Bourbon County Stout: zero head, "5" for look?

regardless of what anyone says (ie bros or normal users), the styles given on the beer page cannot be taken too seriously. they are listed as whatever the first reviewer submits, then often changed on the whim of someone with enough time on their hands to report an update. a lot of them are thinly defined, and some are even catch all categories (how can something be a "typical" american strong ale, when that just means high ABV beer that we can't call a barleywine?).

BA stout is clearly a different style than non-BA RIS now.

 

You are a sick, deviant person. This activity will not go unnoticed. There will be consequences.

 

yes, that is what i just did. my viewpoint & opinion differs from yours. but here's where we part ways. pay attention. i'm not going to go off in the woods & start my own thread specifically about our difference of opinion. like i believe my single opinion or view on the matter trumps everybody else' that differs.

2¢

 

ISO beer with golden pixie dust.

 

Final point. I see an almost still 14% stout, some serious legs, pitch black or darkest brown, really thick looking, swirling it produces the appearance of swirled motor oil. My taste buds spring to attention, as it reminds me of the best of the finest, barrel aged, 14% Imperial Stouts I have loved, and doesn't look like the thinnish, over carbonated ones in that style I have not enjoyed, which BTW is how the referenced photo makes me feel.

Appearance is not an important factor in a beer, hence the 5% weighting, but whatever value appearance does have is in its ability to make us crave the smell, taste, and mouthfeel to follow.

If a huge stout needs to have the attributes you feel deserve high ratings to make you crave it, and it is in style guidelines as well, that perfectly explains your rating criteria. Many here have explained their rating criteria as being the exact equal in all ways, just not your exact criterion, but still you seem to neither understand it, nor feel acceptance for it. Here is the time to uncomplicate your OP and move ahead to a better understanding.

The only real value to appearance is how it sets your anticipation to attention, and makes you long to taste the fine flavors its look creates in ones mind.

 

news flash. you're not merely stating your opinion, bro. you're attempting to hold a conversation about the validity or quality of the thoughts others documented in the most subjective area of the site. mind you, the reviews are often written by individuals some might say drink "a lot".

so what is your real objective? to have the existing reviews you disagree with re-written? maybe the administrators could edit them? perhaps going forward the individuals who got the appearance score wrong, should be barred from subsequent reviews?

 

"mind you, the reviews are often written by individuals some might say drink 'a lot'."

lol.

 

i'll chime in and state directly that i think the arguments you're putting forth are to support your point, rather than are the reasoning behind your point. you made a statement, committed to it, and now you're scrambling to hold on to it. this is the worst kind of attitude to take toward reasoning.​

​

maybe you don't like beers without heads. that's a fine reason to rate the beer down; it's a consumer review site after all. but if you're jumping into inference, then you need to justify your claim soundly. there seems to be problems with the idea that BA RISs are supposed to have a large head. more precisely, there's problems with considering BA RIS and RIS the same style, if the mother style guidelines classify actual successes as imperfections. if the mother style guidelines allow for variation (the BA head, the normal head), then your argument collapses in the first place.​

​

you ignored this point earlier, again, i think because you're trying to hang on to your claim, not because you came to it via the arguments you present. obviously the head/no-head matter is trivial, but the question of how one reasons is actually an important one.​

 

I don't think the use of wit is allowed here. Sorry.

 

Absolutely. Which is what reviewing beer is all about, too. My expectations on BCBCS, with a number of years' experience, is not to expect a lot of head. What I do expect in terms of appearance, though, is that I will almost be unable to see through my glass once I'm done drinking it. That thick, viscous beer should coat my glass and force me to use a new sponge and half a bottle of dish detergent cleaning it. I know enough about beers I drink regularly, like BCBCS, to set my expectations in a reasonable manner. Does that mean I would give it a 5 for appearance? No, but I also don't put a lot of thought into other peoples' opinions on the matter. Appearance has a lower weight than other factors, so I really don't care because I know someone rating it a 5 won't change the scores.

Having been a member of BA for more than a year, I would have thought you already take beer reviews with a grain of salt. I think there are people who taste dark fruits, chocolate, tobacco, vanilla, pineapple, and port-like sweetness in your average pilsner. And don't forget how much honey people taste in Hopslam!

 

I think you're right if the beer has no head, it is not likely deserving of a 5. Nearly all of my experiences with BCBS have involved fantastic head though.

On the beer I mean.

 

That's funny, usually when I hear "Looks amazing, but there was no head" I think back to when I was still dating.

I was a serial killer.

 

I feel jealous when people talk about dating and "head".