IPA and APA

[Good Ed]

V and Grays, you shouldn't be getting upset by my "derisory comment", surely we are able to have a discussion without slagging off Americans.

Having lived there from the mid 80's at the start of the American craft brewing renaissance I have a lot of respect for the American brewers, and how this has carried over to this country.

Also you have to understand that American brewers were brewing IPA's in the 1800's, CH Evans, Frank Jones, Christian Feigenspan, Ballantine and Matthew Vassar were the predominant IPA brewers, sadly prohibition put pay to brewing, incidentally along with the brewers records. They were brewing English style beers with American ingredients. CH Evans brewed an IPA at 7% which was aged in hogsheads for at least a year. Ballantines who survived prohibition (Peter Ballantine was from Scotland) were brewing IPA, Burton Ale and XXX Ale in the 1800's, (all from Mitch Steele, buy a copy and read for yourself).

Another point of interest is Firestone Walker brewery on the West Coast, a great brewer of "pale ales", replicates the Burton Union fermentation system by doing a modified version of the primary fermentation in oak barrels.

I would agree with comments such as those regarding a Black IPA, but we shouldn't get too hung up on language used to describe a particular style, when it is doing only that, otherwise we would have to go to Pilsen to brew a pilsner

 

[Dr Mike]

The terms India and Imperial are historical terms and thus reflect a style from a particular era and thus IMHO the style should reflect this and not deviate. CAMRA and most British breweries are the biggest offenders of this in my mind. These so called IPA's should just simply be called Pale Ales as that is what they are they bare no resemblance to an IPA.

The problem with that is that beers in the past were evolving just as rapidly as they are today. So for IPA what period in history should we take for the prototype ? The Pale Ales first exported to India in the late 1700s would have been quite different from the "India Pale Ale" first sold to british drinkers in the 1830s. By the late 1800s, IPAs for domestic consumption were in some cases brewed at less than 1050 Clicky. The weak IPAs which were around in the 1980s & 1990s (Flowers, Gk etc) were not, IMHO a cynical marketing debasement of the name, they were just a reflection of where the style had evolved to at that point in history. If we had to rename the style everytime the specification evolved, we'd quickly run out of style names!

Same applies to pretty much every other style. Does "Mild Ale" have to be authentic to the style that was sold by that name in the 1830s ? (OG over 1070, Pale, Hoppy as hell - Clicky)

 

[Vossy1]

V and Grays, you shouldn't be getting upset by my "derisory comment", surely we are able to have a discussion without slagging off Americans.

GE, my point in using the term 'derisory' is that all the comments so far have been tongue in cheek and fun, not to be taken too seriously, and if you regard that as slagging off, then you and I have very different ideas of the term. For your information half my family are from the states, one's even a keen home brewer and he hasn't been offended by any of the comments on this thread. I think enough time has been used taking this too seriously, can we please return to poking some fun at each other whilst discussing IPA's and APA's. :lol:

The issue I have is that there's enough historical material, a lot of it presented by Camra/Steel and Durden, to show that pales for export to India were typically stronger 1.060+ (not as low as 1.050 BJCP), much more highly bittered (40-60 IBU BJCP) and made with English Malt and hops. From making a few of the historic recipes they are not particularly aromatic with time, and describing it as (moderate to moderately high BJCP) isn't my experience. Reading the Imperial IPA definition it seems to me that it's more of an historical IPA description from OG/IBU/Colour but not from a hop aroma pov.

All in all, to me, it would appear that the term India has been carved up and used, from my pov, willy nilly, it has lost all historical accuracy, or what we have of it, and that makes me very sad.

Take if you will an exact analogy, Russian Imperial Stout, perhaps more historically vague yet it's retained it's indentity. I'm pretty sure there will be a delicious US hop bombed version out there, and I'm hoping when the style is named it'll probably be a AIS and hopefully the IRS style won't be carved up like the IPA has been.

In reflection perhaps it's just a sign of the times, in all respects, our present guidelines will have to be adapted to what's 'around', but how many of those styles will have centuries of history, and in any other walk of life would we try to change the historical perception to meet modern day needs....I think not.

 

[Dr Mike]

Why single-out IPA for this fundamentalist approach?

Pretty much every modern style, whether you go by commercial examples of BJCP guidelines bears no more than a passing resemblance to the beers that carried those names in the past. Mild, Porter, especially Stout and even bitter have changed massively since their origins. Why should it only be IPA which has to conform to a specific historical version ?

 

[Vossy1]

Fundamentalist.....that's a very strong word D M and I disagree with you strongly for all the reason discussed so far.
but how about....getting fed up of wasting my time picking up bottles of APA that are clearly labelled IPA.....latest example Proper Job....a fantastic beer....but not an IPA :lol:

Why should it only be IPA which has to conform to a specific historical version ?

because it's my favourite style...it has a clear historical difference to other styles and....it's why I started this topic.
If you want to take up the mantle for others on a separate topic it wouldn't go amiss :lol: ...the tax man will love you

 

[Ceejay]

I'd agree with that; but not because I think you can't make an IPA with American hops, but because the OG, ABV and hopping are way too low. You can't have a 5.5% IPA full stop. I know it's only 0.5% but for me an IPA should start at a very minimum of 6%

It's not "powerfully hopped" either. That's the thing that really does my head in "these days" :lol: An IPA needs to have hopping rates in the region of 12g per litre in homebrew money. So, you're looking at 300g of hops in a homebrewed IPA, plus dry hop. I very much doubt Proper Job has anything like that. Saying that, it's a nice pint, but Vossy's right - it would fit perfectly into BJCP category American Pale Ale.

 

[graysalchemy]

My clone of Proper Job is my house Pale Ale, it is quite bitter but it is full of modern American hops and the hopping schedule is also more akin to an American Pale Ale. However I make mine 7.5% :whistle: :whistle:

 

[Aleman]

IPA - All Pale malt Gravity Start at 1.070, Hops start at 4lb/BBL (try around 70IBU Upwards) . . . Trad golding to bitter . . . Fuggle Dry hop after 12 months in cask.

Seeeemples

 

[Ceejay]

Nice one Aleman. Think that's where I got 12g per litre from.

We should also then assume that the beer goes through a wild fermentation too, since it's in a barrel for a year. I'd be expecting a certain amount of lacto/pedio character and an incredibly dry, tart and bitter beer. Which I guess is exactly what it was. I believe it was described in the day as "champagne like".

 

[Dr Mike]

Fundamentalist.....that's a very strong word D M and I disagree with you strongly for all the reason discussed so far.

No offence intended and apologies if any was taken :)

The point I'm trying to make is that IPA is no different from other historic beer styles in that we don't really know the exact specifications of the "orginal" (it there was such a thing). The first pale ales exported to India (mid to late 1700s) are sometimes written of as being October brewed "stock ales". According to Martyn Cornell these would probably have been OG 1080 or more (perhaps even 1100+) and would have been hopped at around 6lb/bbl (16g/L). The version Aleman describes above is probably more typical of a 1830-1850 version.

I don't see how we can define what is an "authentic" IPA unless we can be sure we are talking about the original. IMHO the early 1800s versions are no more or less authentic than the late 1800s versions (OG around 1050), the 1920s versions (Clicky, the 1980s versions or the modern american inspred ones.

What all IPAs have had in common is more hop charcter than other contemporary stlyes from their time. Strengths have changed, hop varieties have come and gone and there has perhaps been a recent move towards more hop aroma & flavour(although late 1800s recipes often seem to have quite large late boil additons) but I see these as evoution of a style rather than an outright re-invention. At least the modern American versions are moving closer to the original than most 1980s - 1990s British versions!

We should also then assume that the beer goes through a wild fermentation too, since it's in a barrel for a year. I'd be expecting a certain amount of lacto/pedio character and an incredibly dry, tart and bitter beer. Which I guess is exactly what it was. I believe it was described in the day as "champagne like".

I think the insane hopping levels would have kept souring bacteria at bay but there probably would hae been Brett fermentation going on.

 

[chrig]

this thread has opened my eyes to the need for me to drink my way through the various pale ale sections at my local large Tesco this Christmas... For research purposes.

 

[dzlater]

As far as APA I don't see the problem, it's American, it's pale and it's an ale, so I'd say it makes sense.
As far as the "India" everything that does get a bit much.
If I make a really hoppy brown ale with a bit more ABV, and someone askes me what it is I would say a "big hoppy brown ale." Whereas a commercial brewer might call it an India Brown Ale. Either way I have a good idea of what it will taste like. I know it's not a tradtional style but it does give a good description of the beer. Or if say something labled "Belgian IPA" I know it's a beer brewed with Belgian yeast and way too many hops so I would know to stay away. I just don't know what else you could call it that would convey the same message? I suppose the lable could say "This an American brewed beer in the style of a tradional Belgian Double but added a **** ton more hops then the style calls for"
The Black IPA thing is a bit silly. Which I think most people agree with. I think the BJCP calls them Cascadian Dark Ales, which makes more sense.
I was reading today how the new thing is "white stouts".
You know it's only a matter of time before we get an India Imperial White Stout.

 

[Vossy1]

I was going to quote replies here but the post would be too long, so if this topic interests you then read on, if not don't bother, very much meant in the best possible way and not meant to offend :thumb:
Aleman, a very traditional approach and one which I salute, purist to the bone, I agree :hat:
Ceejay, do you really think IPA is defined by more hop character? I would describe the principal job of hops in a IPA as bittering/biocidal, not aroma or flavour, though I submit flavour could be a bit more tricky, aroma only by late addition. There's good reason to assume that dry hopping/aroma was done to re-invigorate a tired/spoiled beer. Regards October beers the term comes from the fact that it was easier to 'keep' beer from spoiling at lower winter temps than 'keeping' the grain from spoiling at those times, that was almost impossible, and when you say insane levels of hopping I can only draw similies to todays **** we've been told is beer. That wasn't meant as a slurr, I just think we as home brewers have the ability to remain pure to the cause as, given the proviso of good taste, we have the ability to brew purely for pleasure, not economic virtues.

I find it really sad that a discussion on a home brew forum on protecting what I think is a historically important beer style has gained less responses than a post regards the politicians pay rises

 

[graysalchemy]

Well said V. :thumb: :thumb:

I think people don't understand the style which is India Pale Ale, in my mind quite distinct from the hoppy 4.5% bastardised approximations that we have to day. If it wasn't for the admen deeming IPA and its history being something to make money out of they would have called it something else a long time ago.

 

[Hawks]

I think people don't understand the style which is India Pale Ale, in my mind quite distinct from the hoppy 4.5% bastardised approximations that we have to day. If it wasn't for the admen deeming IPA and its history being something to make money out of they would have called it something else a long time ago.

Some aren't even hoppy... I often now avoid anything saying IPA unless its on draught so I can try it first or it's been recommended to me. I have been sorely disappointed too many times and it's one of my favourite styles.

Labelling should be stricter to make sure brewers are at least working within guidelines for the style, but I don't hold much hope - just look at some of the drinks calling themselves cider these days... At least even the bad IPA's are actually beer

 

[graysalchemy]

Some aren't even hoppy...

As has been mentioned above, a traditional IPA wasn't necessarily 'hoppy' , hops being used just bitter though as V says they may have been dry hopped to bring some flavour back into a beer which had travelled for 6 months half the way round the world. The hops were added for bittering and biocidal properties and necessarily for aroma.

 

[Hawks]

Some aren't even hoppy...

As has been mentioned above, a traditional IPA wasn't necessarily 'hoppy' , hops being used just bitter though as V says they may have been dry hopped to bring some flavour back into a beer which had travelled for 6 months half the way round the world. The hops were added for bittering and biocidal properties and necessarily for aroma.

But they are not hoppy in terms of any hop characteristics - bitterness, flavour or aroma ( accepting some of these maybe missing if not dry hopped ). Sure we can all think of one that tastes of pretty much nothing, and it's not the only one !!

 

[graysalchemy]

:thumb: :thumb: Get your point