East India Porter

[dreadskin69]

Ipa got it's name because of why it was developed and were it was shipped to. Cascadian dark should be recognised as a name/clasification because of were and why the style was developed. There is a difference between black ipa and cascadian dark and an India export porter. The roastyness, Hop levels and schedules, grain bills and alcohol levels are different in all three styles and therefore the are different beers. people complaining about this new/ recreated older style strike me a reactionary conservatives afraid of change who only think beer should taste like flat bland pondwater/tea...

Bring on the birth of more new styles!

[Clibit]

Where is Cascadia?

[Belter]

Ipa got it's name because of why it was developed and were it was shipped to. Cascadian dark should be recognised as a name/clasification because of were and why the style was developed. There is a difference between black ipa and cascadian dark and an India export porter. The roastyness, Hop levels and schedules, grain bills and alcohol levels are different in all three styles and therefore the are different beers. people complaining about this new/ recreated older style strike me a reactionary conservatives afraid of change who only think beer should taste like flat bland pondwater/tea...

Bring on the birth of more new styles!

You've ignored my previous comments about Black ipa having no roastiness. My comments were copied and pasted from a letter sent to BJCP

[dreadskin69]

Cascadia is the mountainous lands of oregan, Washington and b.c.

And I havnt ignored anything u have said, I would argue that there is a taste difference between ipa and black ipa.
Black ipa has a little roast, cda a bit more but still subdued, and porter India or not has loads. In my opinion they are 3 different styles that should be recognised and WILL be recognised because so many pro brewers and am brewers are now brewing these styles.

Like I said it smacks of the old school whinging about what the young uns are up to these days...

[Belter]

I'm 28. Am I old? I think there has to be limits otherwise you may as well categorise everything with a different ingredient a different style. Imagine trying to judge that. Especially if you think their should be two names for exactly the same style!!!!!!!!!!

[dreadskin69]

The only similarity is that they are black! Sure throw all the various porters and stouts in there too!

[Matt12398]

But what you are saying is that they are subtly different. I don't think what you're describing is anywhere near different enough for a black IPA and Cascadian dark ale to be different judged styles. Sure India porter is something different.

[alikocho]

I'm 28. Am I old? I think there has to be limits otherwise you may as well categorise everything with a different ingredient a different style. Imagine trying to judge that. Especially if you think their should be three names for exactly the same style!!!!!!!!!!

Which was what someone wanted with India Porter.....

I think some reflection is needed on how new styles emerge and why there is a need to define them. New styles fit into the space between existing styles, but need to gain wide enough traction in order to not just be specialty beers - i.e . there need be enough people brewing them for a sense of what the parameters of what they are can emerge. IPA/CDA is a good case in point here, and the fact that there is an argument here perhaps demonstrates this.

FWIW, I do think that BIPA and CDA are variation on a theme. I will also note that the names are largely driven by commercial brewing, with an attendant need for breweries to communicate to consumers what they might expect from a beer (and here, BIPA is perhaps more easily understood by an average consumer than CDA particularly outside of the PNW). But they aren't India Porters, as those are quite different historical beers.

[Belter]

I actually edited my above post. I meant to say two beers not three. I always believed india porter to be a different style from a black ipa.

[alikocho]

I actually edited my above post. I meant to say two beers not three. I always believed india porter to be a different style from a black ipa.

Ok. But I think someone argued that BIPA shouldn't be a style because India Porter already existed....

[seymour]

I actually edited my above post. I meant to say two beers not three. I always believed india porter to be a different style from a black ipa.

Ok. But I think someone argued that BIPA shouldn't be a style because India Porter already existed....

I was mainly saying India Porter should be an official BJCP category, and I stand by it. You said a historically accurate India Porter can already be entered into a BJCP but I dare you to try it. Which subcategory? 12B Robust Porter might be the closest, but judges following the descriptions would find all kinds of minutiae to count-off for. Are you suggesting I enter it as 23 Specialty, based on 12A Brown Porter and then attempt a history lesson inside the "special ingredients" blank? C'mon, man. And then what, have it judged by people with no style guidelines against every imaginable nonsense brew? A waste of time and money, with no possible way for judges to deliver worthwhile feedback.

India Porter was as big a part of history as India Pale Ale. You can't simply dismiss it because it's an old-timey recreation. The same could be said about every India Pale Ale, Porter, Stout, hell every other BJCP category in existence. Homebrewers and in turn microbreweries brought many obscure styles back from the brink of obscurity. What are the BJCP style guidelines about, if not clearly outlining the parameters of historical international brews? Or, is the BJCP about keeping a finger on the pulse of modern brewing trends and bringing some order to the chaos? If so, it's not doing a good job of that either. And don't lecture me about how few commercial examples are available: a) this is about homebrewing anyway, many of us brew stuff because we can't buy it, and b) what about subcategories like California Common, modeled after a single commercial beer, which was never as big a thing as India Porter even in its heyday (I know there are numerous microbrewed California Commons nowadays, but I would argue that was due to promotion like BJCP guidelines and homebrew authors, and the same resurgence will continue happening with India Porter…)

I didn't specifically say Black IPA and India Porter should be the same BJCP subcategory. I don't think that. I was responding to a different argument, "Black IPAs don't have to taste and smell just like IPA, they can be bready and caramelly and toasty and roasty and complex" like...say…a heavily hopped Porter, perhaps? Even though the recipe which started this thread isn't heavy on the late hops and dry hops, most India Porter recipes are. The best commercial Black IPAs I've tasted possessed as much dark grain complexity as a porter, and I would argue, could be mistaken for a historically accurate India Porter, if such a BJCP subcategory existed. So fine, create the long-awaited Black IPA subcategory and create the more historically grounded India Porter, but I don't envy the board trying to distinguish between them.

Okay, sorry everyone, I'm taking a deep breath and a walk around the block now...

[Clibit]

It boils down to setting up a new style guideline for a highly hopped dark ale, I think. And then arguing about whether to call it India Porter, which was the first beer of that type, or something else that is chosen by people in NW USA who resurrected and maybe re-defined the style.

Traditionalists will want it called India Porter, new kids will want it called CDA or something of that ilk, maybe. You can make a case for either, I reckon. Probably because India Porter was forgotten about for so long that perhaps its resurrection warrants a new name, and the people who resurrected it have the right to choose that name.

India Porter makes more sense to me though. New names belong to new ideas, and a hoppy dark ale is not a new idea. And an IPA that has been dyed black with cold steeped carafa obviously doesn't warrant a style guideline. It hardly warrants making at all! So we are looking at a dark, highly hopped ale with roast flavours. India Porter, or CDA?

[TenbobdaN1]

Hi Matt

Is there any left? What does it taste like now it's aged? Cheers TBD1

[Matt12398]

I've got about 10 bottles left. Tastes amazing. Bready, chocolatey aroma with rich black coffee flavours. I will be brewing this again but may deviate slightly from the Barclay Perkins recipe. It is by far the best beer I've ever brewed.

[Fido97]

Just read through the whole chain on this topic - threw up a load of issues and went a bit off piste, but thats what I love about the forum.

Anyway back to the original post. Certainly caught my interest so I am set up to brew this tommorrow (not told the wife yet but she loves it when I take the kitchen over on a brew day) with a bit of a tweak - going to add 5% oats and maybe some hop addition on flame out. Yeast wise I have a Wyeast 1098 British Ale but that should do the job.

Its going to be a crackerjack I can see it in my tea leaves.....