Rant about Reviews

I'd like to add to Herky21's rant that if someone is going to review a style they've never had before (like a sour), they should admit that in the beginning of their review.

 

I think there should be more rules telling me how to write my amateur reviews posted on a free site, for free.

 

I can get on board with this, if brewers of hoppy beers (hell all beers) have a fresh perishable product they should put a best by date, that would clear up a lot of issues. A bottled on date tells your average consumer nothing since they likely don't know which beers "fall off" and which can last for many months if not years without issues.

 

Slightly off topic: When it comes to IPAs, year round ones, no date equals Mystery Beer. Could be a delicious, bright and hoppy brew, or a flat, malt forward, not hoppy beer. If the brewery doesn't care which of the two you buy, then the reviews should reflect this policy.

 

the deterioration of hop oils is not a measurement of brewer skill.

that said,

1) i mainly agree with harrymel: this is a consumer review site. the fewer rules the better, within reason. the framework currently in place seems fine to me. it's not very nice of you to review an out of code IPA, but unless it's reported and deemed worthy of removal, everything is on the up and up (the point is that whether or not the bros and/or mods remove a review is the final arbiter of right and wrong regarding review appropriateness. there is no additional abstract "good" "bad" etc, except in the eye of the beholder, which for free user content means about jack shit).

edit: note that the bros actually would remove a review if you stated within that the beer was out of code. (provided someone reported it)

2) if you love big hop flavor, drink your IPAs fresh. no matter how bad it makes you feel that "people are snobs", there's just more hop flavor and aroma in fresh IPAs. however, if you don't care about how bold the hops are, freshness is less important. preference is subjective, of course.

 

Can you at least admit that some IPAs/DIPAs stand up to time better than others? Or are you saying they all deteriorate equally over time?

 

some stand up better than others, mainly due to the balance of flavors. this is not a measure of skill or quality though; it's just linked to particular recipes.

e.g. i think celebration holds up a lot better than, say, pliny, but i think pliny is a much better beer. not just "i like it more," but i think it gets more out of the ingredients, has a better mouthfeel for the style, has an equally good balance of hop and malt flavors for the style, etc. celebration just happens to last longer, cost less, and goes really well with a splash of woodford reserve.

edit: actually, i wouldn't even say i like pliny better than celebration. if you had to remove one of the two beers from the world, honestly, i'd lose pliny before celebration ._.

 

Always been suspicious of keeping a tapped cask for up to 4 days. In my experience it can be wishful thinking.

 

No doubt it is only generous to the brewer not to rate their beers that they personally messed up --infected batch, or someone else messed up -- sold long past it's prime.

But, I think it's worth asking the following:
Are the number of people reviewing old or Infected beers over representing the percentage of the BA community exposed to excessively old or infected beers?

If yes, then this is a systemic problem in need of an active awareness-campaign to dettur people from, in effect, "poisoning the pool".

If no, these reviews are nothing but representative of what BAs are likely to encounter when purchasing that beer -- i.e. an old or infected beer.

BAs who feel a sense of responsibility to the community should do their best to provide as accurate a review of the product they purchase as reasonably possible. That means being flexible and using good judgment -- maybe try a beer more the once before reviewing it. It however, should not mean that the 20% (just to pick a random number) who are exposed to old or infected beers should simply remove themselves from the discourse.

The point is to review the beer you have access to, not the beer it should theoretically be. Perhaps it's not fair to the brewer, but it's even more unfair to consumers to paint a patently false portrait of the product in distribution -- especially if a measurable percentage of that product is not in its ideal state.

As an aside: If you carry this argument to its logical conclusion, then people who review recently released high ABV beers who note that it is hot, poorly integrated, or too thin, should also be forbayed from reviewing. But I think that demanding that everyone wait at least 2 years before reviewing some recently released barleywine is not likely to be met with much approval.

 

Word.

 

So basically I think the point here is that while buying "close out" beers will skew an IPA in a negative way, IPA's that are sold in limited quantities that are snatched up right away (fresh) are going to get better reviews. Interesting point, OP.... Let's consult the "Top 100 beers", shall we?

 

Only read Buckeyenation's reviews, that is all you need.

 

23 and a half hours. always the cutoff.

 

Year to 18 month old Maharaja is sublime.

 

I have a gripe with the second review on Battle Priest. I read that as a guy thinking that it is some kind of American wild but really it's a hoppy Belgian Strong Pale barrel aged with 100% Brett fermentation. It isn't like other wilds.

 

I guess I'll never know.

 

What if that beer is Dogfish Head 120 Mintue IPA? That beer states right on the label that it "ages well".

....or what if it's Victory's Wild Devil?