Lee, just to touch base on what you wrote above, I'm talking about IPAs here, not APAs. Did you think this was an APA thread all along??
It has gone back and forth I think it's fair to say.
So far I have not seen a real IPA named, they have been all APA's (but I did not go back and re-read all the posts).
Youngness of the wine does not mean that there is more oak in that particular wine than other examples. It just means it is not at it's full potential yet where the oak is rounded out.
Not exactly what I said ... I said if a wine tastes over-oaked it may be because it needs more time, it also may mean it's just got too much oak in it period. There's a reason people apprentice for a good long time for this sort of job.
I dare you to post a poll about fresh vs. aged IPAs and realize how the majority will vote for the former.
Polls have no place in judging beer. If it did, Budweiser would be the best beer in the country.
There are plenty of top-rated IPAs brewed without specialty malts, or extremely low amounts of specialty malts.
I'm betting more have specialty malts than not - that or some other feature that creates a deeper malt character (long boil, decoction, etc.). Specialty malts are far less expensive so I
assume them to be more common that the latter methods. And yes they will have low levels, but there will be some character way way back there to keep your tongue from going to sleep out of fatigue.
I shouldn't be the one to have to research these beers for you
I am quite capable of choosing my own beer - what I asked is an example of what YOU are talking about right now because in some places we seem to agree and I'd hate for us to be talking about the same thing.
I also shouldn't be the one to force you to like a style that you obviously have an issue with, or are stuck on past definition about
Here you are completely wrong. I judge beer to published styles, I drink beer, wine and mead I like. As a matter of fact I used to avoid judging those styles I liked in order that I did not go with my heart rather than merit.
Whether you personally prefer it or not, Bell's is a better beer to style than a Smuttynose (have had both lately). Now if you prefer simply hops (or a lot of sugar in your coffee as the analogy we used earlier) then I can see why you prefer Smuttynose. Brewed to style the Bell's is a better beer.
Dogfish is more an Imperial American IPA, the complexity of the malt character comes from what I would guess is a longer boil - but that character is there whether from crystal or not. I did not enjoy the 90 in a bottle near as much as I did when I had it on tap but that could have been from handling. I do think it is over-hopped but overall a good beer.
I'm also very familiar with the Schlafly line which is likewise much better on tap (I have had it recently in their taproom. I did find it a little more "resinous" than the dogfish. I wish I had taken notes on these because I am left with the impression that I would pick the Dogfish over the Schlafly but other than remembering that resinous taste I don't remember why.
For what it's worth, back in the early 90's I helped consult on some of what became the Schlafly line. I also placed in a competition which was intended to determine a beer to be brewed as a specialty line there. Mine was not the winner but I had a beer several years later that tasted awfully familiar. I won't say which because I don't know for sure it was my recipe or if my recipe influenced it at all. It would be cool if it was mine but I think I'd rather not know for sure.
None of these are "extreme IPAs" in my mind. I have had some which I cannot recall right now but perhaps if I go searching the names will jump back out at me. Maybe it's best that the names don't come to mind because someone here will have them as a favorite.
As far as favorites go - I do not have a favorite beer. Possibly my preferred beer in the APA style on the shelf currently is Zombie Dust. American hops are not my favorite personally, but this is an excellent beer. It is not complex in the way some London ales are for instance, but it is suitably complex for the style which is what I look for.
One of the best real IPA's I've had is Jadpur (I think that's the right name). I had it while overseas not long ago. In the states one of the best examples I've had is Blackheart. Another excellent one I've only had once (maybe it's only regional?) is 1800 Old English IPA from Minneapolis Town Hall Brewery. I had this while up in MN last year. I do prefer British hops over American hops, so this may be why I preferred these.
To bring this back full circle, what is an "extreme" hopped beer? Are we defining this by the style? I find it amusing the description currently published:
: A recent American innovation reflecting the trend of American craft brewers pushing the envelope to satisfy the need of hop aficionados for increasingly intense products.
There is now a defined style for these types, but you seem to take exception to my mention of styles calling them a "past definition." That is what I am talking about - American tendency (and I am American) to constantly go to extremes. The hottest hot sauce, the smokiest smoked meats, the coldest swimming holes, the biggest steaks, Super Size
everything. Someone will push this envelope and folks will have this argument again about how great it is and how people like me don't understand, or maybe they should go back and have a "wimpy Pliney's".
Some of these beers are now pushing the limits of what tastes like a beer and not a hop soda. These are simply bad beers, not "extreme." Everything you have mentioned so far is a pretty good beer. Some of the other folks who are now quiet and content to watch us on our soapboxes are not talking about these good beers - and they will not now that this discussion veered from name-calling (thankfully). There are some crappy beers out there (I had a number at Hopfest) which have hops for the sake of having hops. Going back to how I started THESE are not good beers, and will not be no matter how many people think they are.