Packaging dates on reviews?

I try to add the date of the beer I'm reviewing... if it has one... if I remember.

 

I mention it in the review, not sure if anything else is needed.

 

I try to remember if it seems relevant; if the beer is at, past, or has an unusually long BB date, has a vintage, or has been aged.

 

I note it , first thing in the review .

 

I try to mention it in the intro.
I also put how old in parentheses so people looking at the review later don’t have to figure out the math.
Example: Can from lupulo, Santa Cruz. Canned - 2/1/21 (~1 month old).

 

I would love to see the can/bottle dates. I also would like to see serving type, can, bottle , crowler etc. the last piece I want to see is glass style(don’t care about the branding) or did you drink it from the can/bottle. I think this can help to learn about the beer and make a choice. As @TheIPAHunter said the other night about the Stone beer he was drinking, it was much better from the bottle than the can. I have had the same experience and can say the same for packaged vs tap vs crowler.

Enjoy

 

Definitely could see some credence to this. I am a big proponent of packaging dates on beers. It is my pet peeve when they are omitted or indecipherable. I concur that it definitely can affect a beer's rating. Perhaps putting as an input beside the numerical ratings as either a date or unknown would be helpful in the beer review process.
It looks like many people on here also put the packaging date in the review.
The confusion/frustration is when brewery's put a date on the beer, but you're not sure whether it's a "packaged-on date" or a "best-by" date. I could see that leading to confusion. That is why I would first strongly argue for standardization on packaging date labeling. All beers should be required to have a standardized packaging date format.

 

I just figure if I mention the package date, folks can look down at the date of the review, and see. Shrug.

 

I try to do this when I revisit a beer I initially rated from draft serving and follow-up with info from a packaged format.

 

It's slippery slope but i'm not against it. Everyone has different opinions of when to drink beer based on their personal tastes and readers could use that information if it was in a review to formulate their own opinions. That said, if you are using it to determine if a bad review is due to the date, there would be so many other factors to consider like storage conditions, was it a trade, did the person butt chug it out of a 3 ft funnel. I dont think it should be a required field, but information is always good.

 

I wholeheartedly agree, any useful information can't hurt, and if there was a space for a 'brewed on' or 'bottled on' date I'd like that info.

 

I note it in my reviews, but so many of you care entirely too much about packaging dates especially when it comes to IPAs and I don't know where the misinformation is coming from. Factually, hops are a preservative.

I doubt I could tell the difference between a 4 month old bottle of Sierra Nevada Torpedo you procured at a Walmart in Nevada and a bottle you bought "fresh" at the source in a blind taste test if both were served cold. What ego must one have to presume they could?

 

Well, they're an antimicrobial protection against spoiling by infection. They don't magically stop the process of oxidation. And with the modern use of hops, the vibrant aromatics that people prize are exactly the compounds that are most volatile and quickest lost to oxidation

That is a bold, old school, IPA from a brewery that is renowned for the quality of their packaging. I have, and I'm sure many others have as well, noticed a change (usually what I would characterize as a decline) in a pack of beer from the first to the last if it was in our possession for several months. Its not that these modern ipas become "gross" after 3 months, but many of them do lose the pop of those most aromatic hop compounds in that time, and when they lose that they lose the value of the premium that the breweries charge. At least to many of us

 

I would like to back you up on this one.
I actually like dirt cheap old school IIPAs..like Redhook Big Ballard and believe you me i can tell a whole lot of difference in a can that's only a couple weeks old and one that's 3 month old. Night and day.
For an actually great IIPA I think the difference would be even more.

 

I think the difference is in whether the beer is emphasizing the more delicate aromatics of the hops or the more substantial bitter flavors. I personally do perceive a good deal more floral character in snpa (I don't remember the last time I drank torpedo, it has never been a favorite of mine) that is 3 or 4 weeks old vs one that is 3 or 4 months old. But because SN has great packaging and the beer emphasizes the sturdier flavors of the hops and malts the drop off isn't as dramatic as some other, modern hoppy beers.

I totally agree with you though, beers that feature hop flavors prominently are best consumed fresh if you want to experience that beverage in it's full glory. How old you're willing to purchase it is a personal decision between you and your beer

 

Yeah BB is not exactly hop crazy..more malts..but the hop it does have ( floral/pine) are so much more prominent fresh. Now this is a $1.79 19.2 oz beer, shouldn't expect much. But i always look at the bottom of the can and reach as far back as my arms can go in the convenience store fridge rack.
Tips from a thrifty beer drinker