Beer rated on its merits or the brewer?

I can understand it with Rogue, but since when does Stone has this kind of bad connotation attached to them? I believe it's just that some beers are not that good. You can't hit the ball every time you try.

 

I do not understand it either.

But, I will admit that some breweries have stronger portfolios altogether. There is one I won't name right now, where I find their brews weak and low quality across the board. I'm hoping that there is something of a diamond in the rough within my journey.

 

I rate beers on its merit regardless of where it was brewed. I've had some great beers from mediocre breweries and some mediocre beers from great breweries. Everyone's taste is different so was great to one person might be awful to another.

 

For Rogue at least it's definitely the beers. When you start labeling your beers with "Made With Real Books!" you start to get funny looks...

 

Again, this is where expectations play a role. If you have a beer from a brewery that is known for making great beer and by your perception the beer does not meet those standards you might rate the beer lower than if it was from a little-known brewery. The same can be said if the brewery is known for making mediocre beer and they come out with something good, you might rate that beer higher than you would otherwise simply because you expected less. All you can do is try and be cognizant of these biases when reviewing and not let them factor into your final rating, but that is easier said than done.

 

I rate beer independently, no matter who brews it. It does a disservice to the community to purposefully bash beers based on who brews them. I have had great beers from supposedly poor breweries and vice versa.