How categorization/labeling affects perception and ratings.

Bigfoot, delicious beer, but if they called it a DIPA (which they could) it would be rated quite poorly. People would comment on how the hop flavor doesn't stand up to Heady, Dirtwolf, Ruination etc... instead of focusing on the amazing malt flavors.

I also think Longhammer is a great beer in it's own right, but doesn't stand up to the punch you in the face hoppiness that most are looking for here... it's ratings reflect that, and not the quality of the beer itself.

 

I don’t have a specific comment but I wonder (aloud) how the label Session IPA is affecting how people perceive these beers. A Session IPA is hoppy so it is similar to an IPA in that way but the body/mouthfeel of every Session IPA that I have had is distinctly different from any APA or IPA that I have ever had.

I have seen where some BAs have described Session IPAs as being hoppy water.

Cheers!

 

Buried Hatchet Stout (Southern Star). On BA it's under Imperial Stouts, but the company refers to it as an American stout. It has pretty good reviews overall, but many of the knocks against it is that it isn't dark, heavy, or strong enough for an Imperial Stout(which makes sense, since it isn't one).

I suppose you could call a 3.99 an "Imperial F"

 

Pretty interesting question. There are a few beers that are infamous for straddling category boundaries (Nugget Nectar comes to mind), and some styles that likewise lend themselves to ambiguous beers (lots of ABAs, particularly the more poorly executed ones, tend to taste like plain porters). Given that expectation plays a huge role in perception, I'm sure that the category or style stated on a beer affects its taste—yet another argument for taking such things with a grain of salt. As earlier posters said, ignore the label and enjoy the beer!

 

Does anybody really consider Zombie Dust to be a pale ale? I typically compare it to IPAs when I think of similar beers.

 

was about to say ZD. a nice marketing move by 3F.

 

You can put IPA at the end of almost anything and people will buy it, change that to the word hopped and big difference.

 

Tried my first Southern Tier 2X Stout last night and I have to say it was fantastic. It was what I hoped Fat Head's Oompa Loompa would be. What a value too. If they had given it a fancier name/label, hyped it up, and raised the price I guarantee the average rating would be higher.

 

People like to taste rarity and hype and not necessarily the flavors in their glass.

 

The word "premium" has always baffled me

 

I think it goes the other way almost as often; definitely, at some point you get the naked-emperor phenomenon, where people tell themselves this $30 beer is awesome so they don't feel like asses. But excess hype almost inevitably leads to disappointment. Probably some complicated interplay between hype and price.

 

It's a standard trade term in British brewing to describe a beer of over session strength but not strong ie 4.1% to say 4.6% ABV.

This is because the boundaries are in the wrong place or shouldn't be there anyway. As there's no governing body for beer, names are pretty well arbitrary. The same result can be approached from two directions (eg a hoppy barley wine or a lower hopped DIPA ) I was intrigued by the recreation of an 1868 Scotch Ale which was described as "exactly like the first ever double IPA ever made" on tasting.

 

Its like the mouthfeel of a bud light with the flavor of a real ipa...so its a good tasting bud light? i guess?

 

I describ them as IPA lite.

 

Undoubtedly, my perception of Alchemist's Beelzebub was impacted by it being classified as an imperial Stout instead of a black IPA. The Citra hops made that beer scream black IPA, and I likely would have rated it more highly if it was labelled as such. Just didn't fit as an imperial stout.

 

Similar to Victory Storm King.