New Beer Weekend #90

Holding myself accountable to ratings with this next one (spoiler alert): 2XPerimental, a "West Coast-style double IPA" from Southern Tier (presumably with some experimental hops). Since I've put myself out there (above), I'll walk through my ratings in each area (something I don't normally do in an NBW post, since people can just read the review if they're that interested).



2XIPA used to be a staple in my fridge, along with Resin. It's harder to find fresh these days, and even when fresh, I enjoy neither as much as I used to - which is likely due to my own preferences and experience with other beers.

Still, I was quite excited to grab a 2X variety pack. This was the first beer I grabbed, because I wanted a bracingly bitter WC-style imperial IPA - and perhaps because "XPerimental" intrigued me, as well.

This beer is a major disappointment.

Hold up. Let's rewind.

It's a beautiful beer, crystal clear with a golden hue, and excellent head production, retention, and lacing. The head looks a little awkward in places, and the body isn't as lively as I'd like, but those are my only two detractions. 4.5

The aroma is what I'd call "good," but it lacks the strength or complexity to reach great. It smells better than, say, an AAL, and it doesn't smell bad. I wish I could give it a higher score, but it lacks the sharpness, oomph, and complexity of better IIPAs. 3.5

Flavor is going to be the most difficult to rate, because while this doesn't really taste anything like a WC-style IIPA, it tastes pretty good. It's more like a BSPA (no, seriously; I am not kidding), with a banana-like yeast expression and a big, white dough semi-sweet malt base. It also reminds me of a tropical mixed drink, perhaps enjoyed on a cruise to the Bahamas. Whatever hops they used add very little to the blend, aside from some coconut, green herbs, and ... lemon, maybe? Anyway, this doesn't taste anything like I expected, but it definitely doesn't taste bad. 3.5

Mouthfeel is perhaps above average for the style. It's not syrupy or cloying; it's lively enough. It doesn't jump out at your palate, it doesn't finish dry, it's not super smooth. In other words: the mouthfeel is unremarkable, but in no way bad. 3.5

Overall: yeah, here's where the 2XChickens come home to roost. This is a bad example of a WC-style IIPA. Enjoyed blind, with zero style expectations, some people will probably like it. Even then, it's not great, but it's certainly not bad. But a bitter, hoppy, WC IIPA this is certainly not. Given the style, the advertising, the claim on the can ... this is indeed poor. I can't imagine how they took their goal and reached this result. 2.5 - and I may be generous.

I had my partner (who hates IPAs) taste this, and she remarked: "Is it supposed to be an IPA?" I told her it almost tasted more like a BSPA, and she immediately agreed.

Man, this is a miss from Southern Tier. But at the same time, I'm going to finish my entire glass, because it's a miss that still tastes pretty good! It's not the beer I wanted, but perhaps it's the beer I deserved. Or needed. Or some shit like that.

https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/3818/591472/?ba=Roguer#lists
3.36 / -1.5%

Two notes: you know it's not a highly regarded beer on BA when you rate a 3.36 and come in -rDev. The overall score really drives the weighted score in this case. 3.5 in flavor and feel suggests that this beer is pretty good (but not great), but 3.36 weighted suggests it's a hard pass with so many great beers readily available these days - and, well, it is, because it's supposed to be a WC IIPA.

I can't in good conscience recommend this for a hop head, but at the same time I can recommend it for a tick that shouldn't be a drain pour in any way (unless you hate Belgian yeast expression).

 

I love it! I'm glad we can keep it friendly.

You're totally right that the system is not used in the way it was designed. Some people have simply never clicked on the link I provided, so that's part of it. Homerism is another part (rating favorite or local breweries higher). Various human biases also come into play.

So, I agree: 4.0 is much closer to "our" average than 3.0 (and I don't think 3.0 needs to be a mathematical average anyway).

But as to your suggesting that "virtually no one considers" ... well, I do, and I'm hardly alone. You're suggesting that one should interpret a different meaning from the rating system, without knowing how many people use it in however many different ways. I'm suggesting one can interpret meaning from the rating system because how it is supposed to be used is clearly laid out. You can't accurately claim how it is currently being used in the aggregate, only offer conjecture. I similarly cannot accurately claim how it is currently being used, but I can accurately claim how it is supposed to be used.

(There is also nuance in what outstanding means to different people. Does it mean, "I freaking love this; it's outstanding!"? Or does it mean, "This is so much better than other beers in this same style that it's noteworthy!"? That will provide variation by itself, but what it shouldn't do is provide variation that people consider a 4.00-4.50 beer outstanding, by however they interpret it.)

I don't think your "top heavy" analogy is a contradiction with my view, either.

Most of us tend to drink beers we enjoy. Most of the beers I drink probably fall into the 3.75-4.40 range ... because, well, why wouldn't I? If I can drink Lunch at a local spot every day of the week, why would I knowingly opt for Longhammer instead? Sure, there are other IPAs on tap, and if I were to rate them all, the overall average would almost certainly drop below 4.0 ... but I'm not (especially when the price is in the same general range).

So yes: the overall ratings will skew higher, because we're often talking about really good beer, and we are people who, by definition, enjoy beer. The BeerAdvocate "average" shouldn't be 3.0, based on that.

That doesn't mean that the words (or system) don't (doesn't) apply. It simply means that we're less likely to encounter beers that we legitimately consider "poor" or "awful." And it means that the entire scale won't be represented equally - but that isn't the same as disregarding the basis of the scale.

I disagree with your premise that the system is only about how people use it, not the instruction. That's a matter of enforcement. BeerAdvocate could, in theory, delete reviews that didn't seem to fit with the scale. That's not an employed tactic, and numbers tend to work out in the aggregate, but it could be done. Regardless, the instruction remains. I'm in a line of work (delivering sandwiches) where we quite literally live and die by instructions, so I'm preconditioned to cite the reference (another bias), but I simply don't agree with the idea that someone is at fault for interpreting the reference literally, instead of the people who are ignoring or misusing it. Call them out: maybe they simply didn't know. No one is being forced to come here and rate beer, after all.

(This has also gotten me into some arguments over the actual definitions of words, because I value facts over opinions, so I'm not always the most likeable guy at the bar. )

In other words: if someone chooses to not use the instructions BeerAdvocate has provided, that's on them. Much of that could simply be ignorance or miseducation, and some of that can be corrected. But what we don't do is simply say, "The rules don't matter, then." Apply that to pretty much any other field. Try telling the cop, "But everyone is doing 85!" You're unlikely to get any sympathy. (I'm not saying don't speed; I'm saying don't bitch about the consequences when you knowingly violate the rule.)

The last part - rating to personal enjoyment versus style - is something where we can easily and happily agree that there is no defined answer. Different people do it different ways. I personally don't think I could ever rate beer in a style I don't enjoy a perfect 5.0 ... because, well, how would I even know what is perfect? Can I ever truly decide what is the perfect Imperial Rotting Weasel Carcass-Aged Quintuple IPA? Yeah, probably not, so to at least some extent, I have to rate to my own subjective enjoyment. At the same time, if you can rate to style (at least somewhat), you should - and the instructions cover that, as well. I would argue that the way you described the vanilla as coming across as very artificial and unenjoyable suggests that, even to style, that beer was not great - but perhaps wasn't exactly bad, either. We've got numbers that cover that.

So I do the same as you, in some regards. I don't personally enjoy super dank IPAs, but I know many BAs do. I'm not going to trash a well-constructed beer simply because it doesn't fit my own personal profile (I also don't eat strawberries, olives, or tomatoes, but I don't claim that they objectively suck just because of my preferences). Where our approaches seem to differ is that you place "bad" beers higher up the scale than I (or good or outstanding or amazeballs beers), whereas I use the system that's in place, as designed and described.

If everyone did, then the numbers would have consistent meaning. If everyone does it entirely their own way, then you have no basis to interpret the numbers at all - which means, why even bother rating?

Beer Nihilism!

 

I think that rather enforces that the grade school system isn't applicable to BA ratings. Assigning an A to a research paper is based partly on the subjectivity of the professor. Assigning an A to a 50 question algebra exam is pretty straight forward.

Our beer reviews are certainly more in the former category than the latter, but there's no reason to assume we need to apply either letter grade lens to our beer reviews.

Your reference is also interesting. "It's a well made research paper if you exclude the plagiarized conclusion," might be somewhat, if not entirely, analogous. At one point does an element - especially an element that, in a flavored beer, is often the highlight (or "star of the dish" in realtiy TV cooking terms) - get overlooked, or matter more? Where's the tipping point? One bad apple, spoiling the broth, various cliches come to mind, but the point is, if I make a great steak, but add one rotted peach into a sauce, it still ruins the steak. I'm not calling it a great steak at that point, even if it still has other positive qualities. (Or: it's a great car in most aspects, if you can get past the part where it explodes randomly. 8/10.)

 

NBS BIF #16 early name contender?

 

My next new beer also proclaims to be a West Coast style IPA. With the name Tiny Umbrella Party, I have my doubts, as that sounds much more like a modern fruity NE IPA, but the brewery, Cerberus, sounds bad ass, so ...



Summary: this is an excellent take on a WC IPA, name be damned. Very little tropical fruit to be found; this is citrus and pine all the way, along with mild dankness and a touch of pepper. A touch watery given the ABV; lively and crisp, with a moderately dry finish.

This definitely hits the spot. Sent my way via the NBS BIF. Thanks, @beergoot !

https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/47072/256836/?ba=Roguer#lists
3.93 / +0.5%

 

While I agree with you, I suggest that's a fault. People should be more willing to call a spade a spade, as it were, and rate poor, mediocre, and decent beers accordingly.

 

Isn't it great!?!

 

Good Afternoon everyone! It seems I accidentally started a discussion about rating beer ...

My first beer today is a beer I have to admit I am incredibly excited for - this is Art History Brewing - Fastenbier, a Franconian style dark Lenten lager.



Pours a crystal clear, dark amber color. Lightly effervescent. Two to three finger tan head forms on the beer and lingers for a moment before dissipating. A thin residual layer of foam remains on the top of the beer along with some stick lacing on the glass. The aroma has notes of smoked malts, campfire smoke, a touch of bread, with a lightly spicy, floral hop character.

Taste follows the nose with notes of smoked malts, some rustic bread, a bit of campfire smoke and a noticeable hoppy bitterness on the back end that brings with it some spicy, floral notes. The smoked malts are excellently balanced - not dominating the profile to the detriment of the other flavors. Feel is light to medium bodied. Smooth with moderate carbonation. Semi-dry finish.

Overall an outstanding smoked beer from Art History. They brew some excellent lagers and this one is no exception. A must try for fans of smoked beers.

look: 4.5 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 4.5 | feel: 4.5 | overall: 4.5 = 4.5 (rDev +4.7%)