In Reply To #1 They used to be separate on RB, but they lumped them together because a lot of people made comments in their ratings saying that they didn't find any difference in the beer.

This topic drives me nuts, as it could be debated for ages. I'm beginning to sway towards the "lumped" method, but I still don't know. One thing that does bother me is seeing beers listed twice, with one being a "draught" version. Others are even listed as can or bottle! If it's really the same beer, then it's hard for me to see the point in needing two listings. I know they can taste much different, but so would thousands of beers if you threw a widget in them or had them on a beer engine. If you can make a 2nd listing just because it's a different form of delivery, then what's to stop someoen from listing Corona and Corona with Lime? This is why it's important to describe in your review the way in which your beer was served. Otherwise it's like comparing track times of sports cars and not knowing that one car was using the slicks and the rest were using tires from a Pep Boy's discount bin. I've been considering adding a new field to the beer reviews where you must select how your beer was served: bottle, can, draught etc.

In Reply To #3 The separate Guinness listings on here really bother me, and I agree that the same beer with different containers or deliveries should be separate listings. I think it's a different case with Ommegang though. I know you cellar beers, so you know that a 1 or 2 year old beer compared to a fresh one is a completely different experience. Since the brewery is aging it before release, I think it should be listed separately. On BA, Cave Aged Hennepin has a 4.12, while it's regular release counterpart has a 4.26. Obviously there's a large difference in amount of reviews, but it seems people preferred the fresh version. Reading through the reviews, people made comparisons between the two, marking that they are in fact, different in their characteristics. Each of the cave aged beers has a lower average than the regular release. Interesting to say the least, and I think the difference is enough to warrant separate reviews. My 2 cents. Also, great idea on a new field to select the serving type. It would really be nice, if possible, to get the average of each category for a specific beer. I.E. Ommegang Witte - 4.10/10 reviews out of bottle, 4.21/5 reviews off of draft.

If you lump the beers together it makes it easier for people to review. A reviewer can add all the details they want in the description box.It could be confusing for people if the have too many varieties of the same beer. Adding a field is a good idea

In Reply To #1 Cave aged beers are a distinct case from the fresh beer of the same name. That warrants separate listing and rating. Such things as conditioning and aging are part of the brand identity. Hennepin and Cave aged Hennepin are not the same thing and are not sold as the same thing. The difference matters. However, the same beer, served in different ways, should be listed and rated as the same beer. Jim Koch makes no brand distinction between Sam Adams Boston Lager served from a bottle or a keg, even though there may be appreciable taste and aroma differences. I agree that adding a field for bottle, can, draught, etc., would be great. Guiness and Guiness Export are not the same beer. They have very different alcohol levels and flavor profiles. They would be rated separately. But Guiness from the tap, a bottle, or a can with a widget would be rated as the same beer. Likewise, the brewed on and served on dates can be interesting. What about vertical tastings of something sold fresh, then laid down? I'm thinking of a certain 4 year old bottle of Chimay Grand Reserve in my beer "cellar" (cupboard). If i am making sense to this point, then the logic of this classification system would hold that the older Chimay should be rated with all the other fresh Chimays. The older one was not marketed and sold as a specially conditioned or aged Chimay. Another case: Shenandoah Stoney Man Stout, and the same beer aged in whisky barrels? The bottle labled "Oak Barrel" should be rated as a separate beer from the regular version. Does this make sense?

In Reply To #6 Nothing to argue with there. Differentiation shall only occur up until the point at which the brewer begins to subdivide their batches into marketable quantities. In other words, if Guinness makes a big old batch, it doesn't matter if it's filled into a bottle, can or keg. If a beer is aged in a barrel then it's considered a different beer because that process was done before bottling. Conversely, aging your beer does not constitute a different listing because that's done after it was bottled.

This message was edited by Flashpro at 7/24/2004 10:32:13 AM.