Beer ratings vs. Wine ratings

The reality is wine ratings are controlled and rated by an elite set...

while the same can be argued for beer to some degree, there is nothing stopping the ordinary joe or jane (like me!) from coming on here or elsewhere to let their feelings known about brands and get their opinion across in a open forum and community to tell the public what they think.

The combined ratings thoughts and opinions to some degree become a consensus, if an awkward one, instead of an elite few.

In a sense it's a broader spectrum, and it's open to many, in my opinion...

 

For peer reviews of wine all you need to know is cellartracker.

 

I think there are smaller percentages of beer people who would be into reading such things and following in that way. I doubt there's the same demand, by far. It's too nerdy for many.

 

What data did you use for that? I think beer is much larger.

 

Wouldn't it be fair, then, to only compare craft beer vs. a niche of the wine market? There's a lot of box wine and such that are the BMC equivalents, in a number of ways. Otherwise not exactly a fair comparison. No?

 

There is a great deal of more control, and exclusivity, and education towards wine and what is "good wine", as composed to beer that with all said and true things... is still in a very young stage.

In my opinion you still have these old attitudes, and wine has evolved and attitudes greatly, but as beer is right now it's still in a golden age with wild experimentation, anything goes, and a sense that it still belongs to everyone, and there is nothing stopping you from partaking in the joy of it.

Don't get me wrong... I love wine... LOVE... it... but some things are more accessible considering.

Wine interestingly has gotten a little more broad, and more encompassing, but beer has grown and gotten more varied during the same time frame.

With wine the mechanisms and controls about what are good... great.. involve lots of education... resources... and controls of publications...

there's nothing wrong with that, there's a good argument for making some standards and adhering to strict principles. Sommelier training is intense... and it's a tough nut to crack, and involves a smaller group of concentrated individuals.

I as someone who has drunk a lot of wine, and lots of DIFFERENT varietals from all over the world... is not worth the attention of someone who has gone through rigorous training, and appreciation, and diversification and certification that it takes to be a serious sommelier.

While beer has some serious standards in terms in Cicerone and GABF judging, lots of people find this elitist and not true. How many complaints do we have every year from people saying why did this beer get a gold medal at GABF? Are these judges insane?? Whatever...

Are people lining up to drink the latest gold medal ESB?? perhaps not... not saying they should..

The great thing is beer in it's appreciation and infancy still is in a big flux and everyone can enjoy world class stuff for relative ease (to some degree). Wine isn't like that... ironically good wine is now FAR easier... it used to be EVEN MORE EXCLUSIVE... but the message and education belongs to a bigger easier and even younger accessible audience, and also to people what dont have to fork over more dollars.

And now people to some degree like Robert Parker (whose wine cellar I would certainly like to ravage) are getting into beer... as he talks about brews from Hill Farmstead that he really enjoys.

This is an interesting time, where things are quite in flux... But enjoy the ride...

 

The advantage that beer has compared to wine is the price. I can go out and get a "whale" for 20-30$ with the high end of those being in the 40$ range, but those don't come around to often especially in Oregon. On top of that I can get, according to the BA ranking, world class beers for 10-15$ for a sixpack/bomber. If I wanna get a really nice bottle of wine I will have to pay 20$ minimum and most of the time I'm looking at north of 50$. Beer is just so much more affordable and easier to get ahold of great beer that to me there isn't much of a reason to get an expensive bottle of wine. Most of the time I refer to Beer Advocate for my reviews but hell why not just try the beer for myself and form my own opinion of them. Its a lot easier to justify buying a 15$ beer and figuring out if it is great or if it sucks then it is buying a 40$ glass of wine. Better yet its easier to order a glass of beer for 5-6$ then it is a glass of wine for 8+$. It also helps that my wife would rather have me bring home a great beer for 15$ than a great wine for 40$.

 

I think those who mentioned price point have hit the nail on the head in answering the OP's question. A higher price, combined with a dizzying array of wine choices, inherently brings with it a greater demand for really good, authoritative information about exactly what you're buying and whether it's worth the price—and enough people are willing to pay for this kind of information, prior to "investing" in a bottle or case of expensive wine, to support a more robust wine rating industry.

By contrast, a person can take a chance on a $20 bottle of beer, assuming they can get their hands on one before it sells out, a lot more easily than on a $50+ bottle of wine. In other words, the $4$ risk is lower with beer than with wine. And the $4$ reward might be comparably greater.

This money factor explains why wine has a more formal system of rating, and more people/organizations doing it. Plus, as others have pointed out, wine is just a lot more historically established than beer in a lot of ways. People have probably been drinking beer as long as they've been drinking wine, maybe even longer—but it's always been viewed as more of a drink of the people, whereas wine has a certain cultural eliteness (as opposed to elitism, although there's that too). Wine is something to be "serious" about; historically, beer just isn't (although as many of us know, this too is changing).

I think beer's more democratic position also makes it better suited to online ratings sites like BA. The Internet is a very democratic place, after all.

 

I use a select few BA'ers as a great gauge. There are a lot of tickers with tons of reviews that have me skeptical. Overall, BA is the place to go. I'm not a fan of the quick reviews as I've the deviation seems to be higher...

 

I have really gotten into wine the past three or four years and from my experience the wine ratings are pretty accurate. Also, the price is often related to the taste. My favorites such as Caymus Special Select, Mondavi Reserve, mid tier like Faust and Papillon all seem to be worth their price and are far better than the vast $9.99 - $19.99 selections.

Since the bulk of all wine sold is <$10 it seems that those wines priced higher and significantly higher are tied to price and not hype. On beer, it seems rarity plays a huge part into the ratings and the obscure locations of the supplier.

 

I challenge anyone, on their own dime, to obtain and rate all of the current vintage's Boreaux First Growths, or Burgundian Grand Crus, or top Napa Cabernets. Any of these would cost at least tens of thousands of dollars, nevermind the virtual unattainability of many of them regardless of price. I however am quite able to sample all of California's top IPA's in a weekend with nothing more than a regular bar tab for the damage.

So, I find much more value in Parker rating top Bordeaux, which I might at best be able to afford one single bottle and even then have to age it at least ten years, than beer ratings when I can hit a nice beer bar and find out for myself.

 

The only thing I prefer about wine ratings is that generally, they are generally rated to style. That is, you can just as easily find sauvignon blancs that are rated 90+ as you could cabernets.

With beer ratings, the higher ABV brews get proportionally higher ratings than lower ABV beers. There are many, many more 90+ RISs than Irish dry stouts. And many, many more 90+ DIPAs than Czech pilsners.

 

I don't know of the situation in the US, but in germany, wine tasting is way more institutionalized than beer tasting. you have sommelier trainings acredited by the state- not everyone can call him or herself wine somelier. yes, beer someliers are starting to show up, but way lesser in numbers, it is a new phenomenon, and they are, in my opinion, worse trained than their wine counterparts.
Add to this that beer tasting and rating is just getting mainstream attention, while for wine there is a long culture of comparing, discussing and rating them.
I would argue that this also has to do that wine, to the uninitiated, seems way more complex and obscure, creating the need for guidance by critics and ratings. I mean, just look at traditional german wine labels, something like "karthäuserhofberg riesling kabinett trocken" raises more question than it answers, while"hefeweizen hell" is way easier to understand. And more complex german beer labels ala "single hop mandarina IPA" are just entering the scene.
And just look at even the most basic discounter here- there may be 3 different beers-own brand Pils and Weizen,one Markenpils- but dozens of different wines from different regions, so the consumer easily thinks their is a need for ratings to figure out what to buy....

 

On a similar basis, I've been a beer judge in festivals where there was to be an overall "festival champion" which involved tasting across a range of styles.The more delicate beers never stood a chance because they didn't have an opportunity to show their full attributes. The "champion" was always a worthy beer but not ever one I would choose from a selection at a bar.