CFH for Rare?

While I did not do a trade of Daisy Cutter or CFH, I did do a trade Daisy Cutter for Cherry AftW...$4$. Most people would not do this because one is a off the shelf beer while the other is brewery only. Yes of course other values go into beer such as bottle count, availability etc, but my point was that really only matters if someone else agrees with that value. The other BA wanted Daisy Cutter and knew that he could prob. get more on his side since it was harder to obtain, but was happy to trade for Daisy Cutter. In the end, we were both happy and felt like it a fair trade, which is really the only thing that matters to me.

Cheers and hope everyone has an enjoyable July 4th.

 

Since your palate is undebatable, let's try an aggregate of what we have reported from the two beers:

Rare:
rAvg: 4.66
pDev: 6.44%
High: 5
Low: 2.33
CFH:
rAvg: 4.64
pDev: 4.31%
High: 5
Low: 4.33

I doubt all of reviewers of CFH could taste low bottle count. The difference, based upon the reviews, seems to be far less a valley than your 3-10 split would suggest.

"buh buh buh buh, CFH only has 19 reviewwwws!"

Multiply those 19 reviews by 37, the number of bottles of Rare produced, you get 703, far more reviews per unit than the mere 273 reviews for Rare.

Now there's an exemplary example of statistical abuse.

 

And your quoting me why? I never said one bottle was better then the other. I just corrected the facts. I would also state that i disagree with your rating. But that is your opinion. I am sure your join date does not reflect your experiences in the world of beer.


http://beeradvocate.com/community/threads/ft-rare-iso-2x-kh.26626/#post-329287 Why are you trading your rare away if you hold it in such high regards? Is it because rare has already peaked?

 

You are correct -- my palate is undebatable. Reviews of other people will not tend to prove or disprove anything w/r/t my view of how the two beers compare. My view may be completely meaningless outside of its significance to me, and that's completely fine with me. I apologize if my view of the two beers offends you, but perhaps find another straw man to fight tonight.

 

Did not mean to offend and I did not mean to criticize you or anyone else, so apologies for that. I traded away a couple Rares this week because on my scale, KH is a 6, and 6 x 2 > 10 (and I don't expect to run out of Rare for a while regardless). You are right, just my opinion, and that doesn't mean much I admit.

 

i don't think there's anything wrong with him posting what is clearly his opinion: he prefers one beer over the other. so what.

and people can and do taste low bottle count. i'm convinced that's what put tickar shitty's full factorial doe of zhukov's experiments on the map.

 

Reviews don't mean anything. People still say Dark Lord is good even though the most recent one tastes like green apples mixed with molasses and soy sauce. Hey guys, this is the first Imperial Stout I've ever had and it's amazing, drinks like a meal, reminds me of Guinness.

 

i think comparing reviews of each beer is pointless cause it was subjective to the moment that person drank that particular beer... now if you a tasting comparing both of them or people who had both.. i think that is more relevant then you number garbage.. statistics is pointless.. its too easily manipulated to make your point correct or not

 

Having had both I prefer CFH to Rare. That isn't to say both weren't outstanding. I still have my tasting notes from CFH somewhere, maybe I should post a review.

Anyway the deal seems fair to me.

 

The proof is in the pudding...err, the glass.

 

You magnificent bastard.

 

Wait, are you saying that if his subjective tastes cannot be argued, I cannot use a raw conglomerate of subjective tastes to disprove his palate?

This thread pangs of composition fallacy. MY FAVORITE KIND.

 

Every time you post I get more and more sure that your posts are the output of that MIT jargon paper generator from a while back, but tuned to beer. It's a fabulous thing.

On topic, I can't see why this wouldn't get done. I personally prefer rare to CFH, although I would go back to Churchill's in a heartbeat, great food and beer.

 

so long as you know it's subjective and you're arguing the relativity of nonsense metrics, i'll allow it.

 

This thread = Dejavu.

Because we've already fucking talked about CFH vs Rare ad nauseam

 

I can't believe that actually exists, but I guess I should be surprised.

 

It's much more fair than what vermont asks for its every day beers, FWIW. But no, I would not trade a Rare for CFH.

 

vermont trades? what is its username?

and i know we had a discussion about this already, but you shouldn't point fingers considering what you asked for your black note (offer taken or no).

trade availability, not bottle count, is what gates the supply of vermont beers. i'm not too surprised that people don't want to drive 4 hours to trade hill farmstead beers for locals.

 

My trade group sought $4$ on that deal, and offered to make up any minor $$ difference with zombie dust and add bottles for stuff like BA dl or rare, though. We opted to trade it for a Henry and 1414 and a 2010 bcs. I dont think that's insane at all. Don't make me out to be one of these ft: heady topper iso: rare folks.

 

Check your bm