Truth - and I know the judges try their best. I probably should have kept my thoughts to myself, as I really do appreciate how hard it would be for me to attempt any of the BJCP stuff - that taste test sounds as hard as the bar exam!
Very constructive discussion!
The BJCP style guidelines offer an important coordination between most brewers and drinkers as to the major features of a particular style. Where the history and perceptions of the style are broad, the guidelines often have latitude in the characteristics. However, there is a deficiency that seems counterproductive to me. We rely on the “Specialty” category (23) to give those beers that don’t quite fit well into the major categories. That does segregate beers that are generally similar to the major category, but has a unique feature or character that sets it apart. I have mentioned this in the past and it has been discussed in some circles that each major category should have its own ‘specialty’ subcategory so that these beers that may stretch the bounds of the category can be better compared to similar beers.
A case in point are beers that seem to straddle subcategories. They tend to get marked down because they are perceived with a little too much of a neighboring subcategory’s character, all the while, it is a really great beer…maybe even better than the more subcategory aligned beers. It would be great to update the guidelines to include a better mechanism for including these somewhat unique beers with their brethren.
Clearly, there will be beers that venture well outside the character of some categories and the need for Category 23 - Specialty is still needed. But let’s put this idea to the test.
I do appreciate the strong opinions expressed here, but I am dismayed that we don’t have names and reputations to accompany all of them. Please consider including a little more self identification if you intend to be taken seriously. Slackers like myself, denny, mdixon, etc 
that stand behind their words with a level of name recognition are much more likely to be civil. I understand a reluctance to use your full name to reduce the chance of being searched via the web, but you can make it possible to show who you are. I have found that great friendships and appreciation can come of it.
Category 2C guideline is a modern interpretation of the style. Not all CAPS employed a cereal mash (Trommers’ was all malt). At that point in time, the percentage of corn could be low enough to be undetectable. However, the yeast metabolic by products were always present. Yeast is the single most important ingredient in beer. It has a greater impact on the final flavor of a beer than any other ingredient.
Maybe we need a Pre-Prohibition Pilsener category? Fifties lager is to pre-Prohibition lager what category 1A is to category 1B. The IBU-level and body of American lager was significantly reduced during WWII in order to appeal to women. Brewers never returned to the pre-WWII flavor profile. If brewed with a period correct grist and a period correct yeast, Classic American Pilsener tastes more like Bohemian Pilsener than a bigger version of American Premium Lager, as that was clearly the flavor profile that brewers were attempting to recreate using domestic ingredients. If you brew a CAP with a period-correct strain, you will see what I am talking about.
I have made CAPs with several commonly-used pre-Prohibition strains (none of which carries a Weihenstephan number). I currently use a pre-Prohibition yeast strain that is not available via the home brew trade. This strain could best be described as the Leopold Schmidt strain. It was deposited in the culture collection from which I retrieved it over seventy years ago. The brewery in which the strain was used predates prohibition (it was closed in the fifties). This strain behaves nothing like a modern production lager yeast strain (most modern production strains are triploids and tetraploids). It flocs so hard in the primary that the beer looks like it has been filtered. The Leopold Schmidt strain often leaves above taste threshold diacetyl and esters in beers above 12P. The Christian Schmidt and the August Schell strains also leave above taste threshold levels of these metabolic byproducts in beers above 12P. The Christian Schmidt strain was the predominant yeast strain in use while American lager was being developed. Diacetyl is the price that one must pay for using flocculent lager strains.
Wahl & Henius just doesn’t support the percentage of corn being low enough to be undetectable, of course it could be rice or sugars (25%) instead of corn in which case one would not perceive corn. Two thirds malt and one third “cereals” is the norm cited, but could range from 10 to 50%. Even 10% corn is generally detectable in a beer IME unless masked by some other characteristic.
Maybe you have other sources of grist information, it would be useful if they were cited. If you truly want to influence the style guidelines I would suggest you get on the BJCP Forum and provide/cite your sources. This would be the correct place to provide your information and resources regarding 2C. The guidelines are currently being revised, so I’d suggest you post immediately or plan to not see any change in at least another 4 to 8 years. Otherwise it’s just anonymous posts without citations on this forum to ultimately be lost in time.
http://forum.bjcp.org/viewforum.php?f=4
Well said!
until AmandaK does a retake and sets a new record score, I’m Kansas’ only Master Judge.
figure it out.
cheers–
–Michael
Saaz-type strains are diploids that contain one set (haploid) of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (S. cerevisiae) chromosomes and one set (haploid) of Saccharomyces eubayanus (S. eubayanus) chromosomes. Frohberg-type strains are triploids that contain two sets (diploid) of S. cerevisiae and one set (haploid) of S. eubayanus genes. Both families inherited their cold tolerance genes from S. eubayanus.
While the first lager strain isolated at Carlsberg Laboratory was a diploid Saaz-type yeast strain (Carlsberg No. 1, which is available in its original form from CBS-KNAW in the Netherlands and the NCYC in the UK, http://www.ncyc.co.uk/yeast-ncyc-396.html), not all Carlsberg yeast strains are diploids. I know for a fact that Carlsberg production strain No. 244 is a tetraploid (4 sets of chromosomes) with aneuploidy (with respect to brewer’s yeast, aneuploidy is a condition where the total number of chromosomes is not a multiple of 16). This information has been confirmed by Jürgen Wendland at Carlsberg Laboratory.
Speaking of Jürgen Wendland, here is a link to a paper that he and his colleagues just published about lager yeast genetics: http://www.g3journal.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=24578374. If the information presented in this paper withstands the rigors of peer review, he and his team are about to re-write what we know about the Saaz and Frohberg families. He proposes that the Saaz strains are triploids with one set (haploid) S. cerevisiae chromosomes and two sets (diploid) of S. eubayanus chromosomes. He also proposes that the Frohberg strains are tetraploids with two sets (diploid) S. cerevisiae chromosomes and two sets (diploid) of S. eubayanus chromosomes.
I have only exchanged a couple of e-mails messages with Jürgen, but he is definitely a guy with whom I would like spend some time talking about yeast genetics. He is a rockstar in the world of yeast genetics.
Well, it appears that the Christian Schmidt strain was also popular in the Midwest. However, we need to put things into context. Christian Schmidt took over a former ale brewery in 1860 (the Courtenay Brewery). At that point in time, all yeast cultures were mixed cultures, as the first pure lager yeast culture was not isolated until 1883. It’s unclear when the first pure Christian Schmidt culture was isolated.
It bet that the beer was fermented with Young’s strain or a closely related strain. Young’s strain can throw huge grape notes when stressed.
Many of the styles are not “historically” accurate. I mean most these styles had Brett and other bacteria in them, the malts where kilned with heating methods that smoked and altered the flavor of the malt, malts in general have changed, hops have changed, etc… The style guidelines are all for modern interpretations of styles. This is why the style guidelines also change occasionally to keep up with what brewers are currently brewing.
I will gladly connect a first and last name to my forum user name if we meet at the NHC. I attend an event every year where each forum member has an additional badge that bears his/her user name. This event is rather large, so it is kind of like our inside secret. Most of the active forum members have met in person, but we prefer to remain anonymous online.
I always tell people to think of the guidelines more like targets in a shooting competition. At the end of the day, it makes no difference if that piece of paper has a hole in it. What matters is a marksman’s ability to hit that target. You wouldn’t go to a shooting contest and claim that you meant to hit that tree instead of the target.
I’m oversimplifying a little, but the BJCP guidelines provide targets. If you’re competing, then you’re being judged on your ability to hit that target because that is a measure of brewing skill.
Good point.
Well, in a competition it seems like there has to be some way of defining the goal, how to score, how to play, what constitutes a foul, etc.
I do much better at golf when I use a little soccer rules, but I can’t get the damn PGA to let me kick the ball once in a while. They suck, I’m awesome!