Wouldn’t that be an RIS? Or as I would imagine some calling it, “commie warm chewy beer.”[/quote]
Actually, those two of three styles I go to whenever someone says “I don’t like beer.” And while they’re both overwhelmingly flavorful, after nothing but “beer” brand beer, an IPA is like getting your teeth kicked in. RIS is similarly far in flavor, but it isn’t quite the shock to the pallet.
Yep, this is exactly why I think the “session IPA” label is stupid.
IPA is no different than someone who drinks nothing but BMC. It’s narrow minded and dumb! So much good beer out there…
But then again, I don’t know many people who ONLY drink IPA. Some of them have a stout or porter once in a while. 
[quote=“dannyboy58”]So the original IPAs, that were brewed in England to ship to the India colonies were over 7% and over 70 IBU? I don’t think so.
I think what you’re describing is by BJCP standards an IIPA.[/quote]
They sure were and even high IBU and ABV. They got weaker as the 20 century approached because of increasing malt taxes. Have you read Mitch Steele’s IPA book yet? It’s a fantastic read about the history of IPA.
Yep, this is exactly why I think the “session IPA” label is stupid.
IPA is no different than someone who drinks nothing but BMC. It’s narrow minded and dumb! So much good beer out there…
But then again, I don’t know many people who ONLY drink IPA. Some of them have a stout or porter once in a while.
[quote=“dannyboy58”]So the original IPAs, that were brewed in England to ship to the India colonies were over 7% and over 70 IBU? I don’t think so.
I think what you’re describing is by BJCP standards an IIPA.[/quote]
They sure were and even high IBU and ABV. They got weaker as the 20 century approached because of increasing malt taxes. Have you read Mitch Steele’s IPA book yet? It’s a fantastic read about the history of IPA.[/quote]
I stand corrected then! Haven’t read the book but I’ll check it out.
Wouldn’t that be an RIS? Or as I would imagine some calling it, “commie warm chewy beer.”[/quote]
Actually, those two of three styles I go to whenever someone says “I don’t like beer.” And while they’re both overwhelmingly flavorful, after nothing but “beer” brand beer, an IPA is like getting your teeth kicked in. RIS is similarly far in flavor, but it isn’t quite the shock to the pallet.[/quote]
Ah, I see… I think we sort of agree. I’m saying it’s opposite, and you’re saying people who don’t like BMC might like it. (opposite color, opposite texture, tons more flavor in a totally different direction, etc).
In related news, recently, I’ve been turned on to Grappa and Port… mostly because I don’t really like wine, but they kind of remind me of a good imperial stout. Now what’s the IPA of the wine world…
I really don’t care what the average person is or isn’t drinking. I suppose I might get a little miffed if everyone started drinking O’Dell’s IPA and the cost jumped and quality declined. Not all IPAs are created equally. It’s funny how a lot of folks think it’s really easy to make a good IPA, but Trader Joe’s house brand was very hard to swallow. :shock:
[quote=“The Professor”] (that’s probably how I wound up in show-biz).
:cheers: [/quote]
Now that’s intriguing! Anything I might know?
My favorite beers are a well made, flavorful PA. Call it session IPA, IPA, whatever… but I can truly say I drink everything. Even styles I don’t “love” are nice for a change and remind me if just how much I love those PAs.
Now mind you this comes from a guy who likes to brew light american lagers to have on hand… :lol:
Trader joe makes an IPA ? Good God. That’s exactly what I’m talking about. I think brewers should come up with a new name for the highly hopped bitter strong pale ale.
Trader Joe’s IPA is made by Greene King. It is not an American IPA. It is a very malt forward beer. I actually enjoyed my Trader Joe’s, but it is very malty and sweet, more reminiscent of an English Christmas beer than an IPA. I believe the back of the label said it was based on an old English IPA recipe, but I’d have to reread that to be positive that I’m remembering correctly.
Made by or made by some brewery owned by. Im sure it has its fans but I prefer to not support companies that gobble up smaller companies. Its just bad for the beer industry.
Not sure what’s bad about it…if the end product is good and quality is maintained, I don’t see why it matters who makes it.
Besides, when a bigger brewing company buys a smaller one it’s generally because the smaller company is willing (or wanting) to be bought out.
It’s certainly a ‘win’ for the company being purchased, and often a win for the consumer as well if if consistency or availability of the product improved upon.
Smaller is not always better (which seems to be becoming more evident these days).
Unfortunately, when a good craft (or formerly craft) product becomes too mainstream, it seems to lose some caché and is then often rejected by some, simply because it has become less ‘exclusive.’
Actually, I think that’s bad for the beer business.
:cheers:
Unfortunately that’s not what happens. They end up changing the product to make it cheaper. They only want the name. Kind of what happens to Balantine
Not sure what’s bad about it…if the end product is good and quality is maintained, I don’t see why it matters who makes it.
Besides, when a bigger brewing company buys a smaller one it’s generally because the smaller company is willing (or wanting) to be bought out.
It’s certainly a ‘win’ for the company being purchased, and often a win for the consumer as well if if consistency or availability of the product improved upon.
Smaller is not always better (which seems to be becoming more evident these days).
Unfortunately, when a good craft (or formerly craft) product becomes too mainstream, it seems to lose some caché and is then often rejected by some, simply because it has become less ‘exclusive.’
Actually, I think that’s bad for the beer business.
:cheers: [/quote]
Well said, sir. I’m all for supporting the little guy…but not just because he’s a little guy.
Not sure what’s bad about it…if the end product is good and quality is maintained, I don’t see why it matters who makes it.
Besides, when a bigger brewing company buys a smaller one it’s generally because the smaller company is willing (or wanting) to be bought out.
It’s certainly a ‘win’ for the company being purchased, and often a win for the consumer as well if if consistency or availability of the product improved upon.
Smaller is not always better (which seems to be becoming more evident these days).
Unfortunately, when a good craft (or formerly craft) product becomes too mainstream, it seems to lose some caché and is then often rejected by some, simply because it has become less ‘exclusive.’
Actually, I think that’s bad for the beer business.
:cheers: [/quote]
Well said, sir. I’m all for supporting the little guy…but not just because he’s a little guy.[/quote]
I’m for supporting the little guy for many reasons. Small businesses are generally speaking better community members, buying, sourcing and hiring locally. Large corporations, again generally speaking, tend to care less about the local community, tend to pollute more, use more resources and pay less taxes than their fair share because they’re offered incentives by local politicians. Not sure I can cite an example of a large corporation actually improving upon a product when they purchased a smaller company either. Usually the goal is to reduce production costs and crank up output to increase profits. IMHO, large corporations in general do not care about he quality of their end product as much as the bottom line.
Off my soap box now… :cheers:
I certainly can’t argue about the Ballantine tragedy, especially considering that if the original company (which ceased to exist in 1972) could have hung on for just a few more years, it would very probably still be going strong (and likely be considered just as innovative as the best of the craft brewers around today).
Pabst, however, is definitely now turning perception of the Ballantine brand around. The return (or more accurately, speculative re-inerpretation) of the famed benchmark IPA has apparently been very well received judging from reviews I’ve read (probably at least in part because it is very unlike most of the obligatory, one-note IPAs that have pooped up in recent years) and it is very encouraging. Word has it that serious thought is being given to restoring the currently lackluster version of original XXX to it’s former glory as the distinctive American ale it once was. I’m guessing that Pabst’s new (as of this fall) corporate management recognizes the potential for such a makeover.
As to the feeling that a takeover or expansion always results in a lesser product, it just isn’t so.
In my estimation, the Goose Island brews have not suffered in quality at all as a result of the new corporate owners (there has even been some improvement). Only the perception has suffered due to the elitist biases of some consumers.
Indeed, other formerly small brands that have grown into large brands (even without corporate takeovers) have by and large only gotten better by virtue of their expansion.
A small brewery doesn’t get a free pass just because it’s local. If the product doesn’t measure up (which it often doesn’t) there’s plenty of others to choose from.
Goose island is a fine enough beer but I usually pass it up now that it’s foreign owned. Nothing wrong with foreign owned companies but if there is one thing that makes the craft brew scene cool is its young and it’s local. Wherever I visit I try to try the local beer or wine or bourbon. Something about trader joes, a German company selling an English beer under a different name in America bothers me . I could care less if it’s good beer or not. The disconnect is to large. We have plenty of great beer brewed locally drink it. I buy locally whenever I can and I support the small guy whenever I can and I will drink a mediocre local beer before I support InBev.
[quote=“Brew Cat”]… I could care less if it’s good beer or not. The disconnect is to large.
…I will drink a mediocre local beer before I support InBev.[/quote]
Wow.
Really? :shock:
I guess I just enjoy good beer too much to ever consider that. Looks like we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
No problem.
I’ll still offer to buy the next round.
:cheers:
Sorry for the rant prof. I ran a small buisness for years so it’s kind of personal. Sure, we can have one sometime. As long as it’s a local brewer.
Sorry for the rant prof. I ran a small buisness for years so it’s kind of personal. Sure, we can have one sometime. As long as it’s a local brewer.
No need at all to apologize…I’ve certainly been responsible for more than a few rants myself. :mrgreen:
This is a good debate on the differing viewpoints. I used to work exclusively with small businesses, so I do have some allegiance to them, but one of the advantages of being a small business is how swift you can be. If your product is not good, you can change it/improve it without much expense.
I am torn, because if faced with a $9.99 4-pack decision at a store between a 40 point Goose Island beer and a 25-point local beer (BJCP/50pt scale), I will likely buy the Goose Island…it hurts, but I will buy the Goose. Same thing at a bar. When it comes down to it, I’m reaching for a good beer. If a local company makes swill and is just riding the coattails of the ‘craft’ category, I’m a Darwinist. The problem with having those spots around is that it turns people off to the category when they are new to it.
All in all, probably 10% of my alcohol budget is spent toward bought beer. The majority of what I drink, I brew.
