Multiple listings for different blends of the same beer

That is the way it works for all non vintage Champagne.

 

I think the options may not be fully intuitive, and although you gave a wide variety, it's still not that simple.

If the brewer wants to differentiate between rum and bourbon ba stout, that obviously should be a different beer. But if a brewer like Firestone Walker is making Parabola year to year, they're not trying to make a different beer, they're trying to achieve the same result. There shouldn't be different vintages of beers like that, BCBS, and yes, maybe even Black Gold...etc.

I think everyone already knows by now I am on the side of the brewers and BeerAdvocate here, that unless the label is intending to differentiate the last batch from the previous to a degree that process, ingredients or final product are notably different, we should not Untappd-ify this space with vintages.

Further, if anyone is for vintage-ifying only some beers but not all, that is hypocritical.

 

It is silly to split beers just because the recipe may be slightly different. Brewers adjust recipes in hopes to improve a beer. That doesn't necessitate a separate entry.

If the brewery considers it same beer, just released annually, it should be one entry. Barrels used will change as what the brewery is able to source will change, but it is still the same beer.

 

poll needs a don't care selection !

 

That's when you just ignore it.

 

The Abyss is slightly different each year, enough so that it deserves vintagificationism.

 

I’m sure this wouldn’t be an easy thing for the site to implement, but here goes...

What if beers with the same name issued annually just had one listing, but had something like drop down boxes for reviews of each vintage. Sub-listings. So if you had 2015 BCBS, you could click on BCBS, pull 2015 as a drop down in your review, and then rate or review that way. Then if you later had 2018, you’d toggle to 2018 BCBS and rate/review that. Your total rating for BCBS could be the average of all your ratings.

I think this allows for the additional information people want, but fits better with the lists on this site. Black Gold is a phenomenal offering from CW - it’s their most coveted beer. But it would never be in the top 250 list because all the vintages were separated. Now it’s in the top 100 since they merged the vintages

 

This is the correct answer.

Same label, same listing. New label, new listing.

IF there is a compelling need to create a new listing, availability should be noted as 'limited, brewed once.' In the case of BA stouts or anything else that somebody might otherwise cellar for some unreasonable period of time, maybe the 'retired' status could be deferred or maybe somehow bypassed or overridden so that obsessive reviewers can get their ticks in.

(I suppose, depending on the consensus here, a similar conversation could be had about rotating-hop IPA's).

 

The site currently let’s you rate and review retired beers

 

My question isn't with vintages of barrel aged beer or annual releases, as I do think those should be kept under one listing. What I'm curious about is all the IPAs/stouts that feature different hops or additive flavors each time?

A local NE IPA is released quarterly, and every release, they are using different hops and sometimes different added flavors. Some releases even contain lactose, while others do not. Another local brewery plays around with flavor additives in their stout, doing a maple, various coffee, and vanilla options. Same front label with a small sticker to note the variation. Despite these various hop and additive flavor changes, it's still listed as one beer across its life span, but with each beer release representing a unique twist on the beer. I'm not sure how you separate those out, as brewery listings would get messy, but it does remind me of Firestone Walker's Luponic Distortion, where each unique hop batch gets its own listing.

 

Gotcha. I was getting that cross-footed with closed breweries. Unless that's changed, too, in which case I probably shouldn't even be allowed to post here.

 

I agree in the interest of simplicity, but a lot of these beers do change in formulation from year to year. Parabola, for example, lists original and final gravities along with abv on the label, and these have all changed measurably from year to year.

 

Agreed, and that's actually part of my argument. It's pretty difficult to nail, especially high ABV beers, exactly the mark you made last year. But batch and even ingredient variation stretches down on into more basic, year-round IPAs. They're going for a particular flavor profile under a brand, and can achieve it a variety of ways without changing the name of the beer.

 

I don't think there's a simple "one rule fits all" solution, but the best I've come up with is if the brewery puts a vintage year on the label, it should be a different listing. I'd exclude things like Lagunitas' "2018 One-Hitter Series" as having a vintage and include vintages for fresh hop beers even if the label doesn't specify a year, but in general going by whether or not the label specifies a year seems the least ambiguous.

 

I really don't want BCBS to be a beer with 21(or 24) entries on this site.

I think the best solution is what I outline above, but it may just be too difficult or not worth it for the site to do that way.

 

A dropdown with sub-listings for vintages works for me, as long as it’s possible to have different ratings for different vintages. No idea if the Bros can/would implement that, but it’s a good idea.

 

This is difficult. I can think of the Black Butte for example that is a bit different each year and of course has the different name year to year but is the same beer with tweaks in it. The names are the only reason they are listed separately.

But then you take something like Fremont KDS that is basically the same beer year over year but blended differently and of different vintages that are blended. Not too much variance but there is some, different kind than the Black Butte, but the Fremont only has one listing for all KDS and it's variants.

The OCD part of me wants each slight difference, like in the KDS example, listed for each year's release. The other part feels that will just clutter things up for not much benefit. As some of stated, I do actually review one year's release and when I come back next year, will note my original rating with the original review, and note the new vintage's score with that new review. Ultimately I'm on the fence.

 

Sounds like another vote for my drop down option!!!