Rating beers at festivals

That makes perfect sense.

 

The "hads" don't count toward the scores, right? Even if you jot some notes in a "review", it doesn't count until a minimum number of characters is reached. So I use the "hads" for samples and small pours, but I don't write a review until/unless I can sit peacefully with a full pour of the beer and do it justice. Even then, I don't do them all. I have 190 beers checked off here, and 158 of those are reviewed. Some that I have not reviewed include beers I drink pretty frequently. Two that surprised me are Allagash Curieux and Jack's Abby Framinghamer. To some extent I turn into a beer zombie fan boy when drinking either of those beers. For Curieux it is kind of a special occasion beer that my wife and I enjoy together, so am I going to waste the "moment" writing tasting notes - I don't think so...

I used to do the spreadsheet thing to keep personal track, but frankly it is a pain in the ass to keep two records and remember what's what. I simply don't review beers where I've only tried a sip quantity. I will "tick" a "had" so I can keep track and know which ones I want to purchase. Basically it's a way I can keep track of initial impression. I can tell "like", "sorta like", and "sucked" reasonably well from a sampler size.

Also, if I am somewhere enjoying multiple pours of a bunch of different beers crossing all sorts of styles in a short time frame, it doesn't take long to get confused. Hitting the palate with different flavor profiles is part of it and the "buzz" is certainly a factor. Even with the sensory training I've had for work, I won't trust my palate under those conditions. It's funny watching some of our young product developers here bring in a tray with twenty samples expecting people to identify the nuances between variables 10 thru 20 because after about the fifth one they all taste the same (even without the alcohol).

I think reviewing is something to be taken seriously because it is sharing information about a beer. While I don't think I'm an expert at it, I do take it seriously and I do fuss over reviewing. I find myself going back and forth all the time as I still take my notes "off line", so by the time I do post a review I feel I've done the best possible job. If that makes me a "geek" of some sort, I'm good with it.

 

Different people have different capabilities for that matter. I know people who drink 2 drops of a beer and then write a 200 word review (the numbers might be a bit exaggerated, but you get what I mean), noticing so many details about it that it beats my quality of review even when having a full glass by far. You can definitely practice it. What you won't find out from this way of ticking, though, is how well a pint of this beer decants.

 

I was never sure exactly when I went from amateur to professional taster, whether there was a ceremony and I was conferred a certificate, or what. Damn, it just happened is all I know. Seriously though, a lifetime in beer and beer business leaves me guessing at the number and variety of actual beers that I've had. I remember a great many, but feel no need to keep a list and/or a running tally. Some of those English and Austrian beers names are lost in time, but I can still taste them!

 

I understand your point. A 1 oz pour which is standard at GABF will cause you to miss a lot of nuances about a beer. However, you can get an idea of the beer and whether you may want to purchase it later. You can also return to get another pour of the beer if you decide you like. These festivals also allow for the opportunity to try beers you may otherwise never try and meet with the brewers.

 

4 oz., 6 oz., 16 oz., etc. makes no difference to me.
No matter what the pour size is if I like the beer based on the criteria set forth: appearance, aroma, taste, mouth feel, overall; I don't think my review or tick means any more or less than anyone else's.
I don't have a problem with the reviews driving the overall rating vs. Hads either.
But to make an argument that BA's having beers at a festival or part of a flight being meaningless, because your stance is that they can't judge on the above criteria; I can't agree with that.
But that's just my 2 cents.

 

I make a distinction between rate and review. Yes, I do think it is possible to rate a beer from a small pour (haven't been to EBF and the 2oz pours, but beer events around here are typically 4oz). I would think it is difficult to review a beer properly from a small sample. And at an event where you sample many beers, rating is a challenge after the first couple pours.

 

I'd also argue that unless you're taking the time and effort to taste the beer immediately or shortly after the fest, you are no longer rating the beer, just a memory of the beer, which certainly can effect the ratings.

 

If you're getting over 3 oz at beer fests you are either very lucky or you are being over-served. Especially anything strong.

 

So does this mean you don't believe in palate fatigue or in any carry over effects on the aromas and flavors from an earlier beer to a later beer?

 

Once I tried a Darkness that a friend opened. All I remembered is that I enjoyed it because I already had a few beers before. I don't remember the smell, taste, mouthfeel. I'm not going to rate something based on the fact that it was in my mouth at one point in my life. Besides, isn't that's what Untappd is for?

 

No. I didn't say anything about that. That's a problem no matter what the pour size.

 

Yes, I recognize you didn't address that, which is why I raised the question.

I personally find that sampling more than one beer does have an effect on judgments of flavor and aroma that can carry over to the second beer. I can make judgments, but they are not the same as those made when starting with a fresh palate.

This is why I'd suggest that sampling and rating/reviewing multiple beers in a single session can impact/reduce a person's ability to accurately evaluate the aromas and flavors of the second beer, the third beer or the nth beer at a fest or when doing a flight at a bar.

 

We should get towards the wine world and only taste and spit.

 

which a) does still fatigue your palate, even if you don't get really drunk from it and b) would be bad for hoppy beers.

In any case, palate fatigue is a general phenomenon, and I think it is not as bad when the samples are smaller. I think scores are a valid statement to tell whether people like a beer (even if they had it in a session), so they should still state that. When the review quality drops a bit, no big deal, people who read the review will notice it. At least, that's how I read reviews.

 

I've seen some folks "hydrating" with barleywines.

 

I don't mind using a 4-5oz sample/taster/festival serving to rate a beer. I do it myself. I rate from full servings and I think that should be the norm but if just rating/ticking, I feel its fine. You tasted it, smelled it, looked it over and either hated or enjoyed so why do I need three more to rate it? Do what you will.

 

I know someone who has over 4,000 check-ins in Untappd for different beers. He always drinks like this, he either gathers up with some of his friends for a bottle share or goes with the same friends to a bar and they buy several bottles. This way he only drinks around 4 oz of each beer and rates it.

Since he has so many different check-ins a lot of people see him like some kind of beer guru, and that his opinion of any given beer is better than someone's, let's say like me, could be.

Bothers me a little, even though I don't even know him in person. Just through Untappd.

 

I don't care what anyone says, there's NO way I'm going to be able to really judge a beer's mouthfeel from a 1oz pour in a plastic cup.

 

It is a 2 oz pour , and I rate the beers at the festival so that I can have a reference - to know sometime down the road if I want to revisit a beer or not. Rate only no reviews.