Hi @Garrold , as @mansquito revealed it was indeed me that changed Thornbridge Lucid Lupulus from ISA - Session IPA to Pale ale - Flavoured. I did so, after some research finding this blog post from Thornbridge themselves announcing the beer, as well as the product listing page on Thornbridge’s webshop. These sources both describe the beer as
This week we release our first ever CBD/CBDA infused beer (‘Lucid Lupulus’ – 4% Hazy Pale Ale).
CBD PALE ALE
In neither source do they use the word
session to describe the beer. So, I believe that the brewer intends for this beer to be in one of the
Pale ale categories instead of
Session IPA. In terms of ABV, at 4.1% it could easily sit within either style, but i belive the brewer’s intend trumps user input in this case.
As to which pale ale category it belongs in, I’m more flexible. I did indeed choose
Pale ale - flavoured mostly because of the cbd addition. I’m not experienced enough to know if this adds any flavour compoent to the beer, but thought it was enough of a distinquishing ingredient to warrant this category.
In regards to hops (Chinook / Amarillo / Hallertauer Tradition,) it doesn’t fit squarely in Pale ale -american, but that seems most appropriate if the CBD isn’t considered enough of a flavour contributor.
It’s also not true that we don’t take user input into account. For example the Exale / Tillingham Wines Gris Gris beer that you added as a duplicate last night, was already in there as a different style. But based on the Sour / Wild style that you input, your review and the beer’s description, I moved the original entry over to sour/wild , moved your rating to the original and removed the duplicate beer.
Your input is valued, it’s just that has to be weighed up against other factors.
Thanks for the reply. I can appreciate why you (admins) like to keep RB orderly. That’s what helps this site maintain any credibility for me. Just seems that beers are sometimes altered from less used styles, for example a Pale Ale - English, to a Golden / Blonde Ale (as per a recent addition of mine) because it’s not possible that a general punter, like myself, would even know what that is? As I said in the original post, as if we’re not given any credit for our input or knowledge.
Anyway, I’ll just carry on rating while we can, and will stay away from further potential controversy.
Oh, and as for the Exale beer I added, I didn’t intend adding a duplicate, but a search definitely didn’t throw up anything similar, and given that this one has literally just been released, obviously I added it as a new beer.
Intentional misstep seeded to bring in more forum activity. Nicely done.
With tonight’s press conference let’s all try and look on the bright side
In a few weeks people will able to meet in parks. And settle these differences in person.
That’s interesting I added one last night which could fall into this category but the can did list the fruit under the ingredients. To be honest the hops probably did outweigh the fruit flavouring in the taste so I guess its not always straightforward.
For flavoured beers would it help admins if users listing the ingredients at the bottom of the description? Or would that complicate maters if there is a minor change in the recipe or how its listed which lead to duplicate entries?
I believe it’s always beneficial if you put the ingredients of added fruit and adjuncts in the description. I’ll usually go back and do this when verifying or corrections have been recommended so that it keeps clear for the rest of admin team. It also helps when breweries decide to turn a beer into a series beer using different fruit.
Style definitions are an invention to keep the arguments going and you are doing a great (and civilized!) job at that! Of course a beer is defined by its parameters and not by taste or intended style because those are subjective. How could anyone properly categorize things by subjective standards? It would be chaos! Beer styles are by now almost as well defined as music styles, although we could use a few more substyles and variations so pretty much any beer would qualify for at least two substyles by default
Trying to categorize everything in a well defined and bounded category, and to make matters more complicated, in a single well defined bounded category, is just not possible and will do more harm than good. And what’s the point?
Also, overruling brewer’s intent, stating in general ‘we know more about beer styles’ is just arrogant. Even more when a lot of these decisions are made as a result of descriptions and ingredients (‘the books’) and not from personal experience by actually tasting the brew.
In my opinion, beer styles should give you an idea what to expect when you drink the beer, it should not be a tool to try to describe a beer’s parameters and ingredients (although both sure do have influence on the beer). A beer is not about its ingredients, and ultimately not even about process (although you can argue about that – and I would ), it’s the end result what it’s about.
Even homebrew forums are full of ‘purists’ that shout things like ‘you can’t brew a bock with 6% abv, it should have at least 6.5%!’. If it is intended as a bock and tastes like a bock, it is a bock.
The problem here is that
a) We are a global site. Brewers in country A may have totally opposite opinion on what style C should be compared to brewers in country B.
b) Some brewers, at least in the past - when Ratebeer Best was a thing, deliberately labelled the beers in a style where it was going to get into a higher percentile.
Hence some policing is needed, if we want to be taken seriously.
Thanks, I’ll add this info to the description going forward.
Yeah, like with Greene King IPA…
@MonsterMagnet makes a good point, however so does this post. It is good to point out that there are clearly also a fair degree of breweries who will cynically position and market a beer where they see fit.
A lot of Breweries, possibly a lot of the larger more established Breweries can be guilty of best wishful thinking in naming their styles at worst sheer deception, but this can be also said of some of the newer breweries too. In the end there are Breweries that you can trust to be accurate and who realise the benefits of being accurate and there are breweries that lost the publics trust and will find it difficult to get it back.
Let’s face it. 99% of Golds produced by old school twiggy brewers have been rebranded as Session IPAs or Pale Ales in recent years.
And are we allowed to mention English Pale Ales?
No such thing