Hi Urbain,
But, what I am saying is that this can be achieved by altering the parameters of the Bayesian weighting.
If we take Cuvée Delphine as an example. It has an average of 4.50 on 10 ratings, which puts it solidly in the top 50, the minimum requirement being only 4.14. And I agree here. This is probably a too weak statistical basis for granting a top 50 position.
Instead of raising teh cutoff limit, which has a lot of serious disadvantages IMO, the parameters could be altered so that for instance a beer with n (say 10 or 25) ratings and an average of 5.00 would only get a score equivalent to a position just outside top 50, say 4.13 in this case.
This way beers with lower number of ratings will appear in the various top lists, they will get a percentile and appear in the top lists if you scroll further down. The lists for regions with low number of active raters may still make some sense without artificial cut off limits.
|
Private message 
|
+1 Per, that makes sense... maybe the Bayesian parameters should be more harder on us now, so the negative thoughts would easily be dropped, less or no frustrations, f..ck.. up discussions too. Same for all returning discussions for every new beer that hits the top50 too quickly...  Urbain
|
Private message
|
I stand to be corrected. But my understanding is that kegs in the USA are not pasteurised. And that most brewers cold filter for the bottle.
Even here in the UK there are few brewers who pasteurise for the bottle and have a cask version of the same beer. Those that do are the regional breweries who are over a 100 years old and have developed in a different way to the modern micro-brewers. If a modern microbrewery has a pasteurised version of a cask ale it is because they send their beer to be bottled by a regional brewery. Most UK microbreweries are VERY small and many simply do not have the space or money for bottling equipment.
I’d be interested in you pointing me to a US brewer that you suspect has pasteurised beer and also produces cask conditioned beer.
|
Private message
|
There are beers for which this is true - or rather, that at times the difference is not immediately apparent. For example strong dark beers, such as Imperial Stouts. However, for the majority of British beers such as pale bitters, and especially the hoppy session bitters, the difference is quite profound.
Under the pastuerising process the aromatic nature of the hops is reduced and the flavour profile is altered. The common flavour associated with pasteurised hops is "cardboard".
Pasteurising also alters the nature of the malt so it tastes of barley sugar.
To be fair, to the inexperienced palate these flavours may not appear, but I can assure you, most UK drinkers who consider what they are drinking are well aware of these flavours - and dislike them.
|
Private message
|
yeah something like that would work.
|
Private message
|
+1 for Silktork. applause Pasteurization itself is no crime. After brewing, fermentation and lagering, beer destined for most domestic and international markets is heated to 60 degrees Celsius (140 degrees Fahrenheit) for 20-35 minutes. The result is a beer that is stable and pure at the microbiological level, giving it has a much higher tolerance for the changes of temperature and other small shocks it receives during shipping and storage. But that additional level of security comes at a price. While pasteurization does make the beer more stable, the heat also kills off much of the characteristic spicy flavours of the hops. Additionally, pasteurization can greatly increase the beer’s chance of oxidation, which can lead to staleness or give it a taste of cardboard or other off-flavours. Those bad flavours can be especially apparent after a long sea voyage.
That is why Struise never, I repeat, never pasteurizes their beers.
But how are our beers being treated on their long voyage overseas? Example, a full container load go’s direction USA. Shipment date = between 30th May and/or August. A standard sea container loaded above deck will reach a temperature of 140° Fahrenheit for every sunny day it is at sea after being 5 hours in the sun. Overnight temperatures can go down near freezing point. Generally and by the time a beer arrives in a US port of entry, it will have pasteurized at least a dozen times and not for 20 minutes but between 6 and 8 hours. A reefer container (isolated refrigerated container) makes a halt to such and many encountered other problems, not even being discussed here, but are those containers used?
An enquiry led by Struise not long ago, learned us that most handlers around the world, with the exception of Asia, that 90% of the time, standard containers were used... hmmm... HACCP rules every where, but apparently not at sea! Cheers, Urbain
|
Private message
|
Cold filtered vs cask has the same differences as pasteurized vs. cask. You are misreading what I said. I am not trying to say that there are no differences between cask beer and their counterparts that are not cask beers. I am saying that the difference between cold filtered beer and cask beer is just as pronounced as the difference between pasteurized and cask.
|
Private message
|
Pasteurisation vs cask are clearly different beers whilst chill filtered vs cask I would have more trouble differentiating. As SilkTork quite rightly points out, the majority of pasteurised UK beers are relatively light in ABV and the boiled sweet malt and emaciated hop flavours are really quite pronounced and I would class them as different to their cask version sisters. It is perhaps surprising that beers such as Fullers London Porter and ESB have higher scores for their pasteurised bottle versions that for their cask versions. But then again as any vaguely experienced cask ale drinker will tell you, sometimes the cask conditioned/bottle conditioned beer is beautiful, sometimes it’s average and sometimes it’s awful. For ages Fullers ESB on cask for me was rated 0.5 due to a bad pint in a pub. The fact that pasteurised bottled Sam Smiths beers regularly top the UK ratings is often an embarrassment for UK Ratebeerians. Pictish, Dark Star, Thornbridge, Harveys, Oakhams, Acorn, Brew Dog anyone???
As I started this thread I had no idea it would raise so many points. For me Cuvee Delphine was one of my beer highlights of 2008. I’ve had a fair few beers now and there aren’t many that are literally jaw dropping. This one was. And quite clearly in the top 50 beers I’ve ever had. Sorry about that to anyone who hasn’t had it, but there are lots of beers out there that I’m unlikely to ever get which I really want, but I don’t bitch about it. There are 900 ratings of the Russian River Pliny beers and I’ve never even seen a bottle of either.
In terms of Struise beer distribution, I will only say 2 things. The first is that I have stood in the Deca brewery where Struise brew with litres and litres of Pannepot and kegs of Black Albert in front of me and I can’t buy any of them, for they are destined for the USA market. These are both beers that I’ve rated 5/5 and I can’t get in the UK. Have you any idea how that feels. To stand looking at palates of Pannepot and not being able to touch them? Secondly, I’ve walked into a Fred Meyer supermarket in Portland, Oregon and seen a better selection of Belgian beers than in many Belgian beer outlets.
Finally, I do apologise for the hassle this thread has caused to Urbain. It was never intended. I hope that you’ll still let us visit when we are over for Zythos in March.
|
Private message
|
Stop apologizing, everybody knows about now you have been a very bad boy... On the other hand I must say this thread did not cause me any hassle, it informed me, and that what’s it is all about. The day I am on an island without the possibility of being informed or getting all the information I need in favour of customers, fans, and friends, that will be the day it is over for Struise.
If you come to the pre-zbf, I might forgive you...  Cheers, Urbain
|
Private message
|
I’ll be there Urbain, can’t wait to try all of those Struise/Alvinne beers. Thanks for putting that on for all of us.
|
Private message
|
|
