TOPIC:

"TheBeerNut":szb44rwe wrote: Which is fair enough, but you can't then take this perception and project it as a rule onto the real world in contradiction to the evidence. No (reliable) authority says IPA should be hoppy, or strong, and there's plenty of evidence to the contrary.[/quote:szb44rwe]

Is there plenty, though? There's probably 400 beers now called "IPA" from the States, the UK, Australia, Japan etc. that are hop forward to some degree, and maybe 10 called "IPA" that aren't significantly hoppy. I don't know what evidence to the contrary stands up to the reality of all that beer.

"KeeganAles":szb44rwe wrote: Assuming style means anything, etc.[/quote:szb44rwe]

"TheBeerNut":szb44rwe wrote: Well there you go. I don't think it does. Greene King IPA pre-dates the BJCP too. Saying it's not true to style is not so much moving goalposts as building them in a different field from where the game is happening.[/quote:szb44rwe]

The game *was* happening.

Definitions change. Greene King can brew and name the way they did in the '30s if they like, but a label on a product should give some clue as to what's inside. As it is, I have to just *know* that GK is different from every other beer called "IPA" next to it on the shelf today. Not very helpful...

I don't think Molly's should say "Chocolate Stout", either, for what it's worth.

"KeeganAles":1uzor6sn wrote: There's probably 400 beers now called "IPA" from the States, the UK, Australia, Japan etc. that are hop forward to some degree, and maybe 10 called "IPA" that aren't significantly hoppy. I don't know what evidence to the contrary stands up to the reality of all that beer.[/quote:1uzor6sn]The evidence of time. IPAs have been low-hop, low-strength for longer than those 400 beers have been around, is my guess. Low-strength, low-hop IPAs got there first, so surely it's the other ones which are not true to style. How dare they steal the IPA label when they're not true IPAs!

If you're tempted to point out that even before the low-hop, low-strength IPAs were around, back in the 19th century, IPAs were strong and hoppy (like the Meantime recreation), I'd just like to point out that [i:1uzor6sn]all[/i:1uzor6sn] beers were stronger and you'd need to start claiming that Guinness, Murphy's and O'Hara's are not really stouts, because proper stout is actually 7% ABV+. And I'd add that IPA was generally among the lowest-strength beers in an English brewery's portfolio. The claim that it should be stronger than 6% is fine; the claim that it should be stronger than ordinary bitter is ahistorical.

"KeeganAles":1uzor6sn wrote: a label on a product should give some clue as to what's inside.[/quote:1uzor6sn]That's your opinion, though. The brewery is under no obligation to follow your rules on labelling, and saying that they're somehow disobeying or cheating when [i:1uzor6sn]they got there first[/i:1uzor6sn] is just rude, IMO.

Personally, I think there's room for all of these in the IPA family. Which is why my definition of an IPA is a beer with "IPA" on the label. It makes as much sense as much of the BJCPs other categorisation of commercial beers.

"KeeganAles":1uzor6sn wrote: As it is, I have to just *know* that GK is different from every other beer called "IPA" next to it on the shelf today. Not very helpful[/quote:1uzor6sn]Perhaps not. And this "hot dog" appears to be made of [i:1uzor6sn]pork[/i:1uzor6sn], for some reason. It's a minefield out there...

"Diablo":22bkdlix wrote: So is the story about IPA's being brewed with higher alcohol content to preserve them on the voyage to India a myth ?[/quote:22bkdlix]Yes. Ron has a Bass gravity table from 1870 here[/url:22bkdlix], showing IPA at an OG of 1060 -- joint weakest in the portfolio.

The idea of IPA being a particular invention for a particular market is exploded by Zythophile here[/url:22bkdlix].

"TheBeerNut":1m668am8 wrote: The evidence of time. Low-strength, low-hop IPAs got there first[/quote:1m668am8]
So what? Toothpaste isn't alum and baking soda nowadays and mince pies don't have mutton in them anymore either.

I don't follow this line of reasoning that a name doesn't fit a beer because it used to mean something else historically. Beer styles have always constantly evolved. A thing is what it is now.

"TheBeerNut":1m668am8 wrote: The brewery is under no obligation to follow your rules on labelling... which is why my definition of an IPA is a beer with "IPA" on the label.[/quote:1m668am8]
So Guinness Black Lager is a proper black lager?

And actually, breweries can be under obligation - Belgian brewers sued Coors in the '90s for calling Blue Moon a "Belgian White" and won.

I'm not proposed a D.O.C. for beer, but some consistency across labeling would make commercial sense for the brewers, if nothing else. Unless they're only concerned about marketing, which is the case with Guinness, Coors, and Greed King as well, I suspect.

"TheBeerNut":1m668am8 wrote: It makes as much sense as much of the BJCPs other categorisation of commercial beers.[/quote:1m668am8]

Yes, but making as much sense as the BJCP is a pretty low standard!