I was sipping a sour beer this evening in the Post Office Vaults, a Petrus Aged Pale to be precise. It was delicious, but then again all "Sour Ales" are, aren't they? And if indeed this is the case, are Sour Ales an inherently prestigious style of beer, a style which is automatically enjoyed by beer fans because of their provenance and heritage? Perhaps, in order to obtain status within the beer drinking fraternity, appreciation of the more 'refined' beer styles is a sort of marker on the path to enlightenment, a bit like moving along Scientology's Bridge to Total Freedom or whatever.
Now this is an interesting discussion in itself, but what I really wanted to have a bash at here, was a sort of rough outline of where some beer types might feature in a hierarchy of styles. If the average lager lout thinks John Smiths Extra Smooth has too much flavour, then Lager must be lower than John Smiths according to a/the/my theory of beer appreciation. But then again, even lager fans recognise higher forms of lager - Becks or Peroni, as opposed to Carling or
Using my general observations and with an eye on the Ratebeer rankings, here then is my peerage, or, if you will, my beerage.
10. Pale Lager
11. Low Alcohol
(n.b. levels are indicated by numbers, with most prestigious at the top, duh. Styles which are of roughly equal standing, stand next to each other, duh).
So how does that look? An initial examination for sure, but does it strike a note of sanity, or is it complete cobblers?
p.s. If someone could put this into a Powerpoint style organisational chart, I'm sure this idea could be presented in a much more illuminating way.
p.p.s. Someone (maybe lots of people) have probably had this same discussion, many times before. A cursory Google search didn't reveal these discussions, but if they do exist, and I have subconciously pinched these ideas, then I apologise.