So I am slowly sending in corrections for the NEIPAs I had to recategorize them. In so doing, there are some threshold issues… i.e., what is the minimum amount of haze and taste required to move it from generic IPA to NEIPA. Sometimes it is in a name, but it gets tricky with hazy but piny IPAs. What criteria, if any, are you all employing?
in Europe, virtually all IPAs have always been hazy. These are not NEIPAs.
In DACH, we mostly go with brewer’s intent, the use of oats, and vocabulary such as “DDH” or “lupulin” or “cryo”.
Was wondering the same thing. I’ve got a bunch of corrections to submit but for now I’ll just be sticking to ones where the brewer has specifically marketed it as a NEIPA either in name or description, or otherwise mentions use of a New England / Vermont yeast strain for example.
As a follow up question is there any consensus about what to do regarding session and imperial NEIPAs? Should these be kept in their respective styles or should they be moved to NEIPA?
Should milkshake IPAs be recategorised as Hazy/NEIPAs?
It should be noted that we are currently not moving the double ipas and such, only the ones that are under ipa.
I have been doing so. I feel there are on the same continuum.
Yes, I am waiting until NE Double IPA comes into being.
as of now, keep Session IPA and Imperial IPAs in their old styles.
For now, I would suggest leaving them where they are while we sort out the new style list. No point having to report things twice if they end up belonging elsewhere.
And yet already one of my highest rated New England IPAs is called “West Coast IPA”. I mean honestly like 90% of IPAs I drink are hazy, it will make the category meaningless if almost all are going to be moved across simply because they do not appear clear in the glass.
Is this west coast IPA really a NEIPA just because of the hazy appearance? I don’t agree with that at all. It’s especially weird given they have brewed actual east coast counterparts.
Anyway I must say that on the whole, looking through my NEIPA ratings, this is the only one that stood out as wrong. I think everything else looks correct so far which is great. I just hope people aren’t going to be taking this “Hazy” part of the style name too literally. I don’t know why it’s even there to be honest.
Stigbergets West Coast is quite an exception: It is much brighter than West Coast IPAs and it tastes very much like a NEIPA. Most European IPAs which happen to be unfiltered don’t.
On the other hand, if the brewer calls it “West Coast”, then they might have just failed at brewing a West Coast IPA.
also, Gothenburg is located on the West Coast of Sweden.
I do agree to some extent, based on my notes it seems it did taste a bit like a NEIPA, although some typical west coast flavours too, perhaps a bit of a hybrid then.
But yeah it’s more to do with the fact they called it “West Coast IPA” and us respecting brewer’s intent and all that.
When presented with this beer in a glass and no other information I bet all of us would assume it’s a NEIPA and confirm this on tasting. It’s a pity they didn’t give a better description of the beer. I don’t speak Swedish but I am guessing “Västkustsk humlejos” means West Coast hops, referring to the US of course. I suppose brewing a NEIPA but simply using hops grown on the west coast would justify that name, going against convention though.
Well… guess that sums up this one, it’s an exception.