What Exactly Is A 5.0 Beer Rating?

What if a brewer who was an asshole brewed the same beer? Would you still give it a 5?

 

@Roguer What you are saying is valid, but it’s not what I’m getting at.


This will probably be a controversial perspective since it runs counter to almost EVERYTHING within this environment, but consider it before outright dismissing it as being too extreme. I am not trying to thoughtlessly invert things and would welcome all criticisms of this post.

If one is rating to style and judging execution outside of personal preferences, a majority of all beers should be rated as a “perfect” 5.0.

A “style” is a group of beers rather than a gold standard.

If a style description is written properly, it inherently needs to reflect the majority of beers in that category. The majority of beers in a style should all be "perfect" within that criteria. If not, the category would not be a “style” and it would not adequately describe the beers being classified. If a majority of beers in a category do not match the description and spec range, it indicates a problem with the category as written rather than the outlying beers. It would be a failure as a style description... and there wouldn't be a point in using it to rate to style.

If a beer matches a style description, anything less than a 5.0 rating is almost always a case of personal preference (which is 100% fine in my book).

 

The brewer calls that beer a "San Francisco-Style Black Lager." It's not that hard to be the epitome in such a tiny group.

 

Not only is this clip relevant to the above, it also manages to be beer related:

 

It’s the right way to do the ratings given the setup.

Most use the old enjoyometer rating system, including me, and Based purely on how well you like that particular beer. My early rating show this bias I’m sure. It’s why I don’t rate anymore, and there’s a few BAs I’d trust on they’re recommendations alone. No secret I love Heady, and it’s highly rated by me but not a 5. I think Gansett pounders for the style might reach closer to that 5 in its own category.

 

Me too.

 

Yeah, I think you went out on a limb with your post. But I'll help you off that limb with my next comment.

You're probably correct with that statement, but you're ignoring the development of the recipe which is the thing that really makes the beer what it is. A brewer can 'execute' his recipe to the T, but a crappy choice of ingredients could cause that beer to bomb (which is an excessive word to use on my part because 99% of brewers are smarter than what 'bomb. implies).

But with a large enough number of those beers, one likely will be a 5.0 or very close to it because of statistical assumptions/rules, bell-shaped curve, etc. (The Law of Large Numbers.)

 

I think that I agree generally with your concept, and it's basically the approach to rating that I described here

but I don't think that just meeting the style guidelines criteria qualifies as a 5. The rating system isn't from totally off style (1) to exactly as expected (5) but appears to me to be about assessing the quality of the beer, with the style guidelines in mind.

To me, that means that a vast majority of beers should fit into the "okay" - "very good" range (3-3.99). Just meeting the style guidelines adequately equates to "okay" or possibly "good" to me. The greatness comes in with how those guidelines are executed. I think the use of "world class" for that top tier implies a certain exclusivity that is intended.

This thread has made me seriously think that I need to be more generous with 5s and stop treating it like there can only.be one 5 at most in any style

 

haha that’s a pretty on point video!

Although I will say, being a Pittsburgher born and raised that I also don’t trust or like Brady, soooo my initial statement still holds true.....

 

Honestly prob wouldn't even review it.

 

My take on this thread as well. There can be many 5s in one style for different reasons perhaps. There doesn’t have to be one Grand Pooba of IPAS. I was thinking a pyramid but that’s not true I think. The only 5 I would ever give out was on that single bottle of Pliny I had two weeks ago, now I’ve had Pliny before but never one that good or even close, was that bottle or batch an anomaly? Would a 5 be fair based on one bottle?

 

I agree. I’ve had it on tap at Monks in Philly, but no way to know the age of that keg. The tap version had no similarity to the one sent to me from CO not Cali. I forgot to look at the date.

 

I'd think Pliny is a beer that wouldn't languish on a tap for long. And I'm betting a place like Monk's takes good care of their tap lines, so you probably had an optimal pint.

 

I would think so too, but that single bottle wasn’t the same beer. Shrugs.... don’t think know. I would say that pint at Monks was way too warm for my liking.
.

 

You have to like the crazy names for the super strong malt liquors. Just don't drink them.

 

Word of advice; don't ever take a UK trip to try Real Ale. Just sayin'.

 

Room temp beer I’m guessing?

 

No, just not ice cold.