RateBeer Forums

How can we find out how OG we are?

Just happened to have a 23 year old barley wine at Full Sail and am feeling pretty smug. Then I got to thinking, is there a way to see how many retired beers you’ve had? Need to know - my personal idea of how cool I am is on the line here.

1 Like

I mean most beers made today are one-offs. I suspect that over 50% of the beers I rated are retired or should be retired, but I doubt any admin puts a lot of effort into retiring beers unless there is some grand announcement about it.

I think I’ve out lived most of the beers I’ve drank over the years, but there are plenty still around too. No idea percentage wise though?

<*))))))><

My thoughts too. If I had to guess I’d estimate that regular and seasonal releases make up maybe ~10% of what I’ve rated, if even that. And if you count only the last year it’s probably down to like 1%
I’m pretty sure hardly any of these have actually been retired on RB, but I guess it could be cool to know what the percentage is just for trivia sake.

I make a point of retiring / cleaning up local breweries if/when I am in there for other reasons, but that’s mostly bc I like having the database clean, and I find it personally helpful when seeking out beers. So it’s as much a selfish effort as it is a community good lol

1 Like

From admin perspective: one of the problems with retiring beers is that often enough retired beers are brought back. So in any country with bigger craft beer scene it is impossible to monitor these things all the time. So it makes sense to not retire things too fast unless 100% sure.

That being said, I try to retire Estonian stuff that has not been made at least a year, and subjectively think that may not be brewed again (ofc sometimes I am wrong).

So there’s no way to tell, in other words? I mean at least to see how many beers I’ve had that are marked retired? (If not actually retired)

Even Untappd doesn’t have that stat

Hope it is /s

Untappd stats suck. They have promised improvements for years. Still suck (yes, even with premium).

Tip how to get a lot of retired beers in untappd: drink a lot of 3F lambic - every batch is a new tick, every batch is insta retired (even before it is released!).

They could be much better (so could RB stats) but filter options are UT forte. You want to know how many German lambics you had from 01.01.2017 to 31.04.2018? No problem. Why can’t we have similar features at RB is beyond me.

And 3F beers are tasty as well. Yeah, 3F retires each blend, but every single one they release is there.

1 Like

(not untappd premium, so possibly some of what I say may be outdated… )
I 100% agree that both could do better, but those filters are double edge sword. To give you an example: say how many and what untappd beer styles you have not tried. In rb this is clear stat, untappd has this data, but hidden so you have to compare two long drop downs. Many people (who only use app) don’t even know that this data exists!

Not sure if adding absolutely every batch is the smartest decisions, it kind of works in 3F case since they don’t have that many blends (they probably release less blends than other half releases “new” beers in a year :smiley: ) . But every blend => new beer makes it close to impossible to actually get an overview what beers you have tried, unless you of course think that every blend is a new beer…

That being said, there is also a big lambic mess in RB. I am trying to fix it, but it will take time, and I expect some complaining about mergers, especially once I clean up Zennes :smiley:

Agreed.

I see it as 3F decision to brand beers as such. I connected this whole rebranding thing with Armand retiring and younger guys taking over. Can’t say I’m an insider so could be wrong there. Generally I like the idea because some blends are drastically different.

If cleaning up this mess means merging all that can be merged it will be one of things to drive me away from RB. Lambics are one of the main reasons rating should be redesigned so re-rating of different blends, vintages, years is properly documented. Inspired by Craigs numerous re-ratings of GKHSR I’ve suggested that long time ago (of course no feedback from Joe). Brewver is on that track. I try to document each 3F blend here as well but since it’s all under same entry it looks messy and on the other hand RB has no use of that data. And I think more useful data is a good thing for us, brewers and consequently for RB.

Edit: One more question are you a lambic admin?

1 Like

No disagreement, but this is not rb way. Oude Geuze is actually the most drastic example. They are basically selling different beers under one name.

Hopefully the mergers will make sense. Possibly the most obvious examples are some spelings, which are just trial runs for bigger batches. Or these for example:
https://www.ratebeer.com/beer/3-fonteinen-speling-van-het-lot-ix-iv-aardbeiiteraties-aardbei-kriek-blended-and-alive-3-gr-l-dosage/763077/
https://www.ratebeer.com/beer/3-fonteinen-speling-van-het-lot-ix-vii-aardbeiiteraties-aardbei-kriek-blended-and-alive-2-gr-l-dosage/763081/
https://www.ratebeer.com/beer/3-fonteinen-speling-van-het-lot-ix-vi-aardbeiiteraties-aardbei-kriek-blended-and-alive-4-gr-l-dosage/763082/
etc.
They are not different beers in any meaningful way, unless you’re really really interested in sugar priming effects.

No argument here.

I don’t agree. I like the idea how they want to do it, but for example all those aardbeiiteraties versions are different beers there… basically i don’t agree with the lambic adminning there (and this is ironic because there are bunch of people who know lambic really well behind brewver).

Yes. But I will not make the merger decision by myself. Werckmeister and SinH4 will hopefully help, and any admin can chip in. Now that I am writing this, I think I will create a public forum topic about these things at some point, so things will be more transparent.

You may have noticed that there are now separate entries for HORAL’s megablend vintages and A&G Vintage. These are the things we have decided to separate, despite there being obvious reasons to not to do it (and hence why they historically were not).

Sometimes old ways should be rethinked and improved. Seems to me that 3F is a good example of doing just that.
I would say they are branding and even selling them (in their webshop) under different names. They are trying to make a distinction between different blends. It’s RB that sees them as same beer.

I see your point when it comes to the Spelings you’ve mentioned. But difference between 250g and 450g of fruit per liter should be more obvious (we already had discussion on Schaarbeekse blends). Who is to draw a line and say something is different in a meaningful way?

Have to admit I’m not using it actively (yet), but in general the technical possibility of various vintages under same entry seems like a good thing.

Transparency is always good (speaking of which I find it frustrating there is no list of Admins by the region/category). I did notice the separated A&G Vintages, but not HORAL megablends. I wonder what will be the arguments on Zenne.

Only problem with separating out years of anything on here that I see is that it’s near impossible half the time to get beers up to the minimum 10 reviews on here to have a rating as it stands…

Maybe that will be different with lambics as they are more sought after? I don’t know

Yeah, ‘retired’ beers are a really faulty metric nowadays.

I wonder if a more interesting approach would be to see how many beers you have rated that were added to the website before, say, 2005 or 2010. Obviously many of these beers would not be retired, but I’d find it fun to know how many ‘older’ or ‘well established’ beers I have rated (which I think is a mark of OG). Or maybe how many beers with IDs 1-10,000 have I rated.

I was always of the opinion that we should keep Solera separate from the Non-Soleras, but besides that we can merge Zenne. Now that we have, what, 11 batches?, I am even more in favour of that. I merged them once after speaking with Werner, but then Tim came back from his Ratebeer holidays and didn’t like what we had done.

I’d consider it offensive to both the brewer and the consumer.

The brewer made different labels and clearly tried to make a distinction between different blends. The message to the brewer I’m seeing is - you’re effort is worthless, you’re selling us mumbo jumbo with different blends and barrels it’s all the same beer.

The message I’m getting as a consumer is - you’re a jackass for believing you’re drinking different beers and paying for it. And some people definitely made a buying decision based on beers being different at RB.

As a Ratebeerian I’ll have multiple reviews under same entry and it makes just more mess and less useful data.

1 Like

I think you missed important bit how SinH4 spoke with Werner (you know, one of the main guys behind 3F) and his point was 180 opposite of what you are trying to say here. If anything, it is offending to 3F that we didn’t merge them then…

Yes, I know who Werner is. But why is then 3F putting effort in different labels and stories behind the blends if they should be considered the same beer? And you are saying they are even offended by that. Solution is very easy for 3F - put them all behind the same label and problem solved. There’s probably some logic behind all this, but I’m not seeing it.

Edit: Also as far as I know 3F is managing their own UT account and making unique entries for each blend. How does Werner feel about that? Is he offended as well?





Add To RateBeer

Add A Beer
Add A Brewer
Add A Place
Add An Event


Manage Your Account

Add Premium
Edit Profile
Messages
Sign out

RateBeer Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter, RateBeer Weekly, a must for understanding new people, places and beers in worldwide craft culture.


Stay Connected


2000- 2017 © RateBeer, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service