I've addressed this issue before, and it is getting a bit lame amongst the craft beer community, but I feel I have to talk about the name of this style again. I wouldn't feel the need to do this if Stone hadn't publicly made a big deal out of the fact that they are calling it a Black IPA (and not a Cascadian Dark Ale) when this was first unveiled a few weeks back. They argue that Cascadian Dark Ale masks the history of the style and that Black IPA just makes sense (since it is a black beer that is hoppy). Like I've said before, this is a style to me that is unique enough to not be labeled as IPA in any way. India-Style Black Ale is fine by me; it's just the association with the IPA that rubs me the wrong way. I also like Cascadian Dark Ale because of my Pacific Northwest pride. It may have started out as Black IPA, but I feel with how popular it is becoming, it's time to break off and be recognized as the individual that it is. Ultimately, it's a "who cares" sort of thing.
It pours a very opaque, no-hue black with a solid finger of brown head. Seems to be draining a bit but definitely holding it up. Doesn't have a huge nose on it; quite subtle all around. Some citrus hops, but not as much pine as you expect from this style. A sweetness shines through blended with hints of roast. Quite yeasty. Burnt malt.
Hits the tongue with some sharp, roasty, chocolate malt and is completely washed away with alcohol and heavy, herbal bitterness. Can't emphasize the alcohol enough on this. It's 10.8% ABV, and it definitely shows. It's very harsh. Leaves the back of the mouth with a warming alcohol sensation and a tingle. Once the bitterness and alcohol mellow out a bit, it does have some very pleasant spice hops and toastiness.
I'm not feeling this one. One of my key components of making a big alcohol IPA is the ability to mask it. That's not to say it shouldn't be there, as it is part of the style, but it shouldn't be the defining characteristic.
We all are always here to support you.
ReplyDelete