IPA not an IPA

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.

Weezy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
2,673
Reaction score
624
Location
Pittsburgh
Is it just me or has "IPA" simply come to mean a highly hopped version of any given beer style? I mean everywhere you turn you'll see a recipe that looks like a respectable Irish or porter etc. but it has a long hop schedule appended to it, so, Walla, "<traditional_style> IPA" is born. Or am I nuts (which is certainly possible)? Is this really just all that "IPA" really boils down to meaning (pun not intended)?

(We could talk about high gravity beers being "imperials" too)
 
Is it just me or has "IPA" simply come to mean a highly hopped version of any given beer style? I mean everywhere you turn you'll see a recipe that looks like a respectable Irish or porter etc. but it has a long hop schedule appended to it, so, Walla, "<traditional_style> IPA" is born. Or am I nuts (which is certainly possible)? Is this really just all that "IPA" really boils down to meaning (pun not intended)?

(We could talk about high gravity beers being "imperials" too)

I think because of its recent rise in popularity people are trying to fuse it with other styles to do something "different". Im personally not a fan of the whole Black IPA thing. If I want an IPA then I'll drink one. If I want something dark and roasty then I'll grab a stout/porter/brown. Them together as a hybrid I can do without. But in all honesty Imperial Stouts have 50-90 IBU which is about the same IBU range for an IPA so the whole Black IPA thing has is basically a new name for a style that already exists. The only difference being instead of using a smaller amount of hops, mainly as bittering additions, they are using a lot more hops towards the end of the boil. Imperial is also another recent trend with everyone trying to brew everything as a big beer. It may be a fad but to try and describe a beer somewhat true to a style you have to include "Imperial" if its OG is higher than the guidelines for that style.
 
KeyWestBrewing said:
I think because of its recent rise in popularity people are trying to fuse it with other styles to do something "different". Im personally not a fan of the whole Black IPA thing. If I want an IPA then I'll drink one. If I want something dark and roasty then I'll grab a stout/porter/brown. Them together as a hybrid I can do without. But in all honesty Imperial Stouts have 50-90 IBU which is about the same IBU range for an IPA so the whole Black IPA thing has is basically a new name for a style that already exists. The only difference being instead of using a smaller amount of hops, mainly as bittering additions, they are using a lot more hops towards the end of the boil. Imperial is also another recent trend with everyone trying to brew everything as a big beer. It may be a fad but to try and describe a beer somewhat true to a style you have to include "Imperial" if its OG is higher than the guidelines for that style.

Black ipas and imperial stouts are very different! Try firestones wookie jack next to north coasts old rasputin ris ( or any imperial stout for that matter) and you should notice a big difference (unless you cant smell things...)
 
I havnt brewed too many beers yet but the cascadian dark ale i made was my favorite one. I love the combination of roasted dark malts and lots of late hop additions. I like the idea of combining different styles or like you said takibg existing beers and hopping them up, why the hell not? Stay thirsty!
 
Weezy said:
Is it just me or has "IPA" simply come to mean a highly hopped version of any given beer style? I mean everywhere you turn you'll see a recipe that looks like a respectable Irish or porter etc. but it has a long hop schedule appended to it, so, Walla, "<traditional_style> IPA" is born. Or am I nuts (which is certainly possible)? Is this really just all that "IPA" really boils down to meaning (pun not intended)?

(We could talk about high gravity beers being "imperials" too)

You're not nuts.

A BLACK India PALE ale.

A RED PALE.

Etc.

Seems dumb. And contradictory.
 
Thats why the name cascadian dark ale is used. Black ipa makes no sence
 
Black ipas and imperial stouts are very different! Try firestones wookie jack next to north coasts old rasputin ris ( or any imperial stout for that matter) and you should notice a big difference (unless you cant smell things...)

I know they are very different. But like I said the biggest difference is instead of getting most of the IBUs from bittering additions its achieved from using larger quantities later in the boil making the hop flavor/aroma more pronounced. Other than that the styles are pretty much the same. Black IPAs are basically just stout/porter grain bills with a IPAs hop schedule.
 
I'll go you one better. One of the most popular beers in Canada is billed as an "India Pale Ale." It's called Alexander Keith's, and it was one of my favorite beers before I fell down the rabbit hole and discovered craft beers.

It's an AB-Inbev owned macrobeer that says "India Pale Ale" right on the label, but is not an IPA for at least 4 reasons.

1.) Its SRM is way too low, it's much closer to a blonde
2.) It's a lager, not an ale
3.) Its IBUs are far too low (17) to qualify as an IPA
4.) Its alcohol content is too low (4%) to qualify as an IPA

Yet if you go to a bar in Canada and ask if they have an India Pale Ale, they'll say, "Yup, we sure do, we have Keith's."
 
I'll go you one better. One of the most popular beers in Canada is billed as an "India Pale Ale." It's called Alexander Keith's, and it was one of my favorite beers before I fell down the rabbit hole and discovered craft beers.

It's an AB-Inbev owned macrobeer that says "India Pale Ale" right on the label, but is not an IPA for at least 4 reasons.

1.) Its SRM is way too low, it's much closer to a blonde
2.) It's a lager, not an ale
3.) Its IBUs are far too low (17) to qualify as an IPA
4.) Its alcohol content is too low (4%) to qualify as an IPA

Yet if you go to a bar in Canada and ask if they have an India Pale Ale, they'll say, "Yup, we sure do, we have Keith's."


That aint cool. Someone needs to do something to set them straight. Thats basically false advertisement.
 
KeyWestBrewing said:
I know they are very different. But like I said the biggest difference is instead of getting most of the IBUs from bittering additions its achieved from using larger quantities later in the boil making the hop flavor/aroma more pronounced. Other than that the styles are pretty much the same. Black IPAs are basically just stout/porter grain bills with a IPAs hop schedule.

I dont think black ipas can qualify as stouts though. Stouts have roasted barley, black ipas use just a bit of debittered black malt for color. I dunno, the two seem different enough to me.
 
I live in canada as well and i know what u mean. "You have any ipa's on tap? "Yes we have keiths." No thanks what els u have? Okanagan springs 1516, molson canadian, coors light, sleemans honey brown, ok springs pale ale, budweiser and of course guiness. Ended up trying big rock scottish heavy. Not bad
 
This from wikipedia

Alexander Keith's India Pale Ale

Many beer aficionados are quick to note that Keith's India Pale Ale lacks most of the qualities usually associated with the*IPA style: the alcohol percentage is too low (5%*ABV*vs. the expected 5.5% to 6.5%), as is the level of bittering*hops(less than 20*IBU*vs. the expected 40-100). It also lacks the fruitiness and heavier body found in most*ales. Keith's was marketed as an India Pale Ale long before the IPA style gained popularity in craft brewing circles as a revived historic beer style. This has allowed Keith&rsquo;s to effectively grandfather the India Pale Ale name in without meeting the current IPA standards. In the United States, the beer is marketed as Alexander Keith's Nova Scotia Style Pale Ale.
 
To the OP:

I think what is happening nowadays is that brewers/beer drinkers are interchanging IPA and Imperial beers. One of my buddies picked up Nugget Nectar and shot me a text saying

"hey man, just grabbed an Imperial IPA from the liquor store called Nugget Nectar, 98 rating on BA"

Except for the fact that its actually an Imperial Amber Ale and way too malty and dark to be a true Imperial IPA.
 
snowtires said:
Thats why the name cascadian dark ale is used. Black ipa makes no sence

Cascadian Dark Ale makes no sense either. The man credited with creating the style, Greg Noonan, first brewed it in Vermont, where the mountains are green, not cascadian.
 
The Alexander Keith sounds like it might be in the same book as Caledonian's Deuchars IPA. Based on the numbers it isn't even an English style IPA- more like a bitter. But for historical reasons, it is called an IPA. (Never had it before, but it is high on my list of beers to try on cask when I hit Edinburgh this October.)
 
I dont think black ipas can qualify as stouts though. Stouts have roasted barley, black ipas use just a bit of debittered black malt for color. I dunno, the two seem different enough to me.

Yeah, going by malt schedule, BIPAs are closer to a strong Schwarzbier than an imperial stout.

I know we're just arguing semantics at this point, but I get what the OP is getting at. It does seem a little odd that there are so many IPA spin-offs these days (black IPA, red IPA, rye IPA, wheat IPA, etc.), but I think it's just a result of brewers trying to experiment with a style, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Let's face it, the ability to experiment within the traditional guidelines of the style is going to become somewhat limited after a certain point. Sure, you can make your ABV a little higher or change your hop varieties and schedule, but after a while, every IPA is going blend together. If you're a commercial brewery, you'll want something to distinguish your beer from the other guys'.

By now, term IPA has just come to be synonymous with "aggressive hop-forward ale", so using IPA in the name is just an easy way to catch the buyer's attention without taking the time to define a whole new style name. If you were unaware of the style and saw a beer labeled "Cascadian dark ale" (or worse, "black ale"), you couldn't get much out of the name except the color, and maybe it has Cascade hops in it. But, if you see "black IPA", you get a much better idea of what to expect flavorwise, even if it's a bit of an oxymoron.
 
I was in Calgary for work, and at dinner asked the beer selection. When I heard Alexander Keith's IPA, I ordered it...

I actually asked the server after I started drinking it whether she brought me the wrong beer, as it was CLEARLY not an IPA. She even double-checked with the bartender to be sure... I drank the beer (because it didn't suck; it just wasn't an IPA), but it wasn't until later that I realized the back story on it.
 
This from wikipedia
Keith's was marketed as an India Pale Ale long before the IPA style gained popularity in craft brewing circles as a revived historic beer style.

Its a stupid craft beer thing to be mad about Alexander Keiths that really demonstrates you take bull**** marketing too serious and no almost nothing about the history. The problem I have with the quoted line and the "Keith's is not an IPA movement" is what the BJCP and modern craft brewing defines as an IPA has zero historical basis. Read Mitch Steele's IPA book's descriptions and recipes for the early IPA's. In era when porter was the standard beer, brewers were trying to get their IPA as pale as possible. The beers all had a year of aging before they were served so they definitely wouldn't be something we would consider "hop forward". I'd be willing to bet Alexander Keiths is closer to the ipa drank in India in 1800 than the modern westcoast bong water IPA's or modern "English" IPA's. ...but go through the other era's of IPA's described and none of them resemble what we are told an "English" IPA should be. ie. they have been making 4% IPA's since before world war 1 but the BJCP guideline states "The term “IPA” is loosely applied in commercial English beers today, and has been (incorrectly) used in beers below 4% ABV. "

...its also interesting that Mitch Steele's IPA book only lists 2 Canadian IPAs: Alexander Keiths and Molson Export.
 
That aint cool. Someone needs to do something to set them straight. Thats basically false advertisement.

This from wikipedia

Alexander Keith's India Pale Ale

Many beer aficionados are quick to note that Keith's India Pale Ale lacks most of the qualities usually associated with the*IPA style: the alcohol percentage is too low (5%*ABV*vs. the expected 5.5% to 6.5%), as is the level of bittering*hops(less than 20*IBU*vs. the expected 40-100). It also lacks the fruitiness and heavier body found in most*ales. Keith's was marketed as an India Pale Ale long before the IPA style gained popularity in craft brewing circles as a revived historic beer style. This has allowed Keith&rsquo;s to effectively grandfather the India Pale Ale name in without meeting the current IPA standards. In the United States, the beer is marketed as Alexander Keith's Nova Scotia Style Pale Ale.

This is pretty much correct. They used the term well before the "modern" version of the IPA (really an exaggeration of the historical style, being quite a bit higher in both gravity and bitterness than it originally was) was defined and agreed upon by organizations like the BJCP and AHA. Thus, they are permitted to keep calling it an IPA (in Canada) without being responsible for false advertising. By the most any modern standard though, it would be considered a cream ale if not a straight-up American and/or east coast pale lager.

Thats why the name cascadian dark ale is used. Black ipa makes no sence
Damn! Did really well with the one post and then had to go use the self-serving CDA designation! It is (surprisingly to many people) a pretty controversial matter, but as ab12 correctly points out below, there is nothing truly Cascadian about it, and as such it is pretty much a slap in the face to the Greg Noonan, one of the most respected and important figures in the American craft beer revival, which is why many strongly resist using the name that outright ignores his contribution (and rightly so, IMO!).

Cascadian Dark Ale makes no sense either. The man credited with creating the style, Greg Noonan, first brewed it in Vermont, where the mountains are green, not cascadian.

Yes, this. There were initially three proposed and widely-used names for the style, and for the reasons above, CDA is the worst.

I'm not a fan of the Black IPA title either because of the oxymoron, but at least it's not such a slap in the face to Mr. Noonan. And I have to admit that it at least an effective name - tell somebody that's never heard of the style that you made a black IPA, and they'll easily be able to get a good idea of what you mean. The IPA bit refers to the style that it is based on and drew inspiration from.

The "India" part stopped being relevant along time ago, but since the name has historical relevance, it's not very widely criticized. And since the "IPA" part of Black IPA has similar historical relevance, it makes a heck of lot more sense than CDA (which obviously refers to a false history), and I would strongly suggest the former before ever resulting to the wholly disrespectful latter. But...

Then its an American-Style India Black Ale
This is more or less the third of the proposed and widely used names for the style, though "American-Style" is pointless as India Black Ale clearly refers to that anyways. IBA is also what the AHA ended up agreeing to call it (for reasons stated above), so not only does it make the most sense of the three, but that also makes it the only name sanctioned by a major governing organization.

Sobbeing more or less educated on the entire matter, it should no longer make sense to call it "pale" (as with black ipa), or misrepresent its origins and disrespect one of the (now deceased) fathers of modern craft beer and homebrewing! In fact, there are a couple OTHER far-less-frequently-used names that STILL follow contemporary naming conventions better... namely American Dark Ale or American Black Ale (keeping in line with BJCP category 10, which is probably what I'd like to see them do). But I still see no reason to use anything other than the now-official (within the AHA/GABF) "India Black Ale", but ADA in particular has a nice - ring to it that resembles the (admittedly) "cool"sounding CDA, WITHOUT simultaneously pissing all over the memory of one of the most well-respected craft brewers of his generation... indeed, of the whole post-prohibition craft brewing revival of the past few decades entirely!
 
and then there is the original name for a dark hoppy beer brewed 150+ years before Noonan: Export India Porter.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top