|
hopefully soon someone will post in this thread who can describe the listing policies for different barrels, different hops and different names given by the brewer. i don’t have the time to go into it right now but please know there are cases where separate entries are needed and short comments about naming other beers bring nothing to the discussion. the rules on different barrels + different names (since someone mentioned Paradox) have been established for a while and are pretty reasonable.
|
Post a reply 
Private message 
|
No, it was only the Brunch that is Weasel.
And it’s only the 2nd ot 3rd most expensive coffee in the world. Not necessarily the best tasting. It has a good musky overtone though.
|
Post a reply
Private message
|
|
if every time a coffee stout changed coffee types/brands, it would be a mess.
|
Post a reply
Private message
|
Exactly my point.
|
Post a reply
Private message
|
"Describe"???
Why aren’t the rules clearly published somewhere on the site if they have been established for a while? I know the basics (at least for Barrel Aged alternates) are laid out in the FAQ, but why aren’t the full rules for both situations listed somewhere?
|
Post a reply
Private message
|
|
They should divide Coors between before and after they started using rocky mountain spring water. That changed everything for me.
|
Post a reply
Private message
|
|
Look at it this way: if every time a beer changes coffee, or is dry hopped, or changes ingredient source, essentially what you’d have to do is label each beer by its batch number/brewing date. That would absolutely make the database useless because very few breweries actually put the brewing date on the bottle.
|
Post a reply
Private message
|
|
O’Brien’s in Santa Monica?
|
Post a reply
Private message
|
Hail Lord Gorlock or die.
I was thinking the inflated ratings of "the shit," may be partially due to a different recipe or process change, rather than the adding of the possibly inferior kopi luwak coffee.
|
Post a reply
Private message
|
Yeah, I mistyped hastily but quickly realized that after several other posts. Funny thing is, when I rated the Brunch (just looked now) it looks like I knew it was from animal poopings, lol. Feels like I just learned this yesterday while seeing this thread. Man, I’m old. Relearning things and feeling like it’s the first time.
Threads like this beat me up by this point though. A total beer geeky rambling on the merits of whether it’s a new entry or not. If you want to rate it again that badly and it’s not a new tick yet, then add it as a re-rate to your current Speedway review. Let the admins determine whether or not it’s a new entry here. I think the cask/non-cask entries of many English beers are dumb. But, I’m probably just the dumb one. So, I let it be. Good gracious.
|
Post a reply
Private message
|
