New Beer Weekend #90

Seems generous given a taste rating of 2.75 and an overall of 3. That sounds pretty terrible.

 

Now I'm drinking my first pilsner/lager in general from Breakside. I am already in love with their WCIPAs so I was excited to try their stab at lagers. I am not disappointed. This is hopped entirely with Hallertau Mittelfruh. The aroma and main component of flavor is that very distinctive skunky green cabbage and ripe green bell pepper note, which confirms a particular quandary I've had about pilsners for a while now. Most German or even Czech style pilsners are more distinctively lemon/grass/hay/floral/white pepper in their hop notes, but it occurred to me that most of them are mostly exclusively hopped with Saaz or Tettnanger. Hallertau Mittelfruh must be distinctively skunky and cabbagy. The malt is bready and well-rounded, slightly sweet. It finishes fairly clean and crisp. The only thing about this I would change is that I wish it were just a slightly more crisp, dry, or bitter. Otherwise, it's a very good lager.

 

Great Pilsner review. I have that glass at home.

 

3, being exactly in the middle of a 1-5 scale, is exactly average. From personal experience, I can tell you that that beer was much worse than that.

 

Ruh Roh, it's hazy, Shaggy!

 

Now I'm drinking a Digital Realm (West Coast IPA) from Cerebral Brewing. Thanks to my roommate cousin for picking this up at the brewery for me.



A very potent dank aroma; I immediately detect that distinctive nutty, grainy, peanut aroma that I know is malted oats. I don't know why I have an incredibly discerning nose for malted oats, but I can smell them immediately in literally any IPA that has them. I also smell a slight butteriness that I hope isn't diacetyl. I also smell cannabis, grapefruit, white grape, pine, lychee, and pear.
Immediately the palate smacks of pink grapefruit pith and white grape must; peanutty malt oats, pear/lychee, and resin. There's definitely a pungent dank-diesel-fusel thing going on that is a slight turnoff for me, but otherwise it tastes pretty good. Mild bitterness, slightly caramelized and biscuity malt, but no lingering sweetness. Not as bitter as I'd like a WCIPA, but otherwise tastes pretty solid. Definitely in the vein of TRVE's "no coast" IPA with the malted oats, minimal bitterness, and dry finish, though less cleanly executed than theirs. A solid IPA, something like a 7/10 or 89/100 range for me.

 

Welp time to break the trend of craft beers, because I've never had sapporo (excuse the armchair photography)



It's better than some cheap/mass produced lagers I've had specifically a coors I had the other night that was much more skunked than I remember coors being. Very sweet though, a malty sweetness but it's still very prominent.

Again compared to similar lagers this one is actually hoppy, but who knows what kind of hops. Also this was brewed in La Crosse Wisconsin, not very authentic, it's gone the way of stella and fosters. Not even Vietnamese anymore lmao.

Overall for what it is its good, but sweet, not the most crisp, but still refreshing and crushable. Actually hoppy but very sweet that's what sticks out to me with this one.

 

Ich Liebe dieses glas

 

Good day BAs! Well, it's another damp-threatening-to-change-to-snow morning on the tundra of NW PA. The robins are all puffed up trying to keep warm - soon they'll be falling out of the trees like iguanas in FL.
Today's New Breakfast Beer comes from @woemad in NBS BIF #15:




Sagittarius from Moonshot Brewing. 32 oz crowler received in BIF #15 Brewing, from @woemad (05/04/22). Stored at reefer at 40 degrees after processing. Reviewed 10/04/22. Note that I use DD/MM/YY protocol.
No date. Served at 42.4 degrees in a hand washed and dried Jester King snifter. Final temperature 48.7 degrees.
Appearance – 3.5
First pour – Pale Gold (SRM 4), clear.
Body – Pale gold (SRM 4), slightly hazy. When rear-lite, same.
Head – Large (Maximum 5 cm, aggressive center pour), floral white, low density, and average retention, diminishing to a 0.5 to 1.7 cm crown fed by weak carbonation and a thin, rocky cap. Looks like waves on a stormy sea. Small pieces of lacing remain as the level drops.
Lacing – One EKG band of tiny to small bubbles and many scattered islands of foam.
Aroma – 3.5 – Weak hops, no malt, no yeast.
Flavor – 3.5 – Follows nose. However, the hops are definitely spicier on the tongue than in the nose, delightfully so. No ethanol (6.9 % ABV according to what is written on the label in black marker) taste or aroma. Very weak gastric warming occurs. No dimethylsulfide or diacetyl.
Palate – 3.5 – Medium, a little thicker than water, soft carbonation.
Final impression and summation: 3.5 Probably should be rated higher but crowlers do tend to degrade faster than cans, IMHO. Nearly a week old – couldn’t drink it sooner because of temporary medication. Nice flavor and mouthfeel, weak nose. Tasted sessionable until you stand up.
Rating 3.5, rDev -6.7%

 

The beer may be low grade, but that glass is 5.0!

 

3 is an average numerically IF people actually use the entire scale (but people do not). In terms of actual quality and how people rate beers (and what the term “average” means, I would place a massive bet on the idea that 3 is not actually average at all.

How most people use scales doesn’t make sense in terms of what we want to get out of them. If you adapt the 1-5 (remember 0-0.99 is omitted) scale to a standard scale, then now what you have is that an “A” is considered 4.6 (A-) to 5.0 (A+), a “B” 4.2 (B-) to 4.59 (B+), a “C” is 3.8 (C-) to 4.19 (C+), a “D” is 3.4 (D-) to 3.79 (D+), and everything below a 3.4 is failing to varying degrees. Remembering this, that makes a 3 not only piss poor, but utter trash.

Most people probably think about the 1-5 scale as being a 0-5 scale, implying that if you just use a 0-10 scale, you can divide it by 2 to get your score, which easily adapts itself to the standard A, B, C, D, F range. But a 0-5 scale it is not, and even if it were I doubt most people consider a 4.5-5 being an A- to A+, while considering 4.0-4.5 being a B- to a B+. Even In that case a 3 is a D-, it’s on the precipice of failing, as it were.

 

Today's first beer comes courtesy of @Coronaeus who despite not even being an official participant in NBS BIF #14 rained so much beer down upon those of us in the United States that he inspired the name for BIF #15.

I've had my eye on this bottle of Patrick Bateman from Blood Brothers Brewing ever since I laid eyes upon it. Not only is it a fantastic name / bottle design for a beer, but I really like vanilla, so with a description on the bottle of "B.B.A. Stout w/ Madagascar Vanilla Beans & Cocoa" I was all in on this.

Side note - my wife and I watched American Psycho for the first time a few months ago and were underwhelmed. Oh well, at least it inspired this beer!

4.25/5 rDev -3%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3.75 | taste: 4.25 | feel: 4.75 | overall: 4.5

Right off the bat, this is an attractive beer. The dark, dark brown / black is as expected, but there was a lovely viscosity to this as it poured from the bottle. Thick and chewy don't normally come to mind on the pour, but they did this time. Head is a dense, long lasting caramel color that eventually receded to a perma-cap and ring.

Aroma is very rich and enticing, but very vanilla forward. I happen to really like vanilla, but a little more subtlety would have presumably allowed for additional aromas to present themselves. As it stands, they are hidden beneath the vanilla.

On the tongue, the vanilla is still batting leadoff, but barrel notes are clearly batting second with cocoa notes in the three hole. Together they form a potent top of the lineup. The barrel and a little alcohol help offset the sweetness of the vanilla in a way that I'm really enjoying. Nice, long finish that doesn't evolve much but that's ok, because what's there tastes great.

Feel is exactly what it seemed like it would be based on the pour. Full-bodied, thick and chewy, but oh so smooth.

Overall this is a wonderful beer, especially if you like vanilla.

Postscript: I'll have to decide if I want to revisit these ratings (especially the taste) before I finish the bottle. As much as I'm enjoying this, a 4.25 overall feels low. Peter, huge thank you for sending this my way!

 

Glad you enjoyed it! Blood Brothers stouts, from my experience, land in one of two categories. Really good, or really bad. I’ve had none in between.

 

I hear what you're saying, but I'd argue that very few people consider a beer that is "3.0" as 'okay', no matter if that is the BA instruction. Similarly, virtually no one considers a 4.0 as 'outstanding', even if that is the BA instruction.

You evaluate a system based on how people use it, NOT on how the instruction is to use the scale. When you don't use the entire scale, it's pretty difficult to get a sensible interpretation that fits the definition. This is actually a major problem at universities. When the top end is built heavy, you end up with significant bias and less interpretable results. BUT, that's been ingrained in most people from an early age.

Reviews are written along two lines: To style and personal enjoyment. I rated the review to style, but I wrote my personal opinion of the beer in the review. Would I never buy that beer again? Absolutely. Do I think it's trash? Sure do. Does it technically fit within the guidelines and is preferable to other people's palate? Clearly. I shouldn't negatively rate the beer simply because my own enjoyment is so low.

Also, I don't feel that way. I love the discussion and banter. My comments are in the same vain.