How do you rate beers?

This. For me a "3" is generally an enjoyable beer, one that I have no big problem with. Once you get into the 3.5 range, you're dealing with beers that border on excellent.

 

Oh but 5's do exist.

 

With the weighted average it was too hard to make sense of it that way. I do not think a 3, or a couple of flaws ruin a beer to the point of giving it a score of "1". I agree with @beertunes that a score of 3 might be a beer you can enjoy. Translating it to other forms like 80, 90,100 or A,B C, D is always subjective. I would say 5 = 100, 4= 85+, 3 = 75 +, 2 and below is getting into "D" range of 65 and lower. 1 is a myth more than 5 is a myth because of the categories that we use to rate the beer. If the beer poured and was a liquid it's at least a 1.

 

I do an initial rating based on the first tasting, although I'll update through the third time, as I feel like I have to try a beer across at least three different sessions before I can get a really comprehensive impression. I also adjust it based on how it compare to other beers I've already rated (e.g. I like it better than this other beer I rated 4.25 but less than a third that I rated 4.5, so I'll rate it somewhere between the two).

 

Agree to disagree. Highest I've ever scored anything is a 4.9 (Beatification Batch 5 about 1.5 years out from release).

What are some fives in your opinion?

 

By style

 

I write notes on a piece of scrap paper. I still use the old BA system of appearance, aroma, taste, mouthfeel, and overall. I tend to average the first 4 to make my overall score, but if it exceptionally well crafted, balanced, etc. I might bump overall a bit (examples FIS, Pere Jaques, etc.). The one category that I feel always boosts my numbers a bit is the appearance, what can I say, I just love the look of beer! As mentioned above, I tend to review it early on, click off the lights, then sit back to enjoy.

I rarely find something so outrageously bad that it winds up less than okay (or somewhere around three). If this happens, it is usually my fault (i.e. not rigorously checking dates etc., drinking a BMC, etc). This being said, some of my rDev scores are WAY above or below for various beers... reminding me of course, that this is all subjective.

 

Bourbon Barrel Aged Imperial Biscotti Break, Bell's Black Note Stout, Dark Horse Bourbon Barrel Aged Plead the 5th, BCBS, BCBCS, and KBS are the six beers I have given the perfect (can't improve this) beer score.

 

This rating system never made sense to me. I do not comprehend perfection. Multiple categories to rate, and 4.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999... is the highest I calculated.

 

But, of course, 4.999.... = 5.

 

A "5" does not automatically equal perfect (and, there are multiple definitions of perfect). A five means, you can't find something wrong with that beer. Maybe there's a beer that takes a different approach, and the 2 beers have differences, but, if you don't find a flagrant flaw, that beer is probably a 5.

My favorite style is Tripel. My favorite Tripel is Chimay White. La Fin du Monde is one of the two beers I have given 5's to, in over 2,000 reviews. I like the Chimay better, but I cannot imagine a Tripel ever being better than LFdM.

 

Hold on, so if there isn't a glaring issue with the beer - it's a 5?!

You have only three 5's listed in your reviews. Yet when I read the first several outside the 5 marks, you have little to nothing indicating what you found "wrong" with the beer.

How could the best stand out if all you needed for a perfect score was to not have any obvious errors?

- I realize this conversation is rooted heavily in subjective data.

 

I try to rate by style, judging aroma, appearance (head, lacing, body), flavor, and palate, using these to calculate overall rating as an unweighted average, then applying the BA rating weighting to get a final weighted score. I generally find that the BA ratings are higher than my personal scores, but I feel that appearance is weighted too low by BA. My personal system is similar to @utopiajane.

 

Without looking, I think I only have 2 5s, LFdM and North Coast Old Stock Ale. Like I said, I cannot find room for improvement in those beers. The ones that come close, miss by just this much and probably only got less than 5s to leave room for the beers that really get it right. To me, any beer over 3.75-4.0 is excellent, and nearly "perfect", beers 3.5 and up are great, bordering world-class.

 

BBA Imperial Biscotti - never did try it. Found the original too alcoholic on the nose, and in the mouth. I will say sometimes a barrel can do amazing things; particularly given my complaint.

Black Note - Very good beer. The only modification I would make is that it was a little dry for me on the finish. But I would bang again for sure. Good stuff, not perfect for me.

BBAPt5 - Oh man, much better than most of the BBA's out there. My primary bitch on this is batch consistency. I've found that sometimes the beer is more boozy, sometimes has an almost tannic character. That being said, when I've had those experiences, they've been really subtle - but noticeable nonetheless.

BCBS - A little too sticky on the finish. When fresh, sometimes a little alcoholic. Dips into a great place for me between 1-3 years. Then just kinda becomes a sweet syrupy thang.

BCBCS - I think this one is a little different for me. I think 2010 was the best. I think the different coffee's make the beer a very different beast every year. The 2010, which was my favorite, was simply not a 5/5. Very good, but not perfect - and I don't have a reason for that, except that the beer didn't look/smell/taste/feel perfect.

KBS - Also an outstanding beer. I like it best as the coffee fades a little and then the barrel is allowed to shine a bit more. This seems like a pretty short window because I find a slightly sooty character in the older bottles (>2yr).

All that being said, I think all your 5's are great 5's for you and I wouldn't dispute their greatness whatsoever. Just a matter of opinion I guess.

 

This seems a bit different than "if it's not obviously messed up, it's probably a 5".

I am much more in agreement with this. My scale differs from yours in this regard.

5 - couldn't even imagine an adjustment to improve the beer
4.5-4.9 - World class
4.0-4.4 - Excellent
3.5-3.9 - Very Good
3.0-3.4 - Good (usually nothing wrong with process, but disagree with ingredient)
2.5-2.9 - Below average (mild issues with process)
2.0-2.4 - Poor (moderate issues with process, but some underlying potential)
<2 - Bad (mixed issues with process and recipe from my perspective).

I have a similar disposition as you regarding if something was made well versus if I like it. I personally really dig a Triple Bock (any year) as I find it a good cigar sipper; I would never give it a good review numerically - it was a doomed beer. I'm okay with liking a beer I would give <2 on a rate scale.

 

I've worried about this for some time. I don't trust me for my first sip. Maybe it really was good or wasn't that bad or it sucked? Was I pissed off and thought everything sucked or was I a fool and thought it was incredible? As long as one's beer is not too cold at the outset, the first taste tells. Watching a beer and letting it warm a bit is the clincher.

 

5: I would drive around or post "ISO:" to get again (really not much)
4: I would instantly purchase if I saw it again
3: I would buy it again
2: I would perhaps drink it again, if I was handed one
1: no thanks

 

I rate as a fallible human being who likes beer. I don't always get it right. And I really do have a hard time being objective about styles that I'm not excited about. I try, but I'm sure I fail. So if you looked at my history, you'd find a lot more high rated IPAs and DIPAs than high rated Altbiers or Bocks. Sorry. But I rate because I believe to at least some extent in the wisdom of the group, and wish to contribute to the process.

That said, I fall where a lot of folks who have posted to this thread do - anything above about a 3.5 means I'd be happy to drink that beer again, and anything above a 4 is something I would seek out. I've had a few beers that I've rated as 5s, and they are the best example I've tried within a style. But those are always open to revision if I find something that I think is better. The problem is that memory is imperfect. So, you just do the best you can and have fun with it.

 

I write the review first, then go back to my "beer" page and assign a score based on what I've had previously. Often I'll try a beer and think "I like this slightly more than beer-X, slightly less than beer-Y, about the same as beer-Z".