St. Peter's IPA

old faithful · Post by **old faithful** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 2:09 am

This is from the holiday gift pack. A good round tangy beer, with some of the St. Peter's markers but brought to a higher amperage. It reminded me quite a bit of the late lamented Ballantine India Pale Ale of the 1970's and 1980's.

It has quite an individualist palate and in the end I enjoyed it, in the St. Peter's pint glass, with Post Road pumpkin ale, about 2:1 Pumpkin to the St. Peter's. This brought out the best in both beers IMO.

Gary

HogTownHarry · Post by **HogTownHarry** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:11 am

So you're still disrespecting brewers everywhere and "husbanding" beers, eh?

Good to see nothing changes around here.

old faithful · Post by **old faithful** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:46 am

Oh there is no disrespect of brewers: I have the greatest respect for them, whether sampling their wares as such or sometimes combining them. It's the old three threads approach...

Gary

Cass · Post by **Cass** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:08 am

I was thinking about this today, and I think there's nothing wrong with Gary's "beer hacks". Modding exists everywhere else, why not with beer too!

old faithful · Post by **old faithful** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:22 am

Thanks Cass. I know that blending beers strikes some as odd and fine, if it doesn't suit them they shouldn't do it. I just don't see how this is different though from making a gin and tonic, or martini, or three threads as I mentioned (or half and half and the countless other pub mixtures seen in England over the years: that was modding even though the term wasn't known then probably). With the IPA and Pumpkin, I wanted to add more hops and malt to the Pumpkin (on this occasion) and adding some IPA seemed a good way to do it.

Gary

GregClow · Post by **GregClow** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 11:18 am

Well, I stuck with the unblended version, and was a bit disappointed with this one. I'm usually a fan of hop-forward beers, but in this one, the hops had a sharp edge that I didn't care for. It wasn't a drain-pour, but I wouldn't go out of my way for another bottle.

Haven't had the Ruby Red yet - tonight, probably. That one, I'm really looking forward to.

JesseM · Post by **JesseM** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:01 pm

The sharp hop edge was alright by me, but my big issue was the skunk evident in my bottle. I guess it spent too long in the light. Okay malt backbone to it, but wasn't anywhere near as good as the Ruby Red in my books. Can anyone remember if this is classified as an IPA on ratebeer? Or is it downgraded to ESB? I really feel it would be more fair to call it an IPA, even though it's British, and not made with American hops, which seems to be the only interpretation of the style that counts to some people on that site.

Jon Walker · Post by **Jon Walker** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:56 pm

I think there's a good arguement to be made that British IPA and American IPA should not be compared in the same category. British styles, which to be fair are the closer to the originals that spawned the category in the first place, don't use American hop varietals (though brewers in the UK are increasingly experimenting with them). Let's just say an excellent British IPA and an excellent American IPA are nothing more than kissing cousins.

Torontoblue · Post by **Torontoblue** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:24 pm

Jon Walker wrote:I think there's a good arguement to be made that British IPA and American IPA should not be compared in the same category. British styles, which to be fair are the closer to the originals that spawned the category in the first place, don't use American hop varietals (though brewers in the UK are increasingly experimenting with them). Let's just say an excellent British IPA and an excellent American IPA are nothing more than kissing cousins.

At last, some common sense. You took the words right from my keyboard.

Belgian · Post by **Belgian** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:20 pm

I think St. Pete IPA tastes alright, the 'medicinal' sharp hops were not an issue for me & I could have enjoyed another.

matt7215 · Post by **matt7215** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 11:05 pm

Belgian wrote:I think St. Pete IPA tastes alright, the 'medicinal' sharp hops were not an issue for me & I could have enjoyed another.

i agree with belgian, ive had much worse american and english style IPA then the St Peter's. i will say that the IPA doesnt hold a candle to the Ruby Red but its still an enjoyable brew

esprit · Post by **esprit** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:06 pm

We appreciate the positive comments about both IPA and Ruby. When we were trying to decide which two brews to put into the gift pack we opted to go with products which had never been available as singles. Since almost every other beer had been available and since we felt that both of these items were pretty decent, we opted to offer this assortment. We will certainly do our best to get Ruby in as a seasonal and we may call upon bartowellers to sign a petition which we can present to the LCBO as that might help us in our efforts. There are hundreds of you out there and maybe the LCBO will listen to public opinion...or not.

Belgian · Post by **Belgian** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:32 pm

pootz in RUBY thread wrote: (St. Peter's IPA) was certainly a disappointment for anyone who likes a big, well balanced IPA.

Unless, of course, it wasn't.

I wonder how this IPA would taste if it were 'aged' in the way of the original well-preserved hoppy pales sent to India. Would the ale get rounder & more 'balanced'? Be curious what others think would happen.

old faithful · Post by **old faithful** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:57 pm

We've had many stimulating discussions about this. I'll open another thread to pursue.

Gary

sprague11 · Post by **sprague11** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:57 am

FWIW I noticed a few of the gift packs at one of the Markham LCBO's had 2 IPA's and no Ruby's. Guess people have been making some switches.