Re-rating beers a decade later

I revisit my beer ratings and adjust my scores accordingly because palates change and evolve. (like you said) Goes to show ya how subjective reviews are and how the palate is never static. I've tweaked my scores over the years as well. On the other hand, I also know people who tic beers and move on with no intentions of re-visiting a beer. My question is who contributes more to the overall beer review vs. a "hit and run" ?

 

Grolsch is a weird one because they used brown bottles back when -- at least for the flip-tops. Then they followed the trend to green. It's another beer to be careful with.

I had a friend who always said, "Someone open a Grolsch?" If we were on the road and a skunk had bought the farm.

 

I'll do this on Untappd but I don't do it here. As we all know a lot of beers just aren't the same quality that they used to be. It can't all be blamed on changing palates. Recipes are scaled up and beers lose that same punch that they had before. If it isn't that, then a brewery is on the fifth or sixth different brewer to brew that same beer since it was first introduced. This happens all the time to both everyday beers and limited releases alike. I still remember when Bell's told me that they were about to hit a million bottles of Hopslam years ago. The beer went from being a beer I had to have every a case of every year to a beer that I won't even purchase.

 

I don't go out of my way to re-rate beers but have no issue when I or anyone else do so. If a beer continues to be brewed, then what is the value of a 10 year old rating? When rating a beer one cannot help but factor in other beers of the style one has had. Perspective is important. Moreover, the beer itself may have changed over time. Occasionally, I've reviewed my ratings and if I see something I truly think isn't appropriate, then I have not problem with amending the review. Whenever appropriate I note the change in my review.

 

I’ve edited some reviews where I find myself revisiting a beer 10 years later.

I think a great addition to ba (which I think Todd has contemplated before) would be allowing multiple reviews of a beer.

I think that would be useful. It would also be an added bonus if you got more beer karma for multiple reviews.

that’s one appealing feature of untappd. That you can check in a beer more than once.
It’s easy to hate the “tickers”, but It’s hard to contribute to this site if you drink the same beer all the time.

 

pretty much this. I do a lot of Cellar Reviews and I always kind of chuckle at myself for comparing to my original Fresh Review which often times has been many years or even a decade earlier (yet I do it every single time). I still enjoy the experience of comparing a Cellar Review rating to an original rating, but I very much understand that there’s a lot of variables in play other than just how the beer developed over time. Pallet variations, changes in personal preference, batch variations, the actual development of the beer over the time it was in the cellar. All that being said it is still a fun exercise and I enjoy the comparison, in fact it’s become my favorite way to enjoy a beer.

All of that to say that re-reviewing is fine, and can be fun! But we probably shouldn’t take ourselves too seriously (which could probably be said for almost anything in life).

 

I thought "Pilsener" lost its allure after it was misued and abused in early Lite Beer from Miller ads. Maybe Pilsener is making a comeback after all these years? As a counterpoint, I recently picked up a Lidl marketed Czech lager marketed as "Czech Lager", with the brand "Argus Majestic 12" hidden on the back in minuscule print. It's definitely a Pilsener style beer, but doesn't admit it. It almost doesn't admit its brand name.

As for the reviews: I use them mainly for information about style. The ratings don't usually mean too much. The differences in the examples of if the initial poster are pretty consistent, with changes that one might expect. Oftentimes, when I re-review, the beer has changed. I did a review of a west-coast style IPA a few years ago; I picked up a few cans of the current version, and found it to be a hazy IPA. A repurposed brand.

 

I just had a 2018 Doggie Claws and I added some notes to my review of 2008 Doggie Claws that I did in 2009. I enjoyed the 2018 much more the one I initially reviewed. I have another bottle of the 2008 coming from Hair of the Dog and I'm very excited to revisit.

 

I am going back and re-rate several of my old beers. Given the fact many beers do change from batches and it could effect the ratings. I still will re-evaluate those beers. I think my palate is more refined and I understand beer styles better. I will keep the old review in there and add a new one. Also I find it interesting that my reviews are developing more context and information.

 

As Ed McMahon used to say to Johnny Carson, "You are correct, sir."

 

I really like Grolsch as well. When I saw the Lager to Pils transition it became clear to me that I must now classify it as a "Lagner". Cheers!

 

Grolsch is one of those beers that really loses something during the export process. Every time I've drank it in the US, it is a solid, if uninspiring brew, usually a bit overpriced in relation to quality. In the EU, however, it is terrific. I'm either subject to the suggestibility of my environment or the beer is just getting to me fresher . . . or both.

 

I must agree with you that there is a change in the taste. Wondering if the US has a pasteurization law for imported beer? Every time I've had premium brews in NL they're always more floral and just better. I guess some beers don't travel as well as others. But I still love me a couple icy swing tops! Heineken brewed in Cork Ireland in fantastic. Cheers!

 

There is no universal beer law; 50 states have 50 regulations. Well, 51 with DC.

Import keg beer is pasteurized and it definitely makes a difference. Actually, a very big difference.

Brewed and kegged in Europe.
Trucked to exporter.
Sits at a loading dock until transferred to a cargo ship. Not refrigerated.
Sails the Atlantic. Not refrigerated.
Unloads at Port and sits at a dock. Not refrigerated.
Await customs inspection, paperwork.
Trucked to wholesaler. Not refrigerated. Sits in warehouse until orders come through. Probably not refrigerated, perhaps but by now...
Possibly resold to distro. Refrigerated.
Sits in warehouse until orders come through.
Arrives at your local German/English/Belgian etc. Beer Bar.

5 months later and unknown temperature exposure, enjoy a cooked stale old European keg beer.

European import keg beer is almost universally lousy. Bottle beer is typically a better option, and as for bottle condition import hands down not a comparison.

Or, travel to Europe and see what all the fuss is about for yourself. I mean Bavaria. It will change your life.

Cheers

 

Tastes change. I wouldn't drink anything dark ten years ago except Negra Modelo. ( I hope I used the name correctly, I hate to offend people). Now I'm skeptical of anything that doesn't look like used motor oil.

 

When Grolsch first did their big ad campaign in the US in the late 1970s (below - 'snips' from 1978 ads) they advertised the beer - both in flip-tops and standard crowned T/A's, brown glass as @steveh noted above and the stoppers were porcelain, not plastic - was Kräusened (aka "naturally carbonated" in typical beer ad-speak), lagered for 3 months and unpasteurized.


Unclear if it was microfiltered/sterile-filled but that would seem likely although they did not use the "draught/draft" terminology that was commonly used and then legal for US packaged beers treated in that manner.
Being unpasteurized appears to be the implication behind that "Fresh Holland Beer" slogan but, as noted by @billandsuz most Grolsch and other Euro imports, given the logistics of beer importing, would not be what most would consider fresh today or even at the time.

 

I was very conservative when I first started reviewing and now tend to upgrade the scores when doing a re-review.