You Know What Really Grinds My Gears? [Recipe Edition]

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

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

bobbrews

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
4,045
Reaction score
454
Location
Sierra
We've all seen recipes that made us roll our eyes and click the X button faster than a geek reaches the final level of a brand new video game.

What blunders do you see most often? Whether they are obvious, not so obvious, preventable, big, small, or just poor judgement.
 
We've all seen recipes that made us roll our eyes and click the X button faster than a geek reaches the final level of a brand new video game.

What blunders do you see most often? Whether they are obvious, not so obvious, preventable, big, small, or just poor judgement.

Us rookie are always open to suggestions :ban:
 
Too many different types of hops. There is still a science to hop additions, and it certainly is not MORE IS BETTER. I hate these guys that think their IIPA is a groundbreaking new invention just because they use 35 different hops. Unless you are using a NEW hop, it's pretty much all been done, and there is a reason that most GOOD recipes are fairly simple!

Also, anyone who follows my posts know my biggest recipe pet peeve is when people call their beer something like a Hefeweizen even through it doesn't have enough or any wheat and doesn't use noble hops, or a Kolsch when it isn't made with Kolsch yeast, or a Lager when they ferment it at ale temps.

I hate the "I can call it anything I want" arguements I get into with these guys. It's like me calling my APA an imperial flemish cream stout. Can I call it that? I guess...first amendment rights and all. Is it that? NO! There are definitions and standards for a reason!
 
Too many different types of hops. There is still a science to hop additions, and it certainly is not MORE IS BETTER. I hate these guys that think their IIPA is a groundbreaking new invention just because they use 35 different hops. Unless you are using a NEW hop, it's pretty much all been done, and there is a reason that most GOOD recipes are fairly simple!

Also, anyone who follows my posts know my biggest recipe pet peeve is when people call their beer something like a Hefeweizen even through it doesn't have enough or any wheat and doesn't use noble hops, or a Kolsch when it isn't made with Kolsch yeast, or a Lager when they ferment it at ale temps.

I hate the "I can call it anything I want" arguements I get into with these guys. It's like me calling my APA an imperial flemish cream stout. Can I call it that? I guess...first amendment rights and all. Is it that? NO! There are definitions and standards for a reason!

I hear you brother, but, until it was defined it was whatever the brewer wanted it to be. Not everything can be boxed in all neat and tidy. They are simply guidelines, not laws.
 
They are simply guidelines, not laws.

LOL...this is where I beg to differ. Commence rant!

There are some styles that ARE strictly defined, like the Hefeweizens, Lagers, Kolsch examples I used. You simply CAN'T make a Hefeweizen without at least 50% of the grain bill being wheat malt and the hops being noble hops. There ARE German regulations that strictly define the style as such! If your beer has 49% wheat, it ISN'T a Hefewiezen any more than it is a Diet Cherry Coke with lime.

Lagers.....no matter what Cooper's says, you can't make a Lager without lager yeast and a proper lagering procedure. The style has these strict minimum requirements. Add all you want from there, but you CAN NOT subtract these defining characteristics. The newbie who makes a kit with Light LME, Saaz hops, and S-04 yeast and ferments it at 82F can call it a lager all day, but it just ISN'T a lager. They might be mistaken, but that doesn't make them any less wrong.

Kolsch - Kolsch yeasts are engineered to have the phenoyl characteristics of an ale, but the finishing characteristics of a lager. You CAN NOT make a Kolsch without Kolsch yeast. It is the defining characteristic. It's a rule! You really can't make a Kolsch without some resemblance of a lagering procedure. It is silly to make a beer with Two-row, Citra, and S-05 and call it a Kolsch, just because you like the way it sounds. It's ignorant. It's like calling that guy you met only one time by the wrong name. His name is Dave, NOT John. No matter how much you think his name is John and swear that's what he told you back in 2010, that's just not his name.

Sorry, this is the arguement I always get into. Don't pull the semantics card on me, that's far from the point.

There are established standards for a good number of beer styles. You can choose to not acknowledge these standards, but that doesn't make you right. It makes you anti-social.

YOUCANNOTPUTSPACINGORPUNCTUATIONINYOURPOSTBECAUSEYOUDONTBELIEVEINITBUTBYTHEESTABLISHEDSTANDARDSYOUAREWRONG.

Without rules and definitions, there is only chaos.

Now I'm off to brew a batch of sour apple mead. I make mine with fermented lobster instead of honey, and tennis balls instead of apples.

Rant over!
 
Other people's recipes don't grind my gears. I consider myself lucky in that regard.

Brewers who absolutely must brew to style make my eyes roll a bit, but they don't grind my gears.
 
Other people's recipes don't grind my gears. I consider myself lucky in that regard.

Brewers who absolutely must brew to style make my eyes roll a bit, but they don't grind my gears.

This +1000. I like to brew good beer that my friends, family and I like to drink. I don't give a s#!t what anyone else says. If they have a problem w/ what I call it I will present it as such: "Would you like a beer styled beer?"
 
LOL...this is where I beg to differ. Commence rant!

There are some styles that ARE strictly defined, like the Hefeweizens, Lagers, Kolsch examples I used. You simply CAN'T make a Hefeweizen without at least 50% of the grain bill being wheat malt and the hops being noble hops. There ARE German regulations that strictly define the style as such! If your beer has 49% wheat, it ISN'T a Hefewiezen any more than it is a Diet Cherry Coke with lime.

Lagers.....no matter what Cooper's says, you can't make a Lager without lager yeast and a proper lagering procedure. The style has these strict minimum requirements. Add all you want from there, but you CAN NOT subtract these defining characteristics.

Kolsch - Kolsch yeasts are engineered to have the phenoyl characteristics of an ale, but the finishing characteristics of a lager. You CAN NOT make a Kolsch without Kolsch yeast. It is the defining characteristic. It's a rule! It is silly to make a beer with Two-row, Citra, and S-05 and call it a Kolsch, just because you like the way it sounds. It's ignorant.

Sorry, this is the arguement I always get into. There are established standards for a good number of beer styles. You can choose to not acknowledge these standards, but that doesn't make you right. It makes you anti-social. YOUCANNOTPUTSPACINGORPUNCTUATIONINYOURPOSTBECAUSEYOUDONTBELIEVEINITBUTBYTHEESTABLISHEDSTANDARDSYOUAREWRONG. Without rules and definitions, there is only chaos.

Rant over!

It's staggering how narrow this mindset is in regard to beer. Even Webster adapts annually to incorporate modern habits. Whether YOU like it or not.
 
Other than the "too much crystal" - "weird fruit or spice additions" - "too little hops" - "too high FG" pet peeves... There are also a lot of new brewers who make unforgiveable mistakes that make me think they were really, really drunk while brewing.

"I forgot to add my bittering hops" or "Oops, I added the bittering hops late and aroma hops early".
"I accidentally used 2 lbs of acid malt instead of 2 oz. How do I fix it?"

Use your noggin's guys!! I typically X out those posts right away because the best thing those brewers can do is read Palmer, not post on a message board for a quick-fix to a crazy issue.
 
Other people's recipes don't grind my gears. I consider myself lucky in that regard.

Brewers who absolutely must brew to style make my eyes roll a bit, but they don't grind my gears.

This +1000. I like to brew good beer that my friends, family and I like to drink. I don't give a s#!t what anyone else says. If they have a problem w/ what I call it I will present it as such: "Would you like a beer styled beer?"

People who MUST brew to the guidelines do not grind my gears. If anything, it pays homage to the originator.

People who insist that a beer is not a beer because it does not conform (even when they have been shut down by proving that it does conform) and insist that it be called something else, grind my gears.

It's a guideline pure and simple. There are no federal mandates to say this is how it has to be. There are no fines for straying outside of them. In fact, in reality, they are more religious or cultists than anything.
 
Other than the "too much crystal" - "weird fruit or spice additions" - "too little hops" - "too high FG" pet peeves... There are also a lot of new brewers who make unforgiveable mistakes that make me think they were really, really drunk while brewing.

"I forgot to add my bittering hops" or "Oops, I added the bittering hops late and aroma hops early".
"I accidentally used 2 lbs of acid malt instead of 2 oz. How do I fix it?"

Use your noggin's guys!! I typically X out those posts right away because the best thing those brewers can do is read Palmer, not post on a message board for a quick-fix to a crazy issue.

Well, Bob, many/most brewers drink while brewing. If most people drank while driving I'd expect a lot more accidents. Dumb errors are unfortunately built into the process.
 
My coconut raspberry chocolate smoked bacon blueberry Earl Grey coffee pecan marinara and watermelon wheat. Whaddya think?
 
Like it or not, Topher's right. There are style guidelines to define standards that help describe a beer. Otherwise it's all just beer. That doesn't mean you can't deviate from these styles, brew whatever the hell you want to! But you can't call a lager an ale, and an ale a lager. It just doesn't make sense. If it doesn't fit a style, make up your own. Call it a specialty beer, or a hybrid. I understand the rant against the people that only brew to style, that's no fun. But it is good to have a standard to compare your processes and final products to. If that doesn't interest you, don't worry about it. Just brew what you want.

Personally, I like making beer that I like to drink, whether it's within a style or not. I do like to to try to brew something to style every once in a while to make sure I'm able to hit certain targets and standards. It's a challenge.

I don't really see the point in discussing "Recipe Pet Peeves" though. Let people experiment and learn from mistakes. Shoot, if someone like using 50% Crystal - 120L in their beer, let them. It won't belong to any defined style, and I wouldn't want to drink it, but if they do then more power to them. If they try to call that beer a Pilsner, then there's an issue. Otherwise, I don't see a problem.
 
It's staggering how narrow this mindset is in regard to beer. Even Webster adapts annually to incorporate modern habits. Whether YOU like it or not.

But WHY does Webster adapt??? If they didn't, they would be seen as outdated, and their product wouldn't sell.

It is possible for once credible sources to loose credibility. Besides, if you haven't noticed, the standards for defining beer styles has adapted greatly to incorporate many of the newer styles that have recently been created, and will continue to do so.
 
Like it or not, Topher's right. There are style guidelines to define standards that help describe a beer. Otherwise it's all just beer. That doesn't mean you can't deviate from these styles, brew whatever the hell you want to! But you can't call a lager an ale, and an ale a lager. It just doesn't make sense. If it doesn't fit a style, make up your own. Call it a specialty beer, or a hybrid. I understand the rant against the people that only brew to style, that's no fun. But it is good to have a standard to compare your processes and final products to. If that doesn't interest you, don't worry about it. Just brew what you want.

When competing, sure, Tropher is correct. There has to be some way to define what is being judged. And on a corprorate level of brewing, I accept that. But on the BJCP level, it's a joke. It's all as subjectiveas the competance level of the judge holding the sample.

The tragedy here is that this mindset comkpletely disregards the romanticism of what it took for the originator to develope said beer. If you read into teh historical aspect of many styles, most came about of necessity and dumb luck. Noble hops were used cause that is all they could get, a certain malt was used cause it was the only thing available, etc...
 
But WHY does Webster adapt??? If they didn't, they would be seen as outdated, and their product wouldn't sell.

It is possible for once credible sources to loose credibility. Besides, if you haven't noticed, the standards for defining beer styles has adapted greatly to incorporate many of the newer styles that have recently been created, and will continue to do so.

Yes. Like Webster, the guidelines have adpated to include new styles (CDA) but unlike Webster they have not adapated to include new meanings for their existing entries.

As I said before, many styles were born simply because the originator had nothing else to work with or of dumb luck.
 
Well, Bob, many/most brewers drink while brewing. If most people drank while driving I'd expect a lot more accidents. Dumb errors are unfortunately built into the process.

I don't know that "most" brewers are actually drinking while brewing, but it would be interesting to poll the audience. If anything, I could believe quite a few people having a beer or two while brewing, but not getting ****-faced and mistaking 2 oz. for 2 lb. or forgetting something insanely crucial.

Brewers who absolutely must brew to style make my eyes roll a bit

Agreed. It seems to be working out for Sixpoint.

I love small wheat additions in my IPAs in place of carapils. I don't mind using other odd malts to create a tasty American IPA either. And I frequently straddle the 7.5 - 7.9% abv range. Is it an IPA? Extra IPA? Double IPA? Imperial IPA? Who cares.
 
I don't know that "most" brewers are actually drinking while brewing, but it would be interesting to poll the audience. If anything, I could believe quite a few people having a beer or two while brewing, but not getting ****-faced and mistaking 2 oz. for 2 lb. or forgetting something insanely crucial.

I don't, because I brew early in the morning. But you're right, a poll would be in order here.
 
Even Webster adapts annually to incorporate modern habits. Whether YOU like it or not.

I was an English major, and am a writer and editor in the corporate world by day. The practice of the dictionary and grammar standards adapting to majority usage instead of established rules is a very modern phenomenon, like from the last 20 years. There is a HUGE debate in acedemia about this. Of course, I fall on the conservative side of preserving the rules, for the most part. New words and meanings should always adapt to modern times, but not to the point of accepting the dumbing down of society.

You know what the state of FL did when almost 80% of high school seniors failed the composition portion of the FCAT high school exit exam? Did they raise the education and preparation requirements? Nope, they lowered the passing test score. They accepted that the kids were getting dumber and catered to that dumbness, instead of pushing them to the established standard. That's today's society, but I for one am on the minority side of maintaining the standards instead of dumbing everything down.

In my world, it sucks that the dictionary feels the need to give credence to words like TTYL, bromance, gaydar, grrrl, prolly, and sammich by adding them to the dictionary. There's a reason we have a word called slang. It sucks that they've all but given up on being the guardians of their particular English language rules in the interest of selling a few more dictionaries, and I think the same thing about anyone who honestly believes that you can call any beer you want a Lager a Stout, despite the established definitions.

I'd love to see any of those of you that are giving me a hard time go buy the latest Sam Adams Imperial Porter, only to find out the bottle contains a non-alcoholic light beer. You won't be defending the brewer's right to take liberties with their beer name then, and will demand that the beer live up to the established definition of it's name. 100% of you.

It's just a silly arguement. There are established definitions for a reason! I have no issue with those definitions evolving over time, but you still have to recognize the current definitions as the current definitions. You can call a dog a pony till you're blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that based on the definition of its characteristics, it is a DOG!

Same goes for something like a Hefeweizen. I had an arguement with this guy the other day who said he was making a Hefewiezen with 30% wheat, 60% Two-row, and some Crystal, with Cascade hops and S-05 yeast. The dude can call that a Hefeweizen all he wants, but the FACT of the matter is it is not a Hefeweizen. It just doesn't fit the definition any more than it fits the definition of a Stout or a Coconut Creme Pie or Jabba the Hut. The "I can call it anything I want" arguement sounds suspiciously like the "I'm taking my ball and going home" arguement! We used to call that pouting.

Sorry this gets me all riled up. It just baffles me that this is a tough concept to grasp for so many peeps!
 
Yes. Like Webster, the guidelines have adpated to include new styles (CDA) but unlike Webster they have not adapated to include new meanings for their existing entries.

The BJCP is far younger than most beer styles. Back in the days (17th century or so), ale wasn't defined as top-fermented beer, it was beer brewed without hops (or rather: beer was ale brewed with hops). Semantics change, practices change.

And what about the BJCP guideline for Scottish ale? Anyone ever had an actual Scottish ale with a peaty character? Of course not. It's a guideline based on what American homebrewers present as Scottish ale in competition.
 
When competing, sure, Tropher is correct. There has to be some way to define what is being judged. And on a corprorate level of brewing, I accept that. But on the BJCP level, it's a joke. It's all as subjectiveas the competance level of the judge holding the sample.

The tragedy here is that this mindset comkpletely disregards the romanticism of what it took for the originator to develope said beer. If you read into teh historical aspect of many styles, most came about of necessity and dumb luck. Noble hops were used cause that is all they could get, a certain malt was used cause it was the only thing available, etc...

I have to disagree here. I believe it can actually heighten the romanticism, and pay homage to those that were able to create a good final product working only with what they had. It gives others a way to copy the great beers that have defined the different styles. It also gives us a standard against which we can judge ourselves, something we can aspire to, and even something we can try to improve upon.

My question is, if you're so against using definitions outside of judging, what do you say when someone asks you what you're brewing? If it's similar to an IPA, wouldn't you call it an IPA? Or do you just call it beer and try to describe what the final product will taste like?
 
My question is, if you're so against using definitions outside of judging, what do you say when someone asks you what you're brewing? If it's similar to an IPA, wouldn't you call it an IPA? Or do you just call it beer and try to describe what the final product will taste like?

You are missing my point. I agree with having definitions. I just do not agree with the strict, rigid adherance that Tophers rant centers around.

Case in point, a Heffeweisen. A particular poster was reamed because he proposed something taht varied from the strictest sense of teh guidelines taht Topher covets. "You cannot call THAT a Heffeweisen..."

To THAT mindset I call BS. Heffeweisen litearlly means wheat with yeast. That is what the brewer was proposing at the core. In fact, the ONLY thing that varied, drastically, from the guide was the choice of hop and an addition of smoked character. "It's not a noble hop, it can be a ..." Bah! Go back to your box! I say.

Am I saying you can call a Porter a American Lager? No. But don't tell me it's not a Porter anymore cause I decided to use a German hop instead of an English one. But, in the same respect don't expect to take best of show either.
 
There is a thin line if you really want to get techinal.

But I would call all of these IPAs... You could even make a case that they're all American IPAs.

7.6%, 65 IBUs, WLP001, US malts, Mixed US/Brit hops, 2nd-ary addition of lightly toasted oak chips, Brit dryhop
6.6%, 75 IBUs, WLP002, Brit malts, US hops, 2nd-ary addition of frozen raspberries, no dryhop
5.6%, 55 IBUs, WLP029, German and US malts, American hops, no 2nd-ary, German and US dryhop
 
BrewThruYou, you sound like an idiot. Because I brew extract, partial mash, and all-grain. Thank you very much. Don't get angry because your beers turn out like trash yet you come up with an arrogant handle like BrewThruYou. Are you really going to Brew Through us? Nah...
 
:off:

If you were offended by the "use your noggin" statement in the context that it was made then obviously it struck a chord with your own personal brewing experiences. Have a beer and relax buddy, before I brew through you.
 
I'm the internet tough guy? It's not the guy who called me an idiot, called me arrogant, said I made trash beers and threatened to "brew through" me? Okay, bro. ;)
 
That's what happens when you get your "facts" wrong and call someone out in a hostile manner. You also have an arrogant handle. That's just stating the obvious.
 
"Does anyone have any good (insert beer style here) recipes" is something that grinds my gears a little. No wait, it doesn't grind my gears, it gets my undies in a bundle.

It's actually easier to type "Porter recipe" into the search box than make a thread. The results are immediate and typically better than a new thread would produce.
 
Heffeweisen litearlly means wheat with yeast. That is what the brewer was proposing at the core. In fact, the ONLY thing that varied, drastically, from the guide was the choice of hop and an addition of smoked character. "It's not a noble hop, it can be a ..." Bah! Go back to your box! I say.

Am I saying you can call a Porter a American Lager? No. But don't tell me it's not a Porter anymore cause I decided to use a German hop instead of an English one. But, in the same respect don't expect to take best of show either.

Hefewiezen literally means "yeast wheat," not "yeast with wheat." That would be Hefe mit Weizen. I can do this all day long!

Still, it is STRICTLY defined in German brewing that a Hefeweizen MUST contain AT LEAST 50% wheat. Not ABOUT 50%, not AROUND 50%, not ALMOST 50%.....AT LEAST 50%. Does no one care what "AT LEAST 50%" means. If it contains LESS than 50%, it is a Weissbeir or another style. If your beer has 30% wheat, you can call it ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT, but you CAN NOT call it a Hefewiezen because it just doesn't fit the requirements.

Porters have no REQUIREMENTS of what hops to use, so there is more gray/wiggle room there, and your example is a bad example.

My only arguement here is that when the beer style has STRICT style requirements, you simply have to meet those requirements if you want to claim that style. For the countless styles that have vague parameters and no true requirements, there is certainly much more wiggle room! When all else fails, make up your own new style.

I'm not here making up the definitions, just enforcing them!

Sincerely,

TopherM - Captain of the Style Police
 
There is a thin line if you really want to get techinal.

But I would call all of these IPAs... You could even make a case that they're all American IPAs.

7.6%, 65 IBUs, WLP001, US malts, Mixed US/Brit hops, 2nd-ary addition of lightly toasted oak chips, Brit dryhop
6.6%, 75 IBUs, WLP002, Brit malts, US hops, 2nd-ary addition of frozen raspberries, no dryhop
5.6%, 55 IBUs, WLP029, German and US malts, American hops, no 2nd-ary, German and US dryhop

A LONG time ago I built a cross reference for recipe developement taht relied heavily on BJCP guidelines. Elaborately broken down to be searchable across mutiple fields for comparisons to all the non subjective points for each style.

What I found is that a large portion of all these specific styles are, on average, only distinctly different by a couple ingredients and several of those are only by regional distinctions.
 
Back
Top