Beer tasting notes

[cdh]

Hello eGullet Beer Forum folks!

The beer forum has been kinda slow lately, covering a few homebrew projects and a few beer events. Let's see what we can do about livening things up with some talk about what we've actually been drinking recently. Since we're now a Society for Culinary Arts and Letters, I think we're up to the challenge of writing clearly and meaningfully about the beers that we choose to drink.

While the wine world is notorious for the verbosity of its descriptions, beer more often than not falls into the Tonto, Tarzan and Frankenstein school of reviewing: This beer GOOD!, or That beer BAD! Fire BAAAAD!

Let's see what we can do about raising the level of discourse here about our favorite liquid bread substitute.

I'm not the ideal person to kick this subject off, since I've been drinking mostly my own homebrew lately, so almost nobody here is going to have a chance to engage me on the merits of my observations, since nobody else can go pick up a bottle of the stuff. However, there has been an out of the way commercial lawnmower beer in my beer fridge recently that I'll start up a thread on.

In this thread, we should engage in the meta-discussion about beer tasting and reviewing and what a beer tasting note should look like and include. I'll start with some of my own thoughts on the subject. Please argue with me if you think I'm wrong, crazy, both or otherwise.

I think that a beer review should concentrate on the aroma and flavor of the brew in question. Lots of reviewers spend time describing the visuals... the head and how long it lasts, the lace left over after it subsides, the color. These should, as far as I'm concerned, take up no more than a sentence.

Aromas are a tough subject to write about, since there really isn't structured vocabulary for describing things that the nose picks up. Everything here is an analogy to other things we expect people to know about. Just like in the wine world, with its leather and barnyard and violet descriptions, we're going to have to pick out a set of words to capture what we're taking about. That is why I think that each beer should have its own thread here. That way when tasting the same beer, we can work towards a standardized vocabulary that describes what we're experiencing. Hops aromas especially need some work to build a vocabulary that captures them. Saying "that is a hoppy beer" is really almost meaningless, since hops contribute so many different possible flavors. Some hop character is citrussy like grapefruit, while others are orangey or grassy, or sharp, or just really bitter. We must work

The body of the beer should get some analysis, but in the context of what it does to the flavor. Is the body too thin for the malty sweetness that comes across on the palate? Is the body too thick to harmoniously coexist with the sharp hoppiness.

Beer flavors go all over the place... at the NJ BBQ my homebrew contributions were intended to challenge people's conceptions about the nature of beer and show how broad the world of beers can be. Several "people who don't like beer" tried my offerings and discovered that they liked it, despite the preconceived notion that they wouldn't. Getting to the point where people can read a beer review and decide whether this is a beer they'd like or not should be the goal of this project.

We should try to avoid numerical scales if at all possible (God forbid one of us become the Robert Parker of beer), for either summary purposes or for descriptions of specific elements of a beer. In homebrew circles there is a shorthand for how bitter a beer is-- how many IBUs does it have. I'd like to avoid pigeonholing this description as a simple numerical score, and describe the nature of the bitterness instead.

I'd like to see descriptions put forth by one taster discussed and debated by others who have tasted the same beer... lets work through the meaning of the description and come to a consensus on what the words mean. Tastes are, after all, subjective. And beers do change over time. Even though they aim for constitency, they don't always hit that goal. Should one find a funky bottle of something, that would also be a welcome addition to the thread, since the odds of getting a spoiled bottle are something any potential beer consumer would want to know.

Finally, I'd like to save the judgement for last, since it is the most subjective part of the review... when describing the flavor try to tell us about the taste, not whether you like it or not. After a description of the flavors and aromas, then let us know whether the combination worked for you or not. Too much tartness for so sweet a beer? Too bitter for your palate? etc...

If several people write reviews of the same beer, it could be quite helpful to everybody, since what one person notices when they taste may be totally different from what another notices, even when they're tasting the same thing. Seeing what somebody else got out of the same experience could well broaden the perceptions of somebody who noticed something but couldn't put a finger on exactly what it was.

I'll sign off for the moment, but would love commentary on your thoughts on the project.

[aiki_brewer]

As I recall, there's actually a good tasting reference near the end of (of all things) Homebrewing for Dummies (which is actually a pretty good reference guide, and in many ways is better organized and more comprehensive than Papazian's standard The New Complete Joy of Homebrewing). It has a good chart of flavor characteristics (as well as potential off-flavors and their causes), and some sample forms for tasting and competitive judging.

Which reminds me of the joke I read somewhere, that "the difference between beer tasters and wine tasters is that beer tasters swallow..." (Not to mention, "If beer were easy to make, they'd call it "wine.")

[derricks]

In this thread, we should engage in the meta-discussion about beer tasting and reviewing and what a beer tasting note should look like and include.  I'll start with some of my own thoughts on the subject.  Please argue with me if you think I'm wrong, crazy, both or otherwise.

I think that a beer review should concentrate on the aroma and flavor of the brew in question.  Lots of reviewers spend time describing the visuals... the head and how long it lasts, the lace left over after it subsides, the color.  These should, as far as I'm concerned, take up no more than a sentence.

<snip>

If several people write reviews of the same beer, it could be quite helpful to everybody, since what one person notices when they taste may be totally different from what another notices, even when they're tasting the same thing.  Seeing what somebody else got out of the same experience could well broaden the perceptions of somebody who noticed something but couldn't put a finger on exactly what it was.

I come from the wine universe, but I noticed this and it seemed like an interesting thread.

Some thoughts:

It seems like what you're proposing is nothing more (nor less) than a wine tasting note applied to beer. The wine tasting notes I've had to write for magazines follow a pattern of

<Details>: <visual>.<Descriptions of smells>.<Description of taste, mouthfeel>. <Overall impression/score>. Each dot represents a period.

So: "Purple edges become an ink-black center. Aromas of blueberries and grilled meat leap out of the glass, mingling with more subtle notes of leather and smoke. Tannins dominate the palate and almost overwhelm the dark berry fruit flavors and decent acidity, but the long finish allows notes of smoke to come through in the end. This wine is drinkable now, but could benefit from a couple years in the cellar." (I just made this up, so it's not some particular wine).

Smells are tough. In theory, the wine world has a standardized vocabulary (Anne Noble's aroma wheel), but in reality it's not something that can be standardized. My first wine teacher was from Brazil, and would often use descriptors like "jack fruit" and other things in his culture. Another wine teacher was a cook, and would use terms like "blueberry creme brulee". As far as seeing other impressions, the problem is as soon as someone says "I get a lot of lemon" that's what everybody smells, even if that's not exactly what they were smelling. For just this reason, I rarely look at wine tasting notes for precise smells; more often I just get an impression (fruity vs. earthy, well-balanced, good acidity) and work from there.

But starting with maybe the inner ring of the aroma wheel might be a good start.

[Chef Shogun]

I definately like the idea, and hope it takes off!

Derricks mentioned the wine aroma wheel, and there is also the Scotch Tasting Wheel, so there is a body of experiance to use as models, if nothing else. One question is how quantitative should we go with notes? If numbers can be located, should figures for gravity, bitterness, color, and ABV be given? I'm never sure what to do with these, exactly, aside from a comparitive standpoint, but maybe somebody would find them useful. Can get even MORE pedantic and see if the brewer lists the yeasts, hops, and malts used!

Cdh, maybe you should start us off with tasting notes of your homebrew. I'm curious about this "Beer that nobody was supposed to like, but then did!"

-- C.S.

Geek is not a four letter word!

[cdh]

The wine note format seems just about right for these purposes, but the long term application will be different, insofar as wines are new and different every year, whereas beers strive to remain consistent. That means that more people can try an example of the product being reviewed and comment on the description, honing it down and coming to an agreement on the words being used and how they relate to the flavors.

Wines change and improve with age and are subject to small runs, and each bottling will almost certainly be different from the last, whether because it has been in the bottle longer, or the juice is different.

Beers generally (and there are notable exceptions) don't get better with time and are marketed accordingly, and each batch is calculated to be quite a lot like the last batch... thus making getting a relatively fresh example of any particular beer with decent interstate distribution not an arduous undertaking for anybody who might want to try it and comment.

The important part of this project is that multiple people are tasting the same thing, and coming to a consensus on the description of that thing. With luck and some effort we'll get to the point where we can then start describing things which, like my homebrew, aren't getting widely distributed but everybody reading will still have a pretty good idea of what we're taking about.

Of my homebrewed witbier, for example, I could say:

Blonde with coppery hints and a white head. Tart, with wheat malt evident, and obvious coriander seeds and orange peel flavors. Little if any hop bitterness evident, no hop aromas. Long lasting on the palate.

Now somebody else who had tasted it would chime in with their own observations, refining the description. Anybody who was at the NJ BBQ and tasted it care to chime in ? That's why I like the idea of giving lots of different beers their own thread in the great tasting project, and watching as the descriptions evolve and coalesce.

[cdh]

I definately like the idea, and hope it takes off! 

Cdh, maybe you should start us off with tasting notes of your homebrew.  I'm curious about this "Beer that nobody was supposed to like, but then did!"

←

What I meant to say about the beers I brought was that neither of them was either bitter or hoppy. Both were variations on the witbier theme, so had a crisp tartness to them that works so well on a summer day. "People who don't like beer" are often people who don't like bitterness, and neither of my beers had much if any bitterness to them. The Blackened wit had a bit more of a hoppy thing going on with it, but it was more in the aroma than in the flavor... The ordinary wit was appropriately spiced with coriander and orange and devoid of hoppiness altogether.

Neither came anywhere near 120 Minute IPA, or Wild Bill's Alimony Ale... they were at the opposite extreme of hoppiness... and yet were quite popular.

[cdh]

Btw...

There is a beer tasting wheel out there... Click here if you want to see it... But I don't know if I want us to have that much guidance in our choices. Like Derricks notes, everybody is vulnerable to suggestion. I'd like to see what emerges from people not conditioned to seek a flavor on the wheel, but rather come up with their own description.

[john b]

I like comparisons when reading tasting notes or reviews, like, "Not very hoppy for a pale ale, much less hop presence than Sierra Nevada Pale Ale." It gives me a point of reference with which I can relate.

[derricks]

The wine note format seems just about right for these purposes, but the long term application will be different, insofar as wines are new and different every year, whereas beers strive to remain consistent.

Good point, in which case Champagne tasting notes might be closer to what one wants for beer. Most Champagne strives towards a consistent and distinctive blend year after year, and in general is meant to be young. Of course, there are vintage Champagnes and there are people who distinctly seek out older Champagne. But in general, once it's disgorged, its shelf life diminishes.

[sylunt1]

Sounds like a good idea... As a guide you can use the BCJP scoresheets that judges (yes, I am one) use to score homebrew contests - just don't put a number score to it. If you go to http://bjcp.org there are a lot of good references there including what each style of beer should be like - it is very helpful to help figure out what you may be tasting.

Edited September 24, 2004 by sylunt1 (log)

[Lisa1349]

I don't get to drink nearly the amount of beer I desire. Time, money and availability are big factors there.

Last week I had a beverage upswing. Grabbed a bottle of Wayerbacher Heresy. I remembered the brewery from last year's Christmas Mix. Will it return again this year, Rich?

All the bottle said was Imperial Stout aged in Oak Barrels. The beer was so complex that it hurt my brain to think about it after a long day at work. Toasty and caramelized malt on the nose. Dark, high quality head. Creamy and woody in the mouth, I'd venture to say it was aged in USED, charred oak barrels, from making whisky or bourbon. Somewhat similar to an Irish Car Bomb in a bottle - without curdles from slow drinking.

This beer was very unusual and what I consider high quality. It was consumed in poor timing on my part. After a day of tasting upwards of 20 cheeses, my tastebuds really don't want to think about complexity in the evening. When looking for a challenge, try Wayerbacher Heresy.

[Jim]

I just tasted two brews I made. One a Hefe Weizen and another and American IPA.

The HW had been brewed with the Weihenstephan yeast and was, accordingly, quite phenolic and spicy, with both vanilla and clove/spice notes evident as well as a slght acidic quality. The head, like all Hefe's, was very tight, creamy and slightly aromatic. Colour was yellow gold and carbonation was slightly less than standard Hefe's would be, owing to forgetting to save enough unfermented gyle to bottle / carbonate with. Original gravity was 1055 ad final, 1012. Quite a tasty Wehehnstephen-like beer, Since it was "homebrew" the most and beguiling, quality was it's freshness!

The other beer, an IPA of the American style, was also bottled / tasted. This light gold elixir featured both an English, ie., low, carbonation, level and a high hopping rate that translated into a middle bitterness of q smoothe quality (somewhat surprising for the Centennial Hops uses. The whipped cream-like head was tight and tasted of Cascade hops, while the beer itself was lighly carbpmated and featured a full mouthfeel & a balanced bitter-sweet flavour that evolved to a strong aftertaste of succulent, sweet malt, just balanced by a smooth hop bitterness of Cascade hops. The aftertaste, quite long, evolved from sweet to subtle bitterness. I was happy with theboth beers.