How much does the reputation influence the beer's taste?

Just drink multiple beers on different days, until you get a better handle on it.

 

It definitely has an influence. Just do a blind tasting (without knowing what any of the beers are) and you'll see how much.

 

agree with @jojo2112 do a blind tasting.

having said that, I think that you'll find that so long as the examples are fresh, the better reputation beers will stand out in a blind tasting on average relative to others (especially against local options that sell primarily just because they're local). I'm also assuming the drinkers have a fairly experienced and minimally educated palate. Now this is not to say that many of these other beers are foul, infected, bad, etc. it's just that on average they're often not in the same league as those with the best reputations.

 

Rarity/hype influences ratings. Anyone who says otherwise is completely insane. Does it mean that beers that get hyped up don't deserve some accolades? Not at all. Just saying that hype can lead to people "thinking a beer tastes better/rating it higher".

 

If you want to be influenced by the 'hype' drink the beer knowing what you are drinking.

If you are looking for a more objective drinking experience have somebody else pour the beer for you and drink it blind (and if you drinking a 'newfangled' New England style murky IPA actually wear a blindfold).

Your choice.

Cheers!

 

A *ton.* That doesn't mean some hyped beers aren't amazing (never seen anyone who didn't love Fou Foune), but a lot of others get put in their proper place quickly.

 

Freshness is really important. If Heady Topper was purchased from a store in Europe, there's just no way it's going to have helped up well to the travel. (subsequently, if it was flown over with someone, it might be pretty close).

I think the only real way to combat 'hype' is just gain experience. The more you drink and try, you will start to realize that while a lot of hyped beers are good, they often really aren't any different from much easier to get beers. There's plenty of 'shelf' beer out there that is as good or better than super-rare, hard to get beers.

It's also easier to ignore the noise today in the US due to the volume. 5 years ago the really sought-after brewers were few and there really wasn't much comparable on the market. Beer selections in most stores/bars was getting better, but still not inspiring by any margin. Today, there probably more limited releases every single day that there were in a year a decade ago. More importantly though, it's becoming pretty easy to get world-class beer of pretty much any style without much work and without having to trade. (not everywhere, I know).

I think the most important thing is your own preferences. There are so many hyped beers that differ quite a lot in the same styles. There are so many different ways to make an IPA. 'Better' is just what you like better. Maybe that is Pliny, but maybe it's something Sierra Nevada is making. Or maybe you like a more traditional English style IPA. Or a juice bomb. Bourbon Barrel Stouts with vanilla and other flavorings are super hyped items, but honestly I generally prefer a well executed from Imperial stout (and usually without any real hype). Founders Imperial Stout, for instance. I like it just as much, if not more, than KBS or CBS. In fact, I prefer FBS over KBS. That said, if I walk into a bar and find KBS for a reasonable price, I'll drink it, but I'm not going out of my way for it.

Freshness also plays a part as well. I love fresh Kate the Great/Mott the Lesser, but I don't think it ages well so I wouldn't ever try to chase down bottles. But the experience is fun to gain. It was fun getting to try my first KBS, BCBS, Pliny, Heady, Westy12, Kate, etc. KBS blew my mind when I first tried it and BCBS was too much bourbon and boozy. Of course experience changed those things. I know find KBS good, but not amazing, and I consider BCBS basically the standard for BA stouts. Darklord was probably the first hyped beer that I found way overrated.

Enjoy the journey, don't over think it, have some fun.

::Raises hand:: Ok ok, I like Fou Foune, I just don't get giddy over it like others (and prefer it old rather than fresh). I wouldn't ever spend $45+ on a bottle (ok ok, at a bar for that price maybe. problably...)

 

It definitely can affect ratings. Drink it blind if you want a more accurate rating.

 

I haven't had any Toppling Goliath stouts, but their IPA's and pales that I've had have all been underwhelming. So my answer would be 'yes.'

 

It depends on the taster - some people are more easily influenced than others.

 

None. People seem to like Founders Centennial, Azacca, & All Day, but I looked at the ratings before I tasted these and it didn't still didn't influence the taste because I disliked all of them.

 

I think there's no doubt that it affects taste/ratings. If you know going in that a beer is "top tier," you try much harder to pick out all the intricacies, you try to find the qualities that make it so acclaimed.

Personally I think the easiest way to prove this (aside from a blind test, which is really the best way) is to check out how beers are rated on Untappd. Everyone on Untappd who has a top IPA gives it a 5, everyone who has literally any beer with, say, vanilla in it says the beer is "bursting with vanilla!", etc. If you come into a beer with no knowledge of what it is, no expectations, etc., it's easier to be honest about how the beer tastes. We're all kind of beer hunting, and nothing is more disappointing than admitting to yourself that the beer you're drinking doesn't live up to the hype.

Edit: To answer the question from my end, I admit there's some bias, but I try very hard to be honest. For example, I was let down by Heady Topper, and admitted it. Same thing with KBS. I definitely try "harder" to taste what everyone is going crazy about, but if a beer isn't top notch, I admit it to myself, and no amount of preconceived notion about the beer is going to change that for me.

 

And those that are that easily influenced are refered to as sheep, and have been/could easily be led to the slaughter.

 

Ever done a blind with FF? I know some people that don't even really like lambics that much that were all over it. Granted, if you've had a ton of Cantillon it's pretty easy to pick out...but not everyone has. Seen nonbelievers digging it blind on two occasions. I can imagine that it might not be *everyone's* thing, but I do think enough people tend to like it to call the hype justified in a blind taste off. King Henry would be another.
Would I drop $45 on it? After having it in Brussels for a couple Euros that would be tough to justify. I do think it's worth about as much as any other beer on the market except maybe Utopias.

 

Haven't done FF blind, but being a lambic lover, I'd take a lot of other Cantillon over FF. I'm generally looking for super-funk and am not a big fan of fruit-forward anything, thus the aged FF over fresh. It also makes sense why FF would be popular with non lambic lovers. Don't get me wrong, I like a good Kriek, Fram, Druiven, St Lam (my favorite fruit lambic), etc, but 9 times out of ten I feel the fruit gets in the way and I just want a good old funky Gueuze. (surprisingly my ice cream tastes are the same. Candy, chocolate chips, cookies,etc just get in the way of the base ice cream. Well execute vanilla or chocolate doesn't need anything added).

King Henry was incredible, but I agree, I wouldn't pay aftermarket prices because there is way too much stuff on the market that is close enough (Mother of All Storms, Sucaba, etc). The only things I might splurge aftermarket prices on would be the likes of 3F Lente and Zomer. Those were ridiculous.

 

That's different though. While those beers may be fairly highly regarded, they don't have the hype level even close to that of a Heady Topper, Pliny, etc.

 

I don't think the reputation influences the taste, I think the taste influences the reputation. Breweries get a good reputation for making tasty brews.

 

I agree that some people are more easily influenced than others, but it seems a little condescending here. I say this because every human is influenced by these things, and that is fact. The question really is to what degree. Critical thinkers can subvert biases at times, but being easily influenced is inherent to humans as a species. People underestimate this, and will probably continue to do so for a long time, perhaps forever. That is why there is a stigma to mental illness. People greatly underestimate human psychology. If I place two beers in front of you that you've never had before, same style, abv, etc. You will instantly gravitate to the one that you find the most visually pleasing (and you likely won't even be conscious you've done so).

My favorite example, however, is court systems. I think this example shows how expectations and subconscious biases impact our views of things: Someone is being charged for ****. Now this dude is a scraggly, homeless looking guy with poor english. Guess how much more likely this guy is to be seen in a negative light as opposed to a clean, apologetic, professional looking person? But the objective reality has not changed. These physical attributes are truly meaningless, but one's mind is still going to make a subconscious judgement based on that stimuli, and it can very easily influence that persons decision making.

 

I'd say that we are all sheep but that's being unfair to sheep.