Beavertown Skull King 2017 version - separate entry needed?

Alright, question for admins or anyone who might know more about this. Tonight I’m drinking Skull King and Spresso, both 2017 versions (canned). I noticed there is a separate 2017 entry for Spresso, but not for Skull King, even though both appear to have undergone changes.

The 2017 Spresso has gained an extra 0.5% (now 9% vs. 8.5% previously) but as far as I can tell the recipe (or at least the ingredients) appears to be the same bar one difference: 2016 used 80kg of coffee beans while 2017 used 200kg. I was under the impression that tweaks like this and an ABV change of less than 10% difference were NOT grounds for a new entry. Has this changed? I don’t disagree with it being a new entry, just curious why.

And I also ask because if the above constitutes a new entry then should one also be added for Skull King 2017? Like Spresso, this has also gained an extra 0.5% ABV (9.2% vs. 8.7% previously). The current Skull King is detailed here but I don’t know what (if anything other than ABV) changed since previous years, my tasting notes seem similar enough to other peoples that I imagine it’s largely the same, but then again so do my tasting notes for Spresso. If it does warrant a new entry then there’s only 3 ratings that need moving.

Would appreciate any answers/guidelines for how we’re supposed to deal with changes like this, i.e. where the line is drawn between minor and major tweak and also the ABV ‘rule’. For example, during 2017 Deya made several recipe tweaks on 2 or 3 of their beers, one of which had a whole ingredient removed (vanilla is no longer added to See Man’s Driving a Belgian Wit). I didn’t add new entries for any as it didn’t seem sufficiently different to warrant it. Should I have done? It’s a bit late now obviously but would be useful to know for the future.


If it’s less than 15% then it should not be a new beer (unless it’s like Fuller’s Vintage Or when the recipe is different each year). I think the problem is that it’s difficult for Admins to keep up. Plus when it comes to breweries like Beavertown, people want the extra ticks.

I bought a beer on Friday which had slightly different name and an increase of more than 15% in ABV. However having discussed it on the Spanish form decided not to add it as a seperate entry (although it could do with an alias).

So it’s exactly as I originally thought then.

Regarding admins keeping up that’s not the issue here as an admin was the one responsible for this specific case. The 2016 version was retired and had 2016 appended to the name. It really does seem like it should just be one entry unless someone can explain otherwise?

Also another thing. Why is Caravan (the providers of the coffee) in the name as collaborator? This has come up numerous times before and numerous admins have been very clear that non brewing collaborators should never be in the title. Or if they are then it’s as part of the name so no slash to denote it’s a collab.

I feel like there’s some disagreement among the admins themselves about this, either that or a non uk admin did it. We’re getting mixed messages.

Maybe it’s just a mistake, which is fine, but would be nice to have some clarification if we’re doing things differently going forward.

Consistency across a dozen or so UK admins and 100+ across the board is never likely to be 100% tied down.

I personally don’t include a non brewing collaber in the name.

I just added Chorlton Kayon Coffee Sour today … a collab with Ancoats Coffee Limited which I made reference to in the info box.

A touch more info is often better than less … someone might search beavertown caravan and find the beer where as they wouldn’t have if it wasn’t in the full name.

But so long as you can find the beer easily and it makes sense stylistically etc … don’t lose sleep over it.

To reiterate myself … you’ll never get 100% consistency on a database this big with so many users and a lot of admins.