How do you evaluate/rate a beer's appearance?

I never realized some people include the bottle artwork etc into the appearance score. Interesting concept

 

A lot of the factors I use to judge appearance have to do with the particular style I'm assessing. For instance, if I'm looking at a Bière de Mars, I'm not going to expect a sexy head that retains its character for very long. That aspect will not be a determining factor in my assessment of the beer's appearance. General color, lacing character, head retention, cloudiness, bubble character—I'll generally use these categories when assessing appearance based on stated style.

 

Hey all! I was wanting to get some feedback on how different people rate beers. I am new to actually reviewing beers. Before, I just used the quick rating here on BA, but now it's been subdivided into 5 different scores. Obviously, smell, taste, mouthfeel, and overall are easy to discern since they're all subjective to different people's palate. For example, I'm drinking a Backwoods Bastard right now and can't find anything wrong with it's appearance as a Wee Heavy. How does everyone nitpick a beer's appearance and give it a specific rating? For me, it's hard to not rate a beer highly for appearance as long as it looks good for it's specific style. What would or wouldn't make you give a beer a good rating for appearance? Cheers!!

 

Depends on the beer and style. Is the color of the beer right for the style? Is the beer as clear as it should be? Is the head as large as it should be? If there is lacing, is there as much as there should be? For example, an IPA should have a good white or ivory head and leave lots of rings and lacing. If not there's a possible problem with the way it was brewed. A high ABV Imperial stout won't have much of a head and may only have a ring of foam around the edge of the liquid. What foam there is will most likely be a light chocolate or khaki brown.

Edit: Its not really nitpicking in that if the appearance isn't good, it can indicate other problems with the brewing of the beer.

 

Well first of all, you're mostly right. It's not really that hard for a beer to rate highly for appearance as long it is consistent with a specific style. Furthermore, style only accounts for about 10% of the overall score.

Whenever I'm not sure what a specific style should look like, I just consult the BJCP guidelines.

 

I personally think it's a very weird think to weigh in. Some beers look absolutely generic but are delicious.

 

Look at the color and see if it is typical for the style.
Consider the clarity. Is it fairly clear and does it let light permeate it? If not clear is that true to style? Is there sediment within the body? If it is an imperial stout it probably doesn't let light through.
Look at the foam on top. How thick is it? Does it sustain or does it quickly subside? Does it cover the whole top? Is it frothy or tightly packed? What color is the foam?
Are there carbonation bubbles within the beer? If so are there many and is it vigorous or is it slow and just a few?

 

I gotcha. The only thing I can think about as far as the head would be that it could vary greatly depending on how hard the beer was poured.

 

Yes, which is why there's a couple of standard ways of doing the pour to get a full head of foam. Which you want anyway because it helps release the aromatics that contribute greatly to the aromas you pick up. And those are important because they combine with the tastes to contribute to the flavors you get from the beer.

 

This is hard to rate; and I don't really think it should be used to calculate the overall score. If the beer has a good color, and taste bad; who cares about appearance.

 

I tend to go mostly by the style "definition," and also what I've seen in others for the style. Sometimes though if a beer is specifically unique within that style (for example a DIPA with some kind of fruit purée mixed in), I can't really expect it to look exactly like its "supposed" to, in which case I also weigh in my own opinion of whether or not it looks appealing to me.

For that reason I do tend to find it a highly subjective attribute, moreso than the others. Some very highly rated beers like Heady, for example, look atypical and some may even dock points for that despite the flavor/aroma etc.

 

Almost totally subjectively. It still should look a certain way for the style, but other than that, it is PERFORMANCE art.

 

Appearance… It has to be at least decent looking to peak some interest. That starts with great looking cans.

 

Color, head retention, floaties, etc.

 

So, just curious, how many 5s are you guys giving out for appearance? Does anyone, as a rule, never give out a 5? Does anyone start at 3 and go up if the beer is sparkly or glows in the dark? I hate that we have to rate on all 5 attributes now, but having to rate "appearance" is particularly annoying for lots of reasons.

 

Thanks for all the replies, everyone!

 

Someone pointed another appearance note to me in a similar thread a few weeks ago. I was looking at the appearance as a fairly limited rating, for example color range and clarity for style normal? Check. Head decent to good for style? Check. Lacing present? Check. But I was forgetting or discounting proper lacing, which is to say rings left behind from the head more so than simply "legging" (I believe that's the wine equivalent...). Long story short, I was reminded to appreciate the type of lacing as an indication of proper crafting.

 

BJCP is exactly what I think of/ use with the new rating system

 

While appearance is subjective I don't think it is a part of the review that can be thrown out like so many have suggested. It definitely helps to peak interest and is the only visual sensory evaluation that we can judge a beer by. Appearance can definitely tell you wheather a beer is true to style and brewed with quality in mind.

just to add...I think the 10% of the review is a good percentage to weigh the appearance because I'm not going to argue that it is more important than taste or smell