label or tap badge is marketing. "BS" just because you disagree with it? Sub-5% ABV IPAs have been around since at least the 1930s. IPA as a stronger version of Pale Ale only dates to about the 1970s.[/quote:210w6so3]

Hmm, well I wasn't drinking beer in the 1930s, or the 1970s for that matter.

When I see IPA on the label I expect something a little stronger in alcohol and hop flavour. Don't think I'm alone there tbh.

"Paddy Bubbles":1fdhz4qm wrote:

"TheBeerNut":1fdhz4qm wrote:

"Paddy Bubbles":1fdhz4qm wrote: I can't stand breweries calling regular pale ales "IPA" when they're under 5% ABV. Pure marketing BS, I suspect.[/quote:1fdhz4qm]"Marketing", yes. Everything on a beer label or tap badge is marketing. "BS" just because you disagree with it? Sub-5% ABV IPAs have been around since at least the 1930s. IPA as a stronger version of Pale Ale only dates to about the 1970s.[/quote:1fdhz4qm]

Hmm, well I wasn't drinking beer in the 1930s, or the 1970s for that matter.

When I see IPA on the label I expect something a little stronger in alcohol and hop flavour. Don't think I'm alone there tbh.[/quote:1fdhz4qm]


Another style throwdown? *sigh* OK, I'll play.

Totally agree, Paddy:

O'Hara's IPA is an American Pale Ale and O'Hara's DIPA is an American IPA (the first proper IPA from Ireland, imho, and a cracker.)

TBN is, of course, correct that the history of the name "IPA" goes back a long way and that a label can say anything it wants to.

However, the label of *Double* IPA only goes back to the early 90s and Vinnie Cilurzo at Blind Pig Brewery in California and since then has roughly looked like this[/url:1fdhz4qm]. O'Hara's DIPA is not quite there, nor is it trying to be, I suspect.

More generally, I'm for common usage for definitions and observable properties in science. Yes, I can find a few session bitters in the UK like Greene King that have "IPA" on the pump clip. But I can also find literally [i:1fdhz4qm]thousands[/i:1fdhz4qm] of IPAs that are around 6%, 50-60 IBUs, and have citrus, pine or fruity hops. So that's what I expect when I drink one.

"KeeganAles":2vsr9kzy wrote: More generally, I'm for common usage for definitions and observable properties in science.[/quote:2vsr9kzy]And that's cool. What tends to get my goat is the corollary: "I'm [i:2vsr9kzy]against [/i:2vsr9kzy]those who do not conform to such common usage. They are [i:2vsr9kzy]wrong[/i:2vsr9kzy]."

"It's not what I'd regard as a double IPA."
Cool. The equivalent of "My religion is what works for me, but whatever you believe is fine too."

"It's not [b:2vsr9kzy]really[/b:2vsr9kzy] a double IPA. Breweries must not designate their beers differently from the norms I accept."
That's a bit rude. "My religion has a monopoly on truth; the millions of adherents around the world are proof that this is so; submit to my religion and you will be better for it."
Nahh.

If it wasn't for the non-conformist brewers, beer would be a lot less interesting today. Let them brew what they want and call it what they want; disagree where we disagree, but not claim that any higher authority has a casting vote.