Rating an infected beer

Never had a bad bottle from them.

 

I'm jealous! Look at the ratings for that beer... They must be doing something wrong.

 

Did you ever give them another shot?

 

I don't review too many, but my general feeling is that I'll give them a mulligan on the first screw-up, but that's about it.

 

I can't think of an "infected" beer that I've had in the last ~5yrs (thousands of beers easily). I know what diacytel tastes like and know TCA'd wine (and have tasted wine with some brett) but never the former two for beer. I've never had a corked bottle of beer but that would be amusing (colleagues have sworn to have opened corked champagne before).

 

I had a Hanssen's Oude Gueuze that was corked a few years ago; that's one quality that doesn't work with a gueuze .

 

I reviewed Weyerbacher Double Simcoe, and I believe the tap line at my local bar was infected, or it was the bottom of the keg, thus I gave the ale a poor review.

I'm anxious to revise this review, but I'm waiting until I can make it over to Weyerbacher in person to try it fresh from their taproom before I update.

Unfortunately my review may be bringing the overall average down, but hopefully soon that'll change.

 

Contact the brewery. We want to know when folks encounter a beer they feel has a quality issue.

 

I'm just reiterating: Don't review it.

What's the point?

 

Why if you know it's infected? Review the brewer and ding it there, seems more fair than rating a beer you know isn't right.

 

I've rated about 3000 beers and, I assure you, there were well more than 3 unintentionally infected beers among them.

 

I'm a home-brewer, as well as friends with a number of professional brewers, and everyone will tell you if you ask, 90% of brewing is cleaning and sanitation. A brewery producing infected beers is failing at this fundamental job. If a brewery served you a beer from a mash that failed to extract, or a fermentation that failed to complete, you'd rate that poorly, right? Same thing with infected beers.

 

I disagree.
A beer review is supposed to give others a chance to evaluate the beer. A spoiled or infected beer is NOT representative of the beer. And if you know it's spoiled, you're just bashing. If a brewer has a history of releasing a beer in an infected state, well, then that's a different issue. But if a singular beer or batch got screwed, I'm sure all your brewer friends would tell you: it happens. But don't judge the entire product based on the exception to the rule.

 

I think the purpose in doing a review is to help other BAs take a look at a beer they may not have tried. So how does reviewing a beer you know is infected help the process? When you qualify your review mentioning the infection the info is really a moot point.

Hold it against the brewer not the beer if it's not right to style, it isn't the beers fault.

 

Duck Rabbit has known infection problems, but Rabid Duck even though infected had a tart cherry hit to it. Not as intended, but kinda interisting, and quite drinkable.

 

You must never rate or review any beers then. Hell I assume every brewer sets out to make the next-coming of Heady, Abraxas or whatever, but what results is not always on the mark.

When rating a beer, I'm as much rating the brewery as the beer. I will make note of what I suspect to be an infection, or an off-taste and make note of it. If I feel the infection or off-taste is particularly offensive and egregious, I will make a point to mention in my review that the brewery responsible needs to be either: 1) more honest and critical of their product, 2) willing to accept they screwed one up and should probably recall or apologize to consumers.

I had a beer from Rahr and Sons recently that I knew was clearly bad. I said so in my review and on Untappd. A few days later the brewery reached out to people to acknowledge something had gone awry and offered to pay people back for the bad beer. That's the honorable thing to do.

Now, I will say, if the off-taste---can't include infection here because I can't see how an infection could be caused by anyone other than brewer or brewing facility--- seems perhaps due to poor storage or something alone those lines. I'll also make note of that in the review.

 

You are just one review. If one review out of 1000 was an infected bottle, maybe people are willing to take their chances. But if 1/4 of the reviews say they got an infected bottle, you want to know that, right? Maybe you want to spend your money on something where your odds are better. How exactly does a brewer get a history of releasing infected beers if people aren't willing to put down in their reviews that they got an infected bottle?

 

Pretty sure infected is "not right to style" for most styles.

Oh, jeebus... those guys are one of the worst offenders when it comes to accidental infection, but somehow folks always want to say "but in an interesting way".

 

Depends on how old it is. If it's recent, it's fair game.

 

It was, the bit of tart Cherry worked with the style. I'm sure they were horrified, but they're had issues for a while now. This isn't an endorsement, I don't buy their stuff anymore, but I didn't drain pour the Rabid Duck either.