IPAs from Sleeman and L'Alchimiste
IPAs (India pale ales) have been a source of perturbation for me ever since I started learning about beer. In my youth – which is to say, up until I was about 40 – I was quite happy to simply drink the stuff (beer) without making any inquiries. Sure, I was one of the first to embrace the microbrewing movement when it started in the late 80s, and for a while there I even brewed my own. But my tastes were dictated by brand more than by style. I liked McAusalan's beers better than Brasserie du Nord's, for example, because they were less sweet. I'd happily glug any exotic or craft brew, and appreciate it in my blissfully ignorant way. It either made me smile or it made me frown (and very few made me frown).
 |
Blork's Very
First Beer*
(*N.S. Archives) |
Then, around 1998, the beer that I grew up on in Nova Scotia burst out of its provincial constraints and appeared on tap (and later in bottles) across the entire country.
Alexander Keith's India Pale Ale became a rising star. By then I hadn't thought about Keith's IPA in years, even though it was my beer of choice from age
1519 to 27. It was also the beer of choice of almost everyone I knew back in Nova Scotia. It was the most popular beer in the province, at least among sporting louts and drunken college students.
But in all those years of drinking Keith's, neither I nor anyone I knew ever though to ask "why is it called 'India pale ale'?" It was only much later in life, when I developed a taste for wine and more refined beers, that I even began to wonder how a pilsner differed from a lager or how an ale differed from a beer. And of course, what makes an IPA an IPA.
In case you're wondering, the short answer is this: back in the old days of British colonial India, beer was sent all the way from the British Isles to the subcontinent by ship, which could take up to five months. By the time it got there, it was usually spoiled (or, as they would have said, "spoilt"). Someone realized that if they brewed the beer with an extra dose of hops, that it stood a better chance of withstanding the long voyage. They were right, and India pale ales were born. (Note: this is also how port and sherry were invented, except they were going in the other direction; from Portugal and Spain to the British Isles.)
The primary characteristic of an IPA, then, is a strong and bitter hop flavour. So much for Alexander Keith's – it is no more distinctive than any other big Canadian domestic brew. Such beers are differentiated only by marketing. In fact, our own Good Beer Blog host Alan has rightly called Keith's "The IPA that isn't an IPA."
Happily, there has been resurgence in interest in IPAs lately, which is evidenced by some of the recent product launches from various smaller breweries. I recently tried two, side by side. One from Sleeman Brewing in Ontario (arguably, not really a small brewery) and one from the tiny Quebec brewery L'Alchimiste.
First the Sleeman's. This is the second offering from Sleeman brewery’s "John Sleeman Presents" series of limited edition brews. The first offering was last year's Fine Old Porter. That one was so popular it is being brought back as a regular product.
The Sleeman IPA is a bright amber colour, with a bit of a shiny coppery hue. When opened, you get that distinctive Sleeman trademark skunky aroma. I don't know what it is about Sleeman's brews, but that skunky smell always seems to be there. It is particularly noticeable with their Silver Creek Lager, but you also get it with the red-label Cream Ale, and less so with all the others.
People who like Sleeman's seem to develop a fondness for that skunky whiff. Personally, I'm not crazy about it.
The Sleeman IPA pours with a reasonable head, although the brew is not very gassy. In the mouth it feels quite balanced – maybe too much so, considering an IPA should be tipped heavily in the hops direction. That's not to say the hops are not there, just that their flavour is mellowed. In the end, I felt like I was drinking a Sleeman's Silver Creek lager that had been infused with more hops than usual, and something kind of smoky.
It was not a bad beer at all, it just didn't quite deliver the smack in the face of hoppiness that I've come to expect from a real IPA.
The IPA from L'Alchimiste gave me that slap. It pours darker in the glass than the Sleeman brew, with a rich almost burnt coppery hue. It was gassier, but not unpleasantly so. The aroma was both sweet and tart, almost like a baked sour apple with a bit of caramel on top.
The flavour matched the aroma, with a complex orchestration of sweet and spicy, and a face-clenching smack of bitter hops. It has a long finish that makes you want to stand up and shout I-P-A! I-P-A!
This is definitely a beer for those who like bitters. Those with more delicate taste buds might be repulsed by it. I like bitters, but this was treading close to my tolerance point. The old adage (or is it a new one?) "the right brew for the right time" certainly applies here.
I would recommend them both, but for different times or different people. For the IPA neophyte, go for the Sleeman's. For the IPA connoisseur (or for Vikings, or people who wrestle with grizzly bears) – or for a good brew in front of the fire on a snowy night – go for L'Alchimiste.
Comments
Brian - December 12, 2005 2:31 AM
I was introduced to Keith's on my first visit to my Canadian wife's (then girlfriend's) family. Decent beer, but definitely not a "real" IPA. I will definitely be looking for L'Alchimiste next time I'm up that way.
If you get a chance to try Stone IPA out of San Diego (available in most of the western US, I think) you definitely should. They also make a special IPA called "ruination" that is a must-try for a true hophead.
Alan - December 12, 2005 8:02 AM
I think I have had most of the Stone products and I got a good shot of the IPA from the deck as I listened to the Yanks and Sox play last September.
Marc Belanger - December 12, 2005 10:39 AM
Skunky smell/taste is a reaction between light and hops. Pretty much like Al Keith's IPA, using clear bottles is bad marketing, it spoils the beer almost instantly. I can't understand why their marketing is based on the distinctive quality of the beer and they spoil it right up front using the worst bottle you can put a beer in...
J - December 12, 2005 8:30 PM
my friends back home in northern ireland acquired a taste for keiths on a trip over here while visiting ontario. the problem was they could never remember the name(probably from too much keith's the night before) and everytime they would go into the beer store they would ask 'give us a pack of kevin's' which would result in the guys at the counter staring at them in confusion as they went 'kevin's, kevin's, give us some kevin's'
justin hale - December 12, 2005 8:56 PM
I find it funny that folks are comparing Sleeman's to Stone and claiming that Stone is a "real" IPA, so to speaks.
The problem here, is that most folks drink IPA's that are brewed in the U.S. They've taken the style added more hops to it than any other culture on record. The U.S. makes unbelievably hoppy IPA's compared to alot of the other's you'll encounter.
Try some IPA's from Europe and you'll see what I mean. Most of them tend to be more balanced and not relying on the hops as much as their American counterparts. I'd recommend Samuel Smith's, Fuller's and Belhaven to start.
The Belhaven will give you that same smoked flavor you spoke of in the Sleeman's. Plenty of caramel, too. But a good beer none the less.
I do love my American IPA's, though.
Frank - December 12, 2005 11:07 PM
Thanks. I always wondered why Alexander Keiths Pale Ale resemble more Labatts that Sierra Nevada Pale Ale.
Now can someone explain why most British 'Bitters' like Boddingtons are creamy, while Sleeman Cream Ale resembles Heinekin.
blork - December 13, 2005 12:02 PM
It is true that the "american way" is generally to take a good idea (e.g., hoppy IPAs) and to double it to make it "twice as good!" I like bitters, but I do find the super hoppy North American IPAs to be like novelty brews. Thanks for the tip, Justin -- I will look for those English IPAs to try.
The glass bottle things is, as Marc says, pretty silly. Sleeman got an award for "packaging" based on those bottles, but that was based entirely on visuals aesthetics, not on the beer itself.
Keith's is an OK beer for a Canadian domestic. I'm not knocking it. But I do find it amusing that a bunch of blokes from Northern Ireland took a liking to it. That's like hearing about a group of Italians coming to Toronto and declaring that Kraft Dinner is delicioso! But then, just because someone is from the UK doesn't necessarily mean they have refined taste in beer. When I was in London last August, most of the native blokes I hung out with drank Kronenbourg and Heineken at the pub! (Again, decent beers, but not what you'd expect English blokes to be sipping!)
Alan - December 13, 2005 8:13 PM
As you can imagine, I like both the UK and US versions of the IPA. Some of the eastern US bombs are less bombastic than the west coasters but they are all bigger than UK. I see them as three separate styles - or maybe more if you start counting double IPAs.
Mike - December 16, 2005 11:48 AM
Sometime in the mid-80s, I owned a then-nifty digital watch into which you could program contact name/number info for display. I think it gave you 8 contact slots.
I used one of them to write "KEITHS PLEASE" which I could display to bartenders in noisy pubs. Will occasionally purchase Keiths these days, but not often.