Imperial IPA vs. Barleywine

[Torchiest]

We just got Sierra Nevada Bigfoot Barleywine on draft at my bar, and it's really good. Not for the faint of heart (9.6% ABV), but very tasty: fairly sweet on the front but with this awesome dank hop flavor through the middle and a long lingering bitter finish. It's fairly similar to a few IIPAs I've had, and it got me to thinking: what's the difference, really?

They both have lots of malt, lots of hops, high ABV... so where do the differences lie? Is it just the types of malts and hops used, or is there something else I'm missing out on? I'm planning on brewing a barleywine within the next month or so, and I wanted some more information before I settle on a recipe.

 

[dcbrewmeister]

It's a fine line, but still a line. Not really much of anything. IIPA's are an american thingy that got added to the styles list not all that long ago. IIPA's are just hopped up IPA's, above and beyond the styles guidelines for an IPA, barley wines are really just high ABV ales, not really meant to be hoopy on the extreme level of an IIPA, but you have to balance the flavor some how. If you made a barley wine with minimal hops, bittering and/or aroma, you would be drinking nasty tasting, alcohol flavored ale.

Joey @ Blue Star makes a barley wine, somewhere around 12%, and when I first had it I kinda thought the same thing - humm an IPA... but no it's not just an IPA as IPA's main flavor is the hops, the malts just balance it out. The barley wine is more suttle hops flavor/aroma, but high alcohol levels, and a more complex malt flavors.

***Brew pubs in Texas can brew up to 14%

 

[david_42]

My experience has been that an IIPA is more hop-nose oriented and will not age very well. In two years, you have something that is bitter and not much else. Barleywines have high bittering to balance the alcohol level, but they are focused on malts and age nicely.

 

[Whelk]

Yeah--barleywine was originally English, so it's more malt-balanced. IIPA is really an American thing, so it's going to be more hop-balanced.

 

[the_bird]

I tend to think of IIPAs as being a little bit drier. IPAs, remember, were supposed to have very little residual sweetness (one of their key preservative characteristics). While an IIPA will never be DRY, I would usually think of them as not quite so malt-intensive. Lots of IIPA recipes call for corn/table sugar (small amounts, maybe 10%), whereas I don't recall seeing many barleywine recipes do the same.

 

[dcbrewmeister]

My experience has been that an IIPA is more hop-nose oriented and will not age very well. In two years, you have something that is bitter and not much else. Barleywines have high bittering to balance the alcohol level, but they are focused on malts and age nicely.

IIPA's have way too much hops to age gracefully - IPA's came about as a way to get beer from England to the Indian isles - not because they wanted a hoppier beer. IIPA's are not much more than over-hopped brews and are not very malt/hops balanced, and yeah I doubt they age very well.

 

[Torchiest]

Okay, I'm reviving this thread because I'm planning to brew a barleywine in the next month, but I'm not really sure how the recipe should look. Here's the original recipe I've worked out at this point:

Ministry of Sobriety Barleywine

17.00 lb Pale Liquid Extract (8.0 SRM) Extract 85.0 %
1.00 lb Cara-Pils/Dextrine (2.0 SRM) Grain 5.0 %
1.00 lb Caramel/Crystal Malt - 60L (60.0 SRM) Grain 5.0 %
1.00 lb Caravienne Malt (22.0 SRM) Grain 5.0 %
2.00 oz Columbus (Tomahawk) [14.00%] (30 min) Hops 43.5 IBU
1.00 oz Summit [18.00%] (5 min) Hops 7.3 IBU
1 Pkgs Super High Gravity Ale (White Labs #WLP099) Yeast-Ale

Estimated Original Gravity: 1.125 SG
Estimated Final Gravity: 1.023 SG
Estimated Color: 20.0 SRM
Bitterness: 50.8 IBU
Alpha Acid Units: 5.6 AAU
Estimated Alcohol by Volume: 13.5 %

Is this pretty good? I'm trying to do something on the hoppier side, more like Sierra Nevada Bigfoot, to balance out the sweetness.

 

[FlyingHorse]

At the risk of sounding like a hophead...MORE HOPS.

50 IBUs in a 1.125 beer is going to be pretty sweet. Bigfoot is 90 IBUs at 1.096; I have a barleywine in secindary that's 90 IBUs at 1.108, and it's pretty balanced.

 

[Torchiest]

Cool, thanks for the advice. I suppose I'll just double the hops. I can handle 100IBUs. Other than that, this look like a pretty typical Barleywine recipe?

 

[Evan!]

My take is that a double IPA is closer to a barleywine than an imperial IPA is.

 

[Torchiest]

Oh really? And how would you define the difference between a double IPA and an imperial IPA? I thought those terms were interchangeable.

 

[Evan!]

Oh really? And how would you define the difference between a double IPA and an imperial IPA? I thought those terms were interchangeable.

You'd think so, but no. Imperial IPA's are mainly focused on the hops, whereas Double IPA's are as hoppy as (or more than) the IIPA's, but also have a more pronounced malt character, and are not as dry as IIPA's. At least, that's what I've gathered from drinking various commercial iterations.

I might just be completely full of shyt though.

 

[the_bird]

I've always been under the impression that a double-IPA is an incorrect term for an Imperial IPA. There's always going to be room for some IIPAs that are more malt-flavored than others, but my understanding is that "DIPAs" and "IIPAs" are not distinct styles.

EDIT: Partial correction. Brewer's Associatiin guidelines list the two styles together (without differentiating between the two).

Imperial or Double India Pale Ale

Imperial or Double India Pale Ales have intense hop bitterness, flavor and aroma. Alcohol content is high to very high and notably evident.

They range from deep golden to amber in color. The style may use any variety of hops. Though the hop character is intense it’s balanced
with complex alcohol flavors, moderate to high fruity esters and medium to high malt character. Hop character should be fresh and lively
and should not be harsh in quality. The use of large amounts of hops may cause a degree of appropriate hop haze. Imperial or Double India

Pale Ales have medium-high to full body. Diacetyl should not be perceived.

Original Gravity (ºPlato): 1.075-1.100 (19.5-23.5 ºPlato)
Apparent Extract/Final Gravity (ºPlato): 1.018-1.028 (4.5-7 ºPlato)
Alcohol by Weight (Volume): 6.0-8.4% (7.5-10.5%)
Bitterness (IBU): 65-100
Color SRM (EBC): 5-13 (10-26 EBC)

http://www.beertown.org/education/pdf/BA_Beer_Style_2007.pdf

But, no indication that "double IPA" is an incorrect term.

 

[Evan!]

I've always been under the impression that a double-IPA is an incorrect term for an Imperial IPA. There's always going to be room for some IIPAs that are more malt-flavored than others, but my understanding is that "DIPAs" and "IIPAs" are not distinct styles.

Again, this has just been my judgment from trying various styles that we carry here at the shop...and certainly there are exceptions (I think DFH 120m is called an "Imperial IPA", and that's about the maltiest IPA ever)...not to mention that there's no standard for style naming in the industry, so one brewery could make a dry IIPA and call it a Double IPA because they like the sound of it better, and nobody can do anything about it.

But for my personal distinction, I consider IIPA's dryer and more hop-centric, and DIPA's sweeter and maltier. It's not a scientific determination by any means, but it's a useful distinction for me.

 

[FlyingHorse]

Cool, thanks for the advice. I suppose I'll just double the hops. I can handle 100IBUs. Other than that, this look like a pretty typical Barleywine recipe?

I don't now about "typical", but it looks like a barleywine recipe to me (and really, who wants to be "typical"?)

And I also meant to say...

I'm not sure how long you're planning to boil, but I'd go for 90 minutes. If you add the Columbus hops at 90 min, that gets you up to ~70 IBUs. Probably still cold use another early hopping, though.

 

[the_bird]

I would drop the carapils; the LAST thing this beer's going to need is more body.

 

[Dark_Ale]

More Hops 100+ IBU.......And Dryhop

 

[abt]

This is something I've thought about as well, and it's a good question.
My current take on it is this:
As mentioned, the IIPA's are often a bit dryer and more hop-focused, although if you look at historical barleywine recipes, the IBU's stand up to and even slaughter today's IIPA IBU values in some cases, but that was a different era. Barleywines in historical context were brewed from undermodified malt mashes, then often boiled to death to try and increase OG, both of which make for less fermentables and a darker wort. So you end up with a rich amber-brown beer rather than the crisp and dry strong ale we can make today from these highly modified and very pale-kilned malts.
The exception would be when a barleywine was made with "white malt" (lightest kilning available) and hopped to high heaven like most strong beers were, and then attenuated to somewhere around 66-70% apparent if they were lucky. This would be much like Bigfoot using English hops and yeast I think.
I guess then I don't believe there's a "fine line." Just more of a marketing distinction, so that when you pick up a modern IIPA you assume it will be lighter and dryer than a barleywine. Furthermore, make barleywine with modern malts and attenuation (~75%) but with old-world hop rates and you'll never win a comp until you put it in as an IIPA.
Go figure.
Keep in mind that even the term "barleywine" was once just a marketing gimic. And this in a time that common beers (other than "table beers" and including your run-of-the-mill IPA) were brewed to 7-9% abv, well within the "IIPA" realm in that regard.

 

[Torchiest]

Again, this has just been my judgment from trying various styles that we carry here at the shop...and certainly there are exceptions (I think DFH 120m is called an "Imperial IPA", and that's about the maltiest IPA ever)...not to mention that there's no standard for style naming in the industry, so one brewery could make a dry IIPA and call it a Double IPA because they like the sound of it better, and nobody can do anything about it.

But for my personal distinction, I consider IIPA's dryer and more hop-centric, and DIPA's sweeter and maltier. It's not a scientific determination by any means, but it's a useful distinction for me.

I've read that Imperial IPA was the original term, but that Double IPA is a relatively new way to say the same thing. Could just be coincidence with regard to your own experience. I've had plenty with both names and they all ran the gamut from mostly hoppy to quite malty as well.

 

[Torchiest]

I would drop the carapils; the LAST thing this beer's going to need is more body.

Does this even need much beyond the LME? I'm sure the FG will be pretty high no matter what.

 

[CBBaron]

I think both imperial and double adjectives are just terms picked up by American to mean a stronger beer. Imperial from the English Imperial Stout and Double from the German Dopplebock and Belgian Dubble. So some brewers started brewing versions of IPAs that were bigger and hoppier than most IPAs available. These of course were different and cost more to brew than the traditional IPAs so they needed some way to differentiate the beers. Some chose double some prefer imperial.
I think quadrupple is a similar term that brewers started using when they exceeded the OG of common tripples. I havn't seen quadrupple specified as a style but I have seen a number of beers listed as this style.
These are just my opinions on the subject and have no research beyond my own to back them up

Craig

 

[Reidman]

At the risk of sounding like a hophead...MORE HOPS.

50 IBUs in a 1.125 beer is going to be pretty sweet. Bigfoot is 90 IBUs at 1.096; I have a barleywine in secindary that's 90 IBUs at 1.108, and it's pretty balanced.

Ditto...more hops for a beer like this...but I suppose it's just preference..

At 50 IBU's would you even taste the hops through the alcohol...?

 

[Torchiest]

I think both imperial and double adjectives are just terms picked up by American to mean a stronger beer. Imperial from the English Imperial Stout and Double from the German Dopplebock and Belgian Dubble. So some brewers started brewing versions of IPAs that were bigger and hoppier than most IPAs available. These of course were different and cost more to brew than the traditional IPAs so they needed some way to differentiate the beers. Some chose double some prefer imperial.

Craig

I think you actually hit the nail on the head with that one. Everything here has to be bigger, better, faster, stronger, but we still steal the terminology.

 

[ohiobrewtus]

I'm a huge hophead and have had many an IIPA. I brewed one recently that finished at ~100 IBU's (according to QBrew) and 9.3% abv if my calculations were correct. It has a huge hop aroma and it's a bit on the dry side, just how I like it.

I have never attempted to brew a barleywine, but I did recently pick up a 4 pack of Flying Dog's Horn Dog Barleywine. I found it to be very malty and sweet tasting on the front with a strong alcohol kick at the end (10.5% abv). There was very little hop presence in this beer at all (44 IBU).

It's great at first taste, but certainly goes down more like wine than beer. Flying Dog's interpretation may not be repesentative of the style though. I can't say for certain as this is the only Barleywine that I have ever tried.

 

[Torchiest]

Sierra Nevada Bigfoot is positively dank with hop flavor on the back end, although it starts sweet like most barleywines. The bitter hoppy finish makes it more drinkable, in my opinion. I'm just wondering what kinds of specialty grains people use with barleywines.

 

[Reidman]

I'm a huge hophead and have had many an IIPA. I brewed one recently that finished at ~100 IBU's (according to QBrew) and 9.3% abv if my calculations were correct. It has a huge hop aroma and it's a bit on the dry side, just how I like it.

Maybe you could post your recipe if you don't mind.
This is my favorite style hands down and I've been looking for a good recipe outside of trying to clone a brew.

Torchiest- I agree. Too much sweet can be overwhelming if it's not balanced with a good hoppy bitterness...

 

[Torchiest]

Maybe you could post your recipe if you don't mind.
This is my favorite style hands down and I've been looking for a good recipe outside of trying to clone a brew.

Torchiest- I agree. Too much sweet can be overwhelming if it's not balanced with a good hoppy bitterness...

My IIPA recipe is here.

 

[Reidman]

My IIPA recipe is here.

Hey this sounds great man, you should post it in the recipe section for easy access...some of my favorite hops in there...:rockin:

 

[abt]

So, grain of salt and all that, but if you think you're going to go from 1.125 to 1.023 with 85% LME, you are going to be disappointed. Think more like 1.040, in which case you're going to want something like 70-100 IBU's in there, and some little 6oz glasses from which to drink it! (Actually throw in some lactic acid at the end and it might end up a little more like old-world barleywines, but I'm not sure our palettes are up for that these days.)
Any chance you could manage a 6# mini-mash (3# 2-row, 3# specialty grains at ~150°F for 60m)? If so, and you can bring your OG down to around 1.100 I think you'll be much happier with the results. (If you have a 3g stock pot and a colander you can, so don't think this is a big deal.)
Also, I wouldn't recommend Summit as a finishing hop (or any hop over 10% AA for the most part, unless in conjunction with other hops and/or you just really know what you're doing and are going to like it.)
Put those Columbus hops at 60 min, and choose virtually any amount between 2 and 5 oz of any one or combination of the following: Cascade, Goldings, Fuggles, Amarillo, Simcoe, Centennial, Vanguard, Hallertau (yes, the German one), and Sterling for the last 0-15m, then do something similar for dryhopping in secondary for 3-5 days.
And about that yeast - unless you've already bought it, there's no need for it and the flavor characteristics aren't all that known. Any English or American ale yeast will work here, particularly one with decent apparent attenuation (75-78% or so.) Prop it up to a gallon before you pitch and aerate the living bejeezus out of it. After the kraeusen falls, swirl it twice or three times a day for 10 days or so before transferring, at which point it's probably done what it's going to do given the wort composition. That 099 has to be babied and fed in increments to do what it was made to do, which is reach 20%+ abv (with a suitably fermentable wort, which you won't have with that much LME.)

Okay, I'm reviving this thread because I'm planning to brew a barleywine in the next month, but I'm not really sure how the recipe should look. Here's the original recipe I've worked out at this point:

Ministry of Sobriety Barleywine

17.00 lb Pale Liquid Extract (8.0 SRM) Extract 85.0 %
1.00 lb Cara-Pils/Dextrine (2.0 SRM) Grain 5.0 %
1.00 lb Caramel/Crystal Malt - 60L (60.0 SRM) Grain 5.0 %
1.00 lb Caravienne Malt (22.0 SRM) Grain 5.0 %
2.00 oz Columbus (Tomahawk) [14.00%] (30 min) Hops 43.5 IBU
1.00 oz Summit [18.00%] (5 min) Hops 7.3 IBU
1 Pkgs Super High Gravity Ale (White Labs #WLP099) Yeast-Ale

Estimated Original Gravity: 1.125 SG
Estimated Final Gravity: 1.023 SG
Estimated Color: 20.0 SRM
Bitterness: 50.8 IBU
Alpha Acid Units: 5.6 AAU
Estimated Alcohol by Volume: 13.5 %

Is this pretty good? I'm trying to do something on the hoppier side, more like Sierra Nevada Bigfoot, to balance out the sweetness.

 

[Torchiest]

Thanks for the great reply, abt. I'm going to re-evaluate my concept for the barleywine. I'm not sure I really need to make it so huge on the OG, but I figured why not max it out. But a FG of 1.040 is pretty high. Luckily, the brewdate for this is still weeks in the future, so I can play around with the concept a lot more.

 

[HarvInSTL]

Thanks for the great reply, abt. I'm going to re-evaluate my concept for the barleywine. I'm not sure I really need to make it so huge on the OG, but I figured why not max it out. But a FG of 1.040 is pretty high. Luckily, the brewdate for this is still weeks in the future, so I can play around with the concept a lot more.

No matter your SG just pitch some Qyeast 1056 and after 2 weeks rack to secondary, dry hop and pitch some dry champagne yeast.

 

[Grimsawyer]

ok, earlier I read that IIPA's don't stand the test of time where barleywines do... ok, i'm confused. Isn't the hight ABV and hopload what makes it possible for either of these beers to age well. Hops and alcohol being great preservitves? IPA's were first made to have a better shelf life... IIPA's have more. I'm confused here. If you have a beer that's a bit drier and hoppier tasting with 9% and a barleywine that has more bittering hops and less finishing hops than an IIPA but with 9%abv wouldn't they both get better for the same amount of time? Wouldn't they both peak 7-10 years out?

 

[the_bird]

One of the key differences between a barleywine and an IIPA is hop flavor and aroma, which is going to drop out fairly soon even when added at these huge levels. Hop flavor and aroma simply doesn't last forever. In effect, I would expect an aged IIPA to be fairly similar in character to a barleywine, albeit more bitter and somewhat drier - but without the big hop character that makes an IIPA.

 

[Torchiest]

Yeah, you basically are drinking the IIPA for the hops, which do keep the beer from turning, but in a sort of altruistic, taking-one-for-the-team kind of way. They're still drinkable later, but the best aspect of the flavor is gone.

 

[abt]

My opinion, stay away from champagne yeast. It is a poor last-result sort of thing. Pitch plenty of strong yeast in a well-oxygenated and fermentable wort and keep it happy. There is no pro brewer (certainly not winning awards) that would use champagne yeast in a beer.

 

[Torchiest]

Don't worry, champagne yeast is not on the agenda. I was curious about the characteristics of the WLP099 though. Anyone used it before?

 

[Torchiest]

Okay, it's been almost a year, and I still haven't brewed the Barleywine yet, so I'll re-open this topic for further discussion. I'm going to do a half size batch and throw it in my 3 gallon carboy, so I can just set it aside and forget about it for a long time without it getting in the way of my other brews.

But, no one answered my question about WLP099, the super-high gravity beer yeast from White Labs. Has anyone used it, and what was your experience with it? I was thinking I could start with another yeast and then throw the WLP099 in after a month or so to finish it off without losing some good yeast character from another strain.

 

[Ooompa Loompa]

The thing with WLP99, is that it works best when you start with a lower gravity, and build it up by gradually adding concentrated wort to increase the gravity. For example you would maybe make 3 gallons at 1.075, pitch the yeast, give it a day or two then add a half gallon to a gallon of super concentrated wort (around 1.13 or so), give it a day or two to eat that, then add more super concentrated wort, etc. Essentially you have to build up your beer over time. So I really don't see it working very well simply by pitching it into a beer that is already at 9-10%. If I were you I'd pitch something like 1028 or 1056, wait until that has done its job completely, then pitch a package of champagne yeast to drop those last few points of gravity.

Note: I don't have any personal experience with WLP099, the above statements are based upon my knowledge just from reading. I did however bottle a batch of RIS about a month ago where I pitched 1028 into it, then finished with champagne yeast. It already tasted great at bottling, I am going to let the bottles age for a few more months before I touch them, but just based upon my tastes at bottling time I know that it will taste awesome when I crack open that first bottle.

 

[mike4420]

Torchiest, just wondering what you decided to do.

 

[Torchiest]

Well, all my 5 and 6 gallon carboys were full, and I've been debating doing a Barleywine or a Mead with my 3 gallon carboy. So this project is still up in the air for now. My next brews will probably be a brown ale and a raspberry wit.

I might try building up a good-sized starter in a 5 gallon carboy and then brewing a couple more gallons to make the barleywine though. Then I can rack it to the 3 gallon carboy after a couple months and forget about it. I've just been kinda timid about the barleywine so far, since it'll be a long time commitment. I guess I'm curious what kind of character the WLP099 has, flavor-wise, but nobody seems to know the answer to that.