Do you rate your own beers? How?

My rating system is would i rebrew it? Yes, no, yes it has potential but needs a few adjustments.

I just brew what I like and try to brew the best I can for my tastes. I never have tossed a numerical score at it.

 

By how fast I hit the bottom of the keg.

 

Depends on what I'm brewing. If I'm trying to execute a "defined style" then I review it using the BJCP system. If I'm experimenting, I lean more towards a BeerAdvocate system. I also like to, separately, evaluate the beer from the angle of how well I managed to manifest my original brewing intention.

 

I decide if I like it or not.

I get other people to give me sensory feedback if I want real feedback.

 

Rate them 1 - 5...where 1 is a drain pour.
Problem is...as the beer has improved over the years...more and more batches are now just average.

 

#1) Do I like it?
#2) Do I like it enough to want to do it again?
#3) Does my wife like it?
#4) Does my wife like it enough to not be disappointed if I brew it again?
#5) If my wife is disappointed, how much do I really care?

That's my rubric so far. I keep notes of tweaks/changes I would make, but I keep it pretty basic. I always want it to be good, but I don't aim to blow my mind with every beer I make, just like I don't aim to blow my mind with every beer I buy. Because it just isn't going to happen in either scenario.

 

It probably took me 2.5 to 3 years to ever give myself a passing grade on this part

 

I am harder on myself than I am on local nanos. I try to be as stringent self-reviewing as I would be on local regional scale brewers.

And I will throw away any beer that's not at least a 3.5 on a BA rating scale, per me, 'cause I can and will always make more beer that does rate at least that high.

 

I feel like I'm doing something right when I catch myself thinking "I've paid money for stuff that tastes worse..."
But I'm also my own hardest critic and have yet to make something I'm fully satisfied with.

 

All of my self-ratings are 50 out of 50 under BJCP criteria. Seriously, that's why I don't rate my own beers. I can easily tell good from not good. But distinguishing good vs great is IMO sometimes impossible when judging your own work.

This is why it drives me nuts when people say "Well I do (or don't do) 'X' and I make great beers" in order to support their arguments on ingredients, processes, or whatever. Let other people judge 'great.'

 

I don't do anything systematic. Of course I form opinions about each beer, and I try to use that to make improvements the next time I brew that style. If a beer is more or less what I expected, I often don't even make tasting notes. When a beer is much better than I expected or somehow disappointing, I try to make specific notes. If there's something I think would improve the recipe, I try to remember to write that down. But that's it.

 

My evaluation of a beer I made has more to do with whether I enjoyed making it, whether I learned something by making it, and whether I like the finished beer. There are a couple of beers out there that I just buy because I don't feel I really have a handle on some aspect of what it takes to make it.

 

A well known beer author and expert calls that "cellar blindness" to our own beers. You, family and friends are not the best judges unless it is a blind tasting

 

Related to this, and I know it's kind of negative, but I deplore when homebrewers comment that their own beers are "amazing". For some reason, this adjective seems to work its way into the lexicon of many homebrewers. "I cracked the fermenter today and the aroma was just amazing." Really? This just annoys me as completely and utterly subjective. Unless of course they cannot believe that the very act of brewing a beer that's "good" at home is "amazing" - but somehow I don't think that's what they're getting at. Anyway.

 

I keep tasting notes of every batch I make, and BJCP inspired scores for some as a recipe development technique. It would be better if I could always brew recipe A and recipe B at the same time and taste them side by side when both are at their peak. In the alternative using a scoring system forces me to do a structured tasting and provides a useful-ish number for comparing beers over time.

 

I've gotten much more consistent since my first AG batches, additional equipment has helped but knowledge has been the most important. I've gotten to the point where all a beer needs to be good is attention to detail (solid recipe, watch your temperatures, give it time) but I haven't figured out the difference between good and great. I like everything I currently have brewed, some are standard recipes some are new to me, some are adapted from other hombrewers/clones of commercial beers, a few are original creations. I ask myself a few questions, does it fit the intent of the style I set out to make? would I make it again? What specifically, would I do differently to change the end product? Did I have fun making it? How does it compare to a commercial example of the style? I take notes on the process, I'm not very good at recording notes on the end product but I have a very good idea of those notes in my head, no paper or bits necessary.

 

As a BJCP judge, I taste it, give myself some pedantic comments, scold myself for not entering it in a different category, and tell myself to "watch sanitation." If it comes out perfect, I usually score it a 39.

 

LOLZ. Along with comments that would lead you to believe there would be a 50 at the bottom of the page.