Look 4.5

I believe the description is accurate...for a Budweiser poured into a glass which is not beer-clean.

Bud should hold a two-finger collar of foam for at least three minutes.

 

Cantillon Gueuze?

 

Who gives a shit? People have differing opinions?

 

LOL...Google is a wonderful thing

http://lmgtfy.com/


/thread

 

imo, with free reviews, you're getting exactly what you paid for them.

 

Well, appearance is the one rating I have the most difficulty quantifying to begin with. For me anyways, it's easier to verbally communicate the manner in which a beer tastes good, than the manner in which it looks good. So sure, maybe s/he didn't write a very specific description, but that doesn't mean that s/he didn't think it was better looking than Budweiser.

Or, are you sure that the reviewer in question doesn't actually think Budweiser is equally good-looking? Is Budweiser less good-looking than a world class Pilsener?

 

I don't know what the beer is, but by your disgust, I would venture that it's an AAL. Regardless of what it is, who gives a sh*t? Reviewing as a whole is subjective and where is it written that someone can't find a vigorously poured Bud a lovely sight? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...why should beer be any different?

 

The reviewer in question was not reviewing Budweiser, but instead doing a review of another beer entirely...

 

are you saying you can't visually ID a bud from a cantillon?

neat-o

 

this is the review in question: http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/388/1703/?ba=jtingue

(google works)

reviews are subjective. obviously, the reviewer liked the way the beer looked. maybe the wording didn't do justice to what they saw, or maybe that wording means 4.5 to them. you need to start up paid-and-heavily-moderated-beer-review site if you want to implement your own rigid standards.

 

i dont review beer but when i know i just poured something great it just looks like a million bucks to me. more mental than visual for me i guess

 

I know. As I understood it, the OP was pointing out the fact that the same description could apply to both this beer and to Budweiser, and that it was unlikely that the reviewer would give a Budweiser the same score. I tried to note that visual descriptions aren't always precise, and that even if they are, it's not always clear that some adjunct lager really looks that much worse than a top-tier beer.

 

Well, lets take a look-see:

 

OMG...look at how dirty that Cantillon glass is!

Yuck...

 

I'm not sure I see your point.

 

I did notice that, not my glass! Any who, I was really just looking to point out that perception is highly individualized.

 

Just looking to actually see how they compared photographically. I was more inclined to say that perception is highly individualized, and I think the picture proves that.

 

To me, the fact that they are wildly different styles pretty much kills the arguement. My expectations for appearance in light lagers vs Gueuze and lambic is drastically different.

 

Well I agree, the two beers look nothing alike...