the list is http://beeradvocate.com/top_beers/

i've had almost everything on the list but curiously
perhaps only 1 from the USA. do you agree with the
selection?

cheers!

--- 2 more years until i can drink me 23 bottles of
Westie #12!

Saudades (FG) wrote:
the list is http://beeradvocate.com/top_beers/

i've had almost everything on the list but curiously perhaps only 1 from
the USA. do you agree with the selection?

cheers!

--- 2 more years until i can drink me 23 bottles of Westie #12!

Not at all, Beer Advocate and Rate Beer uses a system that over rates
big beers and exceptionally expensive and rare beers such as
Westvleteren 12. Westvleteren 12, is beer that has such a rep and is so
expensive, that giving it anything other than a supper high rating, will
negatively effect your beer aficionado rep with other beer advocates.
And no one wants to think they spent $15 for 12oz’s of just ok beer.

What is it will all the imperial stouts and double IPS, strong ales and
barley wines? Only one lager and its double bock. It’s all silly and has
nothing to do with what really are the very best beers. Hell the best
American IPAs comes from the northwest, but not one of the top IPA’s is
from there. I could go on and on but I would sujest that you just
ignore their supposed Top 100. Unless you are trying to find the worlds
best imperial stout.

"Hell the best
American IPAs comes from the northwest, but not one of the top IPA’s is
from there.


That is your opinion. The opinion of all these Rb'ers and BA'ers seems
different;
Joris

Joris Pattyn wrote:
"Hell the best

American IPAs comes from the northwest, but not one of the top IPA’s is
from there.



That is your opinion. The opinion of all these Rb'ers and BA'ers seems
different;
Joris



And as I said I have little respect for their rating system, were every
category of flavor is given a number. Under body, a five is max, no pilz
will ever get a 5 as most people think that the higher number means more
of it. So if a beer is not thick with an intense flavor and a smell that
infects an entire room, it will fall short in three areas in the
ratings. No pilzener will ever be top rated, no matter how good. Nor
will any English bitters, not big enough to get the numbers. Only over
the top beers get the ratings. Or beers that have a strong regional
following. Notice micro brews from larger communities due better. Stone
and AleSmith can do no wrong, as both rate beer and beer advocate have a
very large following in San Diego. A beer out of Bellingham or LaConner
has no chance in hell.

An over hoped monstrosity such as Stone ruination will always rank over
a truly great beer such as Diamond knot and forget the poor English
beers. Young’s apparently makes bad beer and Fullers cant make a
bitter, if one were to follow the beer advocate ratings.

"VW" schreef in bericht
...
Joris Pattyn wrote:
"Hell the best

American IPAs comes from the northwest, but not one of the top IPA’s is
from there.

That is your opinion. The opinion of all these Rb'ers and BA'ers seems
different;
Joris

And as I said I have little respect for their rating system, were every
category of flavor is given a number. Under body, a five is max, no pilz
will ever get a 5 as most people think that the higher number means more
of it. So if a beer is not thick with an intense flavor and a smell that
infects an entire room, it will fall short in three areas in the ratings.
No pilzener will ever be top rated, no matter how good. Nor will any
English bitters, not big enough to get the numbers. Only over the top
beers get the ratings. Or beers that have a strong regional following.
Notice micro brews from larger communities due better. Stone and AleSmith
can do no wrong, as both rate beer and beer advocate have a very large
following in San Diego. A beer out of Bellingham or LaConner has no chance
in hell.

An over hoped monstrosity such as Stone ruination will always rank over a
truly great beer such as Diamond knot and forget the poor English beers.
Young’s apparently makes bad beer and Fullers cant make a bitter, if one
were to follow the beer advocate ratings.

You're answering beside the question.
Apart from that, you accuse the raters of prejudice, whilst you have quite a
few of yourself. I have rated a German Kellerbeer at 4.1/5, a Pilsener from
New Zealand at 4/5, and two English Premium Bitters at 4.2/5. I have never
given 5/5 to any beer, and out of my top 100, 44 are lambic-based beers -
because I just happen to love the complexity of lambic. Which, BTW, seldom
exceeds 7% ABV, and are not at all beers fed to the gills with monstruous
malt bills or ditto hopgifts...
What is true, is that people will tend to rate high what they know best, as
in my case with the lambic beers; but that is also due to a simple question
of availability. I have seen extremely rare German and Belgian beers in a
Seattle commuters supermarket, but where I live decent foreign beers are as
rare as fountains in Hell. So, indeed, the only LaConner beer I've ever
tasted only got 3.5/5, sorry.

Joris

Joris Pattyn wrote:
"VW" schreef in bericht
...

Joris Pattyn wrote:

"Hell the best


American IPAs comes from the northwest, but not one of the top IPA’s is

from there.

That is your opinion. The opinion of all these Rb'ers and BA'ers seems
different;
Joris

And as I said I have little respect for their rating system, were every
category of flavor is given a number. Under body, a five is max, no pilz
will ever get a 5 as most people think that the higher number means more
of it. So if a beer is not thick with an intense flavor and a smell that
infects an entire room, it will fall short in three areas in the ratings.
No pilzener will ever be top rated, no matter how good. Nor will any
English bitters, not big enough to get the numbers. Only over the top
beers get the ratings. Or beers that have a strong regional following.
Notice micro brews from larger communities due better. Stone and AleSmith
can do no wrong, as both rate beer and beer advocate have a very large
following in San Diego. A beer out of Bellingham or LaConner has no chance
in hell.

An over hoped monstrosity such as Stone ruination will always rank over a
truly great beer such as Diamond knot and forget the poor English beers.
Young’s apparently makes bad beer and Fullers cant make a bitter, if one
were to follow the beer advocate ratings.


You're answering beside the question.
Apart from that, you accuse the raters of prejudice, whilst you have quite a
few of yourself. I have rated a German Kellerbeer at 4.1/5, a Pilsener from
New Zealand at 4/5, and two English Premium Bitters at 4.2/5. I have never
given 5/5 to any beer, and out of my top 100, 44 are lambic-based beers -
because I just happen to love the complexity of lambic. Which, BTW, seldom
exceeds 7% ABV, and are not at all beers fed to the gills with monstruous
malt bills or ditto hopgifts...
What is true, is that people will tend to rate high what they know best, as
in my case with the lambic beers; but that is also due to a simple question
of availability. I have seen extremely rare German and Belgian beers in a
Seattle commuters supermarket, but where I live decent foreign beers are as
rare as fountains in Hell. So, indeed, the only LaConner beer I've ever
tasted only got 3.5/5, sorry.

Joris




Yes Joris and I notice that your ratings bare little resemblance to the
final ones. You seem to realize that a 5 does not mean "lots of" but
instead should mean prefect for style. If the average beer rater knew
this I might still disagree with the results but I would not call the
ratings worthless. But they are worthless.

Everyone has a prejudice and it should all even out, but it doesn’t on
these beer rating sites were only the big are highly rated and the USA
dominates and not even the whole of the USA at that. Speaking of
personal prdudice what is you highest rated standard IPA? And what score
did you give it?

"
Yes Joris and I notice that your ratings bare little resemblance to the
final ones. You seem to realize that a 5 does not mean "lots of" but
instead should mean prefect for style. If the average beer rater knew this
I might still disagree with the results but I would not call the ratings
worthless. But they are worthless.

Everyone has a prejudice and it should all even out, but it doesn’t on
these beer rating sites were only the big are highly rated and the USA
dominates and not even the whole of the USA at that. Speaking of personal
prdudice what is you highest rated standard IPA? And what score did you
give it?

FWIW: in the IPA category, I gave three beers a 4.1 rating:
Bièropholie Cascade (from Quebec); 21st Amendment "21A-IPa" and Bear
Republic Racer 5, both from California (as you know). In the
"Double/Imperial" IPA, I gave DFH Burton Baton 4.2, Norrebro Bryghus North
Bridge Extreme (Denmark) and DFH 120 Minute IPA 4.1/5.

What prejudice does that prove? That I do not rate NW Coast beers high
enough?

Joris

Joris Pattyn wrote:
"

Yes Joris and I notice that your ratings bare little resemblance to the
final ones. You seem to realize that a 5 does not mean "lots of" but
instead should mean prefect for style. If the average beer rater knew this
I might still disagree with the results but I would not call the ratings
worthless. But they are worthless.

Everyone has a prejudice and it should all even out, but it doesn’t on
these beer rating sites were only the big are highly rated and the USA
dominates and not even the whole of the USA at that. Speaking of personal
prdudice what is you highest rated standard IPA? And what score did you
give it?


FWIW: in the IPA category, I gave three beers a 4.1 rating:
Bièropholie Cascade (from Quebec); 21st Amendment "21A-IPa" and Bear
Republic Racer 5, both from California (as you know). In the
"Double/Imperial" IPA, I gave DFH Burton Baton 4.2, Norrebro Bryghus North
Bridge Extreme (Denmark) and DFH 120 Minute IPA 4.1/5.

What prejudice does that prove? That I do not rate NW Coast beers high
enough?

Joris




No I was just curious how high you rated that style in general. You see
that is one of my bigger points, people over rate their favorite style
and actually hold back a style they don’t care for. That is one of the
reasons Pilz gets the shaft in these ratings. Americans think Budweiser
when they pilz, so give low ratings to all pilzners. Budmillercoors
deserves this treatment but not all the light colored beers should be
damned over it and they are.

You don’t seem to have a style you constantly underrate, but the rating
sites in general do. Like I said your personal ratings and the score on
beer advocate are not similar to each other

In article ,
ost says...
On Sat, 20 May 2006 19:08:02 +0200, Saudades (FG) wrote:

the list is http://beeradvocate.com/top_beers/

i've had almost everything on the list but curiously
perhaps only 1 from the USA. do you agree with the
selection?

It's intersting to note that of the top 20, 11 of them are at
10%abv or better.

Yeah, this is more of a list of big beer than of best beers.
Granted the beers are all very good but somehow the list
does not have room for excellent but lighter beers.

Bob Devine

"VW" schreef in bericht
...
No I was just curious how high you rated that style in general. You see
that is one of my bigger points, people over rate their favorite style and
actually hold back a style they don’t care for. That is one of the reasons
Pilz gets the shaft in these ratings. Americans think Budweiser when they
pilz, so give low ratings to all pilzners. Budmillercoors deserves this
treatment but not all the light colored beers should be damned over it and
they are.

You don’t seem to have a style you constantly underrate, but the rating
sites in general do. Like I said your personal ratings and the score on
beer advocate are not similar to each other

Ah, fair enough, thanks. But.
The idea behind sites as Ratebeer and Beeradvocate - at least that is how I
see them - is trying to get as many different amateurs of (good) beer, from
as many different backgrounds as possible, to establish together an idea
about any (...) given beer.
Of course, that is not gospel! You have to distill your own grain of gold
out of all the sand. But I do maintain that all (honest) opinions are
valuable at least to some extent, even when that danger of overrating 'big'
beers is very real, and even when many are more enthusiast than
knowledgeable. Do not say the listings are worthless - they might be
imperfect. The result is larger than the sum of the parts.
My point? Start giving your own ratings/ideas. If we have more people that
can value "light" styles (I do not quite like that term, but it will do),
they will increase in overall appreciation.

Cheers, Joris

VW wrote in :

Saudades (FG) wrote:
the list is http://beeradvocate.com/top_beers/

i've had almost everything on the list but curiously perhaps only 1
from the USA. do you agree with the selection?

cheers!

--- 2 more years until i can drink me 23 bottles of Westie #12!

Not at all, Beer Advocate and Rate Beer uses a system that over rates
big beers and exceptionally expensive and rare beers such as
Westvleteren 12. Westvleteren 12, is beer that has such a rep and is
so expensive, that giving it anything other than a supper high rating,
will negatively effect your beer aficionado rep with other beer
advocates. And no one wants to think they spent $15 for 12oz’s of just
ok beer.

That, or it's consistently rated highly because it's a truly spectacular
beer. It's one of the best beers--heck, best liquids--I've ever had.
It's an absolutely wonderful beer. I think you'll find that people who
think that's a great beer will slam other beers. I love Westy 12, but
tend to find trendy bourbon/oak barreled beers crappy as hell. People
have different opinions. That's sort of what those sites are about.

What is it will all the imperial stouts and double IPS, strong ales
and barley wines? Only one lager and its double bock. It’s all silly
and has nothing to do with what really are the very best beers. Hell
the best American IPAs comes from the northwest, but not one of the
top IPA’s is from there. I could go on and on but I would sujest that
you just ignore their supposed Top 100. Unless you are trying to find
the worlds best imperial stout.

Ah, I see. These sites apparently conflict with your sense of yeeha-
for-my-local-brew provincialism.

Yes, ratings on Ratebeer and BA should be taken with a huge grain of
salt, but they are what they are. They're a compendium of the opinions
of thousands and thousands of people who (A) like beer and (B) want to
go to an online site to talk about/rate those beers. It's not a
representative sample of the population, and noone with a brain would
even pretend that the Ratebeer Top 50 is actually some kind of
objectively-gathered best beer in the world list. It just happens that
those thousands and thousands of beer drinkers apparently disagree with
you on what makes a truly enjoyable IPA.
--
************************************************** ***
Dan Iwerks needs a bicycle like a woman needs a fish.
The fundamental problem with Solipsism is it makes me
responsible for the fact that you’re a complete idiot.
************************************************** ****

Dan Iwerks dan_iwerks*at*yahoo.com wrote:
Yes, ratings on Ratebeer and BA should be taken with a huge grain of
salt, but they are what they are. They're a compendium of the opinions
of thousands and thousands of people who (A) like beer and (B) want to
go to an online site to talk about/rate those beers. It's not a
representative sample of the population, and noone with a brain would
even pretend that the Ratebeer Top 50 is actually some kind of
objectively-gathered best beer in the world list.

Unfortunately, apparently people without brains are included
in the thousands and thousands (is that at least two thousand,
or four thousand? ;-) who post at such sites. I've seen a sign
at a liquor store proclaiming a certain beer "the best beer
in the world." I was bemused enough to ask who could possibly
have proclaimed such a thing. Turns out it just happened to
be the top ranked beer that week at one of the above-mentioned
sites. Was it a good beer? Certainly. Best beer in the world?
No such thing.
People do draw unintended conclusions from that data.
--
Joel Plutchak

"...illiterate Abyssinians did it for 5000 years, you can do it too."
- Guy Gregory on brewing beer

Saudades (FG) wrote:
the list is http://beeradvocate.com/top_beers/

i've had almost everything on the list but curiously perhaps only 1 from
the USA. do you agree with the selection?

cheers!

--- 2 more years until i can drink me 23 bottles of Westie #12!


Where the heck is Carlsberg? Everyone knows it is "probably the best
beer in the world"! :-|

--
Bruce Weaver

www.angelfire.com/wv/bwhomedir

Bruce Weaver wrote:
Saudades (FG) wrote:
the list is http://beeradvocate.com/top_beers/

i've had almost everything on the list but curiously perhaps only 1 from
the USA. do you agree with the selection?

cheers!

--- 2 more years until i can drink me 23 bottles of Westie #12!


Where the heck is Carlsberg? Everyone knows it is "probably the best
beer in the world"! :-|



Which, the Danish or the Canadian?
g

Dan Iwerks wrote:


That, or it's consistently rated highly because it's a truly spectacular
beer. It's one of the best beers--heck, best liquids--I've ever had.
It's an absolutely wonderful beer. I think you'll find that people who
think that's a great beer will slam other beers. I love Westy 12, but
tend to find trendy bourbon/oak barreled beers crappy as hell. People
have different opinions. That's sort of what those sites are about.


What is it will all the imperial stouts and double IPS, strong ales
and barley wines? Only one lager and its double bock. It’s all silly
and has nothing to do with what really are the very best beers. Hell
the best American IPAs comes from the northwest, but not one of the
top IPA’s is from there. I could go on and on but I would sujest that
you just ignore their supposed Top 100. Unless you are trying to find
the worlds best imperial stout.


Ah, I see. These sites apparently conflict with your sense of yeeha-
for-my-local-brew provincialism.

Yes, ratings on Ratebeer and BA should be taken with a huge grain of
salt, but they are what they are. They're a compendium of the opinions
of thousands and thousands of people who (A) like beer and (B) want to
go to an online site to talk about/rate those beers. It's not a
representative sample of the population, and noone with a brain would
even pretend that the Ratebeer Top 50 is actually some kind of
objectively-gathered best beer in the world list. It just happens that
those thousands and thousands of beer drinkers apparently disagree with
you on what makes a truly enjoyable IPA.

What ever, the fact that Rate Beer has LaConner IPA (dry hopped) ranked
..01 of a point off of being the highest rated IPA in the world and
Diamond Knot is rated 7th best has no effect on my point of view.Yes
many agree with me but the rating system is still completely worthless.

The comments are worth reading and once you get to know the people doing
the rating you can start taking advice from those with a proven track record