Got my judging sheets back yesterday. My American Amber scored a 35 and 37. All comments were good, with the only negative thing being “slight oxidation” from one of the judges. Not bad scores, and about what I’ve gotten with that recipe at local competitions. Doubtful a score like that will advance, but maybe???
I think a 35 and 37 are great scores. I would be happy with that.
Some judges will always say “slight oxidation,” so I wouldn’t worry about that too much. Albeit may or may not be true. Generally, it isn’t that far from the truth
A 35 and 37 are very good scores. Maybe try and enter it in a few more comps and see if any other comments are similar and tweak the beer from there.
Good Job!
Those scores are excellent and signify very good beer craft. A score like that is certainly capable of advancing and winning.
I wish I had seen more beers of that caliber at the first rounds in Indy and second rounds the past few years. From what I see and taste from the National Homebrew Competition, there are far too many brewers entering beers that are not qualified to vie for the top brewing prize in the country (sorry MCAB, but you’re relatively unnoticed in the brewing realm).
In my opinion, the entry fee for a beer entry into the NHC needs to be higher to make a brewer really think about “does this beer have a shot and is this worth my entry fee?”. All of that extra income that AHA garners needs to go directly to supporting the judges that may have traveled hundreds of miles and spent a bunch of their own cash to volunteer at these competitions.
Great scores Mic, congratulations! Remind me what region you entered?
You never know…I’ve seen beers advance in the low 30’s before. It’s very possible. Keep the faith. 
Had to go to St. Paul, Portland was full by the time I got online…
Good scores OP. Looks like both of us will be right on the dividing line of beers that make it to the finals and those that don’t.
I just received my scores as well (St. Paul). This was my second contest and i received a 37 and a 42 for my American Stout. Both judges dinged my beer for being a bit too bitter but left mostly positive comments.
Question: are you allowed to fine tune your recipe if you brew a new batch for the final round? I doubt i will advance but am curious nonetheless.
Depending on the style, rebrewing can be recommended. Having judged German Wheats at the second round twice, I can assure you that most first round winning beers won’t be in prime shape by the middle of summer. That might apply to many ales.
Yes you can rebrew. Some beers would not be in peak shape in the time from first round entry to second round judging.
I understand that you are allowed to rebrew. My real question is are you allowed to fine tune your recipe based on judges comments from the first round.
Yes.
Is the mini-BOS box checked on the front page? you have to score in the 30s to make it to mini BOS. I wouldn’t really worry to much if its not checked because most stewards don’t know that they are supposed to check that box.
Even if you made it to the mini-BOS you have a lot of other beers to compete against there. American Ales in the pittsburgh region had about 50 or so entries. You can score a 47 and not advance to the second round.
Oxidation is a flaw that I noted in nearly 80% of the beers that I judged for the first round beers. EVERY beer will oxidize!! Even Gordon Strong’s beers eventually oxidize. I know that my beers oxidize pretty quickly. So I would rebrew it for the second round because slight oxidation will turn into major oxidation in the 2 months until the final round.
[quote]Doubtful a score like that will advance, but maybe??
[/quote]
I think you would already know if your beer advanced by the scoresheet. Look at the “Place Awarded” box on the cover page. If there is a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd there, then you advanced…
If not, better luck next time!
I was a steward for the NHC 1st round in Denver (this was my second year). I tried to check the advanced to mini BOS box (I was probably successful 80-90% of the time). The beers that placed in the top three definately got that included on their sheets.
Most of the ones that went to the mini BOS were above 34 (one exception was a 31). I think the highest score I saw (I was there for all three sessions) was 45 (there were probably less than 10 above 42 in the styles I assisted with).
The mini BOS’s were crazy affairs. The judges worked very hard to give the beers on the bubble a fair shot. I can also tell you that the highest scored beers didn’t always win the day in the mini-BOS (probably 50-50), but probably the highest scored beer was in the top three or four (including honerable mention in some cases) in the mini BOS nearly all (95+%) of the time, and thus advanced.
I would agree that there were a lot of beers scored in the twenties (or below), but am conflicted about raising costs to try to get people to think twice to enter. Some people don’t live in a bastion of homebrewing and don’t have access to local competitions, so if they are going to ship beer to one event, why not this one?
I probably have more problem with people shooting for Ninkaski with the shotgun approach. The shear number of entries makes the competition less managable (less fun, more work, more difficult to find the number of qualified judges and other volunteers necessary) and more difficult to ensure the best beers advance. If you are a good brewer, chances are you are a great taster, so why not choose the best of your best for NHC? I am more impressed by the brewer who made a beer, tasted it, figured it pretty good, and entered his one beer to a competition and wins a medal. That’s batting 1.000! I would rather see a three or four beer limit per member.
The other alternative to improve the quality of entrants is making the NHC a single round invitational and requiring your beer to place in a qualifying BJCP sanctioned competetion within the last 12 months to enter nationals. The problem with this is that it again favors those who are more involved in competitions and not some odd guy with one great beer at its peak in April.
I entered though not because i really believe my beer has a shot, but more so because i expect there to be good judging and good feedback. I would have still done this at a slightly higher entry fee though, and I would not enter a beer i thought was crap. I have heard rumors of some people doing this in the past. i do believe that some support for the judges may be in order, though i am not a judge and until i am, i can’t speak to the total amounts
I think you would already know if your beer advanced by the scoresheet. Look at the “Place Awarded” box on the cover page. If there is a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd there, then you advanced…
If not, better luck next time!
[/quote]
hmmmmm. I didn’t even look at the cover sheet. LOL. I’ll have to check tonight when I get home. Thanks.
I’d be OK with beers having to qualify but then it gets tricky with having to rebrew the beer if too much time has passed. Perhaps it would be easier to require that the brewer must demonstrate “proficiency” by having a beer receive a score higher than 30 at any AHA competition before being permitted to submit beer entries to NHC. Just throwing the idea out there. As a judge, I’d rather see a higher percentage (and lower number) of quality beers to judge rather than simply a larger quantity at the NHC.
I think that both higher quality and lower number of entries would be good (better) for the Nationals. I think making the brewer qualify takes away a little of the inclusiveness that AHA is all about, but it would encourage people to participate in (and maybe organize more) local competitions…
I like the idea of the brewer having to qualify but, I maintain that a brewer must qualify for the Catagory they are entering. I am not bothered by the “re-brewing” as this is done by the most serious of competition minded brewers for the fresh served beers (and who doesn’t need or can find a use for more beer)…it is the opposite of entering a years old barely wine and tatamount to strategies such as blending.
I more favor limiting the number of beers per entrant and getting rid of the ninkaski award (won’t happen). Brewers getting low scores will either improve, or get tired of entering to get low scores. I am also against score inflation (scoring a bad beer higher to save feelings). Lastly, I also learned a lot about tasting beer (as a steward) when I got to sample beers with more obvious flaws and discuss with(or listen to the discussion of) the judges.
I would like to point out that some beers of mine have done very well at a competition, only to have gone downhill for the next a month later. That happens to some beers fast.
I have also had a Pils that was over 40 first round, but was given a kind score of 28 in the second round, as I got hurried in the bottling, and it had Diacetyl, as did the control bottle That prompted me buy a beer gun.
At a local comp I got an 18 for a DIPA, that was loaded with Diacetyl. “WTF” I said when I read the sheets at home and pulled out another bottle, no Diacetyl. At the next club meeting no one could detect any Diacetyl. I just marked this down as a bad bottle, and have taken the action of being really thurough with cleaning the bottles, then baking in the oven at 375F for an hour to sterilize. Bad bottles happen sometimes.
This should point out that the beer can taste great from the keg at home. Getting it in good shape in front of the judges is a challange that you have to face if you compete.