The Beer Thread

James wrote:
Stone Enjoy By 5.17.13 is coming to VA.

Given that that date is our 10th anniversary, that bottle will definitely be added to my bottle collection.

i'm hoping you're adding it as a collector's item… no point in cellaring these. 

Yada wrote:
I gotta say I'm pretty disappointed with those bottles. I had the 4/1/13 a few weeks ago and it was mediocre at best.

i had that one, or the previous, on draft and i gotta agree.  a nice DIPA but nothing spectacular.

Ther previous version that VA got (not 4/1), was fantastic, imo. Of course I'm not cellaring it!

Today I tasted a Firestone IPA.

All I can say is that it was the most repulsive beer that I have ever tasted in my life!  :-X

Thank you for sharing.

Jaguar wrote:
Today I tasted a Firestone IPA.

All I can say is that it was the most repulsive beer that I have ever tasted in my life!  :-X

James wrote:
Thank you for sharing.

Jaguar wrote:
Today I tasted a Firestone IPA.

All I can say is that it was the most repulsive beer that I have ever tasted in my life!  :-X

That was just for you James since I knew that you would appreciate it so much. ;)

I stuck with the $3 pints of Killens Stout. Not all that great but the price sure was.

Review of the Alchemist Brewery (Heady Topper) on tripadvisor.com

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g57438-d2390430-Reviews-The_Alchemist_Brewery-Waterbury_Vermont.html#REVIEWS

?Not the best beer?

Reviewed December 6, 2011 (One star out of Five)


I recommend going somewhere else for decent beer. On tap, the beer is drinkable but nothing to write home about - in cans, it is just not good.

Jaguar wrote:
Today I tasted a Firestone IPA.

All I can say is that it was the most repulsive beer that I have ever tasted in my life!  :-X

well that's about as surprising as someone who doesn't like shoegaze saying "i listened to Screen Vinyl Image and it was the worse noise i've ever heard in my life!" ;D

perfectly understandable that you didn't like it given your dislike of hops, but fyi it's rate 95 on beeradvocate - putting it very very high on the list of best IPAs.

James wrote:
Review of the Alchemist Brewery (Heady Topper) on tripadvisor.com

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g57438-d2390430-Reviews-The_Alchemist_Brewery-Waterbury_Vermont.html#REVIEWS

?Not the best beer?

Reviewed December 6, 2011 (One star out of Five)


I recommend going somewhere else for decent beer. On tap, the beer is drinkable but nothing to write home about - in cans, it is just not good.

awesome.  spread the word.  the sh*t is terrible.  don't go there, and don't drink any.

hopefully more for those who do appreciate the stuff!

sweetcell wrote:

Jaguar wrote:
Today I tasted a Firestone IPA.

All I can say is that it was the most repulsive beer that I have ever tasted in my life!  :-X

well that's about as surprising as someone who doesn't like shoegaze saying "i listened to Screen Vinyl Image and it was the worse noise i've ever heard in my life!" ;D

perfectly understandable that you didn't like it given your dislike of hops, but fyi it's rate 95 on beeradvocate - putting it very very high on the list of best IPAs.

I don't care what they rate it. It gets a -95 in my world. Disgusting!

That Killens Stout wasn't all that hot either and I usually like stouts. Drinkable but I've had much better stouts.

I like to try new things to me so that I actually know. On occassion, I've been surprised with something that I had assumed that I would not like, or even would like, and ended up thinking otherwise.

sweetcell wrote:

Jaguar wrote:
Today I tasted a Firestone IPA.

All I can say is that it was the most repulsive beer that I have ever tasted in my life!  :-X

well that's about as surprising as someone who doesn't like shoegaze saying "i listened to Screen Vinyl Image and it was the worse noise i've ever heard in my life!" ;D

perfectly understandable that you didn't like it given your dislike of hops, but fyi it's rate 95 on beeradvocate - putting it very very high on the list of best IPAs.

I don't think Beer Advocate is a good choice to rate beer.  It is sort of mob mentality.  Once the beer gets a good rating everyone else just follows along so they don't appear to be stupid.  I have seen some great beers rated low and some bad beers rated high.  It isn't like wine ratings which are done by one organization.  If I see a great score on wine it is pretty much a given that it is pretty good.

It sounds like you're explaining the popularity of the Lumineers or Mumford in Sons.

I'd hardly call beer advocate a "mob mentality" As best I can tell, Dogfish 90 is the most often rated beer on beer advocate, and in 11+ years it has amassed 7200 ratings. Out of what, a world population of 8 billion potential beer drinkers, 7200 people in 11 years hardly constitutes a mob.

And I'll take the collective opinion of 7200 beer geeks over the collective opinion of one or two beer geeks (or casual beer drinkers) any day.

If something is a 90 or above on beer advocate and has a good number of ratings, it's going to get my attention. If it has a 95 with 2400 ratings (the beer in question is Firestone Walker's Union Jack), I can assure you it's (the hoppy beer hating) Jaguar who is WRONG on this one.

atomicfront wrote:

sweetcell wrote:

Jaguar wrote:
Today I tasted a Firestone IPA.

All I can say is that it was the most repulsive beer that I have ever tasted in my life!  :-X

well that's about as surprising as someone who doesn't like shoegaze saying "i listened to Screen Vinyl Image and it was the worse noise i've ever heard in my life!" ;D

perfectly understandable that you didn't like it given your dislike of hops, but fyi it's rate 95 on beeradvocate - putting it very very high on the list of best IPAs.

I don't think Beer Advocate is a good choice to rate beer.  It is sort of mob mentality.  Once the beer gets a good rating everyone else just follows along so they don't appear to be stupid.  I have seen some great beers rated low and some bad beers rated high.  It isn't like wine ratings which are done by one organization.  If I see a great score on wine it is pretty much a given that it is pretty good.

James wrote:
It sounds like you're explaining the popularity of the Lumineers or Mumford in Sons.

I'd hardly call beer advocate a "mob mentality" As best I can tell, Dogfish 90 is the most often rated beer on beer advocate, and in 11+ years it has amassed 7200 ratings. Out of what, a world population of 8 billion potential beer drinkers, 7200 people in 11 years hardly constitutes a mob.

And I'll take the collective opinion of 7200 beer geeks over the collective opinion of one or two beer geeks (or casual beer drinkers) any day.

If something is a 90 or above on beer advocate and has a good number of ratings, it's going to get my attention. If it has a 95 with 2400 ratings (the beer in question is Firestone Walker's Union Jack), I can assure you it's (the hoppy beer hating) Jaguar who is WRONG on this one.

atomicfront wrote:

sweetcell wrote:

Jaguar wrote:
Today I tasted a Firestone IPA.

All I can say is that it was the most repulsive beer that I have ever tasted in my life!  :-X

well that's about as surprising as someone who doesn't like shoegaze saying "i listened to Screen Vinyl Image and it was the worse noise i've ever heard in my life!" ;D

perfectly understandable that you didn't like it given your dislike of hops, but fyi it's rate 95 on beeradvocate - putting it very very high on the list of best IPAs.

I don't think Beer Advocate is a good choice to rate beer.  It is sort of mob mentality.  Once the beer gets a good rating everyone else just follows along so they don't appear to be stupid.  I have seen some great beers rated low and some bad beers rated high.  It isn't like wine ratings which are done by one organization.  If I see a great score on wine it is pretty much a given that it is pretty good.

You should take your own opinion.  I like Dogfish head Namaste a lot better than 90 minute ipa.  Yet it is rated much lower.   I also really love  Raison D'Être  which doesn't get very good ratings.  I also love Burton Baton which does get great ratings. 

i agree with atomicfront and jag on this one.  

who cares if a beer is a 95 rating?  there's so many good beers out there, why do we need to differentiate them by some bullshit point system? everyones palate and style taste is different.  it's like pitchfork, but for beer.

and i do see the mob mentality. it's a bunch of clowns re-writing the same review, over and over, and trying their hardest to have the same tastes as everyone else.

From that reply, it seems pretty clear that really hoppy beers probably aren't your thing either (?)

There's likely a dozen locally available witbiers that are better and cheaper than Namaste.

Raison D'Etre is good for the (low) price, but there's tons of strong dark Belgians (if that's really the style that it is) that are better.

Can't argue with you on Burton Baton, it is quite tasty (though not really an IPA).

atomicfront wrote:

James wrote:
It sounds like you're explaining the popularity of the Lumineers or Mumford in Sons.

I'd hardly call beer advocate a "mob mentality" As best I can tell, Dogfish 90 is the most often rated beer on beer advocate, and in 11+ years it has amassed 7200 ratings. Out of what, a world population of 8 billion potential beer drinkers, 7200 people in 11 years hardly constitutes a mob.

And I'll take the collective opinion of 7200 beer geeks over the collective opinion of one or two beer geeks (or casual beer drinkers) any day.

If something is a 90 or above on beer advocate and has a good number of ratings, it's going to get my attention. If it has a 95 with 2400 ratings (the beer in question is Firestone Walker's Union Jack), I can assure you it's (the hoppy beer hating) Jaguar who is WRONG on this one.

atomicfront wrote:

sweetcell wrote:

Jaguar wrote:
Today I tasted a Firestone IPA.

All I can say is that it was the most repulsive beer that I have ever tasted in my life!  :-X

well that's about as surprising as someone who doesn't like shoegaze saying "i listened to Screen Vinyl Image and it was the worse noise i've ever heard in my life!" ;D

perfectly understandable that you didn't like it given your dislike of hops, but fyi it's rate 95 on beeradvocate - putting it very very high on the list of best IPAs.

I don't think Beer Advocate is a good choice to rate beer.  It is sort of mob mentality.  Once the beer gets a good rating everyone else just follows along so they don't appear to be stupid.  I have seen some great beers rated low and some bad beers rated high.  It isn't like wine ratings which are done by one organization.  If I see a great score on wine it is pretty much a given that it is pretty good.

You should take your own opinion.  I like Dogfish head Namaste a lot better than 90 minute ipa.  Yet it is rated much lower.   I also really love  Raison D'Être  which doesn't get very good ratings.  I also love Burton Baton which does get great ratings. 

atomicfront wrote:
It isn't like wine ratings which are done by one organization. 

oh look… a.front is wrong again.

there isn't one wine rating organization.  the most widely referenced ratings are those from Wine Spectator, Wine Enthusiast and Wine Advocate.  these are magazines/websites.  they will each rate a wine differently.

My liver cares if it's a 95 rating. There's "so many good beers out there" that I couldn't possibly try them all. If I see a beer that has a 95 rating, and plenty of reviews, i'm going to opt to try that over some other beer that has an 85 rating. Why should I waste my time on "good" beer when better beer is available?

stevewizzle wrote:

who cares if a beer is a 95 rating?  there's so many good beers out there, why do we need to differentiate them by some bullshit point system? everyones palate and style taste is different.  it's like pitchfork, but for beer.

James wrote:
My liver cares if it's a 95 rating. There's "so many good beers out there" that I couldn't possibly try them all. If I see a beer that has a 95 rating, and plenty of reviews, i'm going to opt to try that over some other beer that has an 85 rating. Why should I waste my time on "good" beer when better beer is available?

stevewizzle wrote:

who cares if a beer is a 95 rating?  there's so many good beers out there, why do we need to differentiate them by some bullshit point system? everyones palate and style taste is different.  it's like pitchfork, but for beer.

my liver and alcoholism is clearly superior to yours.

it has it's place.  during CBC week, i knew which beers had those high BA ratings.  it made making tough decisions a little easier.

but i also cringed during CBC week when i heard a brewer bragging about his beer rating in the line to piss at meridian pint.  he didn't say he liked it, or why he brewed it, or what inspired the brew… he just said "yeah, it's got 4 stars on untapp'd". i just think there's a lot more to drinking beer than look, taste, smell, and feel.

James wrote:
If something is a 90 or above on beer advocate and has a good number of ratings, it's going to get my attention. If it has a 95 with 2400 ratings (the beer in question is Firestone Walker's Union Jack), I can assure you it's (the hoppy beer hating) Jaguar who is WRONG on this one.

Stick to numbers James, because you don't quite have it down with words yet.

It's not a matter of being right or wrong, it's opinion and taste. If I go by your words, than I would be wrong for some beer tasting bad to me. Since when does some poll know my personal tastes? As I stated, in my world, the stuff is disgusting!

Stevewizzle - funny you compared those ratings to Pitchfork because that is exactly what I came in here to do.

The place I buy my wine has charts for their various wines as to what is most popular (or however they word it). I've noticed that it's the lower quality wines that always make it to the top. All that tells me is that most people are buying cheap over quality. I get that Beer Advocate probably isn't based on sales but other beer drinkers opinions, but that is their opinion, not by select high end professionals. Even then, if the pros think it's wonderful, I'm still not buying that swill because …. I DO NOT LIKE IT!!!

Just like if you, James, come on here raving about some band, I know that the odds are that I won't be all that impressed. Doesn't mean the product is, in general, bad. I just know that I probably won't be interested. Same for you when I rave about some band. If you hate them, fine by me. They are bad to you. Won't tumble over my world. Now if Killsaly didn't like them, than I'd wonder what was up.

I can't stand soft greasy bacon wrapped around stuff either. Doesn't make me wrong and some squishy bacon eater right no matter how many health nuts might side with me. It's a PREFERENCE. Get it?

By the way, when I select a beer to drink that I'm not all that familiar with, I go by the words. The descriptions. Never any kind of number. I don't trust them when it comes to beer. Almost made that mistake once on a beer and was even told by the brewer that I probably wouldn't like it if I don't like hoppy beers. There was something about the wording that had my interest so I went with it. Glad that I went with my instinct based on the words because so far, it's still one of my favorite beers.

Jaguar wrote:

I can't stand soft greasy bacon wrapped around stuff either. Doesn't make me wrong and some squishy bacon eater right no matter how many health nuts might side with me. It's a PREFERENCE. Get it?

The Passenger has bacon wrapped deep fried peanut butter cups.  The bacon is a little squishy, which typically weirds me out a bit, but it's absolutely delicious in this situation.

Are you referring to the real world, one in which you don't know jack shit about beer?

It's the equivalent of me listening to a shoegaze album, and trying to say something constructive about it.

Jaguar wrote:

James wrote:

It's not a matter of being right or wrong, it's opinion and taste. If I go by your words, than I would be wrong for some beer tasting bad to me. Since when does some poll know my personal tastes? As I stated, in my world, the stuff is disgusting!