My new beer style

[BrewMax]

I just brewed a Belgian Golden Dubbel that fits neatly into Dubbel parameters except that it's a deep gold color. It's sort of a cross between a Golden ale and a Dubbel. Anyone else out there like to brew new beer styles? If so, what are they?

[markaberrant]

Sounds like a Belgian Blond to me:

http://www.bjcp.org/2008styles/style18.php#1a

[corkybstewart]

I just brewed a Belgian Golden Dubbel that fits neatly into Dubbel parameters except that it's a deep gold color. It's sort of a cross between a Golden ale and a Dubbel. Anyone else out there like to brew new beer styles? If so, what are they?
Do you use any Special B in your golden dubbel? That raisiny flavor is what I most associate with dubbels.
I experimented last year with Belgian brewing syrup and dark sugar in a sort of Belgian stout. I liked the one I brewed with the syrup a lot more than the dark brewing sugar. A pound of the syrup was just right, a pound of the sugar made the beer taste like brown sugar.

[MrNate]

I don't pay attention to styles too closely, which usually earns me some derision. But I don't harbor any real illusions of creating my own brand-spankin'-new style, either. I feel that the taxonomy created for the BJCP would cover any beer I would ever want to brew a second time, and I tip my hat to them that compiled it. (cough, cough).

[steveh]

Taxonomy -- wow, I'm sort of impressed! ;)

S.

[MrNate]

Don't be. It turns out I misspelled "Taxidermy."

[beerking]

Don't be. It turns out I misspelled "Taxidermy."

Which has to do with the "dermus" or skin of a taxi, right? ;)

[MrNate]

Is that what it is? I thought it was a demolition dermy with taxicabs. Sheesh, I'm 0 for 3 today...

[steveh]

Don't be. It turns out I misspelled "Taxidermy."

Har! :D

S.

[seafra]

I don't pay attention to styles too closely, which usually earns me some derision. But I don't harbor any real illusions of creating my own brand-spankin'-new style, either. I feel that the taxonomy created for the BJCP would cover any beer I would ever want to brew a second time, and I tip my hat to them that compiled it. (cough, cough).


I'm with you Nate!

I'll leave it to others to categorize my beer. As a novice of only a few years, I'm still having too much fun experimenting to start imitating. The four taps on my kegerator bare only general labels. You'll never see "Upper Middle Saxon Duppelbockensteinkrauser Clone" above one of my taps...there's not enough space.
________
Justin bieber fans (http://justinbieberfan.info/)

[steveh]

I think that what is misunderstood by most is the challenge to create (or recreate) a certain style -- it's the pinnacle of honing your brewing skills. At least, that's how I looked at it when I started brewing: "Man, I sure like Spaten Oktoberfest, I'd love to make that myself." It's like cooking; you taste a great dish and there's something creative inside that makes you want to make it yourself.

Of course, even if you fall short of your expectations that doesn't necessarily mean you've failed -- odds are you've still made something very enjoyable and satisfying to both the creative muse and the palate... and then you move forward from there. If you don't evolve, how do you know just how good your creations can be?

S.

[markaberrant]

I think any homebrewer who drinks enough different commercial beers will eventually want to replicate a style or brand. I have personally made several clones and styles of beers I had never even tasted before, it was the only way to find out.

I also think it is important to master the styles before going all "experimental"... I have found that those who experiment without experience often end up with questionable results.

One new brewer (also a beer newbie) I know just returned from Germany and is crazy about hefeweizen. So he makes a batch, and then dumps in a bunch of cinnamon. What the hell for I asked? He told me he couldn't help himself, he had to do something to make it different. In this case, different did not equal good.

[steveh]

In this case, different did not equal good.

That's why it's important to hone skills before deviating from the norm. Many micros and brew-pubs often run into this trouble at times too -- and a Hefeweizen isn't too forgiving to mistakes, not a lot of room to hide!

S.

[corkybstewart]

My problem with brewing to style is that each style has a fairly wide set of parameters, and indeed the tastes of commercial beers within a style can vary widely. Take dopplebocks for instance. Celebrator doesn't really taste much like Salvator. I was disappointed in my dopplebock 2 years ago because it didn't taste at all like the Celebrator I was trying to mimic, but since then I've had several dopplebocks that were much closer to what I brewed. So did I brew a good and true dopplebock? Who knows, but I did brew a very tasty, malty beer that used all the ingredients and techniques suggest by the style guidelines.

[steveh]

So did I brew a good and true dopplebock?

Probably.

Many say that Celebrator doesn't taste like the other Bavarian Doppels, but if you stand Salvator next to Optimator it would be harder to tell the differences.

Not sure just what Ayinger does differently, but many say the Celebrator is more estery in flavor, so maybe they ferment a little warmer -- maybe that's what you could try in your next batch (yeast strains, not withstanding - of course).

S.

[BrewDog]

WLP833 is the Ayinger Bock Strain, at least so I am told.

Never undersestimate the effects of of the yeast strain...

[MrNate]

I think that what is misunderstood by most is the challenge to create (or recreate) a certain style -- it's the pinnacle of honing your brewing skills. At least, that's how I looked at it when I started brewing: "Man, I sure like Spaten Oktoberfest, I'd love to make that myself." It's like cooking; you taste a great dish and there's something creative inside that makes you want to make it yourself.

Of course, even if you fall short of your expectations that doesn't necessarily mean you've failed -- odds are you've still made something very enjoyable and satisfying to both the creative muse and the palate... and then you move forward from there. If you don't evolve, how do you know just how good your creations can be?

S.

I'm going to pause for a moment and agree with Corky here first. Being too lazy to do the whole multiple quoting thing, let me just sum up by saying there's a difference between brewing "to style" and trying to clone a particular beer.

My contention is that you're nearly always (if not always) brewing "to style", whether you realize it or not. If you hold the BJCP guidelines as the definition of styles, and I think a lot of folks do, you can't then argue that 16e and 23 are not styles in their own right.

Anyway, the point is that yes - replicating a particular beer or even a particular style that doesn't see much variation (like Kolsch or Std. Am. Lager) is extremely difficult. That's just a function of target size.

But my point was that I'm a whore when it comes to brewing to style. Most of the time I'm sloppy with measurements and have only a vague target in mind. I don't care if it ends up being an IPA or an ESB, as long as it comes in close enough to what I want to drink. Because that's all I care about. I don't enter competitions, I don't worry about getting better, and I don't care if my BMC-swilling friends and neighbors like my beer. I may be indiscriminate in my brewing, but my homebrew always pays up in the end.

But you know... One man's opinion and all that. I agree with you intellectually and disagree with you personally.

[JayShaw91]

Damn, Nate, other than my co-worker you've got to be the most lax homebrewer I've talked to. That guy really just does his own thing and does not care. He gets nuts - 1 cup of oak in a light lager... just for goofs. IBU's? Who cares, just as long as he doesn't overhop his beer he is fine with it.

I'm a computer dude by trade, so I just do not get your way of thinking. It's got to be pretty freeing to just do what you want and go with it. Me? I need rules and guidelines and detailed processes. The more I do anything the looser I get, but it's also because I know pretty reasonably how things will work out.

I think if you met my co-worker you'd get along with him pretty well when it comes to brewing.

[corkybstewart]

I get pretty anal about techniques, sanitization, temps and such but I'm pretty relaxed when it comes to recipes. I come up with a recipe, tweak it a bit before I brew it, and then once I'm ready to brew I substitute malts and hops according to what I actually have on hand, trying to stay close to my intended recipe. But I do write everything down as I brew so if it comes out spectacular I can reproduce it.

[nelstrodomus]

I get pretty anal about techniques, sanitization, temps and such but I'm pretty relaxed when it comes to recipes. I come up with a recipe, tweak it a bit before I brew it, and then once I'm ready to brew I substitute malts and hops according to what I actually have on hand, trying to stay close to my intended recipe. But I do write everything down as I brew so if it comes out spectacular I can reproduce it.


I'm on the same path as Nate and Corky. I like to brew to the best of my ability according to my equipment, but I tend not to get too worried about the recipe creation process as long as the brew comes out well. I've had pretty good results...my beer styles consist of a mixture of this; malty, hoppy, light/dark, balanced and just damn good. I'm also notorious for changing specialty grains pre-mash and hop additions mid-boil as well. If anything, I brew for that genuine smile on people's face when they take their first sip of my beer.

[steveh]

My contention is that you're nearly always (if not always) brewing "to style", whether you realize it or not.

I was only using the commercial example as just that -- an example (as does the BJCP). Yes, there are wide ranges within a style, that's what made up the brewing industry to begin with.

And the other point I was really trying to make is to learn the craft before you start taking "experimental" steps -- it's what all the best brewmasters have done. And being "sloppy" while brewing tends to create its own trouble.

S.

[MrNate]

I'm a computer dude by trade, so I just do not get your way of thinking.

Hey, funny story. Guess what I do for a living? :D

Steve, I absolutely agree with the general principle of learning the basics first. But at the same time I see no reason to impose limits on experimentation. I feel sometimes that new brewers get swept up in the obsessive compulsiveness of a hobby that likely has a higher percentage of engineers than a Ti-80 club.

I believe in goal-oriented brewing. Is your goal to win competitions? Brew professionally? Be a great brewer? Make beer you enjoy? Be able to consistently repeat your best recipes? Your goal will determine your brewing and learning processes, and no two homebrewers will share the exact same goalset. For someone whose only goal is to make an alcoholic beverage from barley, the "basics" he needs to learn are a minor subset of someone whose goal is to brew outstanding lagers for commercial sale.

Don't assume all brewers have the same goal or style of learning is the point. I dislike the often exclusionary snobbery that finds its way into homebrewing circles. All brewers are united in beer. That should be enough. There's no need to be united in mind as well.

Anyway, back to the point of "styles" - If one holds the BJCP guidelines as the rosetta stone of beer styles, then every single beer you make will fit into one of the already existing style categories. New styles are created only when popularity demands it, nearly always requiring it to be brewed commercially.

In short, that pineapple-mocha-rhubarb-kolsch you just brewed doesn't command its own new BJCP style category until the BJCP says it does.

[corkybstewart]

I want my stout to taste like a stout, but if the beer starts with a higher OG than the BJCP says it should who cares? I don't want a stout to taste like a schwartbier, even though they may look the same in the glass, have the same ABV, etc. So I understand the reasoning behind styles, and when I go to brew a new beer I will research the style, but I never feel constrained to make it fit neatly within some arbitrary parameters.

[beerking]

Anyway, back to the point of "styles" - If one holds the BJCP guidelines as the rosetta stone of beer styles, then every single beer you make will fit into one of the already existing style categories. New styles are created only when popularity demands it, nearly always requiring it to be brewed commercially.

In short, that pineapple-mocha-rhubarb-kolsch you just brewed doesn't command its own new BJCP style category until the BJCP says it does.

Actually, Nate, I'll agree with you and go a step further. The BJCP style guidelines specifically has an area for "new" or overlooked styles, Category 23, Specialty Beer. The guidlines state:

"This category can also be used as an “incubator” for any minor world beer style (other than Belgians) for which there is currently no BJCP category. If sufficient interest exists, some of these minor styles might be promoted to full styles in the future."

Teh guide then goes the the extent of listing commercial beers that are intentionally included in this category due to lack of interest in brewing them by the homebrewing community:

* Honey Beers (not Braggots)
* Wiess (cloudy, young Kölsch)
* Sticke Altbier
* Münster Altbier
* Imperial Porter
* Classic American Cream Ale
* Czech Dark Lager
* English Pale Mild
* Scottish 90/-
* American Stock Ale
* English Strong Ale
* Non-alcoholic “Beer”
* Kellerbier
* Malt Liquor
* Australian Sparkling Ale
* Imperial/Double Red Ale
* Imperial/Double Brown Ale
* Rye IPA
* Dark American Wheat/Rye

If you are brewing a beer with legitimate historic backgrond, or a budding new style (Belgian IPA anyone?), submit it and it can get inline with the others. ;)

[steveh]

Don't assume all brewers have the same goal or style of learning is the point.

The only thing I "assume" about brewers (home or otherwise) is that they want to make something enjoyable. Blind experimentation rarely leads to this end.

BJCP didn't create the styles of beer, they just categorized what's out there. Very few "new" styles have evolved over the last few decades, but that's really what it is: evolution, not some brewer deciding one day to create that rhubarb Kölsch and expect everyone to jump on board. Look at the success of chili beer... yech.

S.

[steveh]

I want my stout to taste like a stout, but if the beer starts with a higher OG than the BJCP says it should who cares?

Everyone thinks the BJCP is some ruling order, they publish "guidelines" for people to follow in order to attempt brewing that Stout to turn out as you hope.

S.

[MrNate]

Y'all seem to be misinterpreting what I wrote here. I agree with everything in the last 3 posts and have from the start.

All except for the statement "Blind experimentation rarely leads to this end." I think that's the bone of contention between you and I. Without defining "blind experimentation" or offering up some kind of evidence that this statement is true, it hardly seems worthwhile to assume that it is.

[steveh]

Without defining "blind experimentation" or offering up some kind of evidence that this statement is true, it hardly seems worthwhile to assume that it is.

You didn't read Mark's post on page 1 of this thread?

I also think it is important to master the styles before going all "experimental"... I have found that those who experiment without experience often end up with questionable results.

One new brewer (also a beer newbie) I know just returned from Germany and is crazy about hefeweizen. So he makes a batch, and then dumps in a bunch of cinnamon. What the hell for I asked? He told me he couldn't help himself, he had to do something to make it different. In this case, different did not equal good.

I'll also add my own early experiment of adding clove to a Porter recipe -- I thought it would add to the roasted flavors. In a word, blech.

S.

[beerking]

Everyone thinks the BJCP is some ruling order, they publish "guidelines" for people to follow in order to attempt brewing that Stout to turn out as you hope.

S.

The BJCP IS a ruling order. They rule over the style guidelines used in BJCP accredited homebrew competitions. Nothing more.
As a point of example, the GABF has it's own set of style guidelines, simliar, but not the same. This is precisely because commercial brewers and homebrewers are not brewing the same beers for the same audience. :D

[corkybstewart]

Everyone thinks the BJCP is some ruling order, they publish "guidelines" for people to follow in order to attempt brewing that Stout to turn out as you hope.

S.
But if I did brew that stout and it turned out to be the best beer I had ever tasted in my life I couldn't expect it to get any respect at a competition because it was brewed outside the guidelines. I accept this reality so I don't compete. In fact yesterday my wife was asking why I'd never entered Happy Wife Pale Ale into any competitions and I had to explain to her that I have no idea which style to enter it into. She still doesn't understand.:confused:

[MrNate]

The key here is to define the term. Until you do that, all the examples given are moot as they cannot be assumed to fit the definition of "blind experimentation," not to mention the fact that basing the argument on these incidents flatly ignores any opposing data. It's like saying, "well WE never had to ride in car seats, and WE survived just fine!" Well, of course. But those who didn't survive just fine are severely underrepresented in the assumed sample set of living adults having the conversation.

In order to make the claim valid, you first have to describe what makes an experiment "blind", then provide accurate sample data that shows the majority of these experiments end in failure. And I would argue that it would have to show that it ends in failure more than 80 or 90% of the time in order to use the word "rarely."

Or we can just agree to disagree, since I suspect you and I will never see eye to eye on this one. But I do find the claim implausible.

[steveh]

How about, "I was brewing a Porter and had a stupid idea to blindly add clove to the brew because I thought it would taste good. It didn't." :rolleyes:

I'd say that was pretty conclusive, right down to everyone in my HB club who tried it.

Had I been a little more experienced in my brewing skills, I might have used a bit more roasted malt or a different yeast to get the sort of spiciness I was after. But I was blind, and now I see.

I'm just saying that it's best to be a little more skilled in the craft before you start experimenting -- at least if you want the best success in your end product.

S.

[steveh]

In fact yesterday my wife was asking why I'd never entered Happy Wife Pale Ale into any competitions and I had to explain to her that I have no idea which style to enter it into.

But if you look over the styles, maybe you can find a category it would fit -- I know many a competition winner who works that way too!

S.

[corkybstewart]

But if you look over the styles, maybe you can find a category it would fit -- I know many a competition winner who works that way too!

S.
But doesn't that defeat the purpose of attempting to "brew to style".
I'm going to brew a beer and enter it in 5 or 6 categories to find out what it is.:confused:

[BrewDog]

I'd enter Happy Wife as an American Blonde ale. It might get nicked for color, but otherwise, I think it generally fits that style (which is very broad - well, pun intended :D) quite well.

[corkybstewart]

I'd enter Happy Wife as an American Blonde ale. It might get nicked for color, but otherwise, I think it generally fits that style (which is very broad - well, pun intended :D) quite well.
Watch it man, she reads over my shoulder sometimes.:eek:

[steveh]

But doesn't that defeat the purpose of attempting to "brew to style".

No, you attempt to brew to style, you enter a competition to win!

In talking about brewing to style, I'm talking about honing skills to know what ingredients will create what -- once you get good at that, you don't need to enter your beer at will.

After all, you probably know enough about styles and brewing by now to be able to figure out where to place your beers.

I'm going to brew a beer and enter it in 5 or 6 categories to find out what it is.:confused:

I've thought about doing just that!

S.

[BrewDog]

:D

All joking askide, I think it would fit into 6B pretty well:

6B. Blonde Ale
Aroma: Light to moderate sweet malty aroma. Low to moderate fruitiness is optional, but acceptable. May have a low to medium hop aroma, and can reflect almost any hop variety. No diacetyl.

Appearance: Light yellow to deep gold in color. Clear to brilliant. Low to medium white head with fair to good retention.

Flavor: Initial soft malty sweetness, but optionally some light character malt flavor (e.g., bread, toast, biscuit, wheat) can also be present. Caramel flavors typically absent. Low to medium esters optional, but are commonly found in many examples. Light to moderate hop flavor (any variety), but shouldn’t be overly aggressive. Low to medium bitterness, but the balance is normally towards the malt. Finishes medium-dry to somewhat sweet. No diacetyl.

Mouthfeel: Medium-light to medium body. Medium to high carbonation. Smooth without harsh bitterness or astringency.

Overall Impression: Easy-drinking, approachable, malt-oriented American craft beer.

Comments: In addition to the more common American Blonde Ale, this category can also include modern English Summer Ales, American Kölsch-style beers, and less assertive American and English pale ales.

History: Currently produced by many (American) microbreweries and brewpubs. Regional variations exist (many West Coast brewpub examples are more assertive, like pale ales) but in most areas this beer is designed as the entry-level craft beer.

Ingredients: Generally all malt, but can include up to 25% wheat malt and some sugar adjuncts. Any hop variety can be used. Clean American, lightly fruity English, or Kölsch yeast. May also be made with lager yeast, or cold-conditioned. Some versions may have honey, spices and/or fruit added, although if any of these ingredients are stronger than a background flavor they should be entered in specialty, spiced or fruit beer categories instead. Extract versions should only use the lightest malt extracts and avoid kettle caramelization.

Vital Statistics: OG: 1.038 – 1.054
IBUs: 15 – 28 FG: 1.008 – 1.013
SRM: 3 – 6 ABV: 3.8 – 5.5%

Commercial Examples: Pelican Kiwanda Cream Ale, Russian River Aud Blonde, Rogue Oregon Golden Ale, Widmer Blonde Ale, Fuller’s Summer Ale, Hollywood Blonde, Redhook Blonde