Let's talk about "IPA" for a minute (a rant)

[MrAverage]

No, absolutely not. We don't live in the past. We make and drink beer now. You don't judge a pizza based on how closely it resembles the first pizza. What people like evolves over time and so should the guidelines.

Of course tastes evolve and that's why the BJCP program has added style categories as new beer styles have developed. Even so, the original styles don't change. They continue to exist as new ones are added.

The creation of an American IPA subcategory acknowledges the evolution of the IPA style from its original form - British IPA, BUT the guidelines for the original form do not accurately reflect the then beer as it was brewed by the majority of British breweries for the past 150 years or so. It's as if the BJCP guidelines for the Bohemian Pilsner category were based on the current specs for Budweiser...after all, isn't Bud an evolution of Bohemian Pilsner?

Just as Budweiser is not the beer that was brewed in Cezcoslovakia (sp?) and therefore should not be used as the standard against which Bohemian Pilsner is judged, the specs in the British IPA guidelines do not accurately describe
the beer that was brewed and called IPA by British brewers up until very recently.

 

[Montanaandy]

Stellar...

 

[mrgstiffler]

Of course tastes evolve and that's why the BJCP program has added style categories as new beer styles have developed. Even so, the original styles don't change. They continue to exist as new ones are added.

The creation of an American IPA subcategory acknowledges the evolution of the IPA style from its original form - British IPA, BUT the guidelines for the original form do not accurately reflect the then beer as it was brewed by the majority of British breweries for the past 150 years or so.

You may have a point if the BJCP was created 150 years ago. British IPA isn't the only style that has changed since its inception.

 

[BigUgly]

Who cares?! Really... why?

Hunter

 

[Piratwolf]

While I have to say that all this is mildly intriguing, my opinion (and my new signature after this post!) was put forth on page 1:

"Beer is a living, organic creation that cannot be pinned to the page. It will always have a core of mystery to it―and that only adds to its allure."

Hooray, beer!

 

[weirdboy]

Thanks for setting me straight on that. I should have directed my complaints at the BJCP although it seems to me that the AHA is also at fault since they use the BJCP judges and guidelines for their competitions. If the AHA was concerned about accuracy in the guidelines, I'm pretty sure they would be able to influence the BCJP

As for the question of authority, I think the BJCP does aim to be an authority on beer styles. Consider this excerpt from the FAQ on their website:

Who gave you the right to tell me what a given beer style is like?

Actually, it's part of the BJCP's Mission Statement. One of the purposes of the BJCP is to promote beer literacy, which includes understanding more about the world's great beer styles. The BJCP has been operating since 1985 and has been publishing guidelines for much of that history.

We have spent considerable time researching world class beer examples, visiting renowned breweries, talking with noted authors, and searching key reference materials for information on beer styles. We have collected this information into our guidelines as a way to reduce the amount of time, effort and variability in learning this knowledge.

It seems to me that an organization that claims to promote beer literacy would be interested in having their information based on historical realities.

But I've flogged this dead horse long enough. As I conceded, it really doesn't matter to anyone unless they're competing in the category.

I think you keep missing the point. The BJCP style guidelines are not meant to be historically accurate. There isn't a "historical" IPA category, it's called "English IPA". They reference MODERN versions of the style, not something made a couple hundred years ago.

The only reasonable quibble you MIGHT have here is the little two-sentence blurb in the guidelines about the history:

Brewed to survive the voyage from England to India. The temperature extremes and rolling of the seas resulted in a highly attenuated beer upon arrival. English pale ales were derived from India Pale Ales.

Let's take a look at a historical quote from the blog:

"ALE, PALE OR BITTER; brewed chiefly for the Indian market and for other
tropical countries.—It is a light beverage, with much aroma, and, in consequence of the regulations regarding the malt duty, is commonly brewed from a wort of specific gravity 1055 or upwards; for no drawback is allowed by the Excise on the exportation of beer brewed from worts of a lower gravity than 1054. This impolitic interference with the operations of trade compels the manufacturer of bitter beer to employ wort of a much greater density than he otherwise would do; for beer made from wort of the specific gravity 1042 is not only better calculated to resist secondary fermentation and the other effects of a hot climate, but is also more pleasant and salubrious to the consumer. Under present circumstances the law expects the brewer of bitter beer to obtain four barrels of marketable beer from every quarter of malt he uses, which is just barely possible when the best malt of a good barley year is employed. . With every quarter of such malt 16lbs. of the best hops are used ; so that, if we assume the cost of malt at 60s. per quarter, and the best hops at 2s. per lb., we shall have, for the prime cost of each barrel of bitter beer—in malt, 15s.; in hops, 8s. ; together, 23s ; from which, on exportation, we must deduct the drawback of 5s. per barrel allowed by the Excise, which brings the prime cost down to 18s. per barrel, exclusive of the expense of manufacture, wear and tear of apparatus, capital invested in barrels, cooperage, &c., which constitute altogether a very formidable outlay. As, however, (his ale is sold as high as from 50s. to 65s. per barrel, there can be no doubt that the bitter ale trade has long been, and still continues, an exceedingly profitable speculation, though somewhat hazardous, from the liability of the article to undergo decomposition ere it finds a market."
"Ures' Dictionary of Arts, Manufactures and Mines" by Andrew Ure & Robert Hunt, 1867, Page 306

So according to this the beer is brewed 1.055+, and the blog says 1.060 or higher. What do the style guidelines say? 1.050-1.075 This range seems reasonable, and roughly matches the historical account even though, as stated many times, the guidelines were written based on modern versions of the style.

Again, the only reasonable complaint you have is that maybe the beer was brewed higher gravity for different reasons than surviving the journey, but instead due to excise taxes forcing the minimum gravity to 1.055.

 

[LandoLincoln]

So your problem is that it shouldn't be called a British IPA because it doesn't match the history of what an actual British IPA was.

Well. That certainly is something to rant about.

 

[ayoungrad]

I personally don't think it's worth a rant. But I think it's interesting.

And FWIW, BJCP does mention a little history in the guidelines for each category. And I believe they expect you to know the history if you sit for their exam.

 

[BrewMU]

I love IPA, and can understand interest in it's history and I probably drink more IPA than anything, but I think it gets an unwarranted amount of shelf space. In Missouri you can get more than a dozen IPAs in any given supermarket, but not one Altbier. That just ain't right.

 

[markoantoniovt]

I love big hoppy beers, regardless of what you call them. They taste the same to me whether you call them IPAs or aggressively hopped pale ales. I don't care what anyone says about the history, the labeling, or the truth vs. myth of IPAs. I will continue to drink big, aggressively hopped ales.

 

[smp1]

Give the "Meantime" IPA, the current BJCP #1 classical example of English IPA a try.