I’m trying hard to think of under appreciated beer, but I really can’t. I love Barleywines, but they are t for everyone. I really like strong bocks, but I think they are treated adequately well.
I have a comment related to the issue of rating American adjunct lager AAL beers. Even in the 70s, the AAL beers were so similar in flavor that very few people could tell them apart. Now, with most of them coming from two brewers, and only a few independents left, the uniformity has probably increased. Realistically, the range of AAL can't be too wide. The bell curve distribution has to be sharply peaked with a small 3-sigma. We might argue about where that peak is on the scale, but once located the range will be small. I think Mexican Bohemia Clara is a very good AAL-style beer -- it's a pale adjunct lager that actually tastes fine. It showcases what the style is capable of. Unfortunately, it is shoehorned into the BA Czech Lager category, where it languishes with a 77 Okay rating. I gave it a 4.39 (!) as an AAL.
For me, the style and my enjoyment of it are part of my rating. That means that the "ceiling" for a beer that is crafted to a style I am not fond of will get a lower rating than 5 even if I think that is the perfect example of the given style. Of course, there's the counter argument that every style has a 5 out there somewhere. If I were a certified beer judge, then I would employ the second approach. I'm NOT and don't want to be a professional beer judge. That would take the fun out of drinking beer for me. I rate beers mostly for myself and my ratings, as a whole, are a snapshot of what I enjoy. If they are useful to others, that's great. But, I generally don't rate with the idea that I'm recommending beers to others.
I try to follow the same rules as the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show. First, I won't review a beer if I don't read the BA description of the style. Then, I try to honestly assess it based upon the elements of style. I like Stouts, Barleywines, and Imperial IPAs a lot more than Wild Ales. But it's not fair to compare them based on what styles I like. So if a Wild Ale is really good, then it deserves a high rating. If a Stout is mediocre, the it shouldn't be rated higher because I generally like Stouts more than Wild Ales.
But what if it were intentionally brewed to be terrible? Shouldn't it get a good score for being what the brewer tried to do (no, I'm not talking about Murkbombs, why do you ask?)?
Yeah well, Labrador Retrievers should win every year, because they are, unquestionably the Best Dogs, even though every dog is the Best Dog.
Best dogs ever are mixed breeds, especially pittie mixes. But you can't rate on that, even though everyone knows it is the truth. This is the reason that most of the highest rated beers in a given style here are extremely over amped beers that don't really have a lot in common with the baseline. They got that dog in them.
This is the reason AAL will always get lower scores, as well as milds and bitters and amber ales and all that. Modern audiences like bombast, big flavors and big aromas will always get a higher score than small ones.
Hell yeah, brother Hunter. Back in the day I remember liking Country Club for what it was. I unfortunately think it has now been discontinued though. Cheers!
I think if I counted correctly there are 17 different pale lager styles listed here and many are highly regarded beer styles (some not). I didn’t see guess any individual beers from those styles in the Top rated sort, that have overall average ratings above a 4.5. Hill Farmstead had 3 different styles in the 4.4’s and that seemed to be the closest I could find. So definitely here’s a whole subgroup of styles that could fall into underrated. For what it’s worth I have a few perfect 5’s and several others above a 4.5 rating.
Plus, I think it's easier to review beers with those kind of flavors, and to score them highly. I may like a good pils or helles, but it's still pretty hard to score them highly. When reviewing, I tend to talk about balance, crispness, a myriad of subtle flavors and the like, whereas with a dipa or BBA impy stout I can talk about a multitude of in your face flavors, the level of richness or sweetness, the level of fruit, mouthfeel, a long finish and alcohol content (and so on). It's just easier, which I think leads to higher scores.
How would it be hard to score them highly if they're near to spot-on for style? But I guess that's what the majority of the debate is all about. 4 of my top 10 highest rated beers are lagers of a more mellow character. I love to look at the rDev scores.
I think most traditional European styles are severely underrated. German beers, English styles, even some Belgian beers, and most lagers in general like pilsners and Oktoberfestbiers should have higher than a 3.5 avg rating imo. I understand why some of these beers remain low rated, due to specific uncommon and unique flavors like in Belgian yeast (witbier, saison, etc.), and English styles tend to be more mild flavored and low abv, lagers are usually more subtle and lightly flavored than ales, etc. Some beers that I find on my rating list that I thought were pretty great that seem to be really low rated: Robinsons Trooper ESB, DAB Original export lager, Hofbrau Oktoberfestbier, Abita Amber lager, Old Speckled Hen, Spaten Oktoberfest, Bell's Lager of the Lakes and Bright White witbier, Leffe Blonde, Long Trail Ale amber/altbier, and probably most other popular beers that are rated below a 3.7 avg or so...
Indeed. The top rares styles of the moment are all often, and I'd say rightly, criticized for catering to immature palates. They present simple, familiar flavors and aromas. I can definitely see how a style like AAL would require a much higher level of knowledge about process and intent to really parse than I, our many other drinkers, possess. I know that I can really get into the nuance of a style line helles that I enjoy and have explored but my BIL (a devotee of the silver bullet) could drink 6 different ones and probably come up with something like "yeah, they all kinda taste like beer".
