I’ve been loathe to get involved in the growing dispute over what to call dark beers that display bountiful hop characters without the bite and flavor of roasted malts. Their recent appearances have generated monikers such as Black IPA, India Black Ale, and Cascadian Dark Ale. The history and genesis of this style, whatever you choose to call it, has bounced between New Englander’s proclaiming that the Vermont Pub & Brewery, founded by the late Greg Noonan, and its then brewer Glenn Walter, created the first version called the Blackwatch IPA, to Pacific Northwesterners noting that it is their hops that give the style its signature character, to beer historians who point to old recipes from Britain from more than a hundred years ago to shut up the Johnny-come-lately Americans.
Without going into great detail about the sordid history of this interesting and developing style area (I do, however, tend to side with the Greg Noonan/Glenn Walter/Vermont Pub and Brewery as pioneers side), I hope we can all agree that the names to date have been off-the-mark. For its part, the Brewers Association has classified the ‘American-style India Black Ale style this way:
American-style India black ale has medium high to high hop bitterness, flavor and aroma with medium-high alcohol content, balanced with a medium body. The style is further characterized by a moderate degree of caramel malt character and medium to strong dark roasted malt flavor and aroma. High astringency and high degree of burnt roast malt character should be absent. Fruity, floral and herbal character from hops of all origins may contribute to aroma and flavor.
The first beer I can recall having that tasted like this would either be the New World Porter (first released in 1997) from Avery Brewing or the Alpha Klaus Christmas Porter from 3 Floyds, both of which I think fit the emerging style quite well. I’m not entirely convinced that the simple inclusion of American hops suddenly leads to the creation of an entirely new style of beer or one that should not be properly housed under the Porter banner, as Avery and 3 Floyds have done. That perspective, I acknowledge, is not likely to carry the day in the present climate.
But in looking at the present names for the style, the deficiencies are as obvious as they are myriad. The style, as far as I can tell (in this day and age, you almost always have to qualify historic approximations), has no connection to India. It is also in no way pale. So a Black India Pale Ale or Black Pale Ale makes no conceivable sense except for the connections to the hops. But we use American hops in a substantial number of other styles without the need of bringing the South Asian sub-continent into the nomenclature debate, so why apply it here? Moreover, as hard as they try, the Cascadian Dark Ale moniker also suffers. Despite weak protestations to the contrary, you guys pretty clearly didn’t invent the style. If you guys want to try and lay claim to the American-style India Pale Ale name, have at it. You’re on slightly surer ground there at least.
So what are we left with, except three or four different and confusing ways of saying the same thing?
Well, I believe that styles are important, if for no other reason than consumers can have some reasonable understanding of what they might be getting when they select a certain beer. It is in the hopes of creating some logical détente that I humbly offer the following suggestions for resolving this seemingly intractable debate.
-Dark Bitter Ale (DBA)
-Black Bitter Ale (BBA)
-Black Hoppy Ale (BHA)
or perhaps my favorite, the NBA: Noonan Black Ale. Feel free to vote and let me know your thoughts.
The Black IPA Problem… http://tinyurl.com/393cxyq
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
The Black IPA Problem… http://ff.im/-q4J0k
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
I’m sticking with ‘Black IPA’ – it just sounds good to me…… RT @BeerScribe
The Black IPA Problem… http://tinyurl.com/393cxyq
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Another voice in the debate RT @BeerScribe: The Black IPA Problem… http://tinyurl.com/393cxyq
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
yep. RT @carmendarlene: I think that Black Hoppy Ale is more appropriate…RT: @BeerScribe: The Black IPA Problem http://tinyurl.com/393cxyq
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
A semantic problem that I fully endorse a resolution to: RT @BeerScribe: The Black IPA Problem… http://tinyurl.com/393cxyq
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
I say Black Bitter because Black Bitter Ale is redundant. All bitter is ale. Plus Black Bitter sounds way cooler.
Wow, I thought that I had come up with a great name for the style, but was going to wait till I brewed one to enter the fray. Well, Noonanian dark Ale came to me a few weeks ago. So, I guess we have some convergent evolution on the best name and I think that it is the best direction for the name.
I voted Black Hoppy Ale, but I think it would roll off the tongue better as Hoppy Black. I have a slight problem with using the word Bitter in the name, because there is already a Bitter style that isn’t really that bitter. I feel this might lead to some confusion.
“I’ll have a Hoppy Black Ale, please.”
I personally like India Dark Ale. RT @BeerScribe: The Black IPA Problem… http://tinyurl.com/393cxyq
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Good post.
I think the problem lies more in the crazy growth of faux ‘style’ creation. Hoppy Ale, Hoppier Ale, Very Hoppy Ale (and thus Dark Hoppy Ale, which I voted for) etc. are much more descriptive (and accurate) than all those IPAs DIPAs, Imperial tags, etc.
By the way, the CAPTCHA required to post was ‘schwarzbier’. Intentional, or a wonderful coincidence?
re: “I think the problem lies more in the crazy growth of faux ‘style’ creation.”
A big AMEN to that!
Read GREAT AMERICAN CRAFT BEER author Andy Crouch’s thoughts on dark beers http://bit.ly/bcbiLU
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
I like Black IPA RT @BeerScribe: The Black IPA Problem… http://tinyurl.com/393cxyq
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
The other terms may be more accurate, but I find “Black IPA” more appealing. I love IPAs and I love dark beers.
How about we find a good one and then name the style?
But in all seriousness, I find most of these beers to be proving a strange and unpalatable point. Yes, you can hop the hell out of a dark, roasty beer. But just because you can doesn’t mean you should. I’m all for innovation, but with respect for flavor. Granted, that’s a fluid and subjective concept, but it’s a place I draw the line until proven wrong. That’s something that none of the beers in this “style” that I’ve tried have done yet.
Now we’re wrapped up in naming a beer style that seems a lot like an ill-conceived experiment to be extreme or unique, and less like something I’d want to drink. Not to mention the issue of establishing criteria for creating beer styles in general, but I digress…
“IPA” is more about a flavor profile than the individual components of the nomenclature.
Until people have a problem with medium-amber hoppy beers being called IPAs on the grounds of “medium-amber does not equal pale”, they shouldn’t have a problem with black or brown not being pale and thereby disqualifying it from the IPA catagory.
“14 isn’t 6. That’s ok, though. The fact that 20 isn’t 6 is what really bothers me.”
The Black IPA Problem… http://j.mp/aVOVXk // Even I’m getting tired if debate, but only because I want closure. Ignoring it doesn’t help.
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
AND SO IT GOES! http://www.beerscribe.com/2010.....a-problem/
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
I guess then a bottle of my British Style American Style India Black Ale will need to be reserved for you?! I took out the Cascade, Simcoe and what have you and replaced it with Admiral and EKG, using the theory that it is glorified porter.
Tonight is the first taste test of the batch.
This comment was originally posted on Relentless Thirst
Well the old-standbys seem to be doing pretty well in the poll, with more than 100 votes at this point. But the results remain split, another sign of the divide on this topic.
@E.S. I was a bit skeptical of the style until I recently had the Alchemist’s El Jefe and I am now a believer. I think Victory’s Yakima Twilight is another interesting offering.
@Tyler I appreciate your idea but I think it’s off base. To the extent that we can objectively define color and what constitutes pale, amber is a lot closer to the mark than the black and brown beers we’re discussing here.
Andy, Yakima Twilight is one that I tried and found to be difficult to get into; seemed too divergent in its malt and hop profiles. However, I haven’t had Alchemist’s and I’m still trying to keep an open mind. If you know of any others exemplifying the style that you’d recommend (and that would be available on the East Coast), shoot me an email with some suggestions. Who knows, I may be a convert yet!
Let me know how it turns out, Al. The hop selection and rate is critical, but I’m not aware of any actual style specifics. Sounds like yours might not be “to style”, and that’s okay by me!
Subtler European hop varietals might work better than our bitter American Cs would, and my interest is piqued. I’d love to try a sample of your version regardless of how it’s classified.
This comment was originally posted on Relentless Thirst
I made sure that I got the same IBU rating using British hops as with the American – taking a Widmer’s clone recipe from BYO as my guide.
This comment was originally posted on Relentless Thirst
Agreed Eric, I did have CDA from Deschutes which was pretty good, but mostly because it was fresh west coast hop juice. All others have been lame. Same with the Pumpkin beers. Hopefully this season will bring in some nice fresh hop ales for me.
This comment was originally posted on Relentless Thirst
@mgbridges @yeastieboys http://www.beerscribe.com/2010.....a-problem/
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
I’m with you, Mark: bring on the fresh hop harvest ales!
This comment was originally posted on Relentless Thirst
2 things –
1) Dogfish’s beer is called Indian Brown, isn’t it? Are you thinking of the terrapin beer?
2) Have you tried Victory’s Yakima Twilight yet? Best one I’ve had, easy.
This comment was originally posted on Relentless Thirst
Bryan – You are correct about the name for Dogfish Head’s Indian Brown Ale, but I threw that in there as a ‘where does this fit’ beer for the sake of argument. DFH calls it “a cross between a Scotch Ale, an India Pale Ale, and an American Brown.”
As for Yakima, I have tried it and still can’t call myself a fan. It’s been getting a lot of love, but for me doesn’t really work. If there’s a market for it, they’ll keep brewing it. But still the style question still looms. Despite it all, I am trying to stay open-minded though.
This comment was originally posted on Relentless Thirst
The Portmsouth brewery calls it Black IPA and it is described as an India Black Ale, increasing naming confusion, but damn it is good!
OK, I’ll bite. I don’t have a problem about “India Black Ale”, or “Indian Brown Ale”, provided the beer does what it’s trying to say on the label: “India” is now code for “strongly hopped”, and I think that’s fine. “Black ale” is OK, if it means, as I assume it does, “black in colour, but not so full or roasty as you might expect a porter or stout to be”. I’m very happy to see new styles develop, and those styles need names that give drinkers clues as to what they are going to be like. Some complained that when British microbrewers developed Golden Ale, there had already been golden-coloured bitters around for many decades. But Golden Ales such as Summer Lightning were a new style, very different from those golden bitters such as Boddingtons, and needing a new name. Similarly if India Black Ale is not the same as a porter, then it needs a name of its own, and India Black Ale is as descriptive and as good as any.
This comment was originally posted on Relentless Thirst
I have to agree with Martyn. I don’t believe that an India Black Ale (IBA)/Cascadian Dark Ale (CDA) is simply an over-hopped porter. The recognized beer style categories like the ones laid out by the BJCP are based on historical and geographical information amongst other things. The geography of ingredients is what developed beer styles to begin with.
Given that the IBA/CDA style has been created and popularized by American microbreweries and homebrewers, a British porter and IBA/CDA would likely differ not only in their hopping but also in the base malts and yeast used.
The English origin of a Porter dictates the use of more characterful English yeast prone to higher ester production, likely a base of bready/toasty English pale malt or even brown malt, and mild, earthy, woody, spicy English hops.
I think that an IBA/CDA on the other hand is more likely to reflect American ingredients (possibly even more specifically tilted to West coast USA if the name “Cascadian Dark Ale” is used). A base of clean/mild, less bready malt like US Two Row would be used, a more clean and neutral American ale yeast, and more citrusy, floral, resiny American hops.
In my opinion, the different ingredients used to brew each style would produce two different beers.
This comment was originally posted on Relentless Thirst
Good point regarding the development of Golden Ale, Martyn. It also illustrates the convoluted history of British beer styles through the ages (to which I’ve been enlightened via your blog).
The India connection is a rather tenuous one from my vantage point. In general, establishing uniformity for the style might be trickier than it first appears. That’s why I included Indian Brown Ale example from Dogfish Head – does it fit or doesn’t it?. As an India Black Ale, it doesn’t seem that it would. As a Cascadian Dark Ale, it might. And if it doesn’t fall into this category, does it deserve its own?
I’m interested in seeing if there’s a precedent for this style; say, a hoppy porter-esque beer that had a unique name applied to it somewhere in the annals of history. Styles and descriptors can certainly be helpful for the drinking public, but I have yet to be convinced that overly hopping a dark beer is quite its own style, or a style worth pursuing. Trying to be as objective as possible, I just don’t see how roasted and caramel malt flavors would be candidates for pairing with extreme hop bitterness. But that’s just me.
Obviously other folks disagree, and that includes considering this a style. However, I have yet to come across one that is a good ambassador (subjective, I know). But as I said to Bryan, I’m still making an attempt at keeping an open mind.
This comment was originally posted on Relentless Thirst
Very thoughtful insight, James. Though it should be pointed out that BJCP has its own pitfalls, too.
For instance, in the Stouts category, there is an American Stout in addition to Dry Stout, Sweet Stout, Russian Imperial Stout etc. Ingredients and geography played an initial role in the UK and Ireland in the creation of these styles. One could brew a stout with ingredients solely from the UK, but is it technically a British Stout? And a combination of techniques and ingredients could produce a hybrid that may or may not deserve its own moniker. What about Belgian Stout?
Origin is a tough one to nail down. Take the Pilsner example, and how the town of Plzen seeks to protect the name. Yet it’s name is still used by other breweries around the world to describe their beer. Is that an homage to the city of origin or a slight to it?
The murky origins of the IPA come to mind as well, so attaching India to a new style might not be the best fit unless there is at least an attempt make a history, however accurate it may be, for the beer (“…shipped to thirsty British soldiers in India”). Maybe American Dark Ale is more appropriate: vague, but still taking on Martyn’s format – American = hoppy; Dark = could be brown to black, based on SRM which could include the DFH Indian Brown outlier; Ale = plain and simple.
If it’s an American Dark Ale, it should also probably be high in alcohol. But lager it with a different yeast strain and we have a whole other set of problems!
This comment was originally posted on Relentless Thirst
Point taken. We could continue dividing beers up into categories based on their subtle differences until every beer had its own category. The end result would be the elimination of the purpose of beer style categories, which is to describe the similar characteristics of a group of beers.
The World Beer Cup has many more style categories than the BJCP. I’m not sure if this is to more effectively identify the characteristics of a family of beers, or to maximize the number of medals that can be awarded.
http://www.beertown.org/events.....descr.html
This comment was originally posted on Relentless Thirst
Assigning it nomenclature that wrongly attributes the origin of the style to the Northwest is misleading and does a diservice to those that did orginate the style. Similarly calling it IPA denoting historical antecedents and color attributes that are totally off the mark is also off base and something the BA should have looked at long ago. Calling it a “bitter” also aludes to a class of beers within which these do not fit. If we can cast wide nets for Belgian catagories then why can’t we do the same with American Dark Ales (if a higher gravity group appears in significant numbers then add a Strong American Dark Ale category)?
I think Dark Bitter Ale makes the most sense but I have yet to try this style and I am excited about it but I can’t find it anywhere and I am concerned that when I go searching for it, calling it Dark Bitter Ale will impede my progress in finding it and I should probably just call it Black IPA.
The name Dark IPA is oxymoronic. Alas, this is true if we can agree that the P in IPA stands for PALE.
My vote: Cascadian Dark Ale. Nothing Oxymoronic here.
Go ahead, take the cheap shot, I left the door wide open.