2014 BJCP Style Guidelines Discussion

Hey guys,

During the 2014 National Homebrewers Conference, BJCP President Gordon Strong gave a talk on the changes coming to the BJCP Style Guidlines. Chip Walton and the Chop & Brew team caught the talk on video. Check it out here: [u]http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/videos/chop-brew-covers-2014-bjcp-style-guidelines/[/u]

What does everyone think of the changes?

-duncan

Thanks for posting this Duncan. I plan to review and post my viewpoint/assessment in due time.

It should be noted once the Guidelines are out for public comment the place to comment and offer feedback is the BJCP Forums so we have an archive which can be reviewed.

I find the “Clone Beer” category to be a little confusing and hard to judge.  Imagine winning two medals for brewing a Pliny clone after entering it as a clone and DIPA.

I suppose one could enter it as both a Clone and a DIPA, but unless it was the best clone and the best DIPA it would not be assured of a medal.

For a “clone” judge panel they would probably want to have a smartphone and google at their fingertips in case they ran into a clone they had never tasted. I remember way back in the day with my De Dolle Oerbier clone having to write out a description for the judge panel.

Theres some stuff on this on the BJCP homepage too.  A nice slide show with the changes.  I perused them casually and like what I see.

I find the clone category confusing as well. Will need to wait and see how it is detailed out in the pre-release in a few weeks.

I agree the clone category is interesting.  Overall I really like the changes.

Someone asked Gordon that question and the clone category is going to have requirements to describe the beer, not just what it is a clone of.

It is very likely if you win a medal for the best clone of Pliny, that it has a good shot at winning a medal for DIPA.

It will be interesting to see what comes out when all is said and done.

That can happen other ways too. Same beer entered as similar styles (Scottish 60/70/80,  American pale/IPA, etc). To me part of the reason to have a clone category would be to standardize what information entrants provide to judges. Clones often don’t fit style guidelines but aren’t necessarily well described by the ‘base style and specialty ingredients’ paradigm. But yeah, what happens if someone wants to clone a classic example? Maybe that’s addressed in the full guidelines.

I like condensing the Scottish to Light and Heavy. Curious to see if peat smoke finally kicks the bucket.

From what I heard and inferred I think the Clone category is. Lining of beers that might not fit other categories. So if you have a Pliny clone it should obviously be in double IPA, not specialty clone.

That would make more sense.

Someone please tell Gordon not to change ESB to whatever it is they are changing it to. Seriously? 6 billion people know what ESB is. How can a dozen people do away with it? Keep that up and no one will know what BJCP is.

I had a server call it an EBS once. So maybe she’ll be less confused.

They also changed Classic American Pilsner to Pre-prohibition Lager!

I like CAP better than PPL.

As long as Red Hook and Full Sail relables their beers “formerly known as ESB” so I dont get confused I’ll be fine

In England it is a Strong Bitter made by Fullers, Smith and Turner. It is a trademark and only that beer is ESB. Is that what you were saying?

In the talk Gordon mentioned that they wanted substyle names to be a single name, with alternatives mentioned in comments - any of which is acceptable. The problem they noticed with a name with alternatives (like Extra Special/Strong Bitter) was that people were starting to say 'I entered an Extra Special Strong Bitter).

Other than that they probably want to get away from acronyms which can have different meanings to different people (especially since BJCP is more and more international). I mean, you could drink an Enterprise Service Bus but it has a metallic finish.