Poll: can a beer be "the best"?

I agree in the difference in meaning and I think it's a hair we sit on opposite sides of. To me, the claim it was "the best" in its style at the competition self references all the caveats of "at that time, in that place, as decided by those people". And that's kind of the line I fall on with regards to the use of "best". It was best at that event, it was best selling, it was best rated on that platform, etc...

It's similar to saying the team that won the championship or the person that won the race was the best that year/at that event. Just like with beer, there's a whole media/social media ecosystem dedicated to parsing out the more subjective aspects of those claims and comparing across time and space. But at the end of the day, there's one person/team/beer that came out on top within the context in question

 

If you can say one thing is better than another thing, then you're on the spectrum to define "this thing is the best." Just don't expect anyone to agree with you.

 

Voted as the majority this time. How a certain beer varies even for me personally must be multiplied when other people are involved. And so there has to be many "the best"

 

Have you noticed any correlation for when you perceive diacetyl vs. when you don’t? For examples:

· Bottled vs. canned?

· Fresh vs. less fresh?

· Other?

When I visited the Czech Republic in 2019 I noticed that diacetyl was more of a problem when they were served at tankovna (tank) pubs which is further discussed below:

“My least favorite topic: diacetyl

During the fermentation process all yeast strains (both ale and lager) create a chemical compound called diacetyl. In most cases this diacetyl will be further processed by the yeast into other compounds later in the fermentation process. For most beer styles a perceptible level of diacetyl in the beer is considered a technical brewing flaw. An exception is for Bohemian Pilsner. The BJCP (Beer Judge Certification Program) Style Guidelines states: “Light to moderate diacetyl…are acceptable, but need not be present.” Well the words “light” vs. “moderate” can be quite subjective. There is also the aspect that perceptible diacetyl, which tastes like butter to my palate, may be OK for some folks and undesirable for others (e.g., me). During my recent (2019) two week visit to the Czech Republic (Prague, Pilsen) I drank many draft half-liters of Bohemian Pilsners but the only beer I sometimes had issues with was Pilsner Urquell and principally when at Tankovna Pubs which served Pilsner Urquell directly from tanks within the pub. When I visited the Pilsner Urquell brewery to take a tour I asked the tour guide about this topic. She recognized this situation but since she was not a brewer she had no answer to why there was variability here.

I much preferred the Bohemian Pilsners that had no perceptible levels of diacetyl.”

https://www.morebeer.com/articles/Pilsen_Beer

Na Zdravi

 

It makes them "the best rated beers in their style according to BA users".

How valuable that designation is to you depends on a lot of subjective opinions about all the caveats involved

 

That is likely a fair way to phrase it.

My personal 'beef' here is that it seems that a fair number of BAs tend to rate beers hedonistically as opposed to rating per style. I suppose a 'human nature' thing?

Cheers!

 

I can’t read this thread without hearing this phrase in the back of my head.

No, I don’t think there can be an objectively “best” beer, though we all have our favorites for a multitude of reasons. There also can’t be a best film, best book, best painting, or best anything else that is subjective. You can objectively get your best time running a mile, or your best score on a test—anything that can be quantitatively measured. But beer is different and I think this is what keeps us trying different beers.

Apparently you aren’t married

 

Guilty as charged. My ratings are by my likes/dislikes. I have always thought that someone that is a certified beer judge or cicerone should rate according to the standards and their ratings should receive more weight than someone like myself.

 

I am pretty sure you have lots of company here on BA.

Cheers!

 

Good company is tough to beat!

Weighted ratings would solve the problem people like me create. I am sure the brains behind this great website (@Todd ) could change things so a cicerone and BJCP judges would have weighted scores.

 

"Best"....reminds me of when I used to do annual beer tastings at my house. (Every year was a different theme, and everyone brought beers to share in line with the theme. "Battle of Britan II" was English beers and German beers, "The Ring of Fire" was beers from countries bordering the Pacific Rim, "Beers Named After Animals", etc....but I digress. Every year we did a blind tasting for those who wanted to participate. Usually had about 6-7 beers selected for the competition. Every year each beer had someone who really loved it while someone really hated it, probably reflecting the very wide range of beer drinking experience among the participants. Winner (best?) was the beer which got the highest average score, and usually that happened to a beer to which very few people might have assigned the max or near-max possible points, but lots of people thought was better than average. Quantitative scores assigned to subjective attributes don't help much in defending what is "best.

 

Rating and reviewing beers is highly subjective, like rating/scoring most things. My favorite foods, drinks, people, movies, music, hobbies, cars, etc will differ from yours, so how could there be one favorite for any of them? Complicating that further is change in your own tastes, preferences, etc.

 

I think that these kinds of solutions are just creating a totally different resource rather then solving a "problem" with BA. The value of user aggregated ratings is to give an idea of how the general consumer public receives a product rather than how trained experts do.

A person could seek out trained taster ratings or competition results if they wanted, but by the very nature of that endeavor and the sheer size of the beer market you're never going to get more than a small portion of any style included in those tests.

 

I haven't although with one exception. When they were sending the cask-style unfiltered PU to the US pretty often (usually at World of Beer locations), I never tasted/smelled any diacetyl from any of those. There were a couple different versions and I loved every one of them. I haven't seen those in years and the World of Beer chain has majorly contracted, so I've been out of luck drinking more, though.

With cans, bottles, or draft it seems to be totally random. One bottle/can in a pack might have it and another might not. Sometimes it'll be 0 in one and to the point that I can't even drink another, too. I've never been able to figure out a way to pinpoint a good one minus getting a good draft pour and sticking with it until the keg gets replaced.

 

This is my take as well. A pet peeve of mine is when websites and publications post "The 10 Best Breweries in the USA", "The Best Brewery from Every State", etc. Use something like "Ten Recommended Breweries in the USA", "Our Favorite Brewery from Each State", etc. Just seems lazy (and perhaps click-baiting in some respects) to use 'Best' in this manner.

 

During my trip to the Czech Republic I went to Pilsen to tour the Pilsner Urquell brewery. I had the unfiltered and unpasteurized version of Pilsner Urquell both at the brewery (cellar brewery):



And afterwards at Na Parkanu Pub:



For my palate both of those beers was excellent with no perceptible diacetyl.

These particular beers may be in the running for 'best' beer?

Cheers!

 

I haven’t bought any Sapporo or Stone beers since they shut Anchor down.

The Stone beer battered fish tacos at Del Taco have been seducing me though

 

LOL, sure The unfiltered WOB ones were top notch. Maybe not my own personal fave (give me Herren Pils > all others) but absolutely wonderful.