Joe Sixpack | 100-point scale for beer ratings a rank idea

FURTHER EVIDENCE of the dumbing down of America is now on display on the necks of

Pilsner Urquell

. The bottles are adorned with a big "93," its most recent score from Chicago's Beverage Testing Institute.

The score, on a 100-point scale, makes it the world's "highest-rated pilsner," according to the advertisements, placing it in the institute's "exceptional" category of beers.

While other beers routinely boast about their high scores, I believe this is the first mainstream import to include the number in its packaging.

I won't dispute the number; Pilsner Urquell is a world classic. But who needs a score to choose a beer?

I dunno - someone who wants to impress his friends, maybe, but doesn't have a clue about style, flavor or quality? Who is so filled with self-doubt, he can't spend a few lousy bucks without an expert holding his hand? Whose vocabulary is so limited he needs a number to describe what's in his glass?

You know, a wine drinker.

It was the wine world that gave us the 100-point flavor scale. Robert Parker and his ilk - aesthetes with golden palates and blue noses who can discern the difference between the superlative and the merely outstanding.

Some believe the scores are responsible for revolutionizing the entire wine industry, giving newbies a tool to cut through all the confusing varieties while pumping up the value of superior brands.

I don't like 'em for at least three good reasons:

_ They're unneeded.

Like wine, beer is becoming increasingly confusing, with a myriad of styles and flavors from obscure breweries and importers. Unlike wine, beer is still cheap enough that you can drink lots of different bottles while you discover your own favorites. A number only reduces what should be a challenging and enjoyable pastime to the blind pursuit of the so-called "best."

_ They're inflationary.

High scores will only justify brewery price increases. Some wineries focus their entire production on these expensive, big-flavored bottles, hoping to cash in on the attention of a 95 from the likes of Wine Spectator. Worse, the high scores attract speculators who drive up the prices on low-production gems.

_ They're anti-beer.

The mere process of rating wine, in which a few experts - whose standards do not reflect the masses - influence the marketplace, is elitist and autocratic.

Beer is democratic by nature and should reject any high-handed incursion by taste-makers who insist they know better. All you need to know here is that professional tasters spit without swallowing.

Jerald O'Kennard, who runs the Beverage Tasting Institute, naturally disagrees with me on the value of these scores, and he makes one very good point in their favor.

"They're good for people who don't break out of their usual brand," O'Kennard said. "A lot of people who drink Heineken may never drink anything else. . . .

"I think it will appeal to some crossover wine drinkers - the better-wine customer who's used to the idea of points."

O'Kennard said 100-point scales are a better way to judge the quality of beer than, say, the gold, silver and bronze medals doled out at the annual Great American Beer Festival. Because the medalists vary greatly from year to year, O'Kennard said, "Over time, that system doesn't send a very consistent message to consumers."

The tasting that produced Pilsner Urquell's score, though, seems equally problematic.

The test was commissioned by Pilsner Urquell's owner, SABMiller, and pitted the brand against eight other imported lagers, including Peroni (which scored 90), Stella Artois (90), Grolsch (88), Warsteiner (88), Becks (87), Foster (87), Heineken (86) and Staropramen (84).

Of the competitors, however, only Staropramen is a true Czech-style pilsner in the class of Pilsner Urquell. (Curiously, Staropramen fared much better when it was tested in the 1990s, scoring a 91 - exceptional, with "plenty of character in a classic mold." This time around, the tasters dismissed it as "drinkable but not very interesting.")

Among the highly regarded Czech pilsners left out of the taste test were Czechvar and Krusovice Imperial, both of which scored well in earlier BTI tests.

O'Kennard said the tested brands were chosen because they are similar to Pilsner Urquell in style and availability. But none of the other beers tested are particularly known for their fruity hops character or smooth malt balance. Becks is almost caustic in comparison, and Heineken has that unfortunate skunky aroma.

It's no wonder Pilsner Urquell shined so brightly.

But that's something you would've discovered for yourself if you simply brought home a handful of pilsners and tasted them with your friends. Leave the test scores to wine; they only cheapen the true value of beer. *

"Joe Sixpack" by Don Russell appears weekly in Big Fat Friday. For more on the beer scene in Philly and beyond, visit www.JoeSixpack.net. Send e-mail to joesixpack@phillynews.com.