PhilB wrote:Hi Ali
alikocho wrote: ... it seems that a four page thread appeared because a few people like to twist the knife in the BJCP at every turn.
... I must admit, I haven't got any sense of that from the posts in this thread
... but maybe you're more attuned to that given your position.
I said a few people. And there is a history of griping about the BJCP on these forums.
PhilB wrote:
proliferation of IPA styles is the concern for how they will be distinguishable ... particularly when there are four styles (White IPA, Red IPA, Brown IPA and Black IPA (I've excluded Belgian IPA and Rye IPA because I think we can work out how they may be different)) where their only distinguishing characteristics appear to be their colour, given the information we have thus far ...
Let me briefly differentiate them for you (because I'm in a position to do so), pending the draft of the style guidelines:
A white IPA hybridises the characteristics of an IPA with a Belgian Wit. So you'd be expecting to see a very pale, hazy beer brewed with a significant quantity of wheat, fermented with a suitable Belgian yeast that would give spicy and clove phenolics and possibly including additions of spices like coriander, grains of paradise, chamomile or orange peel.
A Red IPA would be red in colour, and would likely exhibit the characteristics of specialty grains (caramel, touch of roast perhaps) that produced the colour, along with the hop and fermentation profile you'd expect of an IPA. In effect, this is an Amber Ale that has been amped up to an IPA in the same way that a Pale Ale could be seen to be amped up into and IPA (IYSWIM). Think about how Brewdog 5am Saint differs from Punk IPA as a fairly crude example (but one which is easily rendered).
A Brown IPA would also follow on as an Brown Ale that has been amped up into an IPA (you note a theme here). You'd expect some degree of roast, most likely chocolate, possibly hints of coffee and maybe some caramel. With it, and IPA hopping schedule and ferementation profile.
A Black IPA would be black, or very, very dark brown. As defined, there's actually more of a range of things that fit with a brewers interpretation than simply colour. Some will have little to no roast flavour, and largely have the characteristics of and IPA and be coloured black. Some will have quite an amount of roast character. But they should be drinkable, and this is one of the areas where they may be differentiated from an American Style Porter or Export Stout (which may be heavier on the palate) and finish fairly dry. As to the issue of colour versus roast, the best comparison is Schwarzbier and the range of interpretations that exist in the style (and are noted in the BJCP guidelines).
Does that help explain things?
PhilB wrote:
and that was bound to beg the question "could I just brew a White IPA, split the brewlength four ways, adjust three of the quarters with appropriate colourings, and enter the resultant beers in four categories?"
Up to a point (not with a White IPA, but with an IPA), but this wouldn't be the only category run where you could do it. American Ales could be one beer, where you could brew one beer and adjust it to enter all three subcategories. Gordon Strong gives a recipe for doing this, called Triple Threat, in
Brewing Better Beer, when he talks about brewing for competition. But you'd have to ask
why you would want to do it - do you want feedback or are you just trying to maximise your chances of an award.
PhilB wrote:
Personally, I don't brew competitively (and so I suppose you are quite welcome to ignore any opinions I may share
) ... but I do value the style guidelines and view them more as a "summary of what has been known to work for some brewer(s) somewhere" ... and in using them like that I also recognise the risk that I take if I decide to formulate my recipe outside the style; that either I'll discover some fantastic beer that it just happens no-one else has ever tried to brew before, or more likely, I'll discover why brewers who brewed beer like that previously decided to not brew it like that again (and why the style guidelines ended up as they did
) ... I don't know whether the BJCP recognise us "lay guideline users" but we do have an interest in you getting this right, and so we're watching with interest too.
The BJCP recognises that all sorts of people use the guidelines and have an interest. We do care what those who use them think, but when it comes down to their raison d'etre we return to the fact that their primary purpose is to facilitate the judging of homebrew competitions. One should also note than from a practical point of view, those who have the most influence on the guidelines are BJCP members (i.e. judges who have passed the exam) rather than "lay users" or non-judges who enter competitions. Technically, as BJCP Rep for the NE United States and Canada and Internationally it is BJCP members whom I represent. I find that too blinkered, particularly outside of the US, and feel that it is important to listen to opinions from within a broader constituency than just the BJCP membership, hence why I made the point of saying that I would pass constructive criticism from this discussion to the Style Guideline Committee.
