Does Brewing Experience Affect Your Ratings?

Some world class beers are very simple to brew, and some awful beers are extremely complex and complicated. I think you should rate to style and to your own taste.

 

My future business partner has just had his 5th HB lesson. He brings incredible tasting skills to the table, and has tasted most of the finest beer on the planet. He told me recently that just these 5 lessons already have changed his tasting sensibilities. I brewed long before formally tasting beer so I don't know if I have changed.

 

Personally, I've learned to appreciate an awesome pilsner or golden ale much more because I've learned how difficult they are to brew. As much as I love the hop bomb Double IPAs, through brewing I've seen how such beers can have imperfections that aren't nearly as noticeable as those in a lighter beer.

 

Hanging around great brewers that explain things is even better.

I know some people with much brewing knowledge and experience with really shitty palates

 

Yes. I can pick out different flavors and minor flaws much more easily.

As far as how difficult something is to brew, i don't care too much. I'm sure Jewbelation Sweet 16 was a pain to brew, but it was a mess to my tastebuds.

 

Well, I don't rate against brewing tactics or difficulty, because (to be frank) brewing isn't really that difficult. I understand where you're coming from, though. I tend to notice infections, problems, and non-traditional aspects more often than others because I do brew. I feel like that effects my ratings often. For instance, I have a curve: If you're going for traditional, I feel that you should hit the nail on the head. A Porter that is traditional should have a slight smokiness trapped within the malt from wood-firing grains. This would be a pre-1879 (I believe) Porter utilizing a wood burning fire versus a churning roaster. That smoke is a big sign of doing it VERY traditional. That said, if you're not going for traditional, there should be traditionalist subtleties and you should add a signature addition to the flavor profile whether it be bold and crazy or simple and typical to a one off.
For instance: I currently have a traditional Scotch Ale in secondary. I went a little bigger on the Chocolate Malt, because I am racking over Vanilla Beans and Almonds and I know that the Chocolate nose will help showcase the Vanilla Beans. It will make the profile more understandable; a building block process if you will. I am twisting tradition, because I find that complete self righteousness in a recipe take away from what we all should understand. So, I rate beers on style, both traditional and non-traditional with the openess to understand what the brewer was going for and actually accomplished based on a traditionalists theory and the comprehension of an artist.

 

I find myself being harsher on my ratings of many commercial beers the more I brew. Not trying at all to pat myself on the back, I have heard this a lot from other home brewers as well, I can make better beer than some of the commercial beers I have drank. I had an IPA take 2nd place in a BJCP comp out of 33 entries, the largest category, and it was 4 months old, my first time kegging, and my first time bottling from a keg. If my IPA can be that good at 4 months, there is no reason why a 2 month old commercial IPA tastes like raisins and stale hops. On other beers I enjoy them more now as a brewer, like a good lager. I took 1st in the same comp for my dopplebock but when I taste it next to a good German one, I find mine falling short. I guess what I am saying is that brewing has caused me to appreciate truly good beers and to recognize where other breweries simply fall short.

 

I brew and find it has helped in discerning where each taste comes from. But in general, if it tastes really good, I'll rate it really good. If it tastes like toenails... I probably won't.

 

I don't rate on here, but I suppose I can be more critical thanks to homebrewing.

On a related note, I think that homebrewing has made me not buy into all the hype as much as the larger craft beer community seems to do. I tend to tell myself "it's only beer" - I make it in a garage! And though beers are certainly fantastic and worthy of some praise, there has to be another comparable beer out there - probably even more accessible.

 

Only for barrel-aged stuff, simply because of the extra time/patience involved. Other than that I may tend to be more critical of commercial beers but not based on complexity of the brewing process.

For me a well-made SMASH can be as rewarding (if not more) than an "average" complicated style.

 

I was rating for quite a while before I brewed, but brewing has certainly helped in my overall understanding of beer, and in developing my pallet. Conversely, rating has helped my brewing, as I'm more attuned to what to be looking for with my own beer's taste.

I don't necessarily rate highly because something is hard to make. If you want to make a pilsner or light lager, then you need to make a good pilsner or light lager to get a high rating from me. And if your sour that took you two years and a thousand man-hours to make tastes like dog-doo, then I will rate it poorly.

Rating to style is the most important thing in my book. If I don't care that much for a particular style, I may still rate it highly if the example I'm tasting happens to be a good one. I'm not real fond of scotch ales, but recently rated one quite highly, because frankly it was damn good (at least "for a scotch ale," lol). Same with light lagers, they're not all going to get a poor rating just because they're non-hop bomb/RIS type beers and aren't jam packed with flavor*.

*this is the aspect of ratings that drives me nuts. Some seriously excellent beers have so-so ratings here because they're not RISs or IIPAs. The "in style" rating is much needed, because saying a beer rates an 82 (or whatever rating) when it's the top beer in its category, but isn't a RIS or IIPA, is seriously not doing anyone any favors. Essentially, if you fail to take into account the "RIS/IIPA skewed ratings factor," the ratings on this site aren't worth a whole lot, especially as the style drifts away from the most heavily hopped, high ABV, or super-rare whale types of beers.

 

I was rating for quite a while before I brewed, but brewing has certainly helped in my overall understanding of beer, and in developing my pallet. Conversely, rating has helped my brewing, as I'm more attuned to what to be looking for with my own beer's taste.

I don't necessarily rate highly because something is hard to make. If you want to make a pilsner or light lager, then you need to make a good pilsner or light lager to get a high rating from me. And if your sour that took you two years and a thousand man-hours to make tastes like dog-doo, then I will rate it poorly.

Rating to style is the most important thing in my book. If I don't care that much for a particular style, I may still rate it highly if the example I'm tasting happens to be a good one. I'm not real fond of scotch ales, but recently rated one quite highly, because frankly it was damn good (at least "for a scotch ale," lol). Same with light lagers, they're not all going to get a poor rating just because they're non-hop bomb/RIS type beers and aren't jam packed with flavor*.

*this is the aspect of ratings that drives me nuts. Some seriously excellent beers have so-so ratings here because they're not RISs or IIPAs. The "in style" rating is much needed, because saying a beer rates an 82 (or whatever rating) when it's the top beer in its category, but isn't a RIS or IIPA, is seriously not doing anyone any favors. Essentially, if you fail to take into account the "RIS/IIPA skewed ratings factor," the ratings on this site aren't worth a whole lot, especially as the style drifts away from the most heavily hopped, high ABV, or super-rare whale types of beers.

 

I can't disagree with that. I was never a big fan of Pilsner until I started brewing. Or, probably more accurately, when I started judging. It's a PITA to get it just right. Hence, I have much more respect for a brewer who managed to nail it and am likely to score it higher than I might have a few years ago. (but that's ok, because they all score higher, so the relative scores - the ones that count - are consistent)

 

Homebrewing has changed the way I look at beer in general. Like some have stated already, I stay clear of a lot of beers simply because I can brew a better beer. I've also had old beer win comps and thought the exact same thing, if a beer I brewed in October can win gold in APA category with 30 other beers, how come so many APA's suck? I have learned that most of (not all) the every day offerings from a place can be copied easily and brewed at home and improved upon for my personal taste preference. These experiences help me rate beer because I know more about off flavors and undesirable traits from my own beers. But do I fudge my numbers and cut a brewer some slack for difficulty? Hell no. I rate based on style and taste. If I'm rating a BA stout I'm comparing it to other ba stouts. It's a level playing field that doesn't need to be handicapped.

 

Yes. Brewing beers has helped me learn how to taste beers and know what I am tasting in beers and recognize flaws and figure out what I like.