Discussion in 'Beer Trading Talk & Help' started by mikeincharleston, Jul 22, 2012.
I decided I am going as Sal's pouch.
we've got a whole series going
you total biter.
Ahh too late to edit
I got a chance to try this last weekend. It was very good sour. I wouldn't go nuts trying to get it. Its not the greatest beer in the world. Its almost as good as Brugge Harvey.
I keep seeing people refer to Ann as a sour. There was a VERY mild tartness, but I would not describe this beer as a sour anymore that I would refer to Saison-Brett as a sour. I find this especially weird because I was under the impression that Ann was more of a sour until I actually opened it as well.
Afksports drops in a 3.95 review. He gave 4.2 to Anna, but it seems based on the review he would have given it higher if it was more comlpex. Ann is a more complex (yet still balanced according to his review) version of Anna.
First example of expectations creep?
I had it twice last weekend (once with afk) and it was a disappointment...granted it was against the likes of crianza, blauw, roze, izzy, etc, which may play into my feelings on it. Its a very well balanced sour-ish saison although I think there are better HF saisons (flora). Mimosa and Norma are both miles ahead in complexity in my opinion.
I love brendan, but he hasn't posted a review in over 2 months and hasn't reviewed much this year at all...and not for lack of drinking amazing and tickable brews, as i've shared more than a few with him and the tasting that had Ann boasted quite a roster of whale-ish beers.
not knocking brendan's taste buds or his reviewing or even love for beer, but seems odd to come in and post the lowest review for the most hyped and praised beer of recent memory when you clearly aren't a reviewer (on BA), no? i would think that if you wanted to get the tick on the books, you might also be interested in posting your review of some of the other beers consumed that evening:
Churchill's Finest '12, Churchill's Finest '10, Fou'Foune '11, Rodenbach Caractère Rouge b1, Twisted Spoke 15th, Rum BA Hunahpu's, J&J Blauw, J&J Roze, Crianza Helena, DDG, New Belgium Bottleworks X, Ann, T25, Guava Groove, Bruery Bottleworks XII, BA Speedway '03, Pennichuck Fireman's Pail Ale '08, Pliny 8/1/12
although, it could be just a case of feeling that this beer really isn't all that great and i need to let the world know about it? who knows? as one of the other 24 reviewers (one who gave it all 5's) you can choose to go by the thoughts of one rogue reviewer or 24 other reviewers.
disappointment both times or just once? perhaps it is getting past prime (already???)...
agree to disagree
Rogue reviewer? Seriously?
You can almost always scrub the first 20 reviews of a new hyped beer. I tend to put more stock in the later ones after the hype has died down and people stop pumping up their latest whale for trading purposes.
Let's all gang up on him, because underrating is a widespread, significant problem on BA and it should be quashed.
Seems like he got a 2 oz pour of yeast. I dont see how anyone could give a thorough review of a beer based on that.
rogue = a playfully mischievous person (or Brewery in OR)
i have no ulterior motive, i wish i had one to trade...truth be told, i'd drink it. either way, doesn't matter much to me. in the end it is all opinions. one review that isn't just shy of a 5 doesn't mean that all the others are just hype...that's all i'm saying. also, it isn't like the first 24 reviewers are local noobs, you've got some top reviewers in there and pretty critical people.
Hear, hear! I almost never reveal beers that I get a tiny pour of at a group tasting -- many beers, especially ones with a lot of subtle complexity, can only be appreciated over the course of several ounces and careful consideration. Reviewing off of 2 ounces is a lot like the Pepsi challenge -- you'll give high scores to whatever is most pleasing on the first sip.
True, you have to let the beer take over. I'd say an 8oz pour minimum.
That's generally why I don't do a ton of reviews, that and I'm lazy. But I will know righy away if I like a beer or not.
The first Ann I had was split between 5 then the next bottle was between 3. First or second pours on each. It's really a beer that you need to experience as it warms from cellar temp. More lemon tartness comes out as it nears room temp and subtle flavors from the barrel start to become defined.
two weeks ago:
*guy uploads high review*
everyone: "omgwtf is he thinking"
*guy uploads reasonable review*
everyone: "omgwtf is he thinking"
i <3 ba.
Whenever someone doesn't review a beer as highly as the "masses" think it should be reviewed, they're always "Doing it wrong"
Definitely agree to disagree. Thats why I said "in my opinion." I didnt review it because I'm not an avid reviewer. First night I didnt get a great pou, but I did get a good pour Sunday and enjoyed it. I didnt think it was a '5' but it was another fantastic barrel aged saison from Shaun. So many things factor into a review that i find them rather meaningless. If I drank an Ann alone to myself without any other beers? I might call it a 5.
I just think that it's important to rate consistently if you are going to do it at all. Like you seem to do. My problem with his review was not the score, but the contrast with Anna's score. I have not seen or heard a single person on the forums or elsewhere prefer Anna (I tried Ann right after Anna and no one in my group preferred Anna) which led me to believe the difference in score was an expectation issue.
*edited, changed underrate to rate
Agreed. I try to be as objective as possible, but it's difficult when drinking said beer alongside some very tough competition.
Brendan's a great guy; not at all the type to harbor a malicious ulterior motive. I suspect he was slightly more critical with his rating simply because of the overwhelming "OMG BEST BEER EVER" circle jerk going re: Ann, but honestly most of our tasting group agreed it was considerably overhyped. Only criticism I can fairly make of Brendan's review is that the appearance was absolutely a 5/5.
Well, we surely can't have anyone having their own opinions which are different from other people's opinions.
So, another way of interpreting this is: when drinking a beer without immediate context, it's easy to skew your ratings upward. ("This is beer is great, I'm really enjoying it -- 4.5") But, with other beers close at hand for comparison, you realize that there's lots of good beer, and they can't all be in the top 1%.
I came in with very minimal expectation. Palates and tastes change. Trust me, I don't think my review of Captain Lawrence Imperial Smoked Porter is anywhere near how I'd treat it today. I hate smoked beers.
That said, in comparison (and from memory), Anna had a more prominent honey to it, and I felt like a nicer body and mouthfeel.
The traitor speaks!
Was 1.5-2oz from the middle of the bottle and 1.5-2oz dregs. Sat with it the longest of any beer that day except Blauw and Crianza.
Also I'm an amateur, like everyone else reviewing Ann, right? And isn't a 3.95 a pretty high score? It was enjoyable and I'd buy it if it were a shelf beer.
Well also in his Anna review it seems his opinion of how to make Anna better was to make Ann. Sure, maybe he was incorrect about what he would like, but it still strikes me as a bit off.
Not really. The BA scale starts ~3.50 and goes up to 5. Your adjusted score is 30/100.
everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but curious why is the lower review considered "reasonable?" is it not possible that some people really loved ann and thought it was one of if not the best beers that they had ever tasted?
Thorpe429 who has close to 4,000 reviews rated it as his 8th highest rating.
drabmuh who has north of 3,000 reviews rated it around 20.
just because a beer gets a high score doesn't mean that it is unreasonable.
Reasonable. I AM APPEASED!
THERE HE IS!!!!
First part: I try to post 140 character reviews on all my untappd checkins to beers I haven't had before. That's 110 characters of BS shorter than would take to enter into BA's database to get the "reviewed" tick.
Second part: Yup.
the first part of your sentence answers your second.
Sounds like it was at the wrong tasting.
This is genuinely funny to me. Who fucking cares really? So he gave it a 3.95....is that going to keep ANYONE from searching it out that already wasn't? ZOMFG Ann got less than a 5!! He has to be trying to black-ball it!!
I don't get where the amateur comment is coming from. You mad cause I criticized your 3oz tick of dregs? And now you are complaining about mouthfeel?
The defence force for this beer is incredible! Now I want to try it and give it a 3.5 =)
JK, I don't usually bother reviewing beers.
Separate names with a comma.