I’ll go against most of the grain here and say that I actually enjoy this style, whatever you’d like to call it. It’s actually somewhat amusing that there’s so much angst about how to name the style. Seriously, this is worth getting worked up about? I call mine a Colorado Black Ale, but whatever. Anyway, I got turned on to, uh, black, hoppy, not-pale ales when trying the original Avery New World Porter. REALLY liked that. They replaced it in their line up with their Baltic Porter, which to me was not nearly as good. Now it’s back, but they seemed to have changed it up in response to what I admit is a bit faddish and I don’t find it the same.
I don’t know if the style has legs or if it should be included as part of existing styles. But then there are a bunch of more similar style categories out there already, witness Lite American Lager, Standard American Lager, Premium American Lager, Cat Piss, the list goes on. Examples that I enjoy of the beer style that shall not be named (and I admit good examples are hard to find commercially) have more finishing hops than a robust porter, and less roast and way more finishing hops than the various stouts.
Does it deserve it’s own category? Who cares!
Should it be called Black IPA? Well, any craft beer drinker that comes across a Black IPA would know exactly what is meant by the name without having ever heard the name before, despite the misnomer. Cascadian Dark Ale? Maybe.
Opinions are like butt holes everyone has one and they all stink. Like you said to each their own. You can’t rag on a person for what they like it’s like being mad at the sky for being blue.
Put me in the column of “it’s not the same as a porter or stout”. Why do I say that? Because I really like porters and stouts. CDAs . . . they’re growing on me, but it wasn’t love at first sip. A CDA is to an IPA what a Schwarzbier is to a Pilsner. Is it a passing fad? I don’t know, but I see an awful lot of them around here, with more coming out all of the time. Should it have it’s own style? I think that’s up to Gordon.
As for the name . . . I refuse to call it a Black IPA. Don’t like the name CDA? Come up with something else, I don’t care as long as it makes some sense.
umm, perhaps Sublimely Self-Righteous Ale, like stone calls it. I don’t know if the fad has even reached the masses yet. I don’t even think the masses even know the style exists.
After all of the hype over this beer my expectations were set pretty high, so suffice it to say that after I tasted one for the first time I was sadly disappointed.
The beer style may grow on me but for now it’s “meh”.
I tried Yakima Glory (BA gives it a B+), Black Cannon (BA gives a B+) and Stone Sublimey (BA gives a A-). I preferred the Black Cannon of the three but again I like my IPA’s and then I like my Souts and Porters. YMMV.
Most aren’t roasty enough to do well in existing styles. I entered an American Stout in to a recent comp that was months older than prime. The roast had mellowed out. The Judges both said it would have been better entered as a CDA in specialty beers. I don’t think it was hoppy enough to be like a IPA. I think a specialty category in IPA would be the best place for them.
Why doesn’t it make sense? Because they aren’t pale? We live with Imperial IPA which is not got anything to do with imperialism and Double IPA which are not double of a normal IPA and barleywine which are not wine as wine is made from must and I could go on and on. Why is this one misnomer the one everyone is hung up on?
Back in the 90s when Greg Noonan and John Maier were making these and most of the people advocating the CDA name (or the idea that these were recently invented) were in diapers, nobody seemed to mind having them described as black IPA. I think normal rational people that are trying to communicate and not be pedantic understand what that means.
The more interesting question to me is whether or not there has ever been a campaign to name a beer style before? It seems like in recent history John Maier could call a beer Imperial IPA and Vinnie Cilurzo could call a beer Double IPA and the names just stuck without a bunch of pedantic nerds telling them that the names were technically wrong and proposing a self serving alternative.
love the name, and with the right artwork it would make a great beer label. but… if you’re not talking to a pedantic beer nerd, just think of the explanation process…
I want a CDA, that’s a Cross Dressing Amateur. We call it that rather than the original Cascadian Dark Ale because… and because the other name, Black IPA, doesn’t make sense… What, what’s that you say? Why doesn’t it make sense? Well, because…
I just want to point out that Category 23 Specialty Ale had a HUGE jump in entries in the National Homebrew Competition all 9 US First Round competitions this year due to this fad style. If I were to guess, I’d say the cat 23 entries were about double the number from last year.
All of the ones you mention are references to strength and make sense in that context. Something can’t be black and pale, no more than it can be invisible and pink.
I understand what is meant (not saying I’m normal or rational), I said it doesn’t make sense. I didn’t invent the name CDA and don’t care one way or the other if that is what people call it, and I never said a brewer can’t call their beer whatever they like or that they have to consult me when they name them. The day brewers start doing things based on what I like they will all open up within walking distance of my house, give me free beer, not make any American hefes, and have a smoke beer in the rotation.
