What Exactly Is A 5.0 Beer Rating?

BTW -- I tried it at the brewery in Dublin back then -- you couldn't even taste it. Somewhat like iced coffee, but very weak, diluted coffee. Never had another.

 

A lot depends on style but there’s certainly preferred temps for different styles and you are doing yourself (and the beer) a huge disservice by drinking everything at essentially fridge temp. I mean do what you want, if you enjoy beer a specific way then do what makes the beers most enjoyable for you, but you are definitely missing out on the full spectrum of flavors and aromas if you are consuming all styles in the 30degree ranges.

 

Can you explain your reasoning here. That seems like a very odd position to take.

 

I just can't imagine looking at or feeling a beer and thinking "I just can't live without having that again". Smell or taste? Hell yeah! But even if I rate taste, smell, and overall as a 5, it wouldn't/shouldn't make look or feel a 5. It would be such a cop-out if I did, just couldn't do it.

 

Good catch; I'll have to get that fixed. The beer was a summer seasonal to start but has become so popular that it's now year-round.

 

But why do you think a 5 rated looking beer can't exist? Or a 5 in mouthfeel? To me those are the easiest 5s there are and probably regularly my highest rated categories. After all, lots of ipas or stouts or pilsners look exactly like they should. How they smell and taste is a whole other can of worms but lots of them look exceptional

 

I'm sure 5.0 beers exist for some people, I just doubt it will for me. When I review, I'm reviewing it to my expectations and comparing to previous beers I've had of that style, when I suppose I should be reviewing more to the style description. But if that were the case, since there's no Pastry Stout yet, if I strictly review against the Imperial Stout style description then it wouldn't fare well. But I like Pastry Stouts, so I review against my preferences and expectations. It's all subjective.

 

New Realm's Mitch Steele, ex-Stone and also former Anheuser-Busch brewer, disagrees:

 

I’ve never tasted any off flavors in Budweiser, but again it’s my palate too. There are some off flavors I get from other beers I find offensive but I’m not sure what to call them I just avoid them. Bud Light is a different story, I find this beer to be offensive, why anyone would drink it is beyond me outside their marketing of this beer is tremendous. I can’t describe the off part I don’t like it, funny watching the TB Bucs celebration of the Super Bowl theres Bud Light in everyone hands. I bet they pull a truck up full of free beer, after all people notice this. It’s silent advertising.

 

That seems like rather flawed logic but hey to each their own.

 

Only two beer drinking experiences I’d give a 5, but both were singular experiences and I’d rate neither a 5 over all right now.

My first Hopslam was a revelation, it was the beer that drove my quest for hops. Today if given a redo I would give that beer a 5, the beers they’ve been producing lately sadly are not that beer. The Second was my last Pliny which was just a fabulous bottle of greatness. I’ve always loved Pliny but I’ve never had it in a bottle or or on tap that was close to that beer. That last bottle was a 5, every other one would be marked down appropriately. Outside of those only my first Abrasive comes close maybe 4.8, as well as Heady 4.8, but the last Heady I had I wouldn’t rate that high if I was serious about ratings. These experiences cover over 12 years and the drinking experiences quite different from the same beer.

 

But "Lager" is not a beer style with a singular "character", but a class of beers of various styles, with their own unique characteristics. The modern AAL began as close approximation (due to the properties of most commonly available 6-row barley malt in the US) of the Bohemian/Pilsner lagers in the late 19th century but over the past century and a half or so, has evolved into something much different - lighter, higher attenuated, much lower IBU's, etc. That's why they've referred to as AAL's in beer circles rather than pilsners.

Are they really "poorly-made" or do you (and most of us) just not care for the finished product? It is pretty much a cliche among the craft brewers than the classic AAL is the most difficult to brew.

Some of the same processes are also commonly used by the so-called "craft brewers" - hop pellets instead of whole flowers, forced carbonation vs. kräusening, shortened lagering period (when's the last time a notable craft lager brewer even noted their lagering length?) and, increasingly, high gravity brewing and the use of adjuncts - sometimes even in syrup form since few have invested in cereal cookers.

 

I wouldn’t lump all AAL into the same bracket as well, some are very good and very consistent, some are just ok, and a few really suck. I don’t think you can broad brush a complete style of beer, there’s ranges within like any other style. If you judge to style and a beer hits all the points with no flaws why can’t it be highly rated? If your comparing it to your favorite Pils, I understand, I’d rather have a Pivo than a Bud, but they’re not the same beer or style.

 

When movie critics give a movie four stars, it doesn't mean the movie is perfect; it means the film is one of the very best. That's the approach I take when rating beers.

 

Thank you for the replies. I know the position in my post is that of the loneliest lone wolf. I expect zero agreement. Keep in mind that my relationship to beer does not include assigning numerical values in a review on BeerAdvocate, and I also do not subscribe to the concept of "rating to style" - so those things influence my perspective for better and certainly worse.

For me, the gap between my post and aspects of the posts above is regarding the weight of subjectivity vs objectivity. We can probably all agree that a review of a beer will combine the subjective and objective. My position is that subjectivity has more to do with it than given credit for.

This position from @unlikelyspiderperson is not against my point: "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 [...] Just meeting the style guidelines adequately equates to "okay" or possibly "good" to me."

When I talked about how a majority of beers should get a perfect 5 if rating to style, the intention of that statement was to talk about rating objectively with subjectivity removed. (from my 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.) In doing so, one focuses on measurable elements - like the level foundation in the house analogy above. This is only a portion of what people do when they rate beers though. If a beer that meets measurable style guidelines is a 3, then the question is whether subjectivity or objectivity takes a beer from a 3 to a 5.

So-called brewing flaws are barely a negative factor in how people ordinarily rate beers. How many beer reviews actually involve this compared to the amount of reviews that aren't 5.0? The genuine impact of this on beer scoring is negligible in the big picture. Ingredient selection and brewer intention - a huge part of this is just projection. Most reviewers aren't talking to brewers on the floor and making teas from hop selection.

For most 4.8s, 4.2s, 3.7s, and 3.6s, reviewers are providing info on what they subjectively like or dislike about a beer. It's not about rating to style, brewing flaws, brewer intention or measurable elements - and that's great as long as we don't pretend it's something else.

 

OK, so what is it? Why did Mitch not elaborate? What is commonly reported as their handling of fermentation would be expected to produce higher acetaldehyde levels. I'm not gonna buy any Bud to find out but I will see if some bud drinkers at work will give me a few ml to test on the infrared spectrometer. No calibration curve for this because I mostly test asphalt and additives so I'll use something like SNPA as a control. In fact SN can probably tell me their acetaldehyde levels if they're willing so I may be able to do a semi-quantitative test.

 

I like every beer at fridge temp. 50 degree stouts and barleywines? Yuck, they've got the body of Nyquil.; thick, sticky, and oh-so syrupy.

 

Yeah, leaving it at "the green apple ester is something else..." is frustrating (OTOH, Something Else is a great Eddie Cochran song). Steele once had an informative Blog online, The Hop Tripper, where that article originated with, as I recall it, lots more info on his time at AB and their 1990s "crafty" beers and, possibly, a fuller explanation of the Budweiser/green apple flavor?

A secondary source, Chad Polenz, in an Albany NY newspaper's blog had the same reaction, while adding to Steele's info:

 

I usually put a beer from the fridge into the freezer for 10 minutes, especially if it’s an AAL, but generally true with Pils, Ipas and such. Stouts about 48-50 I find they taste weird if they’re too cold, they seem strangely bitter and burnt, but a agree if they get too warm it gets too viscous and I don’t like to chew my beer. But I really drink very little in the way of stouts as I greatly prefer lighter bodied beers and less Abv.

 

This would be my first 5 ever, if I rated it. For whatever reason this beer was absolutely perfect, there is nothing you could add to that beer to make it better in any possible way. One last look as I’m clearing out my photo files. I’ve had many but this was the best.