Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!ut-sally!opus!rcd From: rcd@opus.UUCP Newsgroups: net.wines Subject: Re: Beer Evaluation (long) Message-ID: <213@opus.UUCP> Date: Sat, 10-Mar-84 03:16:39 EST Article-I.D.: opus.213 Posted: Sat Mar 10 03:16:39 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 17-Mar-84 23:58:56 EST References: <524@sdcsla.UUCP> Organization: NBI, Boulder Lines: 158 ([{<>}]) The aforementioned article, citing a long newspaper Sunday supplement, is unfortunately not much of an "evaluation". I don't fault the poster of the article, but the ones who wrote the newspaper item (LA Times) don't appear to have had anything serious in mind. This is the sort of inept rating of beer that repeatedly convinces everyone that Americans, as a whole, don't know anything about beer (which may be true, but we don't have to advertise it!) Some of my criticisms... > Home magazine (LA TIMES sunday supplement) > published the results of a beer tasting with a rather prestigious panel. Who? That is, who is prestigious in the beer world, and why? My doubt is based on the fact that there aren't more than a few well-known, respected, prestigious beer connoisseurs. > Using classic wine tasting methodology, they evaluated a number of domestics > and imports. But the comments on the beers clearly show that the tasting was not blind... you don't conclude that Miller is "still the Champagne of Bottle Beers" in a blind tasting. You cannot evaluate accurately if you know the brands. Also, the comments are organized in a way which suggests that beers were not tasted in their proper categories. By analogy to wine tasting, you don't taste Cabernet with Zinfandel - yet some of the groups in this article are on the order of grouping Sauternes with Burgundy. <> I'm not flaming - or at least not trying to flame per se. However, I think that moderately serious beer drinkers might learn a lot from first reading the article, then seeing where it goes wrong, then re-reading it. If you want to know about beers, do a properly designed tasting in your own home, with your own friends. It's not that hard, it's educational (surprising, if you let it be so), and a lot of fun. You don't need to be cowed by the pretentious effusiveness of these authors. > Also note the lack of real pejoratives... ...which, in itself, should make you suspicious. There are many good beers, but there are some really bad ones which sell, and some which are mediocre (to the point of giving mediocrity a bad name) which sell very well. Have you ever read a popular audio-equipment magazine? How many components do you see given poor ratings? Very few. Why? The authors can't afford to insult a manufacturer by saying anything bad; the best they can do is say things that are less good than usual. Let me illustrate some of the problems, and thereby point up some of the things to watch out for in beer ratings... > Augsburger Good 6/$3.49 > German-style, with toasty hops in deeper, golden-hue; fine head and > clean finish. There are at least a dozen "German styles" - the (often Americanized) ordinary lager, the German variant of pilsener, Kolsch, Weiss and weizen, etc. Each is quite different. And what in the world is "toasty hops"??? You don't "toast" hops even a little bit, and hops don't contribute anything to color (thank heaven; they're a gaack yellowish-green). > Miller High Life Good 6/$2.79 > Creamy, rich head; still the "Champagne of Bottled Beers," vivid and > alive, long in thirst-quenching taste and flavors. By this point, I'm wondering what the obsession with "head" might be. (I could answer that! Never mind; it'll die with me.) But ask yourself how much this evaluation tells you about the real character of the beer. It reads well; it's nice prose, but... > Super Premium Beers > > Anchor Steam Outstanding 6/$5.42 > Tawny collar of creamy mousse over a dark, rich body; smooth and mouth > filling taste; always a winner; a beer-lover's brew > > Liberty Ale Outstanding 1/$1.09 > Marvelously rich and deeply flavored, wholly satisfying amber brew; > creamy mousse with intriguing hops; complex aroma. Here, the writers are getting confused, and the neophyte reading the article will be moreso. Somehow, we've just mixed steam beer (a unique style) and ale in with lagers - if this is greek to you, it's like mixing red and white wine in a rating. What's "dark" about the body of Steam? It certainly doesn't have a dark-beer taste (it's mostly a crystal malt, if you can get past the arresting, but outstanding, hop character). Worse, "dark" with Steam and "amber" with Liberty certainly confuses the nomenclature since Steam is amber and Liberty is obviously a pale ale. Omitting mention of hops on Steam (which has twice the hops of most American beers), and calling Liberty's hops "intriguing" is almost hyperbole. > Sierra Nevada Pale Ale Outstanding 1/$1 > Handmade amber brew from finest barley malt, with an inviting creamy > head, fine bead; an almost-butterscotch richness in the taste. Again, how does a pale ale come out "amber"? And I've never heard ANYone call this ale "butterscotch" - a term very specific to people who taste beer. The most common tag is "fruity", in response to one of the unique hop characters you'll find. SN Pale Ale IS an outstanding brew, but not for the reasons given; this rating will only confuse the neophyte trying to calibrate taste buds. > Ballantine India Pale Ale Good 6/$4.90 > One brew master declared it "outstanding," while others found it mild, > but still rich in complex and classic flavors. Actually, it has an incredibly hoppy bite (coupled with a taste of wood that oenophiles recognize but which baffles beer-lovers) - "mild but rich..." is completely off-base. > ..., accounts for its wide popularity. "Popularity"?!?! Are they evaluating taste per se, or only as a guide to market potential? Seriously, what does this have to do with the taste? > Kirin(J) Outstanding 6/$4.85 > Delicate brew, perhaps with some rice in its malting to lightly > intrigue the taste; mild hops in its clean finish. "...rice in its malting..." - perhaps lightly fatuous; this is a barely meaningful phrase. And what does the whole rice business mean - do YOU know the taste of rice in a beer? (In other words, does the comment tell you anything?) > Traditional taste from Down Under, ... But, in fact, it's mostly an Americanized lager which almost always suffers badly in shipping... > Samuel Smith's Pale Ale(E) Outstanding 6/$7.49 > Amber-bright, with centuries of tradition behind this brewery's proud > offering; rich complexity in a fine lager beer. OK, I admit it. This one got my goat. <> An ale is not a lager, and anyone who has spent more than an hour studying what beer is will know that. They're different yeasts and completely different fermentation processes, and they produce entirely different beers. <> > Creamy but light, almost bland, possibly from aged inventory;... Irresponsible. If you suspect a bad sample when tasting, you have to discount your rating until you get a good bottle. In any case, DON'T publish an opinion like that... > Here's the new one in the porcelain-white bottle;... There were a few times that I wondered if this article had been written under the auspices of the importers of beers. A "porcelain-white bottle" is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING other than an advertising gimmick. > Grolsch Standard 6/$4.85 > Slightly oxidized and rather thin in body, with an almost fruitiness > in taste; a light kiss of hops. This is one of many places in the article where it becomes evident that the authors couldn't muster the distinction between "this is poor" and "I don't like this". Grolsch rarely arrives in this country in bad condition, at least where I live (>2000 miles from east-coast seaports), probably due to extreme care on the part of its importers. It has a characteristic FRESH taste which, combined with its unusual hop character, makes it quite different from standard fare. You may like it or not; that's your choice. However, it is a well-made beer. If you want to get started on some no-nonsense beer comparisons, the best buy is Michael Jackson's "Pocket Guide". (No, the other Michael Jackson!) It dispenses with most of the flowery prose, and he isn't afraid to call swill by its name, although he handles it diplomatically by not saying much about (and not rating) any beer he doesn't consider at least reasonable. We've found his book reasonable by doing blind tasting and then afterward comparing our notes with his. It also helps if you know some (home)brewers who can help out by showing you ingredients and helping show where the tastes come from. -- {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd