It's good. But what is it, exactly?

Some of you may recall my previous thread about the second AG I did. Well, today I bottled it. The verdict? Delicious. I'm planning on calling it "Twilight Ale," assuming that's not taken, because the color is somewhere between a medium yellow and a light orange. Maybe the best part is that the beer is clear as a bell with minimal suspended trub, though the yeast claims to only have moderate flocculation.

But that's not the reason I wanted to post this thread. Instead, I was hoping anyone who wanted to take a stab at "classing" my beer would give it a try. Originally, I figured it would be a saison de garde. I'm not so sure now.

To help paint a quick picture of what it is, here's the ingredients list:

5 lbs. Pale malt

1 lbs. Maris Otter

1 lbs. Carapils

.5 lbs. Munich malt

.5 lbs. Biscuit malt

1 ounce of each of these varieties of hops: Cascade (bittering), Saaz (aroma), Willamette (finishing).

Belgian Abbey II Activator Wyeast 1762

It has only moderate bitterness, like a crisp lager, while still having good malty flavor and body and a moderately assertive hop aroma. Definitely some moderate spiciness from the hops and yeast. Though the beer is still green, I can tell that it should end up fairly complex and probably would've benefited from orange or lemon peel or perhaps some candi sugar. If I'm making a big deal about this beer, it's because it actually went well for me in terms of quality and yield (60 bottles from my 6 gallon carboy). My first AG was pretty much crap, though tolerable now, because I grabbed the wrong yeast packet - a propagator, instead of an activator.

So what do you guys think? I tried to keep it within the bounds of a Belgian style, but it doesn't have the gravity to be a tripel, though it reminds me somewhat of one minus the candi sugar. At this point, though, it seems more like a lager. Any input is appreciated, as always.

I'd say it's a Belgian Pale Ale.

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/style/54

I think using a Belgian yeast strain will pretty much limit you to a Belgian style. It's hard to describe, but there's a certain 'funk' in Belgian strains from Wit to Pale to Saison, Dubbel or Tripel.

The previous thread about Belgian Pale Ale is probably a good guess. You could save a few bottles and enter them in a local competition under Saison and Belgian Pale, then let the judges decide. It's a great way to get feedback on the beer and help to classify it.

I'd call it a Belgian Mutt Ale because of your selection of ingredients.

Well, it's probably closest to a lighter Belgian style, but it's not going to be true to any particular style. You used American, British, and German malts. Then you added American and Czech hops. You topped it off with Belgian yeast. It's a mutt, alright.

Being a mutt doesn't mean it won't taste good. I'd call it a free-style ale with a Belgian accent.

It sounds like beer to me.


TL

It's homebrew. That's the thing I love most about brewing -- coloring outside the lines, metaphorically speaking. Who cares what the style guidelines say - if you brewed it, you're the only one whose opinion counts. If you think it's good beer (as you evidently do), then it's good beer.

Brewing to style guidelines is its own worthy set of challenges, but I just like to make beer that satisfies me. Sometimes this means emulating beers I buy, and sometimes it means doing my own freaky thing.