Archive for the ‘Beer and You’ Category
I find myself increasingly defending how I review beers to people at bars, at after-bar-parties, in the betting circle at underground early morning monkey knife fights, and even in police holding cells while awaiting arraignment for some sort of trumped up animal cruelty charge.
I’ll say something like “Oh Beer X. Yeah I liked that one; it’s a good beer” to which my aghast audience will proclaim “But you only gave it 3/5 on Untappd!” Exactly. I liked it. It was a good beer, aka an average craft beer.
It wasn’t Excellent (4/5) or World Class (5/5) but neither was it Mediocre (2/5) or Fucking Awful (1/5). You see, unlike the vast majority of people who review things on the Internet, I like to use the full range of review options available to me.
Some folks, even some folks in the local beer industry, are hesitant to give something a 3/5 and never, ever dip into the 1s or 2s. You can generally tell how much you can trust someone’s opinion on beer by checking out their past reviews. If they only ever give beer a 4 or higher then whatever they say is suspect. They’re either giving everything an artificially high rating to curry favour with local breweries, or they’re skipping the bad beers for… well, the same reason.
I don’t do that. I use the full range. If I were given a random selection of local beers, I would expect them to follow a normal distribution with “Quality” as the x-axis, and in general I find this to be the case. BC is not a magical alcohol kingdom that only produces amazing beers. Rather, we’re quite average, if not slightly below average.
So, to clear up confusion, here is how I rate beers. I use Untappd’s 5 star system, allowing for half stars and a range from 0.5 to 5.0. When you see my ratings, here is what they mean.
Seriously freaking bad, as in milk. This beer is a mistake and should never have been released. Perhaps the brewery spilt some wort into the mop bucket and didn’t notice for a week and then decided to release it as “Janitor’s Wild Ale”? Drinking this beer may actually harm you.
Seriously flawed. Yeah, I know it says “Porter” on the label, but why is it red coloured, incredibly bitter, but still manages to taste strongly of both buttermilk and bandaids?
Major flaw/multiple minor flaws. Slightly oxidized AND infected? Wow that takes either malicious effort or incompetence. Or both.
Well made macro, or poorly made craft. Brewed it with rice and left all residual flavour in the filters? You get two stars. Brewed a rich, flavourful IPA but didn’t understand what hops to use, or when to add them? 2 stars. Yeah, that’s the same as Molson. Deal with it.
Excellent macro, below average craft. Ever had a beer and thought “meh”? Those go here. Sure, it’s pretty much on style but there are few things in there that are keeping it from being great. Maybe the grains don’t really give it the right body. Maybe the hops in this stout seem like they’re borrowed from an IPA.
Well made craft. The vast majority of beers I review get 3 stars, basically by definition. These are competently made craft-quality brews that’d I’d be happy to keep drinking if it weren’t for all the other competently made craft-quality brews out there vying for my limited attention.
Above-average craft beer. Ever had a beer and thought “Huh. This is GOOD”? Sure, you’re not going to get up right now to go back to the store to buy more, but you know what, this is pretty freaking tasty. No faults evident and something about this beer shows an uncommon flair for brewing.
Excellent. Okay, now you’re eyeing up the hours for the store where you bought this beer. Maybe it’s a complicated style like a sour or an imperial stout that’s well made. Maybe it’s just an uncommonly well made session beer. This is a delicious beer that is obviously better than other, similar beers.
Excellent-er. Bordering on uniquely amazing, but something is holding this guy back. Maybe it’s a subtle fault like poor hops integration, or maybe the carbonation takes away from the mouthfeel a bit. Maybe you’ve had a better beer somewhere, sometime, and know that further improvement is possible. It’s a subtle barrier that keeps this beer from being perfect.
World class. This is a rarity. It belongs to that unique class of beer that, when put in your mouth, makes you stop and pay attention to what your taste buds are telling you. Very, very few beers should ever be graced with a five star rating. In short, this beer is perfect.
Okay, so what about my Seals of Approval? Just to keep things simple, those have nothing to do with the five star ratings. They are highly personal and, indeed, are exactly what they claim to be: me, Chuck Hallett, slapping my seal on something to basically say “Chuck-Approved.” The criteria for each grade is surprisingly simplistic because, well, I’m surprisingly simplistic. You see, it’s all based on my personal desire to go to a store and buy this beer.
To put that in perspective consider a few things about me. First, I drink less beer than you might imagine, instead of the raving, barely functional hard core alcoholic of popular imagination, I am more of a “beer-a-day-but-two-on-weekends” sort of low burn rummy. Heck, I might even make it to 50 on my first liver. Second, I get sent lots of beer to review by breweries, and even though I dump a lot of the shitty ones down my drain, they do eat up the vast majority of my beer-a-day budget. Third, being a beer geek, I’d much rather try a new beer than buy a boring old stupid beer I’ve had before.
Combine all that together, and should I be willing to purchase a beer that I’ve had before at the store, that means it’s gotta be a pretty good beer, or I like it for some other reason (my picture on the label might do it… anyone? Please?). So, here’s how those seals break down:
No seal: Chuck would not drink again.
Bronze: Chuck would buy this beer if he needed beer.
Silver: Chuck would buy this beer even if he didn’t need beer.
Gold: Chuck will compulsively buy this beer in great volumes, and react aggressively should you get between the him and the beer. Seriously, just put the beer down, don’t make eye contact, and back away slowly.
So there you have it: your extremely long winded and unnecessarily detailed explanation of what goes on in my head when I use my soapbox to tell the world about a beer I just drank. Take it for what you will.
Apologies if the following contains a bit more beer nerd rage and swearing than usual. I usually try and keep it a bit more civil arou–ah, who am I kidding, this kind of shit is what you people come here for.
It’s been an interesting week for local media and craft beer ignorance. First, the Georgia Straight handed out an award to Craft Beer Market for Third Place in the coveted Best Brewpub category. This is quite an accomplishment for a barely 1 year old establishment and doubly so considering they AREN’T A FUCKING BREWPUB.
Sure, I know the Georgia Straight Best in Vancouver is a write-in award but c’mon guys, do at least some basic fact-checking before printing and framing the results. Shit like this is why your awards have basically no meaning. Maybe next year I’ll run a write-in campaign for “Best 100 Foot Golden Statue.”
However, that pales in comparison to a recent beauty by Vancouver Is Awesome. VIA went out with the aim to call attention to the best craft breweries in town, and came up with a list that just boggles the mind. There are at least five major errors on this list, which is a pretty good batting average for crap considering only 14 entries were published. Let’s go through them, shall we?
1/ Postmark Brewing leads off the piece. Postmark is, without a doubt, the worst brewery within the borders of the City of Vancouver. Their insipid quasi-macro swill might tempt curious Molson drinkers (which is exactly what it is designed to do), but the mere notion of purposefully brewing bad beer is anathema to any craft beer aficionado. Postmark’s deep marketing pockets plus their pole position on this piece cause me to openly wonder if this whole exercise isn’t simply a paid ad on their behalf, with other breweries hastily filled in for some astroturfed legitimacy.
2/ Go down the list a bit and we soon encounter Coal Harbour Brewing. CHB is a curious inclusion on a list designed to direct Vancouverites to the best breweries for “growler fills (and) tastings” considering that they offer neither at their production facility across from Parallel 49. Worry not, though, for the hoards of VIA readers won’t bother the brewers of the pond water that is 311 Lager. You see, VIA helpfully directs people to 1385 W 8th — a simple mistake that the author could have avoided had, you know, HE EVER BEEN TO THE BREWERIES HE WAS RECOMMENDING.
Update: Looks like I miscounted. There are only 12 entries on that list. I am bad at math. Oh well, at least I admit my mistakes. Not like VIA, whoever, who quietly updated their copy to reflect the lack of tastings/fillings at Coal Harbour, and then moved their pin to the correct location.
3/ Where is Storm Brewing? Did you seriously just put together a list of Vancouver breweries and leave out the just-celebrating-their-twentieth-anniversary institution of personified awesome that is Storm Motherfucking Brewing? Seriously, are you an idiot? Do you even drink beer? Do you know anything about it?
4/ I guess we can give them a pass for skipping the latest hotshots of Dageraad, Four Winds, Steel & Oak and Yellow Dog since they’re strictly limiting the entrants to Vancouver breweri—what? Central City made the list? Fuuuuuuck. Sure, CC makes okay beer, but if we’re going to go past that magic city border we can get way, way better beer without having to go all the way to fucking Surrey.
5/ Powell Street isn’t even open yet. I love David and I love David’s beer, and I’m very excited about the new brewery, but to have two addresses on your list of 14 that are incapable of actually serving beer is inexcusable.
You add all that up, and you have a beer list that tells us a lot of its author. They don’t know good beer when they drink it, and they don’t bother actually going to a place before recommending it. That’s some crack journalism there, Bob.
So, the BC Government is moving down their checklist of recommendations from the Liquor Policy Review, finding new and innovative ways to technically give the public what they want while simultaneously screwing us over with policy gotchas preventing any actual enjoyment of said changes.
Let’s review how we got here.
Policy Recommendation #19 specified that “The Province should develop and implement a retail model that meets consumer demands for more convenience by permitting the sale of liquor in grocery stores.”
That seems perfectly reasonable until you realize it came with three caveats. The first maintains the existing cap on total number of Liquor Retail Store licenses in the province, which has been maxed out for many years. Basically, a grocery store can only sell liquor by shutting down an existing LRS.
The second gotcha specified that the minimum spacing of 1km between LRSs should be maintained. The third specifies that any grocery store that gets through the first two then have to build a “store within a store” to hold the booze, complete with separate tills and a no-minors rule. Thanks, guys.
Take those three elements together and we have a model that:
– Does not actually increase the number of locations in the province where one can buy liquor
– Prevents most grocery stores from even being able to sell liquor due to the 1km rule (all but 2 stores, in the entire province, are inhibited by this rule)
– Makes the cost to a store of actually selling liquor prohibitive, both in acquiring the license to sell, and in the required renovations to basically pick up an existing LRS and transport it into the store
Okay, fine. They screwed that one up massively. Next up was Happy Hour, how could they possibly mess up “Allow drinks to be cheaper for a few hours?” For reference, here is the actual wording:
Policy Recommendation # 16: “Permit licensees to offer time-limited drink specials (e.g., happy hours),
provided the price is not below a prescribed minimum consistent with those supported by health advocates.”
Seems reasonable, right? Alas, the new minimums were so infamously high that many pubs had to raise, not lower, their prices. Dammmmn. Either they’re woefully incompetent, or they’re taking very mischievous delight in screwing BC liquor consumers over with a serious of “deal with the devil” style policy changes.
So now, when I get a PDF of a government survey being circulated about the next recommendation under consideration, I somewhat understandably start reading between the lines to see what they could possibly fuck up this time.
Here’s the full text of Policy Recommendation #69: “Allow private and public retail liquor stores to sell growlers (refillable bottles) and operate refilling stations.”
Before we start dusting off our growler collections in anticipation of getting fills of fine imported beers, I want to draw your attention to two questions the government feels the need to ask as part of this survey. There’s nothing firm here, but the same people who have crippled our Grocery Store Grog and Happy Hours are openly wondering about:
Does the size/volume of the growler bottle need to be restricted?
Do you have concerns about the labelling of growlers, particularly whether a brewery, manufacturer, or liquor store can refill a growler with a competitor’s label?
You don’t seed the conversation in a survey like this by randomly asking questions on topics you, yourself, don’t hold opinions on. The first question should end with “because we sure as hell do” and the second with “otherwise children might drink beer thinking it was merely Draino! Won’t someone PLEASE think of the children?!”
So yes, growler fills in LRSs are likely coming to BC sometime soon, but please be prepared for a government mandate restricting the size of those growlers to one arbitrary size, and another mandate making it illegal for all growler fillers everywhere to put their beer in someone else’s growler, basically ruining one of the really cool things about the very concept of growlers.
I want to be wrong; I want to be worried for nothing but, burn me once, shame on you; burn me twice, shame on me; burn me thrice, you must be the BC LCLB.