Do you really mean that you think it does/should define the style, or just that you like it a lot?
I like it a lot, but it seems too far out in the extreme, stout-like fringe of the porter range to be "definitive" of the style.
Hmmm, well, I've called it a definitive "porter" in the past, and while its a bit rich, I wouldn't call that beer extreme by any means.
OTOH, just because there are many porters that are "less stoutish" than Anchor Porter doesn't mean that it can't be definitive, it could just mean that those examples are underdone.
(of course, as well debated here, the difference between porter and stout is not)
It's not bad. The Orchard Street, Smuttynose and Ipswich porters are much better IMO.
I meant "extreme" in a relative sense, comparing it to other "porters," not in an absolute sense in the entire beer continuum. And in the realm of porters, Anchor is among the most, umm, "stout."
It seems to me that *if* you want to define styles (and I'm finding that to be an increasingly big "if" these days), they should be typical of traditional/historical examples, or of common contemporary examples, or some combination of those. While I don't think Anchor would fall outside a definition of porter so derived, I don't think it could be considered "typical." Nothing wrong with that, it just makes it a bit dodgey to use it as your gold standard.
I more or less agree with that sentiment, but in that case there is
*no* definitive porter.DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.