Brewery Goggles: Does the brewery affect your review?

There are several relatively-local brewers that I just like and that I have a hard time giving poor, or even just average, reviews to. I have an uncomfortable suspicion that I'd embarrass myself in a blind tasting.

 

I am not sure what you are trying to say*, but if you are asking if drinkers’ impressions of a beer are influenced by knowing who brewed it, then the answer is obviously yes. Anybody who thinks that they aren’t influenced by this is lying to themselves.

*By providing examples of Russian River and The Alchemist as being overrated from your perspective, you are running a big risk of derailing your own thread.

 

Underlined part: absolutely true. I have enough self-awareness to know that is true for me. I've demonstrated it to myself with a couple of "self-administered" blind taste tests.

I don't think the OP was saying the two named breweries are overrated as much as he was saying that he was observing local bias in himself.

 

Best way to check this out is to obtain the beers you mentioned above and at some later date have somebody serve you a bunch of beers (some you mentioned above but others as well) blind. Then evaluate all of those beers absolutely blind and see if your opinions hold true.

Cheers!

 

As others have pointed out, there's no question about a biasing effect from knowing who brewed the beer.

If you'd like a sense of the effects of such biases here's a discussion of what happened during "The Judgment of Paris." (Click on the picture to read the text.)



The same effects have been demonstrated with beer and are one of the reasons that a beer competitions the judges don't know who brewed the beers they are evaluating.

 

My bias is that highly rated, or hyped, breweries and beers come with higher expectations.

 

Sierra Nevada and Olde Hickory. The former for essentially introducing me to good beer, and the latter because it's a kick ass brewery based in my hometown. But that doesn't mean I'm a total Homer, I just gave a rather negative review for one of Olde Hickorys barleywines.

 

Short answer is no. I rate based upon my impression of the beer at the time. "Brewery goggles" will certainly impact my decision on whether or not to try a beer I have not had before. If I have had other beers from that brewery that have been to my liking I am much more apt to try a new one. If past experience w breweries beers has left me unimpressed I will probably avoid trying something new from them.

 

I'd have to say yes, and no. For the most part I try not to let the brewery impact my ability to taste, and review the beer without bias, but there are factors that the brewery throws into the mix. I find that I will often go a little harder on beers from a brewery that has a certain history of producing fantastic beers as a whole (in my eyes anyway) For instance if I'm drinking a gruit from Beau's i will expect a certain degree of quality knowing their past releases. However if it were from a newer brewer with less experience in the field I may tend to "cut them some slack" based on that fact alone. Am I the only BA here that gets this way?

 

Being highly rated may get me to try it but I quickly make up my own mind over whether or not I like it.

 

As a research scientist there is no way you can be non biased if you have preconceived notions, Just knowing a rating or a reputation will affect your opinion. My question would be what does it matter. I would love to be able to buy a cheap beer and rightly or wrongly think it is delicious

 

It is impossible to put past experience out of your mind. Whether it leads to higher or lower bias as a result seems hard to justify, even on a case by case basis, but I don't think there is doubt the bias caused by familiarity is real.

 

i think how widely available beers are and able to try styles, alot are the same.. im from Chicago too and when ive had Alchemist and Tree house and Trillium ... wasn't impressed had better NEIPA and stouts from local breweries. Hop Butcher is basically Chicago's Trillium and Tree House, i actually think they make better Doubles and NEIPAs than those companies.

 

First, I love the OP's choice of wording of the title of this tread. Very creative.

There is always some influence of the breweries reputation on the rating. I think most everyone will rate a 'meh" beer from one of the most reputable brewers several notches higher than if it came from some run of the mill brewer or an InBev owned craft brewer for example. I try best not to let that stuff influence me, but I'm sure I'm still guilty to some degree.

For me personally, I think I struggle to really bash a beer from a highly reputable brewer, but have no trouble giving out an extremely high rating to a beer from a less respectable brewer. I guess I'm a sucker for promoting the underdogs or the down trodden. I don't think I've ever been influenced in ratings on exclusivity/rarity vs. store shelfies. Or price for that matter.

 

That was a really cool read. I had never heard of the Judgment of Paris before this, as I do drink wine from time to time, but am not a wine enthusiast. Thanks!

 

Breweries have reputations. In general you know who makes consistently good beer.

Stone used to be one of them but not anymore.

 

A few years ago there was a thread that provided a good case in point for this question.

A guy invited his Beer Advocate friends over for a tasting. He had a new lager from a local brewery. They all tasted it. The general consensus was it was very good, with many describing the details of what they liked.

The veil was lifted: "Bud Light".

Apparently, his friends were really angry with him, instead of learning a good lesson in bias.

Yes, bias is real. Being aware of it can help you minimize it's influence, but not eliminate it.

 

If you believe Russian River and Alchemist are "meh.". Then the problem is you.