RateBeer.com

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Barry on July 4, 2008 at 12:22pm

Haha, all four raters say the appearance is good, but still only give it a 3/5. 60%. Thats really pretty low. What have you got to say for yourself Stu?

Personal experience, I find it hard to award maximum points for anything EXCEPT appearance. Appearance is the one thing I reckon that if you can't find fault (clear and bright, attractive colour appropriate to the style, appropriate head for style and good retention) then it gets full points. Why mark down when there's no fault?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kempicus on July 4, 2008 at 1:16pm

Luke

Ratebeer is completely subjective, if you go to the guide on how to rate, it states this

Appearance:
After pouring I then look at the beer and write down as many things as I can about its visual appeal, including the colour, clarity, carbonation, and head size and longevity. Later I also note the extent and pattern of lacing on the glass. I then award a mark out of 5 for this feature. Basically the mark is awarded for how tantalizing does the beer look - how much does it say “Pick me up and drink me!”

The last sentence sums it up really....if you for some reason prefer your lagers to be slightly darker, the head diminishes a fraction quicker than you'd like or you like smaller bubbles it gets marked down....that's all there is to it I’m afraid. I do give high marks for appearance and try to keep emotion out of it. Sometimes that's all a beer has going for it a good example of this is Brewdog Hardcore IPA, i thought it looked damn good in the glass 5/5 but thought it was a decidedly average beer!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by nzbrewer on July 4, 2008 at 1:25pm

Based on those notes and the ratings of the Epic Lager, I am guessing the current state of the Epic Armageddon IPA, would get a 0/5, it has so much hop still in it, that when you get to the bottom of the glass you have a little patch/pile of green hop particles. I really don't want to filter it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kempicus on July 4, 2008 at 1:35pm

I say don't filter it and bank on emotion giving it a high rating! even if it gets 0/5 on appearance the rest of the measurables would pull it up anyway!? Obviously i'm guessing it's gonna taste and smell as good as i'm hoping it will....or is that hopping?! ;0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kempicus on July 4, 2008 at 1:43pm

Remember there's no accounting for taste! i like hops in my glass which i guess is pretty weird but i have my own reasons for liking it and would probably rate it higher because of that!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew on July 12, 2008 at 5:02pm

OK - so what does all this mean to the blind man? And what did it mean before clear glass took the place of pewter and pottery? And what does it mean to those that stoop to drink from the bottle - or can for that matter? I know that apperance - like context and situation - play a big part in how one percieves the product, but just how important is it really? We have a feijoa gueuze at the moment which would deffinitly score 0/5 but to me it is totally appropriate for what it is and actually adds to it's specialness.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stu McKinlay on July 4, 2008 at 9:32pm

OK. Here's my parent-teacher interview:

My rating was: Smell 8/10, Look 3/5, Taste 6/10, Palate 3/5, All 12/20 3.2/5.0

My explanation:
Smell - really really good.
Look - it's just pale and clear and comes in a green bottle. You're right, I am a bit mainstream... Maybe I should have given it 2? If I get hops in the glass from the Armageddon I will definitely give it a 5.
Taste - was well short on bitterness for the hop flavour and malt sweetness. Certainly tasted better on tap when I last had a go at it (and I have been meaning to update it sometime).
Palate - Was a bit short and lacked the moreish bitterness.
Overall - lost points for JUST being being a hoppy pale lager. You're way better than that Luke. You shouldn't compete with the masses - even if you are at the hoppy dringe. As Faith No More said: Be Aggressive, B E Aggressive, B E A G G R E S S I V E! If you are, then I'm sure you'll make a beer that will be at the very top of my list.

The tap beer is probably a 3.5-3.7. It's a 3 for effort and a 4.5 for achievement.

That's it. I'll never explain another Ratebeer rating in my life (unless I'm drunk). This one is for Luke because he was the first (and probably only) brewer to mention one of my ratings to me - everyone else is scared ;-)

In the end, you should only compete with yourself. If you are happy with what you are brewing and you are making a living of it - that is awesome. We are lucky to have experienced Epic Pale Ale at its best. It is a lovely beer.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greig McGill on July 4, 2008 at 11:50pm

I give the explanation 5/5 just for the FNM reference.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shane Morley on July 5, 2008 at 10:46am

I'm with you Luke. I would be judging the beer on its style. So for a pale lager I would expect its appearance to be crystal clear with good head retention and the correct colour for its style, say 6 - 9 ebc .If it meets all these parameters then it would get 5 out of 5, a 3 out of 5 would mean there was a clarity problem or the colour or head retention was not up to spec.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stu McKinlay on July 5, 2008 at 11:12am

You confuse judging to "styles" (i.e. beer competitions) with the "hedonistic" approach of ratebeer.
When I look at a beer like you describe, I think along the lines of - "oh, well, here we go again..." 3/5.
If I was judging to a style, I'd say "Yep, this looks pretty much perfect".

Judging to styles is not as fun... I like the creative licence of the hedonistic style. I match a beer with food, or with a movie, or with a friend... it's all good fun. I think I'm a pretty positive rater overall.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stu McKinlay on July 5, 2008 at 11:05am

Is that for appearance, or flavour?
I'm assuming you can't smell it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shane Morley on July 5, 2008 at 11:15am

Appearance to me would be clarity,colour,head retention and CO2 level, ie what you can see with your eyes.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page