This post is chronologically out of place, but the beer is good enough that it's worth mentioning because I'm likely to pick it up anytime I might find myself in Boston. This is a solid porter (not stout, rant further down). Dark body but lighter mouthfeel. Toast, coffee, hints of chocolate. This growler had a bit of astringency on the finish which wasn't present the first time I had had it. Really nice coffee tones. A little on the heavy end, but tasty enough to be sessionable, whether you mean to or not.
I had a brief chat the other day about porters and stouts, and it made me think about my labeling system. I actually don't label stouts with the "ale" tag even though they are. That's really just a carry-over from when I didn't know if it was top- or bottom-fermenting. But the distinction between porter and stout is always an interesting one. Historically, stouts were actually "stout porters", so it was actually a subcategory of higher ABV porters.
These days, it's really up to the brewer whether they call it a stout or porter. For me, I tend to think the lighter (less toasted, less chewy, less heavy) as porters and all the heavy stuff stouts. I suppose this is more in line with the origins. But breweries can call things whatever they want and there are some porters that are stronger than today's stouts and some stouts that really aren't very stout. And there's always the BJCP.
But back to the original issue, only having the "stout" label, if I happen upon a beer that calls itself a porter but tastes more like a stout (or vice versa), how would I label it? In any case, I tend to stay away from porters but gravitate towards stouts, and perhaps that's unfair. But that's an unfairness my labeling system will not really solve.
No comments:
Post a Comment