Re-Adjusting Old Beer Scores

Discussion in 'Beer Talk' started by ironchefmiyagi13, Nov 13, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ironchefmiyagi13

    ironchefmiyagi13 Initiate (0) Jan 9, 2013 Tennessee

    So I recently, out of sheer curiosity, began scrolling through some of my first beer scores as well as highest rated beers, and was amazed to see what beers I had rated so high back in the day that were on par with some of the best out there now.

    What are some of the beers that you have re-rated over the years?

    Nugget Nectar
    Stone Imperial Stout
    Founders KBS
    Lagunitas Sucks
    Heady Topper (yes, a bit of the magic is gone)
    TastyIsBeer likes this.
  2. yemenmocha

    yemenmocha Poo-Bah (2,525) Jun 18, 2002 Arizona

    the verbal descriptors have changed so you might have reviewed some of these the same, but the numerical values are surprising to you now. Plus, some review categories were completely deleted such as drinkability.
  3. Mark-Leggett

    Mark-Leggett Zealot (526) Jul 30, 2014 Missouri

    Going back to re-rate beers is a good idea, sometimes you like something way more than your original review
  4. Flashy

    Flashy Initiate (0) Oct 22, 2003 Vermont

    what magic is gone from Heady Topper? The best DIPA out there IMHO, if any out there are close, they have come close to copying it. You haven't even been on BA for a year and you are re-evaluating your reviews from way back this year?
    Rizalini likes this.
  5. WesMantooth

    WesMantooth Poo-Bah (2,417) Jan 8, 2014 Ohio

    I have adjusted several. Especially IPAs and other pale ales I had a few years ago. I have come to enjoy/appreciate them a lot more recently. I found many others were rated to high after trying other examples within a style as well.

    One thing I need to do is make a note in the reviews of a few beers that I find entirely different with some age, like Bell's Expedition and Founder's Old Curmudgeon.
  6. Treyliff

    Treyliff Poo-Bah (3,745) Aug 10, 2010 West Virginia
    Premium Trader

    Replacing the 'drinkability' tab with 'overall' really screwed up the reviews. Some of my old reviews now have a 4.5 overall (was originally ranked as drinkability) for a beer that I gave 3.5's for every other catagory.
    Ranbot likes this.
  7. mlhyatt

    mlhyatt Devotee (440) Jul 27, 2013 Georgia

    I do this all the time. But when I do I usually re-evaluate by comparing rating I gave other beers, and I will ask myself, was X beer really better than Y beer? Then I adjust my ratings accordingly.
  8. socon67

    socon67 Poo-Bah (1,678) Jun 18, 2010 New York

    If I graded a beer and then felt very different after having it again, I'll go back and adjust it. But in that case I'm doing a formal review because I want to know why the second time why I'm giving that score.
  9. RobinLee

    RobinLee Zealot (555) Feb 15, 2012 Wisconsin

    I've definitely readjusted a few, especially with the new addition of being able to input precise scores. I tend to review high, and it was even higher in the past.
  10. PVMT

    PVMT Initiate (0) Aug 10, 2014 New York

  11. mmmbeerNY

    mmmbeerNY Devotee (407) Mar 5, 2014 New York

    I'll take that non-magical Heady Topper off your hands

    .... I can see if you had endless supply then maybe it gets boring at some point and I'm not doubting there are some DIPAs that are 5s too (there can be more then one), but I still would love to be able choose it anytime I wanted a DIPA
  12. beertunes

    beertunes Poo-Bah (5,451) Sep 24, 2007 Washington

    A review is based on how you liked that beer, that day, under those conditions. I've had plenty of beers, that when had another time, I thought were better or worse than the review I gave it. But changing the score on a beer from years ago, isn't an honest reflection on the beer, then, or now.
    302BeerGuy likes this.
  13. Canada_Dan

    Canada_Dan Champion (872) Jun 14, 2013 Colorado

    I always revisit my previous rating when trying something for a 2nd or 3rd time or after not having it for a year or more. Now that you can rate to the 1/100 decimal point, it's fun to amend reviews with more accuracy. Slowly but surely working my way through old ratings as I reexamine past favorites
    302BeerGuy likes this.
  14. Canada_Dan

    Canada_Dan Champion (872) Jun 14, 2013 Colorado

    I get what you're saying but that's why many BAs keep a journal or separate log with notes from specific tastings. Personally, I use BA more as a way to track everything I've had

    EDIT- not to downplay the joy I get from interacting with all you beautiful people and the wealth of information I get from the site as well!
  15. Casterbridge

    Casterbridge Disciple (337) Mar 26, 2010 Connecticut

    I knocked my Backwoods rating down a bit after having Wulver. It was kind of a Sophie's choice.
    twizzard likes this.
  16. Lucular

    Lucular Poo-Bah (1,773) Jun 20, 2014 Maryland

    Three beers come to mind that I have significantly adjusted my rating upward:

    Dogfish Head Indian Brown Ale (hated it at first, came around by the third beer of the six-pack)
    North Coast Brother Thelonius (not sure why, but the first one I thought was very uncomplex, found it much more interesting on the second try)
    The Bruery Oude Tart (my first real sour; didn't "get it" at first but LOVE it now and totally adore sours. I think it's about time for my next sour fix as a matter of's been almost 48 hours!!!)
  17. ironchefmiyagi13

    ironchefmiyagi13 Initiate (0) Jan 9, 2013 Tennessee

    1st: The first time I had it some guy included it as an extra because I had never had it. The sheer hype and reputation of the beer definitely influenced my rating. Having had it many times now, it is not the same as other DIPAs I have tried including Double Sunshine, King Sue, Abrasive, HF Double Citra, etc. It is in the conversation, but not the '5' rating I gave it back then. Still good, but not perfect. Never said I won't drink the shit out of it, which I will.

    2nd: I joined BA on January 8th of 2013. We already passed January 8th of 2014 and are closing in on January 8th of 2015. So, I have been on almost 2 years. Why does it matter how long I have been on? Irrelevant to the point I am making. I have had a lot of beer in that time frame and the passage of months or years is not important; it's what you drink in those months and years that counts.

    Just posting to see what beers people have tried again and noticed they weren't as good the first time, or maybe were better the 2nd time? Not meant to be a post that gets dissected and interpreted by other members as me being pious or self-righteous in my beer drinking endeavors.

    With that said, let the posts continue. Curious to see other's beers.
    J_Dub and TastyIsBeer like this.
  18. ironchefmiyagi13

    ironchefmiyagi13 Initiate (0) Jan 9, 2013 Tennessee

    Same here. It's just that I recently received a couple 4-packs and while it was still good, it had become a little less quaffable when I got to the end of the can. It tasted much sweeter than I remember.
  19. cjgiant

    cjgiant Poo-Bah (4,164) Jul 13, 2013 District of Columbia

    I do this as well. I actually enjoy re-reading my own reviews (narcissist?) and seeing if I get the same smells, flavors, etc. I usually note in the review that I have done separate reviews and note the differences (because truthfully, who else is reading it), and indicate if I rated it up or down.

    I also used to rate low for the site averages (lots of negative rDev), and over the years I can feel better saying this beer attribute is a 5 (or close to it) compared to other beers, because I now feel I've had a large sample size. I need to adjust those ratings where I was hesitant to start too high and have nowhere to go but down.
  20. Flashy

    Flashy Initiate (0) Oct 22, 2003 Vermont

    I stand corrected and you have certainly evolved in that time. I prefer to re-review places rather then beers. Sometimes I haven't been back for seven or eight years, what good is that review, though the best places never change.
  21. grze

    grze Devotee (485) Apr 17, 2012 Nevada

    One of the 3 beers I rated on this website at the beginning was
    BeRazzled by The Bruery. I rated it 4.65. I would rate it exactly the same right now :slight_smile: But I was a little surprised (at first) how high I rated Wookey Jack...but then when I started thinking about it, I think it really is a great beer and deserves that rating...So what I'm trying to say here is that I think that at first sight we may think that we rated a particular beer really high because it was such a long time ago and we tried so many great (better?) beers in the meantime, but on the other hand what's wrong with rating many many beers above 4.5/5?
  22. Buschyfor3

    Buschyfor3 Initiate (0) Jan 4, 2009 Kentucky

    I've revisited some old reviews upon snagging another bottle of said beer - just for kicks, to see how/if my palate has changed, and how some of those older reviews stand up in light of newer benchmarks for particular styles. A number got adjusted down, a select two or three actually saw an uptick.
  23. PittBeerGirl

    PittBeerGirl Poo-Bah (1,621) Feb 27, 2007 Ohio

    I'm still adjusting for drinkability...I went through my very first reviews for it-then I looked at extreme rdevs; then my top and bottom beers. I'm sure there are a lot that I still haven't gotten to.

    I recently adjusted my nugget nectar score- You used to be able to review a beer separately based on the serving type...i.e...I rated nugget nectar 3 times-on-tap, by bottle, and on cask. I gave the cask a 4.9 and the bottle a 4.3. The BA system nuked 2 or the 3 reviews and only kept my 4.9 cask review. I lowered the score a little but kept the content.
  24. yemenmocha

    yemenmocha Poo-Bah (2,525) Jun 18, 2002 Arizona

    Yes there's the drinkability but ALSO the verbal descriptions for the numbers changed too. I don't have the old terms in memory, but I think the same or similar wording would have given a higher score then than now.
    beertunes likes this.
  25. NickRivers

    NickRivers Initiate (0) Oct 3, 2010 California

    +1, I love the (Better?) part of this response. I think back to my first Pliny, I felt the aroma was unbelievable, 4.5 I believe was the score but it was 2 days old and my first. Now when I have a Pliny regardless of age it seems to be around a score of 4. Now this raises 2 questions for me personally.

    1. Are there better quality beers being brewed now than a few years ago?
    2. Am I used to the aromas and now nothing impresses me?

    The question of, "Is Pliny not as good as it used to be?" seems ridiculous as they've brewed it for 20 years. Sure maybe slight changes due to ingredients, etc., play factor, but its still an amazing beer.
    So my opinion on 1: There are tons of beers being brewed now, as opposed to lets say 2 years ago, let alone 5, Im trying just as many mediocre beers as amazing ones just as I had a few years ago. The volume however is increased, Ratios of don't like it- Like it are the same, just inflated. Therefore I don't think the quality has increased I just think theres more breweries sharing their beers. Thus making them more common.
    As for 2, The aromas are definitely more common, but give them the same score! Why cheat another brewery just because its been done before? You can't be bias.

    Better is likely. There are better beers than Pliny being brewed, but Great Beers in general seems like a logical assumption. We should evaluate beers based on itself not its counterparts. Reflecting on this brought me to realize the right answer, for myself anyways, is re-rating a beer accordingly, not letting the first influence me as much as possible, and keeping the two in my journal. Drink on dudes!
  26. UCLABrewN84

    UCLABrewN84 Poo-Bah (12,615) Mar 18, 2010 California

    Never have, never will.
  27. Roguer

    Roguer Poo-Bah (3,048) Mar 25, 2013 Georgia

    I don't go back and re-review unless I feel a bottle was old or infected. However, I may tweak a score here or there if I see something egregious.

    However, by and large, I prefer to leave my ratings where they fell. There are too many factors in play with my subjective experience to go and readjust my ratings. Which one is the "true" experience? No, better to just leave it alone.
    tasterschoice62 likes this.
  28. JLaw55

    JLaw55 Meyvn (1,062) Jul 10, 2014 Missouri

    I have done something similar when it comes to re-rating, but since I am fairly new to my beer tasting journey, I had to go back and try some a second time. After doing so, I realized that it was a much better beer than I had first rated it. My taste was just not mature enough to enjoy it the first time. My palette has changed since I first began drinking beer.
  29. grze

    grze Devotee (485) Apr 17, 2012 Nevada

    With the amount of reviews you have I wouldn't neither :stuck_out_tongue: lol

    THANAT0PSIS Crusader (760) Aug 3, 2010 Wisconsin

    I really need to. A lot of my older scores are way too high because I had less context. Some beers that I had so long ago are still worthy of their scores, but others (mostly IPAs and IIPAs and hyped beers) need serious adjustment.
  31. buzzedup

    buzzedup Devotee (407) Dec 21, 2006 Pennsylvania

    I am constantly adjusting scores as a re-taste a beer as my palate matures
    ironchefmiyagi13 and 302BeerGuy like this.
  32. superspak

    superspak Poo-Bah (22,031) May 5, 2010 Michigan
    Premium Trader

    I revisit reviews every Friday night. Most of them fall, unless I revisit one that was a horrible bottle gone bad the first time around. La Fin Du Monde was a notable as being one of the few that actually went up when it was already crazily high rated by me years ago. I still love it obviously haha. Also updated detail is nice for me. My 2010-2011 reviews were only 4-5 sentences and lacked the huge sensory detail I can provide now.
    ironchefmiyagi13 likes this.
  33. 302BeerGuy

    302BeerGuy Initiate (0) Jun 11, 2014 Delaware

    Everything deserves a second chance:slight_smile:!
    ironchefmiyagi13 and JLaw55 like this.
  34. stephens101

    stephens101 Poo-Bah (2,130) May 5, 2006 Oklahoma

    I rarely update a rating, and usually only do it because I feel I seriously misrepresented a beer in the first place or I find that over multiple subsequent tries it just really sucks. You can argue that current biases are just as bad as old biases as well. It can be a never ending cycle. I try to go with the first impression and leave it at that. And yeah, sometimes it's a hoot looking at old reviews and ratings and I wonder what I was thinking, but there's something about keeping the original intact that seems more true than updating for various reasons.
    ironchefmiyagi13 likes this.
  35. tasterschoice62

    tasterschoice62 Meyvn (1,315) May 14, 2014 Rhode Island
    Premium Trader

    I'm glad you replied to that. Listen guy from Vermont that has easy access to HT and all the hype. Time to branch out. How many California rare beers to you have access too? YES - HT is a superior beer but it doesn't stand alone anymore.
    Take off your Ben and Jerry's t shirt and relax... Dude. Live a little and don't be so close minded.
    ironchefmiyagi13 likes this.
  36. TastyIsBeer

    TastyIsBeer Initiate (0) Dec 13, 2006 Illinois

    I think that the stability of my ratings has increased as I've had more beers. I've been drinking craft/imports (Optimator-type imports) since '93, but only got serious in the last few years (650+ beers new to me in the last three years or so). Early on, without a lot to compare against and only having had a few styles, it is hard to have much of a sense of what great is. I will say that my re-rates are almost exclusively downgrades... other than Sculpin (the dreaded "old Sculpin" was what got my original rating).
    ironchefmiyagi13 likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.