How do you rate the Macro Brews?!

I rate based on the criteria laid out for us to rate beers with: smell, taste, feel - that gives me a very good idea of the quality of a beer.

Honestly, I find it pretty hard to rate to style. I've had a lot of shitty beers in the AAL category; in fact, I can't ever remember having an excellent one, one that made me say ,"damn, this is good." So, what's the benchmark of a world class AAL? What's the point of reference? How do you rate honestly and fairly if you just don't like the style? Maybe the best idea is to simply refrain from rating in that case. I've never truly figured it out. I'd have a hard time giving a beer a 4/5 just because I thought it was shitty, but not quite as shitty as the majority in the style.

 

1. (Forever) PBR. It actually tastes pretty good to me. Nothing mind altering, but not offensive.
2. Narragansett Lager. I know they have craft options, but the lager is still an AAL.
3. Budweiser. Not offensive tasting, but not great either.
4. Miller High Life. See description for Budweiser.
5. American Malt Liquor (any brand). Doesn't taste good, but will get you there if you're looking to get wrecked.
6. Light Lagers. (more or less water).
7. Rolling Rock, Corona or any other skunked out AAL. (Gross and gross again).

 

'Gansett is probably the easiest drinking non-bmc AAL I've ever had. If I ever want to "just have a beer," I gladly turn to this one. I understand the 'bros rating on this one. But what do I know? I'm about to crack open a Rogue chocolate stout.

 

poorly

 

It is tough to rate them because they should be rated against the style so clearly there is an AAL that is a 5 or close to it but most of us would have a hard time giving any of the macros a 5. If you can't objectively rate a style because you don't like it then I suppose your approach of not rating it is appropriate.

 

The number you give it means pretty much nothing, the review with your description of the beer tells us everything that you experience with that beer. So it tastes watery and thin, who cares if you think that warrants a low score, maybe I'm looking for a light tasteless beer, would I be able to parse that out with just a number? No. So Review any way you want, just tell us why and if you are simply rating nobody should care.

 

I don't.

 

You call em' like you see/taste em'. The scale doesn't change and it isn't relative. If Pliny, Heady, KBS, BCBS or whatever is your 5 and Corona is your 1, then rate in between as you see fit, at least in my opinion. I do not alter the scale. My favorite beers are on top, and the drain pours are on bottom. Usually for me, the best BMC (IMO) is usually 2.75-3.0. The ones I don't like and would never purchase again are near the bottom. In the case of Corona, I would happily drink water instead.
Again, it is my opinion, and everyone is different. Remember and respect that fact.

 

I rate to style. And, despite posts to the contrary, the scales change a lot when you zoom in on styles. Although a coors banquet isn't even close to bcbcs when comparing everything, it suddenly raises to the top of the scale when comparing it other AAL's for me. If you like ipa's but dabble in stouts is it fair to rate a stout you've tried at a 4 simply because you prefer another style, even though its the best stout you will ever have in your life? I don't believe so.

 

Ultimately, you should rate them in a way that makes sense to you, because you'll drive yourself crazy trying to find internal consistency in the way that everyone else rates them.

If you rate according to style, the most exemplary beer within each style would be rated 5. In theory, there would be a paragon of macro lagers out there that deserves a 5. There is a catch-22 to this logic - if you have never tasted the paragon, how can you compare the others to it. And of course, there may be differing opinions about which beer is the most exemplary of the style. If you look at the ratings of big beers like DIPA and RIS and compare them to more balanced styles, you get the impression that most people don't rate styles equally.

 

Rate each beer on its own merit.

I have a hard time with this "rate to style" business. I never know if I should rate Miller Lite as an Adjunct Lager or Pilsner, it seems like they want me to rate their beer as a Pilsner.

 

I had a terrible time rating them. In fact I got out the style guidelines, looked for all the off flavors and ended up rating quite a few of them pretty high based on their category and on the logical assumption that in any style group, they all can't be bad. I did tire of them in general and after about 12 beers in that style total. Ironically my favorites int he style were not even the ones I rated with the highest score. Go figure. Genessee lager, corona, and kokanee are my favorites.

 

From what I can tell, a 2.75 as you've rated wouldn't be "bad". I still crack a Miller High Life if I plan to be drinking a couple beers. I'd rate it for what it is, nothing great, nothing terrible. As difficult it is to rate a beer a 5, it's just as difficult to rate it 1 for me. I guess I haven't sat down and rated a high life against a Miller Lite or Bud. Maybe I'll see where it lands on my scale. Good question.

 

When I thoughtfully attempted to find a great AAL, I found that PBR has the most flavor and balance (IMO). Bud, Miller High Life, Tecate, and Dos Equis are okay to drink, but they are not better than a 2.7 on the rating scale, IMHO. PBR is closest to the 3 mark. Then again, most AAL's are brewed with similar adjunct ingredients, correct? (Rice, corn, formaldehyde (J/K) etc.) so they all taste so similar to me. As we all know already these beers are mass produced for profit. Good flavors are sacrificed for money (again, in my subjective opinion).

 

I don't rate to style. I rate every beer the same way; how does it look, smell and taste.I've rated several AALs. Here they are with scores:

Narragansett Lager 4.21
Pabst Blue Ribbon (PBR) 3.71
Batch 19 3.59
Genesee Beer 3.53
Old Style 3.53
Schaefer 2.96
Utica Club 2.69
Hamm's 2.64

 

i think they are all shit and would never buy them, but (according to the site rules) you should rate them against other beers of the same style (e.g. american adjunct lager). if you like that style and a beer is a good version of it in your mind (preferably from objective-ish measures, like talking about real facts of its flavor, aroma, lack of this or that flaw, mouthfeel, etc), you should give it a good rating.

 

To me it's like comparing apples to oranges. For the most part, macro-brews aren't brewed with the purpose of delivering a quality beer, so I don't compare them to micro's at all or even bother giving them a rating.

 

Macros are hard to rate when you pick them apart, because flavors and aromas just don't come out like they do in micros. I try to rate macros according to style in comparison with other macros. It's hard to give high scores when everything smells metallic and there's no head or lacing.