BEER JUDGE CERTIFICATION - INTRODUCTION TO THE 2015GUIDELINES states:
The BJCP Style Guidelines are guidelines not specifications. Take those words at face value, or their plain meaning. Guidelines are meant to describe general characteristics of the most common examples, and serve as an aid for judging; they are not meant to be rigorously-applied specifications that are used to punish slightly unusual examples.
They are suggestions, not hard limits. Allow for some flexibility in judging so that well-crafted examples can be rewarded. The guidelines are written in detail to facilitate the process of the structured evaluation of beer as practiced in homebrewing competitions; don’t take each individual statement in a style description as a reason to disqualify a beer.
Remember entering one of your favorite drinking homebrews then get a low scoresheet just to see you made an incredible beer yet told to enter it in another category to win.
Does this judge practice all of the above?
Best regards,
CaptMike
You either understand the limitations going into a competition and brew within them… if you expect good results. Or, as I decided long ago, you brew the beer you like and leave the competition to others.
Ideally judging in a competition comes down to which beers, meads, ciders have hit the guidelines. The beer you really like may not fit into any category, don’t enter it.
You hope you get judges that know the guidelines. Sometimes they make comments and judgement they should not. Have I done this, I’m sure. I try to not say anything about ingredients, as I don’t know what was used.
I is a crapshoot, as you hope you get judges that know the style.
Finding competitions to enter around here is about as likely as going boating in the Mojave. Were there any I would probably enter some beers, not cuz I crave medals or accolades but as others have told me, it is a great way to get “expert” feedback on one’s beers, especially perceived flaws from people who should have better than average understanding of beer. None of my beers would ever medal, unless by accident because I never “brew to style”, I brew to my taste preference, as most of the posters on this thread seem to.
I agree that, ideally, the judges should be able to give astute evaluations of faults or off flavors like diacetyl and such that not every palate, perhaps the brewer’s, is equally sensitive to.
But in fact I do brew to style, and therein lies a problem. If you actually brew true to style, and the style is (at least) German, British, or historical, you will probably score quite poorly, because the competition guidelines as set for those styles are untethered from reality, and the judges seem rarely to have firsthand experience of fresh examples of the genuine articles, instead relying on the guidelines, which appear to have been compiled from a game-of-telephone-like chain of such descriptions without reference to said fresh, native exemplars. Essential qualities of the genuine beers are often seen as faults in competition, and points are awarded for imagined requisite elements of the style which in fact brewers and consumers in the beers’ places of origin would see as faults.
Nonetheless, the relative skills of brewers should still be legitimately revealed in a competition where all brewers are doing their best to match an arbitrary specification, no matter what that is. (Hey, some of the world’s most skilled brewers have to set their talents to matching the exacting standards of industrial swill, you don’t always get to make what you like.)
I still don’t want to enter competitions because I don’t need the feedback. I am my own worst critic; I am certain that no judge could ever be as hard on me as I am on myself.
As a BJCP judge, I simply try to perceive any flaws that might exist, but I try to allow for a range of flavors that are within the guidelines and not simply judge to a particular commercial brand (some judges know a brand and judge as a comparison to that as the “style”, which is unfortunate.)
In the end I hope to give the entrant an honest opinion of quality and a suggestion for improvement when applicable. Over the years, though, the quality has improved immensely and it sometimes becomes a hedonistic choice among several high quality beers of a given style - then it really isn’t an objective difference and the judge ought to indicate it as such and let the entrant know that the entry meets the guidelines very well and let the numbers reflect the minor preference distinguishing them in the judge’s reasonable opinion.
Well said! I too try to take this approach when I judge. Yes, it is sometimes difficult to determine the best beers in a category due to the fact that there are a lot of good ones in the flight and that a strong opinion of one judge can be used to influence other judges on what they feel is the best. Unfortunately, that is human nature and I am sure that I have probably done this as well. That said, I try to keep an open mind when judging and if there is in something in the beer that adds complexity or a pleasing flavor element to the beer on my palate to make it more drinkable, but may slightly crosses the guidelines, I take that into account when scoring it and will reward it as such. But everyone’s palate is different and what is pleasing to one judge may be unpleasant to another. The guidelines are there to provide insight as to what judges should be looking for in a particular beer and are not hard and fast rules. My 0.02.
Although, like Rob, I (and my wife as well) are my own worst critics, I sometimes like to get an additional opinion from a competition judge to give me ideas on possible improvements to the beer. Sometimes I take them, sometimes I don’t. For example, I had a medal winning Wee Heavy that I took to club night at the Providence Homebrew Con. Martin Brungard came up to me and told me that my malt profile was perfect for the style but that I needed to make a slight adjustment to my water profile. I took his advice and dosed a glass of the beer with a bit more gypsum to test his suggestion. The beer improved greatly. So there can be good and bad pieces of advice from judges. Remember, it is your beer. If you like it that is what really matters.
Back when I was competing more often, the results for a beer entered in multiple comps would often give feedback that was helpful. Some Scoresheets had to be ignored as erroneous, or as outliers.
I do agree that some styles are not understood well by most judges. Few have had the opportunity to travel to the iconic beer countries and drink the beer fresh. Bottled beers from across the pond are often stale, I avoid those now.
One thing to also consider, what does the brewery actually use for ingredients? What is the process? They treat the water in some way. What malts do they actually use? What yeast do they use? For a Helles like Augustiner I would use their Yeast, Weyermann Barke Pils, and fairly soft water (and Sauergut). That would get in the ballpark, as they malt their own Barke malt.
One also hopes that you get judges that are better. I had a nice American Barleywine that scored a 38, but the sheets said it would have scored higher if I had not used British malts. They had no idea what I used, and should not have assumed. There was some MO in the grist, but the guidelines says nothing about British malts not being allowed. Gordon Strong’s recipe for that style in his recipe book uses MO. I still shake my head at that one. Rant over.
That is a good one, Jeff. One thing I learned when studying for the BJCP exam was to never assume what malts and hops the entrant used in a beer because 90% of the time you will be wrong. Sometimes you have a good idea of the hops from the aroma but again don’t assume.
A long time ago I had a comment on my Rauchbier that said, “obviously using liquid smoke” by one judge and “seriously misses style guidelines” by the other. In the very next competition, it took best of show out of over 600 entries. Ray Daniels and Greg Noonan were on the best of show panel.
I still try to enter all the statewide competitions, but it seems that everybody else’s beers are getting better all the time.
When I judge a beer in competition I try to imagine that the entrant is Gordon Strong. It keeps me from writing stupid stuff most of the time.
Definitely keeps you in the right frame of mind if you assume it will be a friend’s beer that you are judging. One fellow in my club is quite prolific in his entries and I have (unknowingly) judged his beers on several occasions - he has won the category and even best in show more than a few of those times! It is gratifying when the judges in the BOS round confirm your evaluation.