Have you ever reviewed a beer that's gone bad ?

You left out the choice of simply not reviewing the beer.

 

A couple of times I had beers where I could tell that the poor taste was the result of something post-bottling (infection, etc.). In those cases, I've just not reviewed the beer until I obtained another sample.

Since the beer you mentioned is from a brewer local to you, you should contact them and inform them of the problem. If they care about their customers at all, they will want to address the matter ASAP.

 

No. It's not fair to the beer. I didn't Review Snow Pants from Union Brewing a few months ago. It was an Oatmeal Stout that did a spontaneous Re-fermentation in the bottle from the secondary Yeast Bottle Condition. It was good but sour, that wasn't what the beer was supposed to be. So if they brew that beer again and bottle it...with no issues. I'll review it then.

 

Nope. I've went back and sought out a fresher version of IPA's, uninfected versions of other beers in order to review them. Reviewing a beer that's gone bad is like reviewing a movie after watching a random 23 minutes somewhere near the middle. You aren't sure what's happening, nor do you have a good idea of where it's going.

Get another, and if it is equally poor, send a polite yet detailed email to the brewery. They should appreciate knowing that a representation of their company is performing a suck dance. If they fail to respond or worse yet, tell you that you don't understand the nuances of their alchemy, than review at that point. Must have been what they intended in the first place....

 

A buddy once gave me a bottle of Weyerbacher Old Heathen and he said the case it was from was terrible. I tried it, and it was horrible; and I like stouts. It tasted like vinegar. It had to of been bad from the brewery. I like Weyerbacher stuff too but something was wrong with this beer. I still mentioned this in the review, and posted it as well. Gave it a horrible score too.

 

My philosophy is, if a beer is not your style or you feel as if it is tainted, do not review. I see people rate beers such as Habanero Sculpin all the time and say it is too hot and give it a .5 star or 1 star. If you are getting where I am going with that statement. If you think a beer is infected or such, give it a 2nd try before you start blasting it. You may be turning off another advocate to a beer that every other bottle is wonderful.

 

went to a local watering hole and everything I had tasted flat, not sure if it was my taste buds or just bad taps, didn't review any of them, but didn't mark them off my list to try again. Sometimes shit just don't work

 

Not long ago I was reviewing a beer where something was clearly wrong with it. The beer was completely flat and tasted like water. The only reason I decided to continue with my review was because the most recent review of it on here complained of the exact same problem. I'm guessing there was some problem with the batch, and I just felt it was fair to warn people on here about it.

 

If you think it's past it's prime it's best not to review it.

 

No bottling date is justification for letting the review stand, with no re-review. By not putting a bottling date on the beer, the consumer has no idea how fresh the beer is. I would treat the beer as if it was fresh, for purposes of the review, and give it the lousy grade it deserves.

 

I reviewed a Rochefort 8 a few years ago that I felt was a little "off". It wasn't enough to really sink it much overall, but I did note it in the review. I never revisited a review of the beer and I probably should as I have had it before/since and found it to be an extremely good beer. Just happened to review the one I had at that particular time.

 

Closest thing to this for me was a Hair of the Dog beer that should never have been released. Completely flat bottle of Ruth that tasted pretty awful. I reviewed it anyway. Hair of the Dog is not known for great quality control, and this beer showed it. My review simply documented the fact. And no, I haven't purchased another bottle of Ruth since. That would be throwing good money after bad.

As for a beer that's best fresh that is clearly just way past its prime, no, I wouldn't review it. Probably wouldn't drink it either.

 

No way- let your review ride- unless it seems like a storage issue- then contact your LBS. If it was infected or something people deserve to know that there is a risk of infection.

 

It only happened to me once and I simply stopped the review. I couldn't even get enough out of it to give a bad review. I figured it must have been bad so I figured it wasn't fair to the beer and brewery to give my thoughts on it.

 

Its possible, however, Ithaca Apricot Wheat was so disgusting that I'll never give it another try.

 

I generally don't give too much of a pass on an infected beer unless the brewery has issued a recall, or it is an isolated thing. On the other hand, if it is a beer well past its prime and I have been sold an old bottle, I just don't review it.

Storage conditions & age are not within the brewers control, but sanitation and infection are - either recall the batch and eat the cost, or take the bad reviews...

 

No, fortunately... (though the first time I had a Petrus, I thought it had lol)

 

I will not review a beer that I feel has gone bad due to it being way past its prime. I will, however, review a beer that is not up to standard when it should be.

i.e. - I bought a bottle of Corsendonk Christmas Ale a few months ago. Upon drinking it was very thin bodied. There was definitely a problem with the carbonation or the bottle conditioning. I wrote a review. I never try to bash a beer but other people deserve to know if there are quality issues with a beer.