Make IPA Clear Again

[balrog]

Agreed. And get off my lawn!

 

[day_trippr]

Oh my.
@Nagorg is gonna stroke out

 

[ba-brewer]

first aid.

Zappa Amarillo Bravo IPA fermented with Hansen ale blend.

 

[Nagorg]

Oh my.
@Nagorg is gonna stroke out

More like gross out...

 

[Nagorg]

first aid.

Thank you!

 

[beersk]

Yeah it's irritating. Even stuff from good breweries like Equilibrium, Monkish, Toppling Goliath. Plenty from less known breweries, too.

Toppling Goliath and good brewery do not belong in the same sentence.

 

[VirginiaHops1]

Toppling Goliath and good brewery do not belong in the same sentence.

Taste is subjective but you're probably greatly in the minority there. I had several of their beers recently and they were good. King Sue was phenomenal.

 

[beersk]

Highly subjective. I've had multiple cans with chunky BS in them. Plus they have the worst ethics and attitude towards other breweries. The ego they have just kills it all for me. They really are just awful. Now Pulpit Rock, on the other hand, is fantastic.

 

[davidabcd]

Interesting thread even though I don't drink anything IPA.

 

[Nagorg]

Interesting thread even though I don't drink anything IPA.

A point to take away, these hazy abomination's aren't really characteristic of IPA. So, please don't think that liking them means you like IPA. Those that don't like "those bitter IPA's", don't really like IPA in the first place IMO. Maybe those folks should have a Pale Ale instead!

 

[kingmatt]

Stupid thread is stupid. If you don't like hazy IPAs, DON'T DRINK THEM. If you are really so concerned with buying a new beer and not knowing if it is hazy, look it up on untappd first.

OP is just trolling at this point.

 

[Chris-Naz]

Zappa Amarillo Bravo IPA fermented with Hansen ale blend.[/QUOTE]

Nice.
How did you like the Zappa contribution and how much and at which points during your process did you add them? Cheers!

 

[schematix]

deleted

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

 

[WIexile]

Toppling Goliath and good brewery do not belong in the same sentence.

Highly subjective.

LOL....

I dont think having the #1 rated beer for years is subjective.

 

[ba-brewer]

Zappa Amarillo Bravo IPA fermented with Hansen ale blend.

Nice.
How did you like the Zappa contribution and how much and at which points during your process did you add them? Cheers![/QUOTE]
I don't think I got get any fruity pebbles, but there was some fruitiness to that beer mid-keg. The keg started a bit dank citrusy, got a bit fruity half way thru then ended more grapefruit, there was also a bit of spiciness throughout. Equal parts Zappa and Amarillo; 14gm at 10min, 28gm steep at 160F, 70gm dry hop. There was 14gm bravo at 10min and 28gm in the steep. It also had 28gm of strata in the steep and dry hop, as something weed like seemed appropriate with Zappa.

 

[davidabcd]

A point to take away, these hazy abomination's aren't really characteristic of IPA. So, please don't think that liking them means you like IPA. Those that don't like "those bitter IPA's", don't really like IPA in the first place IMO. Maybe those folks should have a Pale Ale instead!

Yes, you've been steadfast (make IPA clear again) and I agree with you; NEIPA and company is unique enough to warrant its own category; otherwise, the field gets muddied. When I said what I did, I meant it to mean anything remotely IPA including IPAs of yore. I made a few traditional DIPAs. Family loved them; but me, not so much. My taste leans heavily toward WB stouts, old ales, tripels and quads.
In any case, it's always interesting to get all of the viewpoints on a subject and the heartfelt opinions.

 

[Blazinlow86]

Yes, you've been steadfast (make IPA clear again) and I agree with you; NEIPA and company is unique enough to warrant its own category; otherwise, the field gets muddied. When I said what I did, I meant it to mean anything remotely IPA including IPAs of yore. I made a few traditional DIPAs. Family loved them; but me, not so much. My taste leans heavily toward WB stouts, old ales, tripels and quads.
In any case, it's always interesting to get all of the viewpoints on a subject and the heartfelt opinions.

Isn't "neipa" it's own category already just as all the other different types of ipas? Were would you draw the line between what makes a ipa or a neipa specifically if another new category was created. What would the rules be to call something a ipa? Would it have a limit to the amount of hops used to qualify? Can they only be added at certain times? Would there be a limit to how much hop flavor there can be? Does it need to be filtered clear or just kinda clear? What are the current rules to what qualifies as a ipa anyway? Wasn't it originally a higher ABV beer with higher amount of hops to start? Has being clear ever even been a requirement? If you submit a old style IPA to a bcjp comp would it score lower if not crystal clear currently? Cheers

 

[davidabcd]

sn't "neipa" it's own category already just as all the other different types of ipas? Were would you draw the line between what makes a ipa or a neipa specifically if another new category was created. What would the rules be to call something a ipa? Would it have a limit to the amount of hops used to qualify? Can they only be added at certain times? Would there be a limit to how much hop flavor there can be? Does it need to be filtered clear or just kinda clear? What are the current rules to what qualifies as a ipa anyway? Wasn't it originally a higher ABV beer with higher amount of hops to start? Has being clear ever even been a requirement? If you submit a old style IPA to a bcjp comp would it score lower if not crystal clear currently? Cheers

You need to pump the brakes. As I stated clearly, you're talking to someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight and doesn't really care what anyone does when making a beer. My opinion is my opinion, I gave it and that's final. I provided an unemotional response based on what I've read here. It's up to people like you, who care, to answer those questions. I can appreciate your enthusiasm.

 

[Blazinlow86]

You need to pump the brakes. As I stated clearly, you're talking to someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight and doesn't really care what anyone does when making a beer. My opinion is my opinion, I gave it and that's final. I provided an unemotional response based on what I've read here. It's up to people like you, who care, to answer those questions. I can appreciate your enthusiasm.

I was refering to your "NEIPA and company is unique enough to warrant its own category" comment. I don't have a dog in the fight either as I like both old and new IPAs along with alot of other styles too. I can appreciate that to the few that can only drink the old style ipas its frustrating because there no longer the popular IPA and therefore harder to find but I can't understand why "neipa" isn't a clear enough description. No pun intended lol. Cheers

 

[Schlenkerla]

For the both of you... It's all the more reason to make what you like to drink. Isn't that why we started making home brew.... Other then the coolness factor of saying I made beer.

I was refering to your "NEIPA and company is unique enough to warrant its own category" comment. I don't have a dog in the fight either as I like both old and new IPAs along with alot of other styles too. I can appreciate that to the few that can only drink the old style ipas its frustrating because there no longer the popular IPA and therefore harder to find but I can't understand why "neipa" isn't a clear enough description. No pun intended lol. Cheers

You need to pump the brakes. As I stated clearly, you're talking to someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight and doesn't really care what anyone does when making a beer. My opinion is my opinion, I gave it and that's final. I provided an unemotional response based on what I've read here. It's up to people like you, who care, to answer those questions. I can appreciate your enthusiasm.

 

[NeoBrew]

Isn't "neipa" it's own category already just as all the other different types of ipas? Were would you draw the line between what makes a ipa or a neipa specifically if another new category was created. What would the rules be to call something a ipa? Would it have a limit to the amount of hops used to qualify? Can they only be added at certain times? Would there be a limit to how much hop flavor there can be? Does it need to be filtered clear or just kinda clear? What are the current rules to what qualifies as a ipa anyway? Wasn't it originally a higher ABV beer with higher amount of hops to start? Has being clear ever even been a requirement? If you submit a old style IPA to a bcjp comp would it score lower if not crystal clear currently? Cheers

I had never looked up the actual BJPC styles on this topic. Interestingly NEIPA is not an official category. It is a provisional style under the 21B Specialty IPA section. The notes indicate that is simply to avoid having to re-publish the guide more often than every 5 years. Hilariously they took a little dig at "trendy" styles in the Specialty description. (Red text is my call out). Also, who's waiting for Zima Clear IPA?????

21B. Specialty IPA



Specialty IPA isn’t a distinct style, but is more appropriately thought of as a competition entry category. Beers entered as this style are not experimental beers; they are a collection of currently produced types of beer that may or may not have any market longevity. This category also allows for expansion, so potential future IPA variants (St. Patrick’s Day Green IPA, Romulan Blue IPA, Zima Clear IPA, etc.) have a place to be entered without redoing the style guidelines. The only common element is that they have the balance and overall impression of an IPA (typically, an American IPA) but with some minor tweak.


The term ‘IPA’ is used as a singular descriptor of a type of hoppy, bitter beer. It is not meant to be spelled out as ‘India Pale Ale’ when used in the context of a Specialty IPA. None of these beers ever historically went to India, and many aren’t pale. But the craft beer market knows what to expect in balance when a beer is described as an ‘IPA’ – so the modifiers used to differentiate them are based on that concept alone.

So here are the Overall Impression and Appearance sections of the two styles:

21A. American IPA


Overall Impression
A decidedly hoppy and bitter, moderately strong American pale ale, showcasing modern American or New World hop varieties. The balance is hop-forward, with a clean fermentation profile, dryish finish, and clean, supporting malt allowing a creative range of hop character to shine through.


Appearance
Color ranges from medium gold to light reddish-amber. Should be clear, although unfiltered dry-hopped versions may be a bit hazy. Medium-sized, white to off-white head with good persistence.


21B. Specialty IPA: New England IPA

February 21, 2018


Overall Impression

An American IPA with intense fruit flavors and aromas, a soft body, and smooth mouthfeel, and often opaque with substantial haze. Less perceived bitterness than traditional IPAs but always massively hop forward. This emphasis on late hopping, especially dry hopping, with hops with tropical fruit qualities lends the specific ‘juicy’ character for which this style is known.


Appearance

Color ranges from straw to yellow, sometimes with an orange hue. Hazy, often opaque, clarity; should not be cloudy or murky. The opacity can add a ‘shine’ to the beer and make the color seem darker. Any visible floating particulates (hop matter, yeast clumps, etc.) are a fault. Medium to rocky meringue white head with high to very high retention.


In my opinion, these are not the same beer. The only reason NEIPA even got called an IPA is because it had (and still has) the golden touch when it comes to consumers. The IPA label is something that has been selling a lot of beer. It was unfortunate that the originators of the style didn't just create a new label for their creation. It would have alleviated a lot of the angst that the east vs west battle has created.

 

[Schlenkerla]

I had never looked up the actual BJPC styles on this topic. Interestingly NEIPA is not an official category. It is a provisional style under the 21B Specialty IPA section. The notes indicate that is simply to avoid having to re-publish the guide more often than every 5 years. Hilariously they took a little dig at "trendy" styles in the Specialty description. (Red text is my call out). Also, who's waiting for Zima Clear IPA?????

21B. Specialty IPA



Specialty IPA isn’t a distinct style, but is more appropriately thought of as a competition entry category. Beers entered as this style are not experimental beers; they are a collection of currently produced types of beer that may or may not have any market longevity. This category also allows for expansion, so potential future IPA variants (St. Patrick’s Day Green IPA, Romulan Blue IPA, Zima Clear IPA, etc.) have a place to be entered without redoing the style guidelines. The only common element is that they have the balance and overall impression of an IPA (typically, an American IPA) but with some minor tweak.


The term ‘IPA’ is used as a singular descriptor of a type of hoppy, bitter beer. It is not meant to be spelled out as ‘India Pale Ale’ when used in the context of a Specialty IPA. None of these beers ever historically went to India, and many aren’t pale. But the craft beer market knows what to expect in balance when a beer is described as an ‘IPA’ – so the modifiers used to differentiate them are based on that concept alone.

So here are the Overall Impression and Appearance sections of the two styles:

21A. American IPA


Overall Impression
A decidedly hoppy and bitter, moderately strong American pale ale, showcasing modern American or New World hop varieties. The balance is hop-forward, with a clean fermentation profile, dryish finish, and clean, supporting malt allowing a creative range of hop character to shine through.


Appearance
Color ranges from medium gold to light reddish-amber. Should be clear, although unfiltered dry-hopped versions may be a bit hazy. Medium-sized, white to off-white head with good persistence.


21B. Specialty IPA: New England IPA

February 21, 2018


Overall Impression

An American IPA with intense fruit flavors and aromas, a soft body, and smooth mouthfeel, and often opaque with substantial haze. Less perceived bitterness than traditional IPAs but always massively hop forward. This emphasis on late hopping, especially dry hopping, with hops with tropical fruit qualities lends the specific ‘juicy’ character for which this style is known.


Appearance

Color ranges from straw to yellow, sometimes with an orange hue. Hazy, often opaque, clarity; should not be cloudy or murky. The opacity can add a ‘shine’ to the beer and make the color seem darker. Any visible floating particulates (hop matter, yeast clumps, etc.) are a fault. Medium to rocky meringue white head with high to very high retention.


In my opinion, these are not the same beer. The only reason NEIPA even got called an IPA is because it had (and still has) the golden touch when it comes to consumers. The IPA label is something that has been selling a lot of beer. It was unfortunate that the originators of the style didn't just create a new label for their creation. It would have alleviated a lot of the angst that the east vs west battle has created.

Good post....

I think of my brewery owning friends who welcome the lifted clarity requirement.

Now it's like a handicap for what's a high gravity pale ale that's supposed to be ready for export, on that long voyage to India sailing on the British Frigate called HMS Transparentanica.

 

[Qhrumphf]

I had never looked up the actual BJPC styles on this topic. Interestingly NEIPA is not an official category. It is a provisional style under the 21B Specialty IPA section. The notes indicate that is simply to avoid having to re-publish the guide more often than every 5 years. Hilariously they took a little dig at "trendy" styles in the Specialty description. (Red text is my call out). Also, who's waiting for Zima Clear IPA?????

21B. Specialty IPA



Specialty IPA isn’t a distinct style, but is more appropriately thought of as a competition entry category. Beers entered as this style are not experimental beers; they are a collection of currently produced types of beer that may or may not have any market longevity. This category also allows for expansion, so potential future IPA variants (St. Patrick’s Day Green IPA, Romulan Blue IPA, Zima Clear IPA, etc.) have a place to be entered without redoing the style guidelines. The only common element is that they have the balance and overall impression of an IPA (typically, an American IPA) but with some minor tweak.


The term ‘IPA’ is used as a singular descriptor of a type of hoppy, bitter beer. It is not meant to be spelled out as ‘India Pale Ale’ when used in the context of a Specialty IPA. None of these beers ever historically went to India, and many aren’t pale. But the craft beer market knows what to expect in balance when a beer is described as an ‘IPA’ – so the modifiers used to differentiate them are based on that concept alone.

So here are the Overall Impression and Appearance sections of the two styles:

21A. American IPA


Overall Impression
A decidedly hoppy and bitter, moderately strong American pale ale, showcasing modern American or New World hop varieties. The balance is hop-forward, with a clean fermentation profile, dryish finish, and clean, supporting malt allowing a creative range of hop character to shine through.


Appearance
Color ranges from medium gold to light reddish-amber. Should be clear, although unfiltered dry-hopped versions may be a bit hazy. Medium-sized, white to off-white head with good persistence.


21B. Specialty IPA: New England IPA

February 21, 2018


Overall Impression

An American IPA with intense fruit flavors and aromas, a soft body, and smooth mouthfeel, and often opaque with substantial haze. Less perceived bitterness than traditional IPAs but always massively hop forward. This emphasis on late hopping, especially dry hopping, with hops with tropical fruit qualities lends the specific ‘juicy’ character for which this style is known.


Appearance

Color ranges from straw to yellow, sometimes with an orange hue. Hazy, often opaque, clarity; should not be cloudy or murky. The opacity can add a ‘shine’ to the beer and make the color seem darker. Any visible floating particulates (hop matter, yeast clumps, etc.) are a fault. Medium to rocky meringue white head with high to very high retention.


In my opinion, these are not the same beer. The only reason NEIPA even got called an IPA is because it had (and still has) the golden touch when it comes to consumers. The IPA label is something that has been selling a lot of beer. It was unfortunate that the originators of the style didn't just create a new label for their creation. It would have alleviated a lot of the angst that the east vs west battle has created.

Except in BJCP terms appearance is 3 points out of 50. Given that even world class examples of styles are seldom 50 point beers (or even 47 point beers), 3 points won't break anything.

That doesn't make "not the same beer".

The real differentiator is the bitterness level. And bitterness in IPAs has always varied. And frankly, the perceived bitterness of many NEIPAs is in the same realm as many English IPAs. And some full American IPA bitterness.

Wanna make the claim that it's closer to an APA than IPA? Sure. But those lines have been blurry for a decade as well.

Unless you want to limit IPA to ONLY dinosaur pine-grapefruit PNW hops with crystal malts and brilliant clarity, then the "it doesn't belong with IPAs" claim is bollocks.

 

[CascadesBrewer]

The real differentiator is the bitterness level. And bitterness in IPAs has always varied. And frankly, the perceived bitterness of many NEIPAs is in the same realm as many English IPAs. And some full American IPA bitterness.

Honestly the hops are about the only thing that connects the two styles. NEIPA is based on a fairly different malt bill, uses a different set of yeasts, and has a different water profile. If you look at the evolution of the NEIPA style, you can see where it evolved from the IPA as a more hop-forward and less bitter version, but these days the NEIPAs that people wait in lines to get are very different beers than the classic American IPA.

 

[Qhrumphf]

Honestly the hops are about the only thing that connects the two styles. NEIPA is based on a fairly different malt bill, uses a different set of yeasts, and has a different water profile. If you look at the evolution of the NEIPA style, you can see where it evolved from the IPA as a more hop-forward and less bitter version, but these days the NEIPAs that people wait in lines to get are very different beers than the classic American IPA.

I don't buy that for a second.

It's no more dissimilar than the grain bill between say Pliny and DFH 60 min.

And the use of fruitier English yeasts is nothing new either.

And water comps vary widely for both as well. If they're adjusted at all (as with many homebrewers, many pros do nothing, right or wrong).

Again, unless you're gonna pigeonhole one particular variety of IPA to compare (and even then I challenge you to prove consistency there), this is no more a variation than English vs East Coast/Mid-Atlantic vs West Coast vs PNW vs Rye vs Red vs Black Vs White vs whatever.

Hops are the underlying theme of IPA. And this fits that bill.

 

[NeoBrew]

Except in BJCP terms appearance is 3 points out of 50. Given that even world class examples of styles are seldom 50 point beers (or even 47 point beers), 3 points won't break anything.

That doesn't make "not the same beer".

The real differentiator is the bitterness level. And bitterness in IPAs has always varied. And frankly, the perceived bitterness of many NEIPAs is in the same realm as many English IPAs. And some full American IPA bitterness.

Wanna make the claim that it's closer to an APA than IPA? Sure. But those lines have been blurry for a decade as well.

Unless you want to limit IPA to ONLY dinosaur pine-grapefruit PNW hops with crystal malts and brilliant clarity, then the "it doesn't belong with IPAs" claim is bollocks.

With all due respect, I think you have a skewed view of what a west coast IPA is. They are in fact bitter, sometimes really bitter, with a dry but malty mouth feel/taste. They are not all crystal clear, some have a slight hop haze. You statement that IPA's using hops from the pacific north west are only used in "dinosaur" beers is insulting to all of us who love those beers.

I've never had a NEIPA (Of which I have admitted trying to avoid because the few examples I've had I did not care for) which exhibits much bitterness. They in fact tend to be rather flabby and muddled. The very statement "juicy" is something that I don't think you could ever apply to a solid west coast IPA.

It's exactly this blurring kind of blurring of reality that makes it hard and confusing to be a consumer.

 

[Chris-Naz]

Accidental triple with no fermentation finings and dry hopped to the tune of 2.25lb/barrel with 1:1:1 simcoe/amarillo/centennial. You can see the tree house brewing logo through the hop haze... Pretty good looking IMO!

 

[Qhrumphf]

With all due respect, I think you have a skewed view of what a west coast IPA is. They are in fact bitter, sometimes really bitter, with a dry but malty mouth feel/taste. They are not all crystal clear, some have a slight hop haze. You statement that IPA's using hops from the pacific north west are only used in "dinosaur" beers is insulting to all of us who love those beers.

I've never had a NEIPA (Of which I have admitted trying to avoid because the few examples I've had I did not care for) which exhibits much bitterness. They in fact tend to be rather flabby and muddled. The very statement "juicy" is something that I don't think you could ever apply to a solid west coast IPA.

It's exactly this blurring kind of blurring of reality that makes it hard and confusing to be a consumer.

Don't put words in my mouth. I am well familiar with west coast IPA. Perhaps the only IPA i haven't had *many* of is a White IPA, and while I've had a few decent Black IPAs it's a subset I don't care for.

By "dinosaur" hops I'm referring to the straight grapefruit/pine classics. The C hops. Call it old school if you prefer.

But many west coast IPAs express the same tropical and fruity notes, well beyond that old school C hop character. The same "juicy" characters are often there (Citra, Mosaic, Galaxy, all NEIPA standbys are all heavily present in West Coast IPAs as well), but the bitterness belies the "juicy" impression. Plus whatever is contributed via biotransformation, which tends to be mostly unique to the NEIPA (or at least that's where it's deliberate).

My point was that people get so hung up on haze, for or against, that they lose sight (pun unintended) of just how similar the beers can be otherwise.

Another poster pointed out that in its evolution many of the currently hyped NEIPAs are very different from where the style started, and that's valid. But I urge you find fresh Heady Topper, arguably one of the if not the beer that started this trend. It's VERY bitter. Not West Coast IBU Arms Race bitter, but bitter enough to exceed many a west-coast style IPA.

 

[NeoBrew]

By "dinosaur" hops I'm referring to the straight grapefruit/pine classics. The C hops. Call it old school if you prefer.

I can agree with "old school". These hops are a normal part of brewing in America. To call them dinosaurs is out of touch.

But I urge you find fresh Heady Topper, arguably one of the if not the beer that started this trend. It's VERY bitter. Not West Coast IBU Arms Race bitter, but bitter enough to exceed many a west-coast style IPA.

This is a common argument which is totally impractical to prove or disprove. I don't live anywhere near the brewery, so this type of beer is completely inaccessible to me.

 

[Nagorg]

My point was that people get so hung up on haze, for or against, that they lose sight (pun unintended) of just how similar the beers can be otherwise.

I think is worth acknowledging that there is a distinct difference in "some haze" and complete turbidity. Its the acceptance of the latter and its impact to the industry in general that really raises my hackles. Its really a devolution for the IPA style and beer in general IMO.

I do not include styles like Hefeweizen in this comment since number one, they are supposed to be turbid and number two, no alignment with IPA.

 

[Jag75]

Heres my take . RAHAHB! Cheers

 

[NeoBrew]

I think is worth acknowledging that there is a distinct difference in "some haze" and complete turbidity. Its the acceptance of the latter and its impact to the industry in general that really raises my hackles. Its really a devolution for the IPA style and beer in general IMO.

I do not include styles like Hefeweizen in this comment since number one, they are supposed to be turbid and number two, no alignment with IPA.

Case in point. I went out to a Chilli's with the inlaws yesterday. I ordered an Surly Furious. It's a west coast style IPA. It can have a slight hop haze to it. The waitress reported to me that the keg had just tapped and that they were changing it. I was more than happy to wait. What came a few minutes later was pretty much like it was mixed 50% with milk. I don't even know how you can get it to look like that. I've bought kegs for home and have had them pour clear from the first draw.

But, the bartender poured it, thought it was ok. The waitress delivered it, thought it was ok. I took one look at it and asked what it was. She seemed a little put off but dutifully returned it to the bartender. He then came out with a fresh one that was at least passably clear. His response was that he had just changed the keg and that they pour a little cloudy sometimes. But he had no reservation about serving that beer. THAT is a negative impact that these styles have had. It makes beer faults in other beers seem acceptable.

 

[vtipsy]

Call it hoppy ale. New England hoppy ale or West coast hoppy ale or Whatever Tickles hoppy ale but it's not bloody India Pale Ale.

APA - American Pale Ale. Now thats better, that makes sense.

Maybe go with SAPA - Strong American Pale Ale.

 

[Qhrumphf]

I think is worth acknowledging that there is a distinct difference in "some haze" and complete turbidity. Its the acceptance of the latter and its impact to the industry in general that really raises my hackles. Its really a devolution for the IPA style and beer in general IMO.

I do not include styles like Hefeweizen in this comment since number one, they are supposed to be turbid and number two, no alignment with IPA.

I'm fine with a complete opaque haze in this instance. Same with Wit and Hefe.

Now, when it's visibly *chunky* and has bits floating (which I've seen the kids call "pulpy", excuse me while I vomit), even for NEIPA that's a sh*te brewer. And there's definitely plenty of that out there. Often the ones with gratuitous hop burn as well.

 

[kingmatt]

Case in point. I went out to a Chilli's with the inlaws yesterday. I ordered an Surly Furious. It's a west coast style IPA. It can have a slight hop haze to it. The waitress reported to me that the keg had just tapped and that they were changing it. I was more than happy to wait. What came a few minutes later was pretty much like it was mixed 50% with milk. I don't even know how you can get it to look like that. I've bought kegs for home and have had them pour clear from the first draw.

But, the bartender poured it, thought it was ok. The waitress delivered it, thought it was ok. I took one look at it and asked what it was. She seemed a little put off but dutifully returned it to the bartender. He then came out with a fresh one that was at least passably clear. His response was that he had just changed the keg and that they pour a little cloudy sometimes. But he had no reservation about serving that beer. THAT is a negative impact that these styles have had. It makes beer faults in other beers seem acceptable.

I'd wager that had more to do with the wait staff/bartender at Chili's either not knowing enough about the beer or not really caring enough because they work at Chili's. I have experienced several similar situations (especially in my time as a waiter in college) and this was well before the "haze craze".

 

[ba-brewer]

The first hazy IPA I brewed was a Surly Furious clone, that beer never cleared. Thinking I may have dry hopped too early.

 

[day_trippr]

[...]But I urge you find fresh Heady Topper, arguably one of the if not the beer that started this trend. It's VERY bitter. Not West Coast IBU Arms Race bitter, but bitter enough to exceed many a west-coast style IPA.

Being near 'nuff to get HT as often as desired, and having consumed the best NEIPAs often (Treehouse, etc - I do live in the epicenter of the style) and having brewed numerous WCIPA and NEIPAs, I dispute the notion that the classic NEIPA is anywhere near the class WCIPA wrt bitterness - perceived or otherwise.

That is all.

Cheers!

 

[Cavpilot2000]

I agree that this thread has become a circle jerk.

A circle jerk is a really good way to make a cloudy beer.

 

[Cavpilot2000]

Being near 'nuff to get HT as often as desired, and having consumed the best NEIPAs often (Treehouse, etc - I do live in the epicenter of the style) and having brewed numerous WCIPA and NEIPAs, I dispute the notion that the classic NEIPA is anywhere near the class WCIPA wrt bitterness - perceived or otherwise.

That is all.

Cheers!

I see you're in Stow - I love Medusa. Sure, they do a lot of IPA stuff, but their cream ale and dark milds are fantastic!

 

[beersk]

LOL....

I dont think having the #1 rated beer for years is subjective.

No, it goes to show that the masses are generally senseless. Take a look at the Top 40 music charts... Surely that many people CAN'T be wrong! Surely...