Beer Reviews: Relative Versus Absolute

Because the other beer in that category you thought was better is what defines what the best of that style tastes like to you. In other words, your perfect "5" rating for any style is only equal to the best you've personally experienced in that style. This is why your own definition of what a perfect score tastes like is elastic. It changes the more you experience other beers in the same style over time.

But you can have multiple perfect scores for a style, because a beer's individuality comes into play. This is common today because more brewers are putting creative/unique spins on a beer and you also want to judge to what you think the brewers intentions are.

 

Very nice.

 

I think the ratings system becomes much more arbitrary when you aren't comparing one beer to another. How can you know what a '5' tastes like until you have one?

 

I find it very helpful to compare a beer to others in the category (this imperial red is more like Big Hoppy Monster than Nugget Nectar) or to other beers from the same brewery ( if you want one beer from Brewery X, try the Imperial Stout instead of this IPA).

 

Beer reviews are incredibly subjective. Every review is subject to tons of noise, from overall opinion of a brewery that a beer comes from, to other people's opinion of the beer/brewery. I actually sort of agree with the above commenter who says that beer reviews are fucking dumb, because they aren't very informative. I review beers anyways mainly to keep track of my own thoughts and preferences, so as to revisit them over time, but I very seriously doubt they have much, if any, value to anyone else.

I'd argue that direct comparison to other beers of the style is the ONLY way to rate a beer. Now, maybe styles are far too broad for that to be useful too, which makes some sense when you consider that a category such as "American Double/Imperial Stout" can encompass anything from Tiny, to KBS, to World Wide Stout. Add to that also the fact that right now, a 2012 WWS itself is very different from a 2008 WWS, and the usefulness suffers even more. It's probably impossible to even answer the question of what beers should be compared to one another when devising a ranking system, let alone how to go about comparing them.

I mean, 9 or 10 out of 10 BAs would probably conclude that a fresh KBS is better than a fresh WWS. But maybe only 8 out of 10 would pick fresh KBS over aged WWS. And then maybe only 5 out of 10 would pick aged KBS over aged WWS. Do a blind taste test, and the numbers might be totally different, especially if the people doing the taste tests have never had either beer before. Use people who have never heard of either beer before, and again you'd probably get different results.

So much affects what people write when they sit down to type out a review that I find it to be of almost no value to put out a list of the top beers based on aggregate reviews. I think the only way you could really compile useful information when rating beers is to look at results of blind tastings within a narrowly defined style. I mean seriously - what the hell does it even mean to say that Pliny the Younger is a better beer than Westvleteren XII?

 

What if a brewer creates a new style of beer? He uses let's say all the basic ingredients, water and malt and hops and yeast, but he adds something very original and creates a purple beer let's say with a very unique taste and smell and everything. It's never be done before. It's a new style. Is that a 5? And all other beers on the style should be compared to it?

 

I think it's just more useful to rank relatively, based on style. Think of it this way: A great prog-rock album is not trying to do the same thing as a great hip-hop album. A great action movie is not trying to do the same thing as a great period drama. And a great pilsner or kolsch is not trying to do the same thing as a great imperial stout.

Obviously, not everybody is going to like every style, and not every style is going to produce a broad, transcendent, across-the-board classic. But if you accept the premise that a style takes off and becomes a full-fledged style because enough people find some kind of connection or value in it, then I think it's worth trying to at least figure out why that is, and whether there's anything for you in it.

What DOES drive me nuts about reviews like the ones the OP pointed out is when people say "There are so many better beers in this style!", and DON'T LIST ANY OF THEM. And then I go to the style page and only see like 2-3 consensus highly rated beers. Tell me what you think IS good, so I can try it! That's what I'm here to learn!

 

Holding a beer to a standard that is can never reach is wrong. Down grading a stout brewed with out peppers and spices because it does not have the pepper and spice flavor of Hunahpu is wrong. Down grading that same stout because it lacks the body, flavor integration or mouthfeel and using that as a basis of comparison is perfectly acceptable.

I agree that beers should be rated on their own merit but that does not mean comparisons do not have their place. Even if you rate 100% to style and based completely on each beers own merit you need other beer to compare it to in order to have the basis of comparison needed to accurately review.

There are plenty of IPAs that I rank well below Two Hearted. They are not ranked lower because they are not Two Hearted, they are rated lower because they lack the general characteristics that make Two Hearted an excellent example of the style.

Comparison is a powerful and incredibly beneficial tool but like any other tool it is only useful if it is used properly.

 

If no one has seen themind's reviews you really need to check them out, you will thank me later!

 

How else are you supposed to review a beer? If "beer w" is a pretty good beer, but it tastes/smells/etc. worse than "beers x, y, and z," why would you give "beer w" the same rating as "beers x, y, and z"?

I'm not even necessarily saying you need to review every beer on a curve. But once you have had enough examples of a style, you know what represents an "exceptional" rendition of the style and what represents just an average one and IMO it is impossible, and in my mind ill-advised, to just ignore that experience when writing a review.

 

Pretty much exactly how I review. At this point I've consumed enough beer from across the styles to have a pretty good idea about what I like and could pretty easily come up with 2-3 or more favorites from any given style. I'll review any new beer based on it's own merits but I'll keep in mind what characteristics I enjoy about those few favorites and downgrade if I don't find it. Of course, styles are often pretty arbitrary themselves and some have more variety within than others so I keep that in mind.

 

And how does anyone know what a five tastes like? How can anyone ever say that any beer perfectly epitomizes it's style/flavour and has zero room for improvement?

 

Aren't the merits of a beer determined partially by how it compares to others like it?

If everyone woman in the world looked like Salma Hayek (which you say is a 10), then Shakira (who you say is an 8) WOULD be considered fugly..... why not? She wouldn't be as good looking as MOST other women.

There needs to be a baseline in order for something to be compared to. If the baseline is high for a category of beer and one of the beers I try in that category is not as good as most others, why the heck would I give it an above average score?

Not saying its wrong (I just feel differently), but this type of thinking combined with "hype" is a huge part of the reason why the ratings on BA are so inflated.

 

The rating process is democratic on this site. A beer is excellent on its own merits even if many people do not like it. For example, I may not like the taste of maple syrup. Does this mean that every beer that has a hint of maple syrup should be given a poorer review? The closest we can get to a perfect review is to have a professional taste and review beers. Determining what a professional is the next question.

 

That could be due to people's palate changing over time. I've been drinking craft for 6 or 7 years now and as I drink more my opinion on some beers change over time. Yes, not every review is trustworthy. You have no idea how experienced the reviewer is, or how influenced by the other ratings they are. But in the end I think they average out to be pretty accurate for the most part.

 

Foret - Brasserie Dupont sprl


Sort by: Latest | High | Low | Top Reviewers | Alström Bros | Show Hads:
« first ‹ prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75 | next › last »

Reviews by the Alström Bros:​

​

Jason

​

​

3.38/5 rDev -16.3%​

look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3​

​

750 ml green champagne magnum with no freshness date to be found other than the year 2002 on the cork which I assume it was the bottling year. ​

​

Appearance: Has a hazed golden cider hue, crackling carbonation leads to a fallen head though the lace sticks around. ​

​

Smell: Raw honey maltiness, brash grassy malt and hops, and herbal / earthy phenolic, cellar mustiness and yeast aromas all over the place. Suggestions of plums and mint come to mind as well. ​

​

Taste & Mouthfeel: Fluffy crisp on the palate, grassy from the grain and withered hop flavour. Hop bitterness is there but seems bigger only because it joins up with some medicinal phenols and a yeasty bite. Vague spicing and more grain in the mouth. Warming alcoholic esters are in tow but not without some fruitiness in hand. Touch vinous and lemony middle to end. ​

​

Notes: A simple beer, I expected a bit more. Rough around the edges showing some withdrawn complexities. There are other Saisons out there that are better.​

​

Serving type: bottle​

​

04-13-2003 11:31:21 | More by Jason​