Beer Rating Curiosity

And being from Bamberg . Plus, there is already a Rauchbier category here on BA where that one listing more properly belongs.

If you look at some of the other posts that have come up in the meantime, the same word can have two different meanings. Dunkel in most of Germany will just mean a dark beer, whereas in Munich it's a very specific type of dark lager. So I take it that it is understood that Dunkel= broad category; 'Munich' Dunkel = specific style, which can fall under that umbrella.

 

I like a good ribeye, but what the f**k do I know

As far as rating beers to style - to me it's like communism - great in theory, but not really happening in practice.

But it's fairly easy to work out that TT Landlord (English Pale Ale - WR 4.03) and BCBCS (Double/Imperial Stout - WR 4.68) are both great beers, without them having to both be scored as a 5/5.

 

My reviews take style into consideration, but I do not think that "true to style" is or should be the only consideration when rating a beer here on BA.

Some styles are more flavorful than others - there, I said it! I take that into account. Call it personal preference or label it any way you wish.

I look at it this way (hypothetically): if I walk into a bar and my #10 barrel aged stout is on tap along with my #1 blonde ale, which would I select? If the answer is my #10 barrel aged stout, then all of my top 10 barrel aged stouts should rank above my favorite blonde ale.

 

The problem isn't "rating to style," it is rating beers on a numeric scale where higher/lower values can be interpreted to mean higher/lower quality.

For example, Michael Jackson's rating scale took things like style, historical lineage, and geography/culture into account while avoiding any of these pitfalls that necessarily result from making all beer one big competition.

His "scale" was:

* typical of its region and style
** above average
*** worth seeking out
**** world classic

In other words...

Beer: it's not a competition

 

Yep, just as there is an existing category here on BA called "Amber" and another called "Saison."

As for the ambiguity of words, that’s why some of the people I work with insist on putting everything in the form of an equation.... :-)

 

I saw it in the "Beer Styles" section. From what I can gather, at the very least "bock" seems to have two meanings: a style of lager, and a strength indicator. I could see a progression of strength when discussing lagers that goes helles to marzen to bock to doppelbock to eisbock, particularly if talking about strength of flavor, and bock is also used as a stage of strength up in weissbier, from hefeweizen to weizenbock.

I'd be inclined to posit that, when used as an indicator of strength alone, it would not also describe the style of bier. I could very well be mistaken, though.

 

The % is the Degrees Plato of the wort. A good rule of thumb is to multiply by $ to get the OG (well multiply by 4, move decimal 3 to left, add to 1.0). So 12% = 1.048 OG, typical for a Pilsner.

 

Thanks. I was just confused by the term "extract". I'm familiar with gravity from homebrewing, just not in degrees Plato.

 

Look at 50 highest rated beers on this site(give or take a few) and what do they all have in common? Rarity, short supply, very seasonal releases, or very small geographical foot prints. When people try these beers for the first time, they are not rating them based on their personal experience. They are rating them on the massive amounts of hype associated with them. They have been conditioned to think a beer is great, even though they may not personally like it. Don't get me wrong, many of them are in fact great beers.

 

... but since you referred to imperial stouts and I get your meaning, the two of us must not be aficionados yet.

 

I thought I was biased toward stouts and ipa's, but my personal top 25 rated beers on this site encompass 12 styles, so perhaps I'm doing it right.

Hmmm......wonder what my bottom 25 looks like......

obsessively looked it up. 16 syles.

I'm overthinking this.......

 

I personally don't any value out of ratings "to style." I just want a description of the beer and a critique on whether it is good or bad. That's how I rate as well. Drinking is a subjective experience, my ratings reflect that.

 

Same ol' same ol' on this thread.

My opinions:
1. Reviewing to style would be ideal, and I do try, sort of, but since I really am not qualified to rate to style, it ends up being mostly reviewing to my taste, adjusted a bit to what I think the style should be (which may or may not be right... more likely not).
2. The idea that you can get a valid ranking to style by sorting the ratings by style is a very flawed idea. The reason is that people (for example) who love uber-hopped-up beers will downgrade more malt-forward or balanced styles BECAUSE they are brewed to style, and will rate highly the over-hopped versions of those styles because they are NOT brewed to style. In other words, the personal preferences that dominate the membership will bias even the rankings within a particular style.

This topic re-appears every so often (I may have even started a thread on this theme some time ago...), and it is eventually locked because it is the....

same ol' same ol' ...

And short of requiring everyone who reviews a beer to pass the Beer Judge Certification Program, there is no real fix for it. I've come to this conclusion: enjoy the beer you like, and use the ratings for what they are instead of trying to make them what they are not (and cannot ever be).

 

Ratings here, I've found, are a mix of 'to style' people, personal taste, and herding (rating higher because everyone else has). I personally try to go to style, especially if I don't like that style much (i.e. BBA), and for styles I like my ratings become a mix of style and personal taste which I've tried to note in reviews.

I only really look at the ratings before trying a bottle really or travelling on vacation to find the better locations. Otherwise I buy a glass of expectant deliciousness and rate it halfway through.

 

Dang, the $ should be 4.

 

If chicken and beef should not be compared even though both are muscle tissue, why should a hefeweizen be compared to an imperial stout just because both are beer?

Is beef brisket barbecue better than steak, or does each have its merits independent of the other?

 

I have created my own personal rating system. It is as follows....

Look /10
Smell /20
Taste /40
Feel /10
Drinkability /20

Overall /100

I believe 'Look' and 'Feel' are less important. So they are ranked out of 10.... 'Smell' and 'Drinkability ' Weigh in a bit more on my scale. They are out of 20. Then of coarse comes the king daddy, 'Taste' out of 40. Add them up and you get an 'Out of 100' rating.

For the record they are all out of my personally taste... I rate beer for me to remember. I try to keep style in mind. If I'm not a fan of the style, I will just skew it a bit more, only cause I could never rate a 'smoked stout' (not a huge fan) the exact same way as say a 'Bourbon Barrel' stout (huge fan) So I will try to keep the style in mind.

Example below... Try it, most people find it confusing at first. Then come back and tell me they use it all the time~

Founders Black Rye

Look 9/10
Smell 17/20
Taste 37/40
Feel 9/10
Drinkability 20/20

Overall 92/100

PS... Sorry I suppose I didn't address the main topic.

 

Just so you know, the BA scale is L*.05 +S*.20+T*.45+F*.10+O*.20.

Since all of theirs are on a 1-5 scale, converting your rating above (if I use your "drinkability" rating for the BA "overall" rating) results in a rating of 4.6. Or, in other words, 92/100!

 

I would not rate Budweiser at a 3.5 or higher (heck, I'd have a hard time giving it a 3), because I don't think it's a good representation of an AAL, or a pale lager in general.

 

I suppose it all depends on how you look at it and they all do have their own merit. The way I see it, chicken and beef come from two different animals and comparing the two would be like comparing a hefeweizen to a pinot noir.