Expectations vs. Delivery

Being the cynic I am, I suspect they wrote the description after they tasted the finished product.

 

I think for sure when the average beer drinker is rating a beer they have preconceived notions on what that beer should be. I actually think it is ok though, if a brewery is going to label a beer a West Coast IPA it should have a noticeable bitterness.
If a brewery says a beer is an Kolsch it should not taste like an AAL.

Now as far as the intentions of the brewer, Personally if they label a beer one thing and it does not come close to what I think that style should be I am weary to purchase from that brewer again.

 

Could you further detail what you meant by "singing" here? Was your expectation that the beer just feature Simcoe hops vs. the combination that was used for dry hopping?

Does this mean that the beer did not taste like a West Coast IPA? If so, what was 'off' here?

Cheers!

 

“We set out to craft a beer that tastes like toilet water and, lo and behold, we nailed it on the first try! Enjoy First Flush, an American adjunct lager that tastes exactly like your favorite porcelain throne.”

 

Hop Fu—that’s a tough bar to match. Sometimes you want mind-blowing beer, but will be ok with ‘just ok’. Since I’m not familiar with the brewery, I’ll ask—were you expecting mind. blown?

 

As someone familiar with Black Flag, I stopped buying their beers years ago.

 

You may have made your point before when the topic has been 'rating to style,' but I never agreed with it if I read it, and I'm the one who would have given a 5.0 to the toilet water. I would never give a Bud a 5.0, but I would have rated it a lot higher than its current rating. But your excellent analogy is an eye-opener and hit the point this time and has caused me to change my approach to rating and agree there has to be some subjectivity in the process. Great post.

 

If I was having a beer from a brewery that uses the same name as a famous band, and the beer was named after a comic book/cartoon character, and the IP-theft can art featured that character surfing... well, my expectations would have been low enough to match the delivery.

IIRC, Simcoe is known for inconsistency.

 

At the risk of going a little off-topic, I have this dilemma when rating beers of slightly more niche styles. You don’t have to go as far as ‘moose turd’ or ‘toilet water’ to run in to the problem of ok the brewer accomplished exactly what they set out to do… but was it GOOD?
I’ve been lucky enough to try a number of Cantillon and 3 Fonteinen products since moving overseas. But if I hand one of those lambics to someone unfamiliar with the style, they’ll think they’re drinking a rotten cider.
Now I have nothing but respect and admiration for what those brewers do. But do I always ENJOY drinking their products? No. It’s not my personal idea of a good BEER. And isn’t one’s enjoyment what counts most?

 

Ok that wasn’t as off-topic as I thought. So what about this…

If you cracked open that WCIPA with Simcoe and it’s the best Amber Ale you’ve ever had… better than any IPA, better than any beer you’ve ever tried… how do you rate it?

If you prefer a so-so coffee-infused imperial stout to the best dry irish nitro stout in the world, how do you rate them? Is it fair to give the better rating to the mediocre beer that’s brewed in a style you prefer?

Then again, why are we rating these beers at all? Isn’t it to help consumers toward products they’ll enjoy, products worth spending their money on? If I walk in to my local cave a bière and use those awesome BA shelf talkers that, sadly, nobody uses to make my pick, I expect the ratings on them to reflect the tastes of other actual beer enthusiasts.

 

I have never rated an AAL here on BA or anywhere but in my head. I tried using the AAL tasting last week to determine a favorite among the macros, but my tasting was limited to only those beers that I could get as singles, and because I restricted my daily consumption. So I could only drink Miller Lite, Coors Light, Bud Light, and a collaboration beer from Fair State and Modern Times (which wasn't a macro but I wanted a better chance at finding some flavor), all in an attempt to compare with a locally-brewed, award-winning AAL.

I have my fair share of experience exclusively drinking the macros (along with their sub-variant brands) over a 30 year period, and settled on MGD as my last declared favorite. (Used to love Schmidt's when I lived in the Cleveland area, but couldn't get it anymore after moving away.) So I think I know what they are supposed to taste like, and MGD hit that spot for me back then.

After that tasting last week, I couldn't settle on a favorite macro from the limited beers that I mentioned above. Coors Light and Miller Lite were equal in their taste appreciation, although there was a perceived slight difference in their taste. (I have a Coors Banquet, which I've never had before, that I was going to drink for the tasting but couldn't squeeze it in. Maybe I'll drink it later today.)

TL;DR I don't have a favorite, and I don't drink the AAL style anymore to be able to declare a favorite unless there's a good reason.

 

Rating beer here is somewhere between the GBBF, where everything is scored subjectively (how lovely this pint is at this moment), and BJCP, where it's about how close to the ideal of a style hews. And since there's no requisite certification here, rate the way you want to.

Personally, if something is just way out of whack with what I expect from what the beer is advertised as being, it gets a lower score on both counts. Even if it's a well made and tasty beer, if it is not advertised as being a unique twist on the style, it's not what I was intending to buy.

Case in point, worked my way through a 4pk of Aslin's Clear Nights the past few days. It's their WCIPA. To my palette, it's just another of their NEIPAs that they worked some C-hops into and uses Chico for the yeast. Miles away from what I want from a WCIPA, but there aren't any off flavors, it's well made. It got somewhere around 3.6 for me. If I was going the British way of rating, it would have been a slightly higher score, as it was a decent enough beer with no flaws. BJCP rules, it would be trashed, because it is nowhere near advertised. Low carbonation, soft mouthfeel, low bitterness, etc. Just because it's clearer and doesn't have much of a yeast presence, that doesn't mean it's a WCIPA.

Still, I feel like I'm pretty generous with my ratings, because I like beer.

 

The percentage of BA reviewers/raters who can objectively reflect on the look, taste, smell, and mouthfeel of a beer without any outside variables impacting said reflections is extraordinarily low.