Strong IPA

[Hallucigenia]

Seldom does a space make more difference....

[vrdiver]

Sometimes it's less than a space! Consider:

"I'm helping uncle Jack off a horse" with a lower case J

[AleisterCrowley]

I'm getting a bit tired of the 'IPA wars'
Sometimes I just want a decent, well kept pint of Fuller's Chiswick (which is about the same ABV as GK 'IPA')

[GrandOiseau]

Respectfully I disagree with Hal on this one, the likes of GK IPA, Wadsworths and Charles Wells Eagle IPA are not genuine IPA's. Genuine in either historic terms of how the style came about and was first produced, nor in modern terms of what any beer lover would expect were they see an "IPA" for sale and order it.

Sure there was a period when they were just about the only beers available labelled IPA but that doesn't make them any more genuine.

Not that it bothers me greatly. Most people know what these session bitters taste like and also know how most modern day IPA's taste.

[JMN2]

Whatever Ron Pattinson and Martyn Cornell say on the matter, or anything beer-related, is Gospel.

[strophe]

IPA, eh? Next time cut to the chase and order an Imperial Stout!

(I admit to being quite partial to a glass of Ridgeway's Imperial Russian - which incidentally is about as Russian as IPA is Indian)

[AleisterCrowley]

Thornbridge 'Saint Petersburg' is supposed to be good...

Saint Petersburg: Imperial Russian Stout

Saint Petersburg is a fabulously full bodied – chocolatey, malt flavours with coffee finish combine to produce a great Imperial Stout

[Hallucigenia]

Whatever Ron Pattinson and Martyn Cornell say on the matter, or anything beer-related, is Gospel.

http://zythophile.co.uk/2015/02/25/why- ... e-its-ipa/
"Meanwhile, here’s a small rant directed at all those idiots who keep chuntering on about how Greene King IPA is “not an India Pale Ale” and how IPA has to be “strong and strongly hopped”, so it would survive the long journey to the Indian sub continent, over 200 years ago. You don’t have a clue what you are talking about."

http://barclayperkins.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... -beer.html
"“Scottish Ale Brewer” (by W.H. Roberts, Edinburgh, 1847, pages 171 and 173) has analyses of forty Edinburgh-brewed IPA's brewed in the years 1844 to 1846. They're a mix of beers for home consumption and export, some specifically to India.

The average gravity of these Scottish-brewed IPA's was 1059º. The weakest was just 1046º...IPA was not originally a strong beer. IPA was not originally a strong beer. IPA was not originally a strong beer. If I say it often enough, maybe people will start believing me....

I just love defending Greene King IPA.

You can't get hypnotised by strengths from one specific period. Greene King IPA is about the right OG, if you scale down those from the 19th century. It doesn't mean it's a good beer, or anything like an original IPA. But the style has evolved, as have all other British styles. That's where IPA ended up.

I'm trying to fit together the story of how it got there. It looks to me as if there were two different types of beer called IPA. The classic Burton IPA, that was around 1065 in the 19th century and even in the 1950's still around 1045-50. Then you had the one London breweries and others in the Southeast made, weaker than PA, but hoppier. Whitbread's was weaker than their Mild in 1910....

1830's IPA: average 1059º. The weakest 1830's Mild was more than 1070º.

By the standards of the day, IPA was not a strong beer. All British beers have got weaker since then.

Why does no-one say - but a Mild of just 1032º is a joke: it should be at least 1070º? And Extra Stout. It should at least 1075º, as Guinness was until 1917. Why is IPA the only style that is expected to be the same strength as 150 years ago? "

[GrandOiseau]

I think two, or more, things are being conflated. Let's take a step back and ask what is a beer style?

Wiki - Beer style is a term used to differentiate and categorize beers by various factors including appearance, flavour, ingredients, production method, history, or origin.

Beer Advoate - Simply put, a beer style is a label given to a beer that describes its overall character and often times its origin. It's a name badge that has been achieved over many centuries of brewing, trial and error, marketing, and consumer acceptance.

Note that there is no mention of gravity.

Pale Ales that use paler malts meaning lighter colour and lighter flavour.

What about IPA's - what extra characteristics do they have?

Of course we know that beer styles aren't precise. But forgetting strength, is GK IPA a typical IPA. Is it even a pale ale?

GK themselves say:

It's an easy drinking session ale with a hoppy taste.

Made from pale, crystal and black malts.

And then you ask the question why have they produced an IPA Gold and an IPA Reserve. Isn't this another Pear Cider moment.

By the way I still don't get how we get from averages of 6/6.5% in Victorian times, to 4.5/5% in the mid-20th century to saying 3.5% IPA's are typical for IPA's today? Sure, as aluded to above gravity/ABV's can vary a lot even within a particular style but at 3.5 you are looking at the extreme rather than the middle. Just as 8/9 would be the extreme the other end. Today, that is.

[bungeejumper]

I wouldn't know. All I do know is that the stronger the beer I drink, the less of an issue gravity seems to become for me.

Many thanks to all for a very illuminating thread!

BJ

[Hallucigenia]

I think two, or more, things are being conflated. Let's take a step back and ask what is a beer style?

Wiki - Beer style is a term used to differentiate and categorize beers by various factors including appearance, flavour, ingredients, production method, history, or origin.

Beer Advoate - Simply put, a beer style is a label given to a beer that describes its overall character and often times its origin. It's a name badge that has been achieved over many centuries of brewing, trial and error, marketing, and consumer acceptance.

Note that there is no mention of gravity.

Most people would regard gravity as a pretty key element of "character" and "flavour". And for instance it's a very specific part of the BJCP guidelines under which all homebrewing competitions in the US are judged, and many outside it. There's plenty to quibble with BJCP, but they regard colour, IBU and ABV as key parameters for a style and will mark down beers that fall outside them.

Pale Ales that use paler malts meaning lighter colour and lighter flavour.

Relative to porter, the dominant style of the 19th century. Bass is the classic Pale Ale - and it's brown thanks to 5%-ish of crystal malt. Hence the idea of golden ales which are yellow.

And then you ask the question why have they produced an IPA Gold and an IPA Reserve. Isn't this another Pear Cider moment.

IPA Gold is just brand extension in the same way as Spitfire Gold and Black Sheep Gold.

By the way I still don't get how we get from averages of 6/6.5% in Victorian times, to 4.5/5% in the mid-20th century to saying 3.5% IPA's are typical for IPA's today? Sure, as aluded to above gravity/ABV's can vary a lot even within a particular style but at 3.5 you are looking at the extreme rather than the middle. Just as 8/9 would be the extreme the other end. Today, that is.

The logic goes that *all* British beers have gone down in alcohol by a third or more since the mid 19th century, thanks to the combined effects of pasteurisation and two world wars. You shouldn't expect IPA to buck that trend when some beers - notably mild - have gone down by more than that. Beers evolve. But at the same time they should maintain their relative place in the pecking order. Since the weakest IPA in the 1840s was 1046 (say 4.5%), then you'd expect a weak IPA in the late 20th century to be 3.0%. GK is within that spec. It may be at the lower end, but it's not way outside expectations.

Ron Pattinson is saying that effectively "IPA" split into regional styles during the 19th century, the classic Burton ales of 1065 (which turned into 1045 by the 1950s) and then a southern IPA which was significantly different (less hoppy and weaker). The fact that the OP went into a pub and asked for an IPA expecting it to be 4% shows that kind of regional difference persists, however weird it may appear to those of us from outside the southeast. You get a similar difference with brown ales - if you ask for brown ale on Tyneside, you won't get a sweetish, weakish brew like Manns.

[GrandOiseau]

It looks like we are not going to come to an agreement. Not that we need to.

Strength doesn't define the style, it defines the particular beer. Hence the terms mid-strength bitter, strong mild, super-strength bock, weakish stout. It's another adjective to that particular beer. It can effect the taste or the taste is indicator of strength but not necessarily so. Some beers taste "stronger" than they are or vice versa. Ultimately strength is factual, taste is not. Well except that you can measure bitterness for example. So ultimately I can accept an IPA being 3% as much as I can accept it being 9%. What I can't accept that 3.5% is the typical strength of an IPA today. I'll accept that in a certain part of the country at a certain point in history it might have been "typical".

I am not quite sure about the colour of GK IPA, Eagle, Wadsworths etc and how they compare to other pale ales. I think they can measure that these days can't they? Anyhow, I'd be interested to know of any comparisons. I have in my time drank them but not often or for a while these days for obvious reasons. My memory is of beers that just look like many other session bitters such as Everard Beacon, Fullers Chiswick, etc. Maybe those are regarded as pale beers in some circles?

The reason I bought up GK IPA Gold and GK IPA Reserve is it perhaps demonstrates a lack of clarity on GK's part of what actually is an IPA. Or maybe they are just breaking heavily into the fusion beer market - something I'm not convinced of - either in the concept or GK's enthusiasm for it. I seem to remember they have an Abbott Reserve don't they. Perhaps an Abbott Gold next? It all makes a bit of a mockery of the whole thing IMO.

[JMN2]

A historical point, IIRC, in the late 60's Fullers London Pride label said pale ale. Pale ale as opposed to not being a porter.

[GrandOiseau]

Colour measurement of beer

Seems there are two scales but I am not sure where it is listed what the number is for GK IPA and any other beers...?

[JMN2]

Colour measurement of beer

Seems there are two scales but I am not sure where it is listed what the number is for GK IPA and any other beers...?

SRMx2 is roughly EBC, I think GK ipa is around 20 EBC if not below. (Fullers LP is around 28) I seem to remember. Anyhoo, it is quite pale. My personal preference in a beer, pale ale or bitter, is not to have too much caramel malt as it makes it quite cloying for me, that is why I don't like London Pride (of course I've gone off Fullers house flavour too).

I am quite picky. Older I get the easier beers I like to drink.

[Hallucigenia]

Strength doesn't define the style, it defines the particular beer. Hence ... weakish stout.

Said no beer label ever. You do realise the origin of "stout"? And I look forward to finding 3.5% barleywine and 10% bitter.

So ultimately I can accept an IPA being 3% as much as I can accept it being 9%.

OK, that's progress, so you accept GK IPA is a "genuine" IPA?

What I can't accept that 3.5% is the typical strength of an IPA today. I'll accept that in a certain part of the country at a certain point in history it might have been "typical".

Where has anyone tried to say that 3.5% "is the typical strength of an IPA today"? Certainly not me. You said that GK IPA was not a genuine IPA on historical grounds, and I provided historical evidence from JMN2's favourite beer historians, to demonstrate the historical links. I explicitly said that it's at the lower end of that historical thread. And bungeejumper's original post rather contradicts your contention that it's not "genuine" "in modern terms of what any beer lover would expect were they see an "IPA" for sale and order it."

Up thread I said modern IPA "is generally taken to mean a beer of >5.5% and jammed full of piney/citrus hops from the New World" - which I think pretty clearly excludes GK. I'm not trying to say it's "typical" of an IPA today, just that it has a right to be called "genuine" - and the beer historians seem to be (vehemently) on my side.

I am not quite sure about the colour of GK IPA, Eagle, Wadsworths etc and how they compare to other pale ales. I think they can measure that these days can't they? Anyhow, I'd be interested to know of any comparisons. I have in my time drank them but not often or for a while these days for obvious reasons. My memory is of beers that just look like many other session bitters such as Everard Beacon, Fullers Chiswick, etc. Maybe those are regarded as pale beers in some circles?

As has already been mentioned Pale Ale is a proper name, and is named in relation to porters - it's the amber colour of trad bitter. To get some idea here's some 1952 Pale Ales with OG and EBC colour : https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7r4 ... J&pg=PA112 I think we can agree that Bass is pretty much the archetypal Pale Ale and it's about 20, although other brands range from 20 to 30. For comparison Boddies and Summer Lightning are both 14 from memory.

The reason I bought up GK IPA Gold and GK IPA Reserve is it perhaps demonstrates a lack of clarity on GK's part of what actually is an IPA. Or maybe they are just breaking heavily into the fusion beer market - something I'm not convinced of - either in the concept or GK's enthusiasm for it. I seem to remember they have an Abbott Reserve don't they. Perhaps an Abbott Gold next? It all makes a bit of a mockery of the whole thing IMO.

Oh, I'm not particularly trying to defend the way their marketing department uses it as just another brand name like Spitfire. IPA Gold is an abomination, but sadly I can see how it works from a marketing perspective. I suspect that's one battle that the brewers fought and lost....

[GrandOiseau]

Said no beer label ever. You do realise the origin of "stout"? And I look forward to finding 3.5% barleywine and 10% bitter.

The term will be used relative to the style. Hard concept for you to grasp Hal?

Where has anyone tried to say that 3.5% "is the typical strength of an IPA today"?

You've been stating throughout the thread that 3.5% should not be regarded as atypical in an historic context. I was countering that I believe that to be incorrect.

I explicitly said that it's at the lower end of that historical thread.

So is it a typical strength or not? You seem to be agreeing with me that it is not typical but rather an outlier.

I'm not trying to say it's "typical" of an IPA today, just that it has a right to be called "genuine" - and the beer historians seem to be (vehemently) on my side.

The evidence seems flimsy to me. I read it and it didn't amount to much. The style all but died during a period of general brewing decline, some of it forced, some by consumer ignorance/ambivalence. And we ended up with a small number of not-really-IPAs keeping the flag flying in name only. Thankfully a revival and development of styles in recent times has seen these them usurped by genuine efforts of the style. GK's IPA's owes it's popularity largely to not being a genuine IPA. It is, on it's day, a decent session bitter. That's all. And of course it is brand of a large regional corporate.

[Alaric]

GK's IPA's owes it's popularity largely to not being a genuine IPA. It is, on it's day, a decent session bitter. That's all. And of course it is brand of a large regional corporate.

I have always thought of Greene King IPA as a diluted Abbott, in the same way that Chiswick Bitter is a diluted London Pride and Courage Best was a diluted Directors.

It's been promoted a lot more in recent years.

The local micro-brewery which supplies a lot of pubs in my area uses IPA as its label for the lower strength bitter. That's always available while the brewery's higher strength beers are rotated in their availability.

[Hallucigenia]

Said no beer label ever. You do realise the origin of "stout"? And I look forward to finding 3.5% barleywine and 10% bitter.

The term will be used relative to the style. Hard concept for you to grasp Hal?

"relative to the style" implies the style has an accepted ABV range, you're defining it by strength.

So is it a typical strength or not? You seem to be agreeing with me that it is not typical but rather an outlier.

50.7% of the British population are women. Thus the typical Briton is a woman - but that doesn't make a British man an outlier. GK "fits" the historical range, adjusted for the general trend in ABV - but at the same time 3.6% is not modal.

I'm not trying to say it's "typical" of an IPA today, just that it has a right to be called "genuine" - and the beer historians seem to be (vehemently) on my side.

The evidence seems flimsy to me. I read it and it didn't amount to much. The style all but died during a period of general brewing decline, some of it forced, some by consumer ignorance/ambivalence. And we ended up with a small number of not-really-IPAs keeping the flag flying in name only. Thankfully a revival and development of styles in recent times has seen these them usurped by genuine efforts of the style.

The GK -strength IPAs weren't the only ones carrying the name in the late 20th century - you had for instance the Sheps one mentioned in the OP, and eg Bengal Lancer. But aside from that, you still seem to think that "genuine" "historical" IPAs were only 6%+ and that's simply not the case. Unless you can accept that there were "real" IPAs at the low end of the ABV range, I'm not sure we can really take this much further. And if you think that the absolute values of ABV determine the style without historical context, then you should be getting far more worked up about what has happened to stout and mild.

GK's IPA's owes it's popularity largely to not being a genuine IPA. It is, on it's day, a decent session bitter. That's all. And of course it is brand of a large regional corporate.

Err - its popularity has nothing to do with whether its a legitimate IPA, but it seems your feelings about a "large regional corporate" are perhaps colouring your views about the history of IPA. GK are perhaps my least favourite regional brewer - but I can still accept that their IPA is an IPA.

[GrandOiseau]

"relative to the style" implies the style has an accepted ABV range

Maybe relative was the wrong word to choose. Let's simplify. If you read a few decent sources on what defines the beer style IPA you would be able to quite quickly come up with a list of characteristics for that beer style. Colour, bitterness, aroma, taste, etc. If I try to add in strength to beer style it doesn't work. The strongest IPA is up at nearly 18% with the weakest if GK and their ilk are to be believed down at 3.5% or less. So what definition of strength could or would you had to the description of the beer style. None IMO. However, are people interested in strength? Might it tell you something of the beer? Of course. Hence you try to mention what it is. And to try to put it in some context. But it's really not a characteristic of a style.

GK "fits" the historical range, adjusted for the general trend in ABV - but at the same time 3.6% is not modal.

Of course it's in the range. It exists, it has to by definition. Not modal = not typical in my book.

you still seem to think that "genuine" "historical" IPAs were only 6%+

Nope - I've consistently try to make the conversation about the style of the beer rather than the strength of it.

Unless you can accept that there were "real" IPAs at the low end of the ABV range

I can accept that there is no intrinsic lower limit ABV of an IPA.

its popularity has nothing to do with whether its a legitimate IPA

Agreed.

it seems your feelings about a "large regional corporate" are perhaps colouring your views about the history of IPA.

Nope. They are colouring my views about whether they would care if it was a beer true to the style or indeed whether the bulk of their consumers would. I doubt many folk go out of the way to drink GK IPA or to eulogise on what a great IPA it is.

GK are perhaps my least favourite regional brewer - but I can still accept that their IPA is an IPA.

Do you accept their Gold IPA and Reserve IPA's as being IPA's also? If not, why not? Why do accept GK IPA as an IPA - what characteristics does it exhibit that conform to many expert tasters view of an IPA?