BeerBorg

From my unique perspective:

It's nice that they finally acknowledge that there are lower ABV Belgian/Trappist beers (what they call Trappist Single) now, if I wanted to comp my beers that gives me a category to enter a lot more of them into instead of "specialty ale".

Except that in some cases I still can't, except under specialty ales. Because that they still are *overly bucketing* every Belgian category, including that new Trappist single one. There *are* examples of < 1.06 OG Belgian Blondes that are NOT Trappist singles. (low gravity, but more restrained yeast esters/phenolics). There *are* what they call Trappist Singles that are much darker in color and are more like dubbels in character (some beers brewed in monestary for monks consumption are like single strength dubbels. I've brewed such beers too. They are delicious and deserve love). There *are* paler dubbels. There *are* darker dubbels, darker and lighter strong dark beers, darker and lighter grand crus, etc. Their buckets are still too narrow to really represent true Belgian brewing traditions.

I guess that's simply just a "downside" of the process, where humans simply can't comprehend things outside of narrow minded boxes, but from the true tradition of Belgian brewing, it still sucks.

:: rant mode off LOL ::

I hear you, mashani. I brew a 100-calorie Belgian for my wife, and when I entered it as a Belgian Specialty and made it as clear as could be that it is a low-cal beer, it still got dinged for being thin.

Foothiller wrote:it still got dinged for being thin.

Belgians are supposed to be easy to drink, even the big boys. Light bodied is good. Heavy is bad.

So, that's a lame thing to ding any Belgian for IMHO.

I bought that book, Foothiller. Mine showed up Wednesday, it does get into some of the new guidelines a bit.