Harvest Ale - Alexander Keith's - Review

Why would you want Keith's to rebrand their India Pale?

I think Alexander Keith's India Pale Ale has been around longer than any other domestic brand calling itself IPA. And I believe its strategic shipping position actually helped to make it a hit in India a couple of centuries ago.

I'm not sure who makes the standards by which IPA's are judged, but I suspect those who do make such standards have corporate interests backing them. True, Keith's is not in that class and I doubt they want to be. Apparently it doesn't meet those standards. But if they were set more recently set by, and for the newer IPA's, then I question who you should suggest be rebranded.

Funny side note: back in the fifties or sixties, some relatives brought a pack of "IPA" to a family gathering. I'll never forget catching Uncle Archie, an elder statesmen of our clan, discreetly dumping his bottle behind a bush. Looking rather embarassed, he said to me in his Scottish Brogue: "Ne'er a laddy nor lassy may e're curse their lips wi this I-P-A..." Unrelated, as that brand became more popular, there were friends who referred to it as Indiana Pale Ale. Not sure why.

Why would you want Keith's to rebrand their India Pale?

I think Alexander Keith's India Pale Ale has been around longer than any other domestic brand calling itself IPA. And I believe its strategic shipping position actually helped to make it a hit in India a couple of centuries ago.

I'm not sure who makes the standards by which IPA's are judged, but I suspect those who do make such standards have corporate interests backing them. True, Keith's is not in that class and I doubt they want to be. Apparently it doesn't meet those standards. But if they were set more recently set by, and for the newer IPA's, then I question who you should suggest be rebranded.

Funny side note: back in the fifties or sixties, some relatives brought a pack of "IPA" to a family gathering. I'll never forget catching Uncle Archie, an elder statesmen of our clan, discreetly dumping his bottle behind a bush. Looking rather embarassed, he said to me in his Scottish Brogue: "Ne'er a laddy nor lassy may e're curse their lips wi this I-P-A..." Unrelated, as that brand became more popular, there were friends who referred to it as Indiana Pale Ale. Not sure why.

Tim,
Thanks for commenting. You are correct that Keith's is at least the most widely recognized IPA in Canada. That being said, it is nothing like an IPA, either by today's definitions (see the Beer Judging Certification Panel's exhaustive style guide, which doesn't have any corporate interests that I notice) or by the beer that was historically known as India Pale Ale.

Keith's brewery has actually only been in existence since 1820 (which I suppose is nearly "centuries"), Alexander himself only immigrating from Scotland in 1817. You may well be thinking of the history of India Pale Ales in England, which were indeed popular with the British living in India early in the British reign.

So why do I identify Keith's as something other then an IPA? Well, ignoring the current guidelines (which are quite clear: it's not), historically India Pale Ales were lighter coloured ales (so far so good) that were brewed specifically to endure the long trip around Africa to India. A trip that could take weeks. Most beer in a wooden casks would long have gone bad by the time it got to India, but beers with higher alcohol seemed to make the trip better. The same was true with beers that had more hops. Not long, and brewers were making higher alcohol beers that had significantly more hops in them solely for shipping to India. So, light coloured beer with higher then usual alcohol and more hops. At 5% abv and under 20IBU (which is a measurement of bitterness), currently Keith's IPA just doesn't measure up, to either the historic or current standards.

Of course, their original/older product may well have more closely represented the style. It could be that they have been dumbing it down for decades to keep up with a market that (despite it's assurances to the contrary), simply doesn't like beer.

In doing some fact checking, I came across this blog with interesting images.
http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2009/05/beer-in-1890s-canada.html
Note in table one the top two beers are Keith's Ale and Keith's XXX, both of which weigh-in at over 7% (though a true beer geek notes the Ale would actually have had to be 6.1% given the gravities listed: http://www.bartowel.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=55337). Also note that they only list "Ale", not "India Pale Ale" which does appear a variety of times further down the tables. Also note that aside from the Labatt IPA, all the others are above 6% abv. Histroically, the evidence is that IPAs were higher alcohol. In fact, even the Bass & Co. Pale Ales were above 6%.

I would be a very happy beer drinker indeed, if Keith's decided to rebrand IPA to "Ale" or "Export Ale" or even "Cream Ale" (though I wouldn't love the last one). So often somebody comes into the bar I work at, and asks for a Keith's. When we tell them we don't have it, and recommend Moosehead, they sometimes spot a bottle of IPA and ask for that. We try to explain that it is nothing like Keith's, and most of the time they take our word for it, though occasionally they don't, and those instances generally end in a nearly full bottle of IPA getting poured out.

Bless your Uncle Archie, that's a great story. I'm guessing the reference to Indiana is probably a dig at American beers being dumbed-down versions of their European counter parts (which in today's beer market, is totally untrue. Yes, the top sellers might be, but the USA is kicking Canada's ass all over the map when it comes to brewing these days).

Thanks again for commenting, if you're interested in reading some reviews of IPAs, check out http://www.torontobeerblog.com/tag/ipa/

Chris

Tim,
Thanks for commenting. You are correct that Keith's is at least the most widely recognized IPA in Canada. That being said, it is nothing like an IPA, either by today's definitions (see the Beer Judging Certification Panel's exhaustive style guide, which doesn't have any corporate interests that I notice) or by the beer that was historically known as India Pale Ale.

Keith's brewery has actually only been in existence since 1820 (which I suppose is nearly "centuries"), Alexander himself only immigrating from Scotland in 1817. You may well be thinking of the history of India Pale Ales in England, which were indeed popular with the British living in India early in the British reign.

So why do I identify Keith's as something other then an IPA? Well, ignoring the current guidelines (which are quite clear: it's not), historically India Pale Ales were lighter coloured ales (so far so good) that were brewed specifically to endure the long trip around Africa to India. A trip that could take weeks. Most beer in a wooden casks would long have gone bad by the time it got to India, but beers with higher alcohol seemed to make the trip better. The same was true with beers that had more hops. Not long, and brewers were making higher alcohol beers that had significantly more hops in them solely for shipping to India. So, light coloured beer with higher then usual alcohol and more hops. At 5% abv and under 20IBU (which is a measurement of bitterness), currently Keith's IPA just doesn't measure up, to either the historic or current standards.

Of course, their original/older product may well have more closely represented the style. It could be that they have been dumbing it down for decades to keep up with a market that (despite it's assurances to the contrary), simply doesn't like beer.

In doing some fact checking, I came across this blog with interesting images.
http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2009/05/beer-in-1890s-canada.html
Note in table one the top two beers are Keith's Ale and Keith's XXX, both of which weigh-in at over 7% (though a true beer geek notes the Ale would actually have had to be 6.1% given the gravities listed: http://www.bartowel.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=55337). Also note that they only list "Ale", not "India Pale Ale" which does appear a variety of times further down the tables. Also note that aside from the Labatt IPA, all the others are above 6% abv. Histroically, the evidence is that IPAs were higher alcohol. In fact, even the Bass & Co. Pale Ales were above 6%.

I would be a very happy beer drinker indeed, if Keith's decided to rebrand IPA to "Ale" or "Export Ale" or even "Cream Ale" (though I wouldn't love the last one). So often somebody comes into the bar I work at, and asks for a Keith's. When we tell them we don't have it, and recommend Moosehead, they sometimes spot a bottle of IPA and ask for that. We try to explain that it is nothing like Keith's, and most of the time they take our word for it, though occasionally they don't, and those instances generally end in a nearly full bottle of IPA getting poured out.

Bless your Uncle Archie, that's a great story. I'm guessing the reference to Indiana is probably a dig at American beers being dumbed-down versions of their European counter parts (which in today's beer market, is totally untrue. Yes, the top sellers might be, but the USA is kicking Canada's ass all over the map when it comes to brewing these days).

Thanks again for commenting, if you're interested in reading some reviews of IPAs, check out http://www.torontobeerblog.com/tag/ipa/

Chris

Chris:
I was thinking of the history of India Pale Ales in England, and the military living in India during their reign there. Perhaps colonialism, much like globalization required getting the best product to those thirsty soldiers in the cheapest manner and Keith's may have been the best at doing that for a time. Certainly the shipping location was the best in Canada. I suspect the labour force and land base made sourcing their supply from Nova Scotia a bargain for the Brits. Some things don't change, except the flatness according to Friedman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Is_Flat

Thanks for your links, they're marked delicious and I hope to get to them properly later.

I believe your point about the US kicking Canada's ass in brewing. And I'm liking US beers more and more despite my natural inclination to believe buying local is best. I'm wondering if that was nearly always the case in brewing, as it was in so many areas of processing where we have had to watch and learn to catch up? And that brings me to wondering how much the biology of belief affects a beer drinkers like and dislikes? Nationalism or regional likes have defined tastes in other food realms.

What I refer to is applying research I've read from this scientist http://www.brucelipton.com/ on living cells that think, to beer drinkers. In a similar way to how a placebo may work as well as an actual pill to cure something, I wonder if one believes they are going to be drinking a very good beer, for whatever reason, unless it actually is very bad, the taste buds will believe what the consumer has already have been predisposed to believe.

In an extreme example of biology of belief, this theory holds that stubborn old Uncle Archie, wouldn't like even a favourerd brew of his if it was clandestinely served in a bottle with an American label, or maybe vice versa.

I like Keith's a lot. Guinness is a favourite and I also like Bud. Seems I do happen to like the ones I have heard a bit of history about, and approve of. Though Sleeman's doesn't quite do it for me and I've been hearing more about their illustrious past...the scoundrels. I do wonder how much of the old local lore helps in the marketing of brew brands? For istance, history has written Alexander Keith as an honourable man. True or not, I currently believe that, therefore that contributes to my liking it a lot?

Maybe its that old fashion wood chip filter system Bud still uses and its brewerer's claim that it is their most expensive brand to brew. I like the of old traditional methods rather than chemically treated. The sustainable and green discussion almost always works and I normally believe expensive is usually better in all things. This "you get what you pay for" has been taught well to me. Therefore I like Bud? I know people who don't, perhaps mainly because it is American and "weak" in their mind.

I'm thinking I won't like the new Bud when they stop using the wood chips. Or the new Bud I saw advertised using wheat. Again, I've been given to believe something: that my body is less tolerant of too much wheat based consumption. A Labbatt's beer rep I met in a bar once told me his Bud was made with rice. I believed him. Without researching that rice claim I can drink and enjoy more Bud and not get a yeast infection. No jokes about where drinking beer and yeast infections really come from please. I don't want to believe that.
Cheers
Tim

Chris:
I was thinking of the history of India Pale Ales in England, and the military living in India during their reign there. Perhaps colonialism, much like globalization required getting the best product to those thirsty soldiers in the cheapest manner and Keith's may have been the best at doing that for a time. Certainly the shipping location was the best in Canada. I suspect the labour force and land base made sourcing their supply from Nova Scotia a bargain for the Brits. Some things don't change, except the flatness according to Friedman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Is_Flat

Thanks for your links, they're marked delicious and I hope to get to them properly later.

I believe your point about the US kicking Canada's ass in brewing. And I'm liking US beers more and more despite my natural inclination to believe buying local is best. I'm wondering if that was nearly always the case in brewing, as it was in so many areas of processing where we have had to watch and learn to catch up? And that brings me to wondering how much the biology of belief affects a beer drinkers like and dislikes? Nationalism or regional likes have defined tastes in other food realms.

What I refer to is applying research I've read from this scientist http://www.brucelipton.com/ on living cells that think, to beer drinkers. In a similar way to how a placebo may work as well as an actual pill to cure something, I wonder if one believes they are going to be drinking a very good beer, for whatever reason, unless it actually is very bad, the taste buds will believe what the consumer has already have been predisposed to believe.

In an extreme example of biology of belief, this theory holds that stubborn old Uncle Archie, wouldn't like even a favourerd brew of his if it was clandestinely served in a bottle with an American label, or maybe vice versa.

I like Keith's a lot. Guinness is a favourite and I also like Bud. Seems I do happen to like the ones I have heard a bit of history about, and approve of. Though Sleeman's doesn't quite do it for me and I've been hearing more about their illustrious past...the scoundrels. I do wonder how much of the old local lore helps in the marketing of brew brands? For istance, history has written Alexander Keith as an honourable man. True or not, I currently believe that, therefore that contributes to my liking it a lot?

Maybe its that old fashion wood chip filter system Bud still uses and its brewerer's claim that it is their most expensive brand to brew. I like the of old traditional methods rather than chemically treated. The sustainable and green discussion almost always works and I normally believe expensive is usually better in all things. This "you get what you pay for" has been taught well to me. Therefore I like Bud? I know people who don't, perhaps mainly because it is American and "weak" in their mind.

I'm thinking I won't like the new Bud when they stop using the wood chips. Or the new Bud I saw advertised using wheat. Again, I've been given to believe something: that my body is less tolerant of too much wheat based consumption. A Labbatt's beer rep I met in a bar once told me his Bud was made with rice. I believed him. Without researching that rice claim I can drink and enjoy more Bud and not get a yeast infection. No jokes about where drinking beer and yeast infections really come from please. I don't want to believe that.
Cheers
Tim

What the.... I dont get it. Tim, you made a ridiculous comment and proved you know absolutely nothing about beer or IPA specifically, then Chris shut you down completely, but very nicely I have to say. However, I am very confused now by this response that seems to me to just be verbal vomiting. What are you even talking about anymore Tim?! That was gibberish and had nothing to do with anything

What the.... I dont get it. Tim, you made a ridiculous comment and proved you know absolutely nothing about beer or IPA specifically, then Chris shut you down completely, but very nicely I have to say. However, I am very confused now by this response that seems to me to just be verbal vomiting. What are you even talking about anymore Tim?! That was gibberish and had nothing to do with anything

IPA exists today as a style of beer. that style is generally defined by a higher alcohol percentage and a more bitter and hoppier character. A bottle of Keiths sure tastes a lot like a bottle of Labatts or Canadian doesnt it? Whether you prefer it to them is beside the point, because in a blind taste test I doubt you could identify which was which 100% of the time.

So IPA exists today as a style, and keiths just doesnt meet it. It should definitely be rebranded as an ale, even though it may actually be a lager, Im not entirely sure. But your talk about rebranding other IPAs instead of this one is ridiculous. You shouldnt babble on about things you know nothing about.

IPA exists today as a style of beer. that style is generally defined by a higher alcohol percentage and a more bitter and hoppier character. A bottle of Keiths sure tastes a lot like a bottle of Labatts or Canadian doesnt it? Whether you prefer it to them is beside the point, because in a blind taste test I doubt you could identify which was which 100% of the time.

So IPA exists today as a style, and keiths just doesnt meet it. It should definitely be rebranded as an ale, even though it may actually be a lager, Im not entirely sure. But your talk about rebranding other IPAs instead of this one is ridiculous. You shouldnt babble on about things you know nothing about.

i live in scarborough and i would like to try this alexander keith harvest ale i am at sports cafe in scarborough ont. when the leafs play except on tuesday .