BeerBorg

Some of my favorite local beers are juicy, hazy, milky looking, orange juice like beers. ....and they're awesome.

Folks, drink what you like. Its supposed to be enjoyable.

Inkleg wrote:rules I may have broken so far are
"Thou shall put in flavor hops at 20 minutes left in the boil. The number shall be 20. Thou shall not put thine flavor hops in early at 21 nor shall thout put them in late at 19. The number shall be 20. Also thou shalt not put aroma hops in at 6 nor at 4. Thine aroma hops shall be put in at 5 minutes let in the boil".

Yep, that's the "rule" I break too if it is breaking a rule at all. I just have pretty much dumped every bit of hops in @flameout or maybe some @10 or @5 minutes if the AA isn't high enough for my liking, and then more @flameout and did a 30 minute lid on hopstand either way and then some dry hop.

I've done that since before NEIPAs were such a big thing because I liked the results.

To make that something that looks like an NEIPA, then just by adding some wheat and oats to the beer and using a low floc English yeast strain (London ESB), I have gotten plenty of haze and the right "look", but not chunky or thick or yuck.

To make that taste like an NEIPA is just a matter of hop selection.

I personally do not want beers that just take like OJ or Grapefruit Juice (not that I hate them, but I'd rather have more then that in there), so I do it wrong so put something that adds at least a little bit of dank or piney in mine. (IE Mosiac at least). If I want to just drink straight up grapefruit juice or orange juice, I'll do that, in fact I drink one or the other of the non-beery sort every day. But if you do like that, it's again just hop selection.

Radical!

I haven't gone and actively looked for NEIPAs, being more or less content to stick with either my own pipeline or commercial beers I already know. It's a new style, with its own guidelines and fans. To say you don't like it means as much as me saying I don't really like stouts. In other words, so what? If it's a well-made beer, it deserves respect. Yeah, some of my beers are cloudy, but I don't actively look to make them that way.

FedoraDave wrote:If it's a well-made beer, it deserves respect.

To be devils advocate, I think that is the point of contention that many people have with them. Because often they break radically from what some people would consider to be a well made beer.

Even with perceptions/preconceived notions of what is a well made beer pushed aside, I'm getting the feeling that due to the bandwagon thing, even if the best ones really are well made beers, some of the newer copy cat/bandwagon beers actually aren't such and are just people trying to be more "rad" then the other people.

At least that's my impression.

But you could say that about any style of beer really once the bandwagon thing hits them.

Yeah, it's always going to be a point of contention as to whether it's well-made, because that falls into some subjectivity, as part of my definition of "well-made" is "do I like it?" and another part is, "even if it's not something I like, was the process sound?" Sort of like not being interested in a certain article of clothing because you don't think it looks good on you, but recognizing that the fabric and workmanship is still top notch.

A lot of the points the article makes seem like backlash to me. Backlash from beer drinkers who were on the West Coast IPA the-more-bitter-the-better bandwagon and are now looking at their bandwagon not being the lead bandwagon, and they resent not being the cool kids in class. And backlash from craft brewers who aren't able to take advantage of the new bandwagon and are losing sales.

As far as those who question the method of brewing, well, even some of the traditional styles we know and love were once radical departures from the norm. Innovation is necessary, and it's probably only a matter of time before the BJCP officially recognizes the style and defines it. So shaddap about the process. Eisbock was once "radical" too, y'know.

A perfect example of subjectivity is published every month in Brew Your Own magazine. Every month an expert panel of beer aficionados share greatly varying descriptions of two beer styles. Admittedly, when it comes to describing the nuances of a beer, my vocabulary is very limited. I either like it or I don't. Too sweet, too bitter, an undesirable aroma, too dry, too cloying? All low hanging fruit and easy to identify and verbalize.

However associating those and other words like toffee, soapy, autumnal, horseblankety and even aromatic to beer is something I struggle with. And I have been enjoying beer drinking since my late teens. Getting back to the BYO issues, each taster rarely describes the identical beer in the same way. Leaving me wondering which if any of the tasters had accurately described the beer.

horseblankety

This one is one I can point you directly at a beer that will let you know what they mean.

Orval Trappist. Comes in a bottle that looks like a bowling pin.

If it's got any age on it, you will know what horse blanket is. And it is possible that you will never want to taste it again. That flavor comes from some types of Brett, some make more then others. I've never tasted a beer made with regular Sacc. that has that flavor.

I really can't imagine that anyone could drink a bottle of that and not notice it. It is strong in that beer.

My own house Brett doesn't make much of it, the Brett that lives here is more about pinapple and hay.

I drank this tonight. Let the haters hate.



Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

It looks spooktacular.