the look criteria

NE/Milshake IPA.

 

I usually start at 3.75 for looks. I'll knock a stout down a bit for being watery or having little or no head. I'll knock a clearer beer down for no visible carbonation or head. I'll give bonus points for a large persistent/sturdy head, and extra points for a dark beer if the head is a deep brown, or foamy white head on a lighter beer.

Someone will chime in and tell me I'm doing it wrong, but hey - it's subjective. I don't think I've ever given below 3.5 for looks, because it doesn't impact the flavor. I don't know how you'd give a 3 unless perhaps there were some questionable floaters.

 

If a beer in a style that should have a nice head has no head, a small head or a super fizzy head, I'll mark that down. Body color and clarity are more subjective, IMO.

 

I don't rate here, but I do at the other site, which asks users to rate appearance on a 1 to 5 whole number hedonic scale. 3 is my standard and most common appearance rating, but I give quite a few 2s and occasional 1s, usually for unappetizing murkiness (as in many "hazy" IPAs that go well beyond mere haze), lack of head, or stillness of liquid (lack of noticeable effervescence in non-opaque beers). If the sight of the beer makes me want to drink it less than I did before I saw it, I'm giving it less than a 3.

 

Long-lasting, substantial, thick, uneven (though not excessive) head helps a lot. I doubt I've ever given a 5 to a beer that doesn't have a color or shade I find aesthetically pleasing. If the beer is at least somewhat clear, I'll want to see a lot of effervescence. I very rarely give 5s, but apply the same rules in less stringent form for 4s.

I encourage everybody here to be more stringent in their ratings. There's no reason to default to a 4; to me, a 4 indicates a remarkably good appearance (or beer as a whole), not just ho-hum acceptable. Also, I encourage people to ignore totally how much they enjoy the aroma, flavor, or palate effects of the beer when rating the appearance. There are many ugly but tasty beers and many attractive but otherwise unlikable beers. The attribute ratings should reflect that dichotomy when it occurs and not be corrupted by halo effects.

 

Lousy looking but functional AALs Id suppose, really not much to look at, and really no nose worth mentioning. But on a hot day they work just fine.

 

Perhaps its my reading but this seems confusing on two fronts:

1. You say a 4 represents a remarkably good appearance (or beer as a whole) but then say to ignore everything about a beer when rating appearance
   
2. A question in the form of an example: let's say I have a Pilsner that is clear and has a nice sustainable head (qualities that I understand it should have by a few "guidelines"). So it's totally nailed what it's supposed to. Is that a 5 (nailed it) or a 3 (did what it's supposed to)?

I think on point one I understand where you stand, but I'm just confused enough to point it out. The second point is actually a curiosity, because I actually agree with the OP - most beers are not so far off in looks than their intent. Since we "eat with our eyes first" I doubt most breweries would distribute something completely out of line with expectations.

So, back to OP - generally flat looking beers get a 3 tops. Given BA and sours and all the things we know can detract from head production, I probably do give a little too much leeway. But if your stout is dark - you've hit that part of the guidelines - so about 50% of it - putting you at a 3, which is kinda how I think of it. I'm not sure that's right - maybe there should be a tighter line for some beers. For instance, it seems easier to find and ding a golden ale for being too dark than to find a stout that is too light (based on my experience). So should there be a different scale?

Rambling and rambling on.... yet again, I am. Sorry.

 

I just meant that a rating of 4 for appearance suggests to me a remarkably good appearance. Similarly, a rating of 4 for a beer in total as rated as an aggregate of aroma, appearance, flavor, palate, and overall (or whatever the criteria are here at BeerAdvocate) suggests to me a remarkably good beer, yet people give out 4s in aggregate scores left and right around here. I've given an aggregate rating of 4 or above to 7% of the beers I've rated, and even that's more generous than I would prefer.

I don't rate to style or to intent, only to how much I enjoy the beer, so I don't care at all if the brewer hit his mark. Very few people who rate beer are qualified to take style into account in anything but a cursory way, and therefore I think it's misguided of this site to ask them to do so. Plus, judging by style or intent is a measure of the excellence (or lack thereof) of the brewer, not the excellence (or lack thereof) of the product he created. And it's often a poor measure even of the brewer, because many brewers intentionally ignore, proudly stray from, or seek to push style guidelines, which themselves are totally unofficial and, in practice, ever in flux.

Did a beer with remarkably turbid liquid deserve a 1 for appearance when the beer was considered a plain old IPA but a 5 now that it's considered an NEIPA or "Juicy or Hazy IPA?" What about an identical beer that the brewer intended to be clear? What if the brewer said he was making a West Coast IPA but intentionally made it turbid or said he was making an NEIPA but intentionally made it clear, perhaps to point out and mock the superficiality of the dueling obsessions with clarity and haze? What if we have no idea what the brewer intended and/or there's legitimate disagreement about the proper style guidelines? Then how do we judge? Are we finally allowed to use our discretion and exercise our own aesthetic preferences? These are questions of semantics that, in my mind, should have zero impact on ratings, as is the case when using a hedonic scale.

 

Here is an example of a stout that I gave a look rating of 4.5, Evil Twin Even More Coco Jesus. Granted, sometimes it's as much the pour as it is the beer. I like bubbles I can see vs. a vague foam. Again, subjective.

 

Looks like a 4.5 to 5 to me.

 

I’ve always rated appearance high too. I find most commercial beers to look very appealing. I rarely find beers that look dull or have terrible head.

 

I can't remember giving anything less than a 3 on appearance. Nothing could be so visually revolting to me as to rate a poor score on this criterion.

I've given tons of 5's on appearance.

 

My rating system is fairly simple: #1, does the color meet the guidelines for the style (and I'm pretty loose one that), #2 how does the head rise, hold, and then decline, and #3 how much lacing is left.

#1 - color is generally not an issue but I have come across beers that were either too dark or too light.
#2 - Head retention is the biggest thing that follows color. A nice head that holds up is great.
#3 - Lacing is the thing that pushes it forward or pulls it back. The more lacing the better, but keep in mind style is always the guide - sour beers, for example, will never leave a lot of lacing.

 

Glad to hear you say this since that's pretty much the approach I worked out for myself.

 

While different styles, produce different appearances, the reality is beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

When it comes to appearances I've hit everything in the spectrum.

The question is how does it make you feel?

 

Just looked at the beers you’ve rated...you drink mostly decent/good beer.

Pop a Coors Light, then report back on how you rated its appearance.

 

Judged on style, to start for appearance, but even this is like trying to define pornography. We know what a good appearance looks like, once we see it, but trying to put words to it?... Tough. Carry on.