Yes, taste is subjective, but being able to recognize your limitations and biases is usually the difference between Master exams and the lower scoring exams. (Alongside independent thought, completeness, and thorough descriptive ability, of course.)
For instance, I dislike Fuggles. They are dirt. I could be utterly convinced of dirt=flaw, much like you say “Carmex=flaw”. However, I also recognize that Fuggles are totally acceptable in certain categories. So I cannot, and will not, be biased against them in a competition setting.
Specialty is tough and if there is no reference beer or style listed by the contestant, you’re not left with much to judge on besides ‘Do I like this’. I imagine this situation comes up most often in the specialty categories. Also, it is up to contestants to adequately prepare judges with specialty ingredients and base styles. I’ve seen judges who hesitate to give a higher score because they can’t adequately decide if the beer was what the brewer intended.
Hmm… good point. You’ve given me something to ponder the next time I taste a delicious Belgian ale… that hopefully doesn’t taste of Carmex… or Fuggles for that matter!
Ah, fricking category 23…
it’s making more sense now. Yeah you ended up in the most subjective cat. Science experiments indeed.
I do believe competitions should have very experienced judges in that category, more than just about anywhere else, but perhaps they did.
I don’t avoid 23 anymore, but I don’t relish it. I’m hoping the new guidelines will reduce some of the variety; American Wild and Specialty IPA and whatever.
I am capable of telling why I am/am not impressed with a certain beer’s blend of base and specialty information, and from what we’ve seen I expect you are too. Curious why the other judge loved it so much, but I guess you really did encounter a fairly rare event early on. I’ve never encountered even half of the score differential you indicate. I actually think you did well with a 29, provided it also included feedback on why it didn’t work for you.
Specialty and experimental are especially tough if you give too much credence to what the brewer intended. As a judge in this category, I think it is part of your job to decide if what the brewer intended is actually a good idea. A perfectly executed tomato weizen is still a terrible beer. If someone brews a cat vomit beer and it tastes like cat vomit, is that a 50 point beer because that is what the brewer intended? Or is it a 13 because it tastes like cat vomit?
Are you a bottom up judge, or do you go piece by piece and tally afterwards?
The phenolic flaw, assuming that’s what it was, seems to have a sliding scale looking at the scoring guide. Very major, like undrinkable (ie gag reflex) then 13, but if it’s very minor maybe all the way up to 44. I guess this is why the need for consensus flexibility.
I hope to be the kind of judge that says “this is what I think, but I can be wrong, just tell me where I’m wrong so I can learn”
I generally go piece by piece and see how it adds up, then decide if that score makes sense for that beer. Unless it is terrible, then I try to figure out how to make it add up to 13, I never just write a 13 at the bottom and leave it at that.
I have encountered bottles of lambic that had above threshold levels of butyric acid, which gave the beer human vomit notes. However, I have never encountered cat vomit beer. ;D
The bottom line is they had two judges on the flight who had no business being there. New judges should not do specialty and neither should those who cannot make a decision.
13 is a very low score…think undrinkable wretching at the flavor making you want to blow chunks. I rarely go down there because I can award points other places. I’m guessing the 13 was too low. Sounds like the other score was too high and the middle ground is more appropriate.
I only considered giving the beer a thirteen because I could barely drink it. I never actually wrote thirteen on the score sheet. My first score was in the low twenties, which I thought was generous. I was completely flabbergasted when I saw that the other judge had written “Fantastic!” on his score sheet (his score was in the low forties).
Unfortunately it wasn’t for a contest, a guy brought a keg to a meeting so I had to drink it in front of him and tell him what I thought of it.
I agree 13 is really low and I can usually score a beer higher than that. But I’ve had some that 13 was truly a courtesy, even the appearance was a 1/3 at best. And there have been some that I refused to taste, and it’s hard to score taste/mouthfeel when the smell is so offensive you don’t want to put it in your mouth.
I judged a beer last month for a competition and it was just awful. I gave it a very generous 19 because the competition didn’t want to score any lower unless there was a good reason and apparently horrendous taste just wasn’t good enough. It was like somebody really screwed up their first beer and decided to enter it in a competition anyway. At least my judging partner gave it a similar score.
I think that’s a big mistake. I know that most of the time when I change a score, it’s because my initial score was reached too quickly and after further consideration and tasting I have changed my mind.
John Maier was judging at a comp I was running once. We had set the low score as 13. There was a particular beer that he absolutely refused to score higher than 5.
I agree, I often find myself going back and adjusting beers that were scored early in the flight or late in the flight because I was being too critical early on. My final score is probably more real and maybe more useful than the first impression.
