UK beer scene

Reads 48801 • Replies 403 • Started Thursday, August 26, 2010 3:40:49 PM CT

The forums you're viewing are the static, archived version. You won't be able to post or reply here.
Our new, modern forums are here:
RateBeer Forums

Thread Frozen
 
rpattinson
beers 84 º 05:16 Sun 8/29/2010

Originally posted by chriso
So does anyone know when the use of IPA in the names of beers that were low strength and only moderately hopped began? Is it a throwback to the days the breweries did make a strong "traditional" IPA and they chose to retain the name after the character of the beer changed drastically? Is it just a relatively modern device to suggest heritage that, in reality, does not exist? When did Greene King start making an IPA? When did they start using that name for their basic bitter?


Low-gravity IPAs have been around since at least the 1890’s. Not that the original export IPAs were particularly strong in the early 19th century. At 1060-1065, they were at the bottom end of what most breweries produced. About the same strength as the weakest Milds.

London and Southern IPA’s appeared in the late 19th century as weaker versions of Pale Ale, but more heavily hopped. Greene King’s IPA clearly belongs to this tradition. They started off at around 1050 (when standard PA was over 1060). After WW I, they were around 140. Another world war knocked off a few more gravity points.

To say that this strand of IPA is unauthentic is bollocks. They’ve been around for more than 100 years and have changed over time (mostly getting weaker) just as all other British beers have. You could just as easily argue that modern Milds aren’t "authentic" because they are way too weak and the wrong colour. Before 1880, Mild was usually pale in colour and over 1060.

There’s been more crap written about IPA than any other beer style except Porter. It’s been lots of different things in different places and at different times. There is no one "authentic" IPA. And anyone who thinks modern American-style IPA’s are more true to the original IPA’s has a sponge for a brain.

 
chriso
beers 7540 º places 736 º 05:56 Sun 8/29/2010

Originally posted by rpattinson
And anyone who thinks modern American-style IPA’s are more true to the original IPA’s has a sponge for a brain.

I’m not sure that many people believe that. It’s just that very few British brewers were still using the term by the time I started drinking and even fewer of those that were then still do. I wouldn’t have been able to distinguish Greene King IPA from scores of bitters in terms of strength or hop presence back then and I still can’t. What most people here (that is on RateBeer) recognise as an IPA now is the later American invention (or reinvention).

So what we have is (at least) four different types of beer that could be regarded as IPAs

1. The modern US style (I know there are arguably sub-divisions there)
2. Recreations/re-interpretations of old (pre 20th century) UK IPAs
3. Low strength and modestly hopped UK beers that might have their roots in the IPA tradition but now are generally regarded as just another bitter
4. UK beers falling somewhere between 2 & 3

 
chriso
beers 7540 º places 736 º 06:04 Sun 8/29/2010

Originally posted by rpattinson
London and Southern IPA’s appeared in the late 19th century as weaker versions of Pale Ale, but more heavily hopped. Greene King’s IPA clearly belongs to this tradition.

So, in the case of Greene King would Abbot have been the equivalent/successor to that stronger Pale Ale? Although I know what their beer range was in the 1970s, I don’t know what it was in 1900 and how it changed over the course of the century.

 
rpattinson
beers 84 º 06:19 Sun 8/29/2010

Originally posted by chriso
I’m not sure that many people believe that. It’s just that very few British brewers were still using the term by the time I started drinking and even fewer of those that were then still do. I wouldn’t have been able to distinguish Greene King IPA from scores of bitters in terms of strength or hop presence back then and I still can’t. What most people here (that is on RateBeer) recognise as an IPA now is the later American invention (or reinvention).

So what we have is (at least) four different types of beer that could be regarded as IPAs

1. The modern US style (I know there are arguably sub-divisions there)
2. Recreations/re-interpretations of old (pre 20th century) UK IPAs
3. Low strength and modestly hopped UK beers that might have their roots in the IPA tradition but now are generally regarded as just another bitter
4. UK beers falling somewhere between 2 & 3


That’s a reasonable sort of division. But historically the differentiation between PA and IPA has always been pretty arbitrary.

It’s important to remember that modern Pale Ale developed from IPA. Earlier Pale Ales (before 1780) were a completely different type of beer. More like a Light Mild in modern terms.

The chaos of WW I caused havoc with the differentiation between beer styles. There was a reduction in gravities and a huge rationalisation of brewers’ beer ranges. Which beer a brewer picked as their standard post-war was a bit of a lottery. Where I grew up, in Newark, Hole’s plumped for AK, Warwick & Richardson for IPA. Both were standard Bitters.

 
rpattinson
beers 84 º 06:30 Sun 8/29/2010

Originally posted by chriso
So, in the case of Greene King would Abbot have been the equivalent/successor to that stronger Pale Ale? Although I know what their beer range was in the 1970s, I don’t know what it was in 1900 and how it changed over the course of the century.


I don’t know the complete history, so this is a bit of a guess. Greene King Abbot was probably first brewed after WW II. Most strong Bitters, like Young’s Special, appeared when wartime restrictions were loosened in the early 1950’s.

 
tdtm82
beers 1704 º places 138 º 07:35 Sun 8/29/2010

Originally posted by MagicDave6
Originally posted by InvalidStout
Originally posted by MagicDave6
Originally posted by InvalidStout
Originally posted by chriso
It’s the ones where the brewer wants to trot out all the IPA history blather, then just makes a bitter with maybe a pinch more hops than usual that annoy me.


But bitter with more hops is precisely what an IPA is.


Well that is actually a pile of pish. A very strong bitter perhaps, but we’re talking nearly barley wine terratory here in traditional sence, and a bucket after bucket load of hops.

Your from scotland so i dont expect you to understand.


What’s a traditional sense? Is Bass IPA traditional enough for you? In the 1870s it was 1.060. It was one of the weakest beers they made.


And this Bass IPA was shipped to India?


Bass was the first to export to India then later Hodgsons via ships on East India Company trade line, whom were a massive empire business back in their day. Bass IPA was high in abv as well. Since World War Two taxes have gone up dramatically for beer and that is why brewers started brewing cheaper beers on focus of cost not quality.

In the 1970s the beer scene was very flat because of this. Somehow things have changed around and breweries are now focusing on quality instead of costs which is why beer is much dearer than it used to be, despite he high duty, but I’d rather be paying out for a premium taste onslaught than something cheap, dusty, boring and bland. Then again Green King and such like breweries do this still and still charge excessively for dusty beers. Go to a Green King managed pub and you pay well over the odds compared to others.

 
SilkTork
beers 7737 º places 111 º 03:04 Mon 8/30/2010

Originally posted by chriso
I guess if we hadn’t preserved the traditions in the UK it is likely that we would be going through the same process as the US and Denmark.


Interesting notion, though the reasons for why something happened a certain way can be quite complex, and may depend on a range of influences. UK, and much of Europe, are locked into traditionalism for a variety of reasons, most of which are nothing to do with the beer scene. I suspect that if the UK beer scene had been destroyed, what would be happening now would be a revival of the old traditions rather than a seeking out of new ideas. What happened in America was that the American beer scene didn’t have as interesting a beer tradition as Europe, so America built on European traditions but made them their own, thus creating something new.

Belgium’s very interesting beer scene was almost destroyed, and the revival came via Michael Jackson writing about Belgian beer tradition, and the Americans then buying the beers Jackson was writing about. Interesting beers in other parts of the world have almost or completely died out because Jackson didn’t write about them.

Jackson, of course, would not have written about beer if CAMRA had not revived the British beer tradition and given him a topic worth writing about. And one can then speculate that without Jackson the American beer scene would not have happened and the Belgian beer scene would have been taken over by pale lager. So if CAMRA hadn’t preserved the traditions in the UK we’d all be drinking pale lager and there would be no RateBeer.

 
SilkTork
beers 7737 º places 111 º 03:33 Mon 8/30/2010

Originally posted by chriso
Originally posted by Papsoe
The British admins don’t really recognize any British made beers as IPAs unless it’s made with foreign hops.

Before my time as an admin but I believe the issue stemmed from the fact that Americans didn’t tend to recognize anything that wasn’t made with US hops (or at least had a massive hop presence) as an IPA and British brewers hadn’t really started making strong beers using US hops at the time. Consequently, pretty much anything categorised as an IPA from the UK got poor reviews. Not helped by some British brewers insisting on calling beers IPAs that patently were not by any stretch of the imagination. I guess there is an argument that, if brewers want to call a weak beer with only a modest hop character an IPA they deserve all the bad reviews they get. Of course, however it is categorised on the site, plenty of people will review anything with IPA in the name in accordance with their expectations of the style anyway. Just leaf through some of the Greene King IPA reviews to see that.


Beer terminology can be confusing for people. An understanding of beer history, and of marketing can assist, though even then has to be applied with a bit of common sense.

IPA is a name that is applied to three related but distinct types of beer. The beer that was originally called IPA was a "strong" (between 5 and 6% abv) pale ale with enough hops to assist preservation during the summer months. It was a "keeping ale", and so survived the journey to India better than other beers of the time. Many breweries made this beer, which was called Burton Ale, Edinburgh Ale, Winter Ale and India Pale Ale. The name India Pale Ale (IPA) stuck for while, and then when the trade to India declined, domestic names - Burton, Winter, Extra Special Bitter - came to the fore. The direct relation of those IPAs are beers such as Fullers ESB and Worthington White Shield. And those beers are pretty much how the original IPAs would have tasted.

American brewers decided to revive the old IPA, though both the malt and hop profile are different to the original IPAs - in particular the hop impact is very different both in terms of flavour and in intensity. This IPA is a vivid and wonderful creation, though AleSmith IPA is clearly not the same as Fullers ESB.

The British produce three IPA beers:

The American IPA

An ESB which the brewer may call ISP - and this is the nearest equivalent to the original IPA

A dry session bitter under 4% abv.

These are three distinct types of beer. When a brewer in the UK calls a beer an IPA, it is likely to be one of those three, and is more likely to be either a session bitter or a premium bitter than the American style IPA. What a UK brewer terms a beer is not always going to relate to RateBeer’s style categories, and ad admin when verifying a beer is going to make an informed judgement as to what is the best fit. Regardless of what the brewery calls it, Greene King’s IPA is not going to match up with RateBeer’s IPA category, but certainly meets our Bitter category.

Local admins may not always get it right, but informed by local knowledge, an understanding of the local beer history and tradition, and a grasp of the history and development of beer styles and the global beer market, we get it right more often than we get it wrong.

 
SilkTork
beers 7737 º places 111 º 03:38 Mon 8/30/2010

Originally posted by ChristianScheffel
Originally posted by harrisoni
Oh and dumb ass opinions on Scottish and Scotch Ales


Greene King IPA is sweet and malty. That’s a true Scottish Ale, right?


This is true.

 
SilkTork
beers 7737 º places 111 º 03:45 Mon 8/30/2010

Originally posted by chriso
What most people here (that is on RateBeer) recognise as an IPA now is the later American invention (or reinvention).

So what we have is (at least) four different types of beer that could be regarded as IPAs

1. The modern US style (I know there are arguably sub-divisions there)
2. Recreations/re-interpretations of old (pre 20th century) UK IPAs
3. Low strength and modestly hopped UK beers that might have their roots in the IPA tradition but now are generally regarded as just another bitter
4. UK beers falling somewhere between 2 & 3


This is quite similar to my above response to your earlier posting, though more succinctly expressed.