MrAverage
Well-Known Member
Rant on:
First let me say that I have absolutely no problem with anyone brewing or adding anything they want to make beer that they like. Second, let me also say that I am NOT someone who believe in strict adherence to style guidelines. if you want to brew something outside of the guidelines, go right ahead.
Having gotten that out of the way, I just have to ask what the heck is up with IPA ? Here's the situation as I see it:
Americans have gotten it into their heads that "British IPA" was (and perhaps still is) a super strong, heavily hopped pale ale that sloshed around in oak barrels for months as it made its way from England to India, but that story is not supported by actual data from brewers and the accounts of people that observed and wrote about British brewing in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
In other words, almost everything we "know" about British IPA is wrong.
British IPA was actually a relatively low gravity ale - lower than the breweries standard Pale Ales - with a decent but not overwhelming aamount of hop bitterness that wasn't shipped around the world (the vast majortiy of beer shipped from England to India was Porter) and wasn't aged any more than other pale ales. Don't believe me? see Shut up about Barclay Perkins for numerous contemporary accounts and articles on the subject and reproductions of actual brewing records from actual British producers of IPA.
Yet the BJCP guidelines still perpetuate the myth of British IPA as being a strong, high alcohol, heavily hopped brew. Of the 10 comemrcial examples they list, only 2 of them come from "traditional" British brewers - Fuller's and Samuel Smith's. The other British breweries listed are less than 10 years old except for Burton Bridge wich was started in 1981. It's useful to note that among all ofthe examples listed, the two traditional British brewers' versions of IPA are the weakest (about 5% ABV each).
It's very strange to think that the standard IPA's brewed by actual British brewers in the late 1800's and early 1900's would be disqualified from the IPA category in American homebrew competitions because they don't meet the BJCP guidelines for an "authentic" British IPA....
Obvioulsy American brewers have developed their own interpretation of the style - and that's competely fine with me. Just as obvious is the fact that contemporary British brewers have adopted the Americanized version - perhaps becasue they want to appeal to American consumers or berhaps it's because some of them are as ignorant of British brewing history as many Americans are. In any case, these so-called "British" IPA's are nothing more than "American" IPA's made with British ingredients.
I have to wonder why the BJCP persists in perpetuating this distorted view through it's style guidelines. I have no personal interest inthis - I do not enter my beers in competitions - but I find it to be an affront to brewing integrity, a distortion of brewing history, and misleading to homebrewers. What makes it especially egregious to me is that fact that the error is so blatantly obvious to anyone who bothers to examine actual brewing records from actual British brewers and it's so easily fixed by redefining the "British IPA" category to reflect actual historical brewing practicies and expanding the definition of "American IPA" to include the use of British ingredients.
Rant off
First let me say that I have absolutely no problem with anyone brewing or adding anything they want to make beer that they like. Second, let me also say that I am NOT someone who believe in strict adherence to style guidelines. if you want to brew something outside of the guidelines, go right ahead.
Having gotten that out of the way, I just have to ask what the heck is up with IPA ? Here's the situation as I see it:
Americans have gotten it into their heads that "British IPA" was (and perhaps still is) a super strong, heavily hopped pale ale that sloshed around in oak barrels for months as it made its way from England to India, but that story is not supported by actual data from brewers and the accounts of people that observed and wrote about British brewing in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
In other words, almost everything we "know" about British IPA is wrong.
British IPA was actually a relatively low gravity ale - lower than the breweries standard Pale Ales - with a decent but not overwhelming aamount of hop bitterness that wasn't shipped around the world (the vast majortiy of beer shipped from England to India was Porter) and wasn't aged any more than other pale ales. Don't believe me? see Shut up about Barclay Perkins for numerous contemporary accounts and articles on the subject and reproductions of actual brewing records from actual British producers of IPA.
Yet the BJCP guidelines still perpetuate the myth of British IPA as being a strong, high alcohol, heavily hopped brew. Of the 10 comemrcial examples they list, only 2 of them come from "traditional" British brewers - Fuller's and Samuel Smith's. The other British breweries listed are less than 10 years old except for Burton Bridge wich was started in 1981. It's useful to note that among all ofthe examples listed, the two traditional British brewers' versions of IPA are the weakest (about 5% ABV each).
It's very strange to think that the standard IPA's brewed by actual British brewers in the late 1800's and early 1900's would be disqualified from the IPA category in American homebrew competitions because they don't meet the BJCP guidelines for an "authentic" British IPA....
Obvioulsy American brewers have developed their own interpretation of the style - and that's competely fine with me. Just as obvious is the fact that contemporary British brewers have adopted the Americanized version - perhaps becasue they want to appeal to American consumers or berhaps it's because some of them are as ignorant of British brewing history as many Americans are. In any case, these so-called "British" IPA's are nothing more than "American" IPA's made with British ingredients.
I have to wonder why the BJCP persists in perpetuating this distorted view through it's style guidelines. I have no personal interest inthis - I do not enter my beers in competitions - but I find it to be an affront to brewing integrity, a distortion of brewing history, and misleading to homebrewers. What makes it especially egregious to me is that fact that the error is so blatantly obvious to anyone who bothers to examine actual brewing records from actual British brewers and it's so easily fixed by redefining the "British IPA" category to reflect actual historical brewing practicies and expanding the definition of "American IPA" to include the use of British ingredients.
Rant off