Rant about Reviews

So what is the time cut off? No reviews on hoppy beers unless they are less than one month old? One week?

 

If it's a Pliny review, anything older than 3 hours after being bottled is invalid.

 

If you aren't drinking those IPAs straight from the brewery fermenter, they're basically shit. May as well drainpour all of them.

 

I do not rate, but if I did would like to think I would not rate a beer that is obviously infected or far past it's prime. That being said I can see some value in people doing so. I am one of those odd people who enjoy buying multiples of an IPA or IIPA and holding onto one to see how it holds up after six months to a year (as I said before I would not rate the aged version). Imo it is informative to see a review that notes a beer has been aged (whether appropriate to age or not) and then continues with the review so that others will know whether or not said beer ages well (I believe some IIPAs age well and some take on interesting notes/characteristics). However, I wish (maybe there is?) there was a way to not allow the rating of an over-aged (which is subjective to some degree) beer or infected beer to reflect on the score of the beer so as not to negatively impact the rating (however some beers when infected taste better than when they're uninfected). If the rating itself states that the beer was purchased from a bargain bin the review reader should simply place an asterisk in their mind noting the review is not typical and move on, but as I said earlier I do not think this rating should impact the score of the beer as the beer was drank in a condition not intended by the brewer (this probably happens often).

 

Best By date.

 

This is generally a case where buyer needs to beware if they are purchasing beer styles that are best consumed fresh as possible. Older IPAs will lose their hop character over time. Euro lagers in green bottles are especially hard to judge, but I would say it's a good idea to buy them by the six pack because single green bottles sitting on shelves makes me too worried about light exposure. Of course, there's no telling what sort of conditions those imports have been through to get to American shelves. These are the sorts of things I try to keep in mind because I try to approach every beer I try with an open mind.

 

Agreed. Or, if it's only a Bottled On date I'd say 3-4 months and you've lost what the brewer was going for, IMO.

 

I can fully agree if it is past the best before date it shouldn't be reviewed. Onto the 3-4 month stipulation, I dunno about that, I'd say if a brewer can't make a beer that is still drinkable after three months they should reevaluate what they are doing. Do many brewers set their best before date 3-4 months out from bottling?

 

Agreed. Or, if it's anything Three Floyds you're S.O.L.

 

I'm partial to horse blanket and wet hay.

 

I guess I'm more referring to hoppy beers with that time frame. I can't recall a hop-centric or hop-forward beer I've come across that tastes the same fresh as it does 3-4 months down the road. That, to me, is not what the brewer intended.

 

*is glad that he drinks beers other than IPA's*

 

I'm partial to Armpits, Cat-Urine, and a wet sack of potatoes that started to spud....

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/738/28830

 

One month? Hell, that's ancient. Its 48 hours for most cask ales.

 

I don't know, that sounds pretty tame for a Fantôme one-off

 

Niiiice one

 

3-6 I think. And if a brewer doesn't give one, then review it whenever you like. If they don't care enough to tell you when it's too old, then you shouldn't care enough about their reputation to worry about reviewing old beer.

 

Once tapped that is! But an unopened cask has a surprisingly long shelf life.
Actually, it's often at its peak at 3 or 4 days (how often has the last pint been the best?) But I wouldn't review a beer which has been kept on too long; that's a reflection on the cellarman not the beer quality.

 

All that, and he gave it a 4+
Us BA's are into some weird shit when it comes to the funk.