Talk:Achel Brewery

Year opened

The year the Achel brewery reopened is inconsistent between the infobox and the article text. Could someone with appropriate knowledge fix this glaring error?

Couch 10:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The official website is unclear and seems to be at odds with the importer's website. Perhaps this is the source of the problem. Couch 10:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The correct year is 1998. I already changed it. Fnorp 13:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Tripel?

The page listed Achel Bruin 8 as a "Tripel." Though there are the rare dark tripels, this is almost certainly an incorrect designation of this beer's style. Beeradvocate lists it as a dubbel (somewhat dubious given the strength of the beer), and Ratebeer lists it as a strong ale. So, I've listed it as a Belgian Strong Dark Ale, though I am open to other, sensible designations. --MS

Actually, after thinking about it, "Dubbel" seems to be the best style designation for this beer, so I changed it to that. --MS

It is a Dubbel indeed. There's no such type as Belgian Strong Dark Ale anyway. Fnorp 07:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not what to call this beer, the problem is the idea that every beer must fit into a category. The double and triple beers are not a style in Belgium, although Ratebeer, Beeradvocate and other amateur beer organisations may say it is; they are a naming convention. The Trappist breweries generally divide their beers by strength. So, logically, if an 8% beer is their strongest, it would be a triple. If it is blond, brown, green or pink, it is still a triple, because triple is NOT a style. Fnorp, if you would like to read more about this, I recommend 'Trappist. Het bier en de monniken' by Jef van den Steen (page 87 is an explanation of the Achelse beers). Mikebe 09:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Ratebeer and Beeradvocate are not particularly reliable sources for encyclopedia purposes; they were simply easiest to look up in a hurry. Moreover, while I agree that we run into problems trying to force Belgian beers into rigid style designations, and believe that you make a valid point about Belgians themselves not particularly caring about how the beers they create might or might not fit into a category (particularly as many of the category designations have been created by non-Belgian sources), I still problems with the rest of your argument. Granted "dubbel" and "triple" were originally simply strength designators, but these terms have by this point gained a much more limited meaning. It does not follow that simply because the terms began as strength indicators that "if an 8% beer is their strongest, it would be a triple." St. Bernardus, Chimay and La Trappe brew beers stronger than their tripels, and while others such as Westvleteren and Rochefort name their beers according to their strengths, they use an alternate convention (degrees of the beer's gravity). In almost all sources I've been able to find the meaning of the term has narrowed and modern Tripels are almost exclusively lighter in color (with rare exceptions, such as Brasserie des Rocs' dark tripel imperiale, and some would debate the validity of calling such exceptions tripels). Thus, calling Achel Bruin 8 would seem to be misleading to many readers, and I would be interested in hearing further justification for referring to it as a tripel. I am going to leave similar complaints on the Rochefort page, but I will wait on editing either page for the time being so as to avoid an edit war. --MS

Well, I think you've made a very good argument for why my original point is valid: style designations make more problems than solving anything, especially when they are beers from countries with no formal style guidelines. We could discuss this until eternity and we would be no closer to a definitive answer. I suggest simply removing the style names and replace them with either alcohol content or something else that can describe the beer. And, on a personal note, it is a little weird discussing something with someone who is anonymous and has so far done nothing but post messages on Belgian beer talk pages. Mikebe 15:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not have Jef van den Steen's book, so I cannot simply look up anything in it. Perhaps he's referring to the myth that the names dubbel and tripel refer to the number of fermentations? Dubbel and Tripel are types of beer in Belgium, although not strictly defined. But when either dubbel or tripel is on the label you have some idea of what to expect. In general, a Dubbel is dark coloured and bitter/sweet in taste, while a Tripel is blond and more hoppy. Both can be up to 9% strong. Fnorp 13:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I do have the book and I've read it (well, most of it). I assume you also don't know who he is. If you are interested in Belgian beer, I highly recommend all his books. I don't completely agree with your statement "when either dubbel or tripel is on the label..." because those words appear on very few Belgian beers. Yes, it is more than the trappists and abbeys, but still, there are not many. Secondly, considering that none of these beers are a 'style', but rather a type of beer, your statement is also questionable. And finally, where have you read that both a dubbel and tripel can be up to 9%? I have never heard that before. Mikebe

I do know who Van den Steen is, but I just cannot afford his expensive books. He's not the final word anyway, if only because dubbels and tripels are made in the Netherlands as well, although mostly by small semi-amateuristic breweries that make "Belgian-style" beers. La Trappe and Hertog Jan are the only professional ones I can think of. The words dubbel and tripel aren't used as much as they were in the 1990's but these are definitely distinct types or styles (what's the difference?) in strength, colour and taste. I must correct my last statement in my previous message; a dubbel is between ca. 6 and 8%, a tripel is between ca. 7 and 9%. Perhaps the use of these words is more common in the Netherlands than in Belgium, but in the latter country it is not unusual to call a beer like Delirium Tremens a tripel either. Not to mention beers that are named tripel for good reason, like Karmeliet and Kasteelbier Gouden Tripel. Fnorp 09:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that his books are expensive -- in the Netherlands. I bought his last one (Geuze en Kriek) in Belgium for almost half want it costs in the Netherlands! Although I am Dutch, I belong to Zythos (and before that, to OBP) -- PINT is useless -- and my chapter of Zythos was very lucky to have Jef come to our clubhouse and speak to us about his research two times. There is no doubt in mind that he knows more about Belgian beer (especially the history) than any Belgian or Dutch person I have ever met! Anyway, where I live, it is not unusual to go to a café and just ask for a tripel. If the café has Westmalle Tripel (as many of them do), you will get that. If not, they will simply give you their strongest or one of their strongest beers. It does not mean it must be light or dark or sweet or sour or hoppy or malty. It is a naming convention, as it began in Belgium. When I have been in Belgium, I usually ask for a beer by name, not by type. I should add that I go to mostly ABT cafés, when possible. About Dutch breweries: yes, Hertog Jan is a big professional brewery, but there are some very good small ones. Right now, I particularly like de Schans, for example. Mikebe 07:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there are many problems with the style designations, particularly when applied to Belgian beers. I am not opposed to simply getting rid of the style conventions on some of the pages (particularly this one and the Rocheforte page... Rochefort 10 being an excellent example of a beer that is extremely difficult to categorize) where it is especially difficult and/or dubious to place the beers in certain categories. Still, I think there might be a better way to acknowledge both the various categories into which the beers might fit according to various known sources and the problems that arise from such categorization (inconsistency, arbitrariness, unfaithfulness to the Belgian understanding of the beer they produce, etc.). As for my being anonymous, well, I've just never bothered to open a wikipedia account. I've used wikipedia pretty extensively for a few years now, making a few helpful (I hope) edits here and there and engaging in a few minor debates on talk pages in order to try and strengthen a few pages on subjects I have some knowledge about, but I've never done enough to feel that it warranted signing up for an account. I might do so at some point. --MS

I think the best we can offer readers here is to give them some idea about the taste of a beer. Of course, we cannot be critics and say this beer is good and this is bad. However, we can say something perhaps like this: "8% alcohol, dark, somewhat sweet and spicy." I find this much more useful than 'tripel', for example, because I know that the Westmalle tripel has almost nothing in common with the Westvleteren tripel, not too mention the non-Trappist tripels. Think about this: someone reads about Lambik then samples one in Belgium for the first time -- simply reading the style name (or even style description) will never prepare them for the shock (especially if it is a real lambik, not one of the commercial ones). Mikebe 07:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, and think such changes to the page would be good if you want to do them. The only thing we would want to avoid, in describing the beer, would be venturing into original research (though in this case, such research would be thoroughly enjoyable). --MS

I know its been awhile since our discussion on this matter, but I just wanted to state that I think the recent edits (I'm assuming you did them Mikebe, but I haven't actually looked to see if that is true) are very helpful. Given the difficulty of classifying these beers, I like the use of abv to distinguish them, and at any rate, that combined with the names (bruin, blond) of the different varieties should give the reader as descent a knowledge of the beers as a passing glance at Wikipedia can hope to give. --MS

Yes, that was me. I'm very glad you are happy with what I did. I completely agree with your comments and thank you for them. Mikebe 13:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum caution and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform the project members on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Authentic Trappist status, January 2021

Achel is no longer recognised as priducing Authentic Trappist products due to no monks being available to oversee the brewing process. https://www.tvl.be/nieuws/limburg-verliest-met-achel-zijn-enige-authentieke-trappistenbier-112013 Nickorando (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)