Bourbon County Stout: zero head, "5" for look?

Thoughts?

If someone wants to give a beer a higher rating, then doesn't the said beer deserve* the rater's higher rating?

* Barring blatant inflation of rating because of misguided homerism.

 

Eh, appearance is close to meaningless to my enjoyment of a beer (except, of course, for the name on the bottle...). If there's something really weird going on then sure (like cloudy IPA, floatings, or whatever) but a 14% BBA stout with zero head isn't really surprising.

 

In a big beer head retention is by de facto minimal and also tied to the carbonation level. These can really be at odds with each other, so if you had a nice big head it might indicate the carbonation is too high. Examples are very few and far between, for example, Hunahpu's. However, there are other things to look for in a stout. The apparent thickness, lack of light penetration, the way it sticks to the glass, alcohol legs, these are all things a big beer can look amazing in while not having a big fluffy head. Does the beer look good, does it look tasty? It doesn't necessarily need a big head to do so in this type of beer. If it were an IPA or a saison, yeah it would be really odd, but for a massive bourbon aged stout I don't see a real problem. It's an incredible beer.

 

I really wish a pour of BCBS did look like it does on their web page:

That being said, even with zero head it still looks beautiful to me.

 

I seem to recall having a BCBS a number of years ago that had quite a head on it, reminiscent of the one in the marketing material. But none of the ones I've had lately (bottled or draft) have had much of a head to speak of. I know the ABV of BCBS has been steadily creeping up over the past decade (from maybe 11% to 15%). Perhaps this has been at the expense of head retention.

According to this, appearance only contributes 5% to the overall score. Taste & Overall contribute a combined 65%. That's fine by me. I'm cool with a beer that tastes phenomenally, regardless of how it looks. Unless it looks like liquid shit, I guess.

 

You've got my curiosity piqued. Next BCBS I pour from a bottle, I'll pour vigorously. (What is it that Left Hand Milk Stout Nitro says on the bottle? "POUR HARD") Just to see if I can get any kind of head out of it.

 

PM the reviewers and ask. if you found any number to text relationship odd in any of my reviews, i'd have an explanation for it.

though, if you write something like, "you said 'no head' but 5.0 for appearance. aren't you just trying to jump on the bandwagon in loving the beer and overrating it? your review doesn't make sense," in your message and get a reply back like, "fuck you," don't be surprised.

 

False advertising; clearly it's a defective product and they need to send me all of their product as it surely doesn't meet their quality standards!

 

I have 9 bottles of first stage infection Rabid Duck. The 3 I've opened look just like the photo shopped pic of BCBS posted above when poured.

Normally this beer has almost no head, and leaves thick legs of bubbly oil when swirled, is dark like inside a cave, and no photon can pass through its motor oil-reminiscent thickness. You would not give this beer a high rating for look in its normal state, I gave it a 4.5, as it looks like all the best impy stouts I have tried and that is how I rate, does it look like the ones that taste the best.

However, the infected RD's would almost certainly get a 5 from you for appearance.

 

Thoughts? Yes. With an ABV that high what would be unusual or surprising is if you could pour it and get a thick dense mocha head and great lacing. So appearance compared to other uninfected high ABV beers is pretty good, and easily a 4 if not a 5.

 

All the more reason why one shouldn't rely solely on these subjective ratings to determine if a beer is right for them. One's criteria for greatness could be another's criteria for mediocrity. For instance, it seems most people find Heady Topper to be one of the ugliest beers they've had, yet I consider it to be one of the most aesthetically pleasing. I find the floaties and cloudiness to have a unique rustic and hearty appearance that give the beer real character.

To each his/her own.

 

Appearance is pretty much a worthless statistic. I'd have no complaints if they just removed it.

The only time I ever find myself remarking on the appearance is when it's a brilliant crystal-clear IPA or DIPA. More often than not, that variable only serves to bring down the rest of my rating.

 

Most people seem to give high marks for all categories if they loved the beer. I'm with you, OP, even if a beer tastes and smells fantastic, if it doesn't have any head or lacing, and most beers of the style do, it should probably get lower marks.

To people saying appearance means nothing, I fully disagree. I think the way a beer looks in the glass, as well as the art on the bottle, are important to the overall beer drinking experience. That being said, if a really great tasting and smelling beer looked terrible in the glass, and had really stupid looking art on the bottle or six pack, I'd still buy it if I was in the mood. To each their own.

 

Bottle art should not be considered when reviewing the appearance of a beer.

 

the beer is 14% alcohol (that impacts head retention), the beer has low carbonation (that impacts head retention). Also appearance is based on color, clarity, head texture, head color, and head retention. If you went into this beer thinking it will have this great billowing head that lasts and lasts, your expectations were simply incorrect, given the style. The beer in question is beautiful when poured. Not saying this directly to you..but cleanliness of glassware and the method of pouring can also impact head (user error).