CT Breweries/Beers

You might argue that (and I wouldn't call it a beer I'd buy again), but it's rating is far better than "sucks" ... 3.53 at this writing. Someone (several people I guess) like it enough to support my original point that they came out with 4 beers ready to go on day one.

 

Again, it's subjective to my tastes, but I know many people in the beer community, bartenders and owners, that strongly agree.

I'm sure there are some people that don't agree with my assessment, and that's fine, and I'm sure there are many who haphazardly just graded it or graded it on it's initial release and were excited to just try a new beer.

 

You make my point for me about why they have so many ratings! That was my only point. If the beer were absolutely awful, it would not have a 3.5 rating. If their beers were not better than sucks ... they wouldn't be as popular as they are. I admit the White IPA is easily the worst of the core four.

I'm not saying I like the beer (though I might try it in a can if I see an opportunity to buy a single).

 

Maybe you interpret BA ratings differently than I do, but to see anything from a craft brewery labeled "IPA" get below a 3.75 or so suggests that it may indeed suck. I didn't find it terribly sucky myself, but 3.53 is a pretty terrible score for that kind of beer on this site.

Hint: People don't rate to a 3 average, especially in popular styles.

 

They charge for tasting their beer, that's enough of a turn off. Couple that with the fact their beer is cheaper to buy NOT at their brewery and I've seen what I've needed to see from them.

The only beer id pay to drink again is the DIPA out of their core four.

I live 10 minutes from Two Roads and despite the great facility and tasting room, I dont plan on going back unless they debut something or its Pin Cask Thursday

 

I totally agree with you ... I often mentally use 3.75 as a cut off point for me if I check out a beer I've never heard of before on a menu or in a store. Below that, I usually move on ... BUT I am the minority. The average beer drinker sees White IPA from Two Roads and buys it (and probably liked it) because it's the big local guy in town. If it tasted awful, that would be a different story. Back to my point that they put our 4 beers right away that appealed to large (and varied) audiences. The quick large number of reviews was what I was originally trying to explain ... not whether the White IPA was a beer I (or you guys) liked.

Interestingly ... NEBCO Sea Hag has just sneaked above that magic 3.75 line. We all know that's because it has vastly improved from the reformulation but is still weighted down by its prior self.

 

I'd say roughly 1 out of 100 times I look at the score of a beer before I try it.

A) I'd rather taste it without being swayed by a rating

B) I don't trust the ratings on here at all. From the general public to the Bros. Almost everything is rated too high IMO.

 

Yes, I realize the irony of saying this on a beer rating forum, but no one should put much if any stock in website beer ratings.

 

I disagree - I find the ratings on here to be rather dependable, as long as there are enough (say, several dozen at least) and you know how to read them. Very rarely am I genuinely amazed by a beer that gets below a 4, and equally rarely am do I loathe a beer that gets above a 4.

Obviously there are a lot of beers that I personally find to be significantly better or worse than their ratings, but I feel pretty confident that I'm really going to enjoy something if it's gotten a 4.25 or higher.

Just to give some examples based on a CT brewery (given the thread), I can't really disagree with the ratings that declare these to be the top 5 NEBCO beers (20 review minimum):

1. IST - Coffee
2. IST - Cherry Vanilla
3. FBD
4. Coriolis
5. Chardonneighbor

My personal list would go Coffee IST, Gold Stock (#6), RedRum (#10), Chardonneighbor, Supernaut (#7). Of the three discrepancies, those in my top 5 but not the crowd's are all in the crowd's top 10, and vice versa.

The site gives some solid recommendations, IMO.

 

I find that the ratings here can be immensely helpful once you get above that 3-4.2 rating level. That area in the middle I leave up to personal tastes, but when I see a 99 rating on BA for a beer, usually I'm pretty pleased with it when I decide to order/open a bottle. There's certainly some value here, and on occasion the bros have steered me in the right direction.

 

I'd also add that beyond the numbers, there's a lot of helpful info. If I'm unfamiliar with a beer, I definitely check its BA score, but also the reviews themselves: tasting notes, aroma, appearance, all that info is very helpful when considering whether to buy a new beer.

 

Sounds like the old grade inflation issue. That could also explain it. True, my interpretation of "just OK" is a beer that is probably a 65 to 75. I would never seek it out or buy it, unless I was at a bar and it was the least offending beer offered. BTW, that White IPA is the beer that is lowest rated for Two Roads, but it has an 81 rating (meaning "good" on this site). For me, things like "sucks" and "just OK" are much further down from "good."

 

Grade inflation indeed. Frankly, the review grades here are pretty similar to the way grades tend to be viewed these days as well (at least at the university where I teach). The 65-75 range that you call "just OK" is a D to a C, which is more like terrible to bad. An 81 would be a B-, which is on the low side of a lot of grade curves - definitely the "needs improvement" realm. Just like most students who put in serious effort can pull a B+ or even an A-, most quality beers from quality brewers at least wind up in the upper 80s. Only when you get into the solid A to A+ range do you start dealing with genuinely outstanding work.

 

It has been a while since I have been thinking school grades (and I have been on each side of receiving and giving them), but I don't look at rating beer or other objects quite the same as school grades of human performance. But they aren't too far off, either. "Just OK" to me is that person who does the bare minimum at school or work, to either get passed through to graduation or to not get fired. They aren't creating any offenses to get themselves expelled or immediately fired, but they barely float by. That is why I said that a "just ok" beer was one that "I would never seek it out or buy it, unless I was at a bar and it was the least offending beer offered." Similarly, if I have a low skill job position to fill, I would love to fill it with the most skilled person I could, who may eventually become a larger asset to the company, but if all that I am receiving are applications from the lazy D+/C- students and I know that they can't actually F' anything up, then they will be "just OK" as a chair filler for that position. For me, the verbiage shifts from "just OK" (sounding marginally worse than "OK") to "not OK." And "not ok" is failing. That beer or that person is not OK under any circumstances. So with no actual territory between "not ok" (failing) and "just ok" (barely passing), that is where I came up with that range.

 

Agreed. When I look up a beer and see an 82 rating on BA, I often pass because more often than not that beer is average at best. For "good" you have to hit the 87-91 range, just like in school

 

I agree with most of what has been said about grade inflation thus far ... apparently most of us are nicer than we really are, or at least more forgiving the more we drink. The system, I would argue, does seem to work and is useful when choosing from multiple unknowns. I will drink the higher rated beers first...possibly a contributing factor to further inflation. I have noticed when I compare my individual ratings to the average, mine tend to be lower, so I keep that in mind when using the ratings to make choices. It's pretty rare that I've had a beer rated over 3.8 (20+ ratings) that hasn't been damn good.

 

Ratings are numbers, so many times way too subjective. I've spent most of my career with the wine industry and are all too familiar with their point system. People can get hung up on the report card scale. They will not buy a wine if it is not 90 points or higher. But I know that many of those same people will not like those 90+ wines, but would be happier with an 80-85 wine. Before I put out a shelf talker with a wine point, I check the three (Wine Enthusiast, Wine Spectator and Robert Parker) If they are on in agreement about a wine, I will feel better putting out a shelf talker, if they are not, we will do an in-house rating and put up a shelftalker as a "Store rating"
With wines I am very critical about awarding points. But I know when I first started out with Beer Advocate, my ratings were too high. Over the past 2 years or so and many beers, I've re-reviewed them but also know that my review of the beer has changed. Like with wine, I have become more critical.
The rating/ranking system should be used ONLY as a guide, not only as a SELLING point. I agree with something Sandman3749 wrote, I want to taste something , be it wine or beer , before looking at the rating, and then decide myself.

 

The ratings here are so subjective and influenced by so many outside forces. There are some BJCP judges On BA, and they have trained palettes to judge, most others are just beer enthusiasts whose ratings are effected by hype (it's a whale it's gonna be awesome), brewery rep (Brewery X made this is gonna be awesome), and even location or others ratings. Do a blind taste test with some highly rated beers. No labels, no styles. See the difference in the ratings.

 

Just to give a shout out to the expansion of the CT craft scene. Having a Back East Misty Mountain IPA that I picked up in Mystic. Solid offering. I'd certainly put it in the will have it again category. Drank from can on the porch, can't beat from the can on the porch in the summer. Nice to see another brewery in distro.

 

I think that anyone who dismisses Workers Comp just does not love Saisons. To get that kind of low ABV beer done that well in a six pack for reasonable price?? WAY OVERLOOKED in this whacked out IPA WORLD...