Why do people review beers when...

I also agree whole-heartedly, well said. As a buddy also pointed out to me is, in some reviews they will tell you up front or mention it some where in the review, that say they do not like the taste of coffee, and the new brew has coffee in it, so they give it a bad review. Go Figure!

Cheers!

 

But, you don't know that, you're just guessing. Theoretically, one could buy a two-day old IPA that was poorly made, and it might taste "old". We're supposed to review what we have, not what we think we should have.

 

Nope. If a beer is for sale, it's fair game. This is one of my few complaints about Deschutes, they want us to do their cellaring for them. If they don't want us drinking a beer until a certain date, they shouldn't release it until that date.

 

I feel the exact same way. Even with old IPAs. I understand that fresh is ideal and I actively look for dates and often won't buy if there isn't one. HOWEVER, if I get one that is super old and bad but has no date on the label in my opinion it is how the brewer intended for it to be consumed and is also an accurate reflection of the kinds of beers that one can buy. Thus a review is still justified.

 

: I assume this feed is simply a Rickroll joke. I'm going back to bed...

 

Not out of spite, but to communicate your experience because it is important in informing others. I would like to see people honestly report on their interactions with a brewery, good or bad, and if the brewery doesn't fix the issue, review the beer fairly based on what you see, smell, and taste.

 

I work at a brewery and this is what I want to see as far as consumer/brewery interaction. If you find out of code beer at the store and just move on without doing anything, how are you "advocating beer" as many here like to say. Be part of the solution. A lot of brewers need help with this and the more you communicate with people, the better things get for everyone. If you want to see fresher beer a the store, you need to be proactive.

 

And I don't think that it should. I think that you do the beer community the most good by honestly communicating your interactions with the brewery in your written review and then go on to score the beer itself as objectively as possible. What I mean by "bad review" is that I assume the beer is bad or you wouldn't be complaining in the first place that it is old of infected.

So again, if you think a beer is infected or it is out of code, contact the brewery or take it back to the store. If they fix the issue then review based on your new sample, and if they don't fix it then note that and review the original sample at was. Pretty simple. If it's a single-time release and they refund you, I guess don't review it, which isn't the end of the world.

 

Well then they should simply stop making those beers since they haven't the space to cellar them for us.

 

While, typically, it is the distributor who is responsible for maintaining fresh beer on the retailer's shelf, it is ultimately the brewer's obligation to make sure the contractual requirements between them and their wholesale distributors are being fulfilled, and that should include that no out of code beer is stocked at the retail level.

So, in that sense, the brewers, at their state/regional rep level, should be blamed if they allow their distributors to ignore or refuse to pick-up/credit/replace their own product.

 

No. That doesn't follow at all. The brewery is responsible for all quality control of their beer, whether they outsource it or not. Don't blame the wholesale system, which BTW is completely necessary for most brewers and not any kind of evil government conspiracy as some make it out to be. Yes, some laws pertaining to distribution contracts suck, but brewers need wholesalers to get their beer to market in most cases and it is the brewers' responsibility to ensure that quality is maintained through to the end consumer. If they can't manage that, then they need to pull out of the market.

 

There's no Federal law that requires the 3-Tier system for beer distribution - otherwise more than half the states couldn't allow some form of self-distribution.

Even the brewers agree that, ultimately, it is their product and they don't want to see it sit beyond the "shelf life" period they request. That's why numerous brewers have "Report old beer" pages on their websites (essentially asking their customers to voluntarily do the job of their paid reps ) rather than just saying "Sorry, bud, not our job. Bitch to your local distributor of our fine product. That's who we sold it to."

Saying the brewers should not allow their contracted distributors to ignore old beer on the retail shelves is hardly "trickle down" - it's more going "up" the distribution chain to the original source.

 

I don't review on here, but I have for other places. If I find an off can or bottle, I will write the review and put it aside. I will then get another can or bottle, and if the "off-ness" be it infection or whatever is still there, I will send out the review, but also noting that I found XYZ in the beer, which probably isn't what the brewer intended.
If the next one is fine, I will throw out the off review.

 

Nope.. my reflection of the beer is as it stands as a consumer... I don't get my beer for free..

an infected beer is not the fault of the distributor, nor is a beer that is offensive to my palate.

I don't walk into a restaurant, pay money, and have the chef mess up my order and burn my food and expect me to eat it.

 

I had a 4 pack of an IPA from Oklahoma, thoroughly enjoyed the first 2 earlier in the month and opened the third one night to review it and it was way off, thought that I might have been hammered when I thought I enjoyed the first 2. I went ahead and poured the 4th and it was fine, so not sure what happened there, I reviewed the beer based on the 4th can and mentioned the inconsistency that I found. I thought it was rather odd that one can seemed to have issues out of the 4. http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/30164/158524/?ba=donspublic#navigation

 

Nope. Not even a lil bit. You know what I'm getting at. For those who don't:


When a company produces a product, and puts it available to us mere consumers, they should understand that we are not smart enough to follow something so complicated as a marketing ploy. If we can get it, we will consume it. And, if we happen to participate in a certain way, they expect certain level of response.

I get that they don't want to tie up their money, while we (consumers) are willing to that job, not only for free, but pay for the privilege.