What are your contrarian/"unpopular" beer opinions?

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Most, maybe all, black IPAs do have a slight/background roast to them. It's not to the level of a porter or stout, it's just there to compliment the hop flavor in a different way.
 
MidAtlanticBrew said:
Once you have your process down, It's pretty hard to make bad beer.
Click to expand...

Nonsense!

Step 1: Make bad beer.
Step 2: Research and tweak.
Step 3: Make okay beer.
Step 4: Research and tweak.
Step 5: Make good beer.
Step 6: Make good beer again.
Step 7: Make good beer yet again.
Step 8: Get complacent after a few good brews.
Step 9: Cut a few corners.
Step 10: Make bad beer.

Rinse and repeat. I like to do steps 9 and 10 a few times before returning to the beginning. After all, it's a tedious process getting from step 1 to step 10; might as well take it slow and savor every part of it. :mug:
 
Unless you're mass producing huge quantities, measuring efficiency is a waste of time, has no real effect on finished product
 
bleme said:
I did a blind taste test a few years ago between Moose Drool and my clone. I only had 10 tasters, and didn't use a triangle, so hard to be statistically significant but 8 preferred my clone.
Click to expand...

It's merely a general rule of thumb. There will always be exceptions.
 
Yeastieboy said:
Extract makes good beer. No it doesn’t.
Click to expand...
Neither of these are contrarian... Unless you're making a joke by making two contrary opinions?

Either way, I've always felt that extract can make very good beer. You can also make pretty bad beer from all grains lol. But all other things the same I think the ceiling is higher for all grain beer.
 
Bradlo said:

Agreed IPAs are overdone.

I ditched my hydrometer... haven't used one for a long time. My beer comes out great and gets me feeling good. :drunk:

Never used corn sugar/dextrose. Beer tastes better with cane sugar.
Click to expand...


He's a witch! Burn him!!
 
Nomofett said:
I'm totally for NEIPA's but I don't think they should be called IPAs, it doesn't fit for many reasons. Just cause you have a lot of hops doesn't mean your an IPA. The American Pale Ale needs revitalized, I think it belongs in a variation of that style more.

I also think Black IPAs were better named as Cascadian Ales. Not everything has to be an IPA. And I don't say this as an IPA hater, I love that they are everywhere. Almost 1/2 my beers on Untappd are IPAs and I was born and raised in the Portland area. But the naming of new styles should mean something
Click to expand...

Totally agree with a lot of this. Style guidelines shouldn’t be so strict but when so many new variations of beer styles emerging, you can’t just throw ‘IPA’ in the title for whatever has a lot of hops in it. It depends HOW the hops are used!

Even though you may technically have a high IBU rating due to the amount of hops, most of the hops go in during the fermentation/dry-hop phase. The result is a very juicy, now bitterness beer, which is not in line with most IPA’s.

But the ‘New England’ (NE) marker is constantly put on things that shouldn’t be. I’ve seen breweries try to pass off an NE IPA but it’s absolutely clear in color, bitter, and only lightly fruity.... If you put NE in front of pale ale or IPA, it better be juicy, hazy, and slightly bitter.

PS: it should be Cascadiam dark ale, not black IPA. If we’re willing to recognize ANY hazy hoppy beer as “New England” style, why can’t we respect the region that gave us CDA’s/Black IPA’s? Just saying.
 
Let's just call it beer. It's what most of my family members recognize it as, regardless of what it looks like.

I've tried explaining that every dark beer isn't heavy, doesn't have to be stout/porter like, etc. They have convinced themselves that beer is beer. In a way I think this is why breweries have been able to get a way with slapping IPA on everything, the average consumer really doesn't care about the style distinctions. They either like it or don't like and that's it.

Like many I think Pale Ale fits a large chunk of what get called session IPAs or NE IPAs. Sure some might be hazy so they call it an NE but they're too balanced to fit what an NE should be.

Honestly, the Belgians got it right 100s of years ago. Dubbel, Tripel, Quad, Strong Dark, Strong Golden, etc. Very vague and more or less based on ABV level. Sure you can get into their fruit and sour beers, bit even those are pit into vague categories.

Issue then as a consumer is what makes one Dubbel different than another. Same issue arises with IPAs, what hops are in it, this is one of my biggest gripes when strolling through aisles. I don't like certain hops so I don't want to buy a beer that has those, so I have to go web browsing to find what hops are used, just put it on the damn label.
 
My contrarian opinion is that the BJCP is NOT the end-all be-all when it comes to beer styles. Furthermore, many of their style definitions are just plain wrong. Mild is just one example... until the early 20th century Mild beers were hoppy, high ABV and light in color. Only relatively recently in history did Mild become low in ABV, low in hops and dark in color. Much of that change, if not all, was the result of restrictions during the World Wars. In my opinion, those Milds should be considered outliers and the real style should be how they were originally designed and sold commercially for nearly 100 years prior to those extenuating circumstances.
 
kevin58 said:
My contrarian opinion is that the BJCP is NOT the end-all be-all when it comes to beer styles. Furthermore, many of their style definitions are just plain wrong. Mild is just one example... until the early 20th century Mild beers were hoppy, high ABV and light in color. Only relatively recently in history did Mild become low in ABV, low in hops and dark in color. Much of that change, if not all, was the result of restrictions during the World Wars. In my opinion, those Milds should be considered outliers and the real style should be how they were originally designed and sold commercially for nearly 100 years prior to those extenuating circumstances.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but wouldn’t this be something to be added under the Historical Beer category?

Plus the beers in this category are more based on interpretation rather than a strict set of stats and ingredients. After all, these are beers we are just trying to recreate based on limited knowledge of ingredients/practices at the time. Mmm.... love a good Kentucky Common. Not enough of em out there!
 
Not bragging... but of all the clones I have brewed, anyone who has had one of mine likes it better than the original. Including myself. I think I unconsciously build a little more character and complexity into my beer than the comm. version. Which probably doesn't make it a true clone anymore. So nevermind.
 
Last edited:
My contrarian opinion? Beer is beer, brew what makes you happy. If your friends and family like your beer as much as you do, you're probably making decent beer. If they run for the cat's litter box, for something to kill the taste after trying your latest creation, you probably aren't making decent beer. But, you're making yourself happy, right?
 
InkBird 300

Latest posts

Back
Top