For those who have rated a beer below 3...

I recently re-reviewed Dinkelacker CD Pils from Stuttgart. It has been off US shelves since Spaten stopped brewing it for DA for export -- 5 years or so (thank you AB-InBev). It used to be a favorite 12 pack in my fridge for quality and price, so I was happy to see it coming back via another distributor.

However, many in the Germany Forum (both in-country and those who had lived there) were reporting that DA was a pretty sad rendition of a German Pils. Nonplussed, I wanted to know for myself, Pils often being very misunderstood.

As much as I wanted to like this beer for old-time's sake, it's a sad shadow of the former import available, and I reported as much.

Point being; I often take others' reports with a grain of salt until I can judge for myself, and I usually judge based on my knowledge of the styles and what it ought to taste like and I do my best to review honestly.

 

I view beers that I rate below 3.0 to have at least one feature that I find to be offensive. Foul taste or smell, completely watery or fizzy mouthfeel, etc. I always select beer with the assumption that it will not offend me. Every now and then a beer surprises me and goes below this threshold. Thanks to this site and the quality of beer that I have available to me, I have posted very few ratings below a 3.0.

 

Both Fantomes I have tried have been under a 2. Both tasted like raunchy used bandaids. Obviously I had high hopes for these but they were both drain pours (Saison and Chocolat).

Dogfish Head Immortale is among the worst beers I have tried as well. Tasted like Robitusson.

I have a bunch of 1's and 2's of just ticked beers like Miller/Bud, etc. and I won't count those. Maybe I'll have one in the future where I can sit down and rate it, but I am thinking they'll be in the low-to-mid 2's since they aren't particularly offensive.

 

Guinness Red Harvest Stout, I would rate that one below a 3 and I thought it would be at least decent like Guinness Extra Stout.

 

Beers below a 3 are few and far between, thank goodness. I have had a few. Sometimes it's surprising when you get an awful beer but it was always a beer I bought in good faith expecting something I could at least finish. All of my below threes are drain pours. It's one very good reason to buy singles if you are not sure of a beer. Saves you money in the long run.

 

Roughly 10% of my ratings on here are below 3. If 3 = OK then less than 3 means I would advocate NOT drinking that beer. A lot of my sub 3s are because I tried a variety of beers from a brewery and didn't care for them. For example, when I went to Michigan last I bought a bunch of beers from Greenbush and Short's because I had never had any of their beers. Some I liked and some I did not.

 

For me, a three is the standard I use in rating. When I started using this site, I used Sam Adams as the standard for a 3. If I like a beer more than SA, it gets higher and vice versa. Easy way for me to track what I like, or don't.

The op question, most beers I believe will be lower than a 3 going in I will pass on; too many good beers to waste time on things I know I won't like. Some exceptions of course, like trying voodoo donut maple bacon, pretty much knew it sucked but and to give it a go; drain poured it, but we still laugh about the faces we all made when trying it. Mostly when following advice of other ba reviews, most beers I buy are above 3 rating.

 

I feel like this post addresses one of the problems with online rating systems (or any rating systems at that). People are often loathe to rate things in the lower extremes.

I personally used a few beers to help bench mark things. In that way, I have rated a great number of the adjunct lagers from 1.0-2.0.

A 3.0 is average for me, and many run-of-the-mill beers are 3.0. Things worse than that get lower than that. Things that get around a 1.0 are undrinkable - as in they make me nauseous, are drain pours, or I would prefer water.

With regards to the OPs question, I usually do not go into a beer knowing that it is around a 1.0, but I will sometimes drink beers I expect to be around the 3.0 mark, just to verify.

 

Interesting that you advocate for people using lower ranks more, but then admit that you are also misusing ranks by putting AALs almost exclusively in the 1s and 2s. You're supposed to rank to style. If you find yourself ranking AALs all 1s and 2s, you're doing it wrong.

 

I picked up a six pack of Green Flash Hop Head Red Ale, thinking I was going to have some great beer. Instead, I got six bottles of foam. It might have been the store's fault, or a problem in transit, or it might have been a bad batch of beer, but I had to rate it around 1 because it was literally undrinkable. So obviously I went into the purchase assuming I was going to have some highly rated beer, but what I got had spoiled somehow. I will give it a try again if I have the opportunity.

 

To answer the OP's question, I've rated 3 beers below 3. Each one I found to be an awful representation of the style, and in the cases of Palate Wrecker and Frangelic Mountain Brown, offensive in taste. Oude Tart and FMB I went into with pretty high expectations and was very disappointed. Palate Wrecker tells you by its name that it is going to be awful, so I can't really say I was surprised at how terrible it was.

 

I recognize that we should be rating to style, and I don't give AALs and Light Lagers all 1s and 2s arbitrarily because of the style. For instance, I rank Miller Light higher than other BMC light lagers, based on the characteristics of the beer. I rank Omission Lager as my highest Light Lager

That being said, I do generally rate certain beers lower across the board within certain styles, because I don't love the style. BA instructions for rating beers says to "Keep Style in Mind" - "Review with an open mind and for what the beer is trying to be, not what you think the beer should be or pit it against the kick-ass India Pale Ale that you had earlier." I don't rate all beers against my favorite styles - AALS do often try and advertise themselves as full-flavored beers, and I don't think that the style has accomplished what it is advertising.

The BA instructions don't require you to find a perfect beer within each style, give it a 5.0, and rate against that. Personally, I think certain styles just peak higher than others. My ratings reflect my tastes, obviously, and I rate beers based on how much I'd like to drink them again.

I only advocate using the full spectrum of scores more, because I think it allows the scores to reflect more minute variations between almost equal beers.

 

Additionally, my rDevs aren't so bad on the light lagers and AALs I've rated, and aren't so far from what Todd has rated some of those beers, for instance.

I used ALs as an example, because most of them don't accomplish what they advertise. I have not tried some of the more highly rated AALS or light lagers.

 

To each his own...

 

Usually it gets a 3 or less if it tastes bad & or stinks odor-wise. I try to keep style in mind always. Freshness may come into play. If there is a freshness code then I won't review it if old. If no solid clues exist to freshness, then I have no compunction in slamming said beer if it disappoints. Brewers need step up & use consumer friendly date coding...

 

Most of my 2ish ratings were beers that went bad and were downright nasty/undrinkable. I never plan on them being bad. I only rate that low in those cases for the most part.

 

The scale is 1 to 5. It starts at 1 for a reason.

If the worst beer was supposed to be a 3, then the scale would be 3-5.... or more appropriately, it would only go as high as a 3, and start at 1.

 

I gave Shipyard Pumpkinhead a 2.4. I'd had it before, and I thought I remembered it being sucky, but was still willing to try it again. Suckiness confirmed.

 

I like Stone's beers, I like spicy food - yet when I poured Stone Crime last weekend, I found drinking more than a few ounces of it to be too challenging...wasn't expecting it to be like that.

If you offered me free Stone Crime that I'd have to consume I would say no.