[brulosopher]

A controversy has arisen over an aspect of beer that some seem to take quite seriously: clarity. With the growing popularity of so called New England/Northeastern IPA from the likes of The Alchemist, Tree House Brewing, and Hill Farmstead Brewery, people in clear-beer loving regions have begun to wonder what's going on. This is the focus of today's Brü's Views, which includes the perspectives of guest contributor John Wible from 2nd Story Brewing Co. in Philadelphia, PA. Check it out!

http://brulosophy.com/2016/03/31/brus-views-w-john-wible-of-2nd-story-brewing-co-on-beer-clarity/

[reverseapachemaster]

I bottled my first beer vaguely in this style last night so this is a timely piece for me. I don't think I drifted into the end of this style that is just turbid for turbid's sake with an unpleasant volume of yeast floating around (e.g. Hoof Hearted). It's definitely a different sensory experience from the west coast style. Not necessary better or worse but very different.

[denny]

AFAIAC, there is no reason a beer has to look like muddy water with gravy added to it.  There are ways, as we all know, to clarify beer without filtering or fining.  And for me, it doesn't have to be crystal clear...just not a glass of mud.  He tried to make a point about how the haze contributes to mouthfeel, but as we all know you can get a great mouthfeel without having the beer look like that.  If some people want to make beer that looks like that, and some people want to drink it, fine by me....but I won't be one of them.  I'm tempted to call it lazy brewing (and not in a good way) but I think it's more of a fad, like Black IPA.  And BTW, I've had Heady Topper...I was kinda "meh" about it.  To me, the heavy proteins that caused the haze also muted the hop expression.

[yso191]

You know Denny, I have had the same experience with every cult-obsession-must-have beer I have tried.  I come away thinking "This?!"  My conclusion is that these beers were just first in a market with a new decent style or version.

[HoosierBrew]

AFAIAC, there is no reason a beer has to look like muddy water with gravy added to it.  There are ways, as we all know, to clarify beer without filtering or fining.  And for me, it doesn't have to be crystal clear...just not a glass of mud.  He tried to make a point about how the haze contributes to mouthfeel, but as we all know you can get a great mouthfeel without having the beer look like that.  If some people want to make beer that looks like that, and some people want to drink it, fine by me....but I won't be one of them.  I'm tempted to call it lazy brewing (and not in a good way) but I think it's more of a fad, like Black IPA.  And BTW, I've had Heady Topper...I was kinda "meh" about it.  To me, the heavy proteins that caused the haze also muted the hop expression.

I agree with all of this, Denny. Except I'll admit to liking a well made black IPA now and then (but admit the name is a pretty silly misnomer).

[Iliff Ave]

I have been curious about this new 'style' and cannot find any examples around here. A newer brewery here which I visited recently seems to have adopted it. Every hoppy beer was murky and had oats and wheat listed in the ingredients. I was kind of confused about what I was drinking and then the light went on. I was not thrilled by their offerings but have yet to try any of the hyped examples.

[Biran]

As long as it tastes good I don't really mind what it looks like.

[denny]

As long as it tastes good I don't really mind what it looks like.

I've found that the extreme haziness has negative effects on flavor.

[RPIScotty]

Heady Topper is the classic example of hype not being delivered upon during tasting.

Let's talk about the REAL reason they want you to drink from the can: the poured beer is hideous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[charles1968]

I don't mind chalky haze in certain styles, including wheat beer and "craft beer". I object to it in lagers. But most of all I don't want any trace of haze in beers I make for friends and family who aren't beer geeks. The argument that it's meant to be hazy doesn't wash with most people. They see a murky home brew and think HOME BREW.

[pete b]

I have been meaning to get out to Tree House. I'll simply try it myself. I do think Heady Topper is a great beer so I suspect I'll like it. The reason I like Heady is the crazy amount of hops without harsh bitterness, no clue if the haze has anything to do with it.

[rob_f]

I don't mind a little hop haze in an IPA. I don't know what "brite" means.

[HoosierBrew]

I don't mind a little hop haze in an IPA. I don't know what "brite" means.

I'm fine with hop haze, too. But it's a big jump from hop haze to having a beer that looks like a smoothie, like some of these. To each his own I guess.

[neddles]

AFAIAC, there is no reason a beer has to look like muddy water with gravy added to it.  There are ways, as we all know, to clarify beer without filtering or fining.  And for me, it doesn't have to be crystal clear...just not a glass of mud.  He tried to make a point about how the haze contributes to mouthfeel, but as we all know you can get a great mouthfeel without having the beer look like that.  If some people want to make beer that looks like that, and some people want to drink it, fine by me....but I won't be one of them.  I'm tempted to call it lazy brewing (and not in a good way) but I think it's more of a fad, like Black IPA.  And BTW, I've had Heady Topper...I was kinda "meh" about it.  To me, the heavy proteins that caused the haze also muted the hop expression.

This again... Well I will add a few things here. The haze is responsible for both the mouthfeel and the hop presentation. It is not the same mouthfeel you get from using oats, rye, etc., just having a high final gravity or using 1450. It is different. So is the hop presentation which, IMO, has nothing to do with fruity esters from the use of English strains. IME beers made in this style also tend to hold their dry hop character longer too. To my palate this is a style of it's own, different enough from IPA as we typically know it and far more different than just coloring it black. Better or worse is in the eye of the beer holder but it is different in a way that can't (currently) be done without the haze (but I am open to trying it if someone demonstrates it can be) and obviously many people seem to like it. I will agree that it seems sloppy practice to me if you can see particulate floating (you can make out individual particles in the beer). I haven't yet seen that though.

I heard an interview recently with the guy from Hoof Hearted and I recall him saying that certain yeast strains will remain in suspension. He said that combined with flaked adjunct gets him the haze and the mouthfeel. I don't know about his beers so I can't say but IME neither yeast in suspension nor flaked adjunct are necessary to create a good example of this style.

Denny, you are the guy known for trying things out for yourself. Keep an open mind here… you had one can of one example of the style and you did not even know how old the can was. See if you can get someone to send you some fresh Trillium or Treehouse or better yet make one for yourself!

Crazy how this is called a "controversy". Cloudy beer? really?

[theDarkSide]

You know once I got a bottle of Pliny from a friend and drank this perfectly clear beer and was like "yeah, it's good but I've had better".  I'll take a  Bissell Brothers Swish over a Pliny any day.

Heady was the one that started it all (at least for me) and but now I feel there are better beers than HT.  Sip of Sunshine, most of Trilluim's stuff, Bissell Brothers, etc.

As far as controversy, I couldn't care less (except to get Petros and Denny going on Facebook )...don't drink it.  The Hundreds of people who line up every week at these breweries for the cans and I will drink your share.

P.S.  speaking of controversy...when is Tech Talk coming back