Originally posted by chriso
Originally posted by graziano85
Originally posted by bytemesis
Some prefer to rate 1oz pours in tasting groups, some prefer to savor entire pints to arrive at a rating. Both are valid.
But for example, how is it possible to really rate the foam of a beer by pouring just two fingers (1oz) of liquid? Are you sure that is it enough to develop the proper foam, and giving then a proper rating about it?
If rating the foam is such a big deal you can always pour the whole bottle into one glass and divide it from there.
Talking of rating the foam reminds me of a Ratebeerian unfamiliar with cask conditioned beer. He was a bit distracted by a cask ale served without a sparkler so it didn’t have much head. He asked the barmaid for another glass, and then proceeded to tip the beer from one glass to another until he got enough bubbles to comment on. Each to their own.
Infected beer has the best foam of all Go figure.
I would say that if observing the natural head of a beer is essential to any rater, and the conditions are not right, then you have the option of not rating that beer. The choice is yours. And if you wish to read ratings that include mention of the head, then find like-minded people, and mark them as friends, so you can call up their ratings for any particular beer you’re interested in. That’s the beauty of a wide community - you get a range of views and opinions, and you can select those who are most in line with yourself.
|
Echon - I note you’re from Denmark, where many of the most profligate raters live. Why not try arranging to meet with Fonefan and some of the other Danish raters so you can see at first hand how they do it and see if you want in? I’m sure they’d be happy to oblige.
Personally I think some of the bigger beers (impy stouts, shouty IPAs etc) can be rated from quite small measures, whilst a 4% UK bitter needs a greater volume to appreciate the finer subtleties and balance of the style. But everyone has different palattes and will be able to rate off different amounts - the comparison with professional wine tasters is apt.
And Sarky, I love your Danish pint picture! |
Originally posted by SilkTork
Originally posted by chriso
Originally posted by graziano85
Originally posted by bytemesis
Some prefer to rate 1oz pours in tasting groups, some prefer to savor entire pints to arrive at a rating. Both are valid.
But for example, how is it possible to really rate the foam of a beer by pouring just two fingers (1oz) of liquid? Are you sure that is it enough to develop the proper foam, and giving then a proper rating about it?
If rating the foam is such a big deal you can always pour the whole bottle into one glass and divide it from there.
Talking of rating the foam reminds me of a Ratebeerian unfamiliar with cask conditioned beer. He was a bit distracted by a cask ale served without a sparkler so it didn’t have much head. He asked the barmaid for another glass, and then proceeded to tip the beer from one glass to another until he got enough bubbles to comment on. Each to their own.
Infected beer has the best foam of all Go figure.
I would say that if observing the natural head of a beer is essential to any rater, and the conditions are not right, then you have the option of not rating that beer. The choice is yours. And if you wish to read ratings that include mention of the head, then find like-minded people, and mark them as friends, so you can call up their ratings for any particular beer you’re interested in. That’s the beauty of a wide community - you get a range of views and opinions, and you can select those who are most in line with yourself.
Just to make it more clear, personally I don’t really care about the appearance of a beer, in the reality I care about aroma and especially taste, like most of people very probably. But since in every rating is being asked to give a rate for the Appearance, then you need to pour the beer properly IMO, to give an accurate rating. |
|
|
For me the head is very important. Maybe it’s a northern thing. |
Originally posted by SarkyNorthener
For me the head is very important. Maybe it’s a northern thing.
I knew we southerners could convert you northerners to a nice round head, you were previously so cavalier about such matters.
I’ll get my cloak... |
Originally posted by FatPhil
Originally posted by SarkyNorthener
For me the head is very important. Maybe it’s a northern thing.
I knew we southerners could convert you northerners to a nice round head, you were previously so cavalier about such matters.
I’ll get my cloak...
Very good.
Long live the King...
|
I’m relatively new to this site and doing my best to keep my head down, drinking and rating beer and chatting to enthusiasts about subjects I find interesting when I can. But I have to say, some reviews from the tick-heavy style raters are as good as worthless to me. I stumbled across this today:
"Cask @ Bricklayer’s Arms, Putney SW15. Pours a golden color with a small white head. Has a fruity weak citrus hoppy aroma. Fruity malty weak citrus hoppy flavor. Has a fruity malty citrus hoppy finish."
For me a review like that is pointless as it’s as bland as one can be and offers nothing to help fellow drinkers that a pump clip couldn’t. |
|
|
Most all of the RB ratings here are pretty much subjective. Everybody’s buds detect something different; like ears rating musical equipment, or noses rating perfume, or eyes rating art. You’ve got to take the rating with a grain of salt. Some here are true beer experts, but I’d say, JMHO, most are simply self made beer experts without any proper brewing academics - they simply go by what tastes the best in their own humble (or not so humble) opinion. |
Originally posted by Hippoman
I’m relatively new to this site and doing my best to keep my head down, drinking and rating beer and chatting to enthusiasts about subjects I find interesting when I can. But I have to say, some reviews from the tick-heavy style raters are as good as worthless to me. I stumbled across this today:
"Cask @ Bricklayer’s Arms, Putney SW15. Pours a golden color with a small white head. Has a fruity weak citrus hoppy aroma. Fruity malty weak citrus hoppy flavor. Has a fruity malty citrus hoppy finish."
For me a review like that is pointless as it’s as bland as one can be and offers nothing to help fellow drinkers that a pump clip couldn’t.
It sounds like one of my reviews(except for the spelling mistakes, the missing U), but I haven’t drank in Putney for a good five years. For a lot of people its more a personal record than helping others. Also the review sounds like a golden ale. It is probably just a bland review on a bland beer. When a beer exites you, the review can follow suit. |
Originally posted by SarkyNorthener
Originally posted by Hippoman
I’m relatively new to this site and doing my best to keep my head down, drinking and rating beer and chatting to enthusiasts about subjects I find interesting when I can. But I have to say, some reviews from the tick-heavy style raters are as good as worthless to me. I stumbled across this today:
"Cask @ Bricklayer’s Arms, Putney SW15. Pours a golden color with a small white head. Has a fruity weak citrus hoppy aroma. Fruity malty weak citrus hoppy flavor. Has a fruity malty citrus hoppy finish."
For me a review like that is pointless as it’s as bland as one can be and offers nothing to help fellow drinkers that a pump clip couldn’t.
It sounds like one of my reviews(except for the spelling mistakes, the missing U), but I haven’t drank in Putney for a good five years. For a lot of people its more a personal record than helping others.
Also the review sounds like a golden ale. It is probably just a bland review on a bland beer. When a beer exites you, the review can follow suit.
Fair enough. For me writing the review in the best way I can and choosing words to convey as much as possible of the beer drinking experience I’ve had is part of the fun. In the above example it seems like "citrus", "weak" and "fruity" were the only attempt at distinctive des cription - what use is referring to beer as tasting like malt/hops? - and those could refer to half the cask beers out there in the UK at the minute.
But, as this thread emphasises, horses for courses and each to their own. |
