I’ve just been looking at the winners’ recipes,in the latest edition of Zymurgy. I found myself wishing I could see a judges scoresheet to get a better idea of what made the beer great, and what specific flavors they found. I don’t know if that is worth the effort it would take, but FWIW I think it would be helpful.
Hey, Steve, thanks for the great suggestion! I will keep that in mind. Logistically, it might be challenging to obtain and print all the scoresheets (probably online), and we would probably need to obtain permission from the winners to do so (that’s not my area of expertise).
I’ll mention it in our next AHA staff meeting and see what those more knowledgeable than I have to say. 
Keep in mind that when selecting the final round winners through mini BOS that there is no secondary scoresheet completed that would indicate why each beer was “propelled” into the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd places. That is done by the judges commiserating over which ones they think fit the guidelines the best. Or at least that is how I understand it.
^ this means a beer that scores just high enough to make the cut could beat beers with much higher scores. Therefore the scores don’t necessarily mean much when it comes to the winners.
Also, NHC uses the checkbox scoresheets. There most likely won’t be the detailed information you’re hoping to see.
This is the answer I was going to write.
Exactly. You just gotta get your entry into that mini-BOS round for a shot!
Another small point is that the numerically scored sample and the mini-bos sample come from different bottles. This allows for significant scoring variance, up and down.
Plus the factors of pull order, temperature differences, and palate fatigue are generally much less of a factor due to the beers being sampled at the same time in mini bos. This puts the samples on a more even playing field than the were during the numerical scoring round.
Also, the judges who judge the first round (of the final round) aren’t the same judges that pick the winners. Mini BOS judge panel is comprised of the highest ranking judges, and their opinions can vary greatly from the initial set of judges.
The score means nothing. All the beers chosen for medals are “considered” to be world-class examples of their respective style.
That’s hardly my experience. Its rare that beer in the first rounds of NHC are ‘world-class’ beer. With almost two decades of judging in the NHC, most beers are only OK and their scores reflect that. But some of those OK beers do advance or are awarded medals because they are the best of the OK.
With that knowledge, I know that ‘medal-winning’ beer may not mean a lot. However, a score above 38 is more likely to signal that a beer is special and possibly ‘world-class’.
A blue-ribbon, 30 point beer is still a mediocre beer. I would welcome a mention of how a beer was scored by its judges and if those judges were well-experienced. That will tell far more than a medal ever could.
Hey Dave, any thoughts on creating a BJCP/NHC scoring app? This seems like it’d cut out a lot of work dealing with paperwork, mailing scoresheets, etc. It might make sharing the info easier, and analyzing trends in NHC winners. It could be interesting to find out that judges are picking up or favoring IPA’s with peachy notes, or roastier stouts, etc.
It seems like in future years you could add that competing allows you to share score sheets, same thing with the recipes.
that’s a really interesting idea - it would also assemble a collection of data on the judges which may help them improve.
The BJCP has always been firmly against electronic scoring. It’s their decision, not the AHA.
Any reason for this? I can understand electronics & liquids, etc. but I don’t know anyone who has a smartphone, ipad, tablet, or laptop. I’d love to get more legible feedback too.
I also get that NHC is a BJCP competition, but does that mean they have to do everything as the BJCP decides? Funding can be an issue, but I imagine with 8,618 entries you can add a few bucks on to the entry fee for a few years and cover the cost.
Jeez. That would put entry costs close to 16 bucks or so an entry!
I don’t know if I would phrase it that way. There are certainly some logistical challenges, but the burden of those is more on the organizers of competitions. If a comp uses an electronic app, are they also going to provide the judges with a tablet or device to be able to use that scoring app? If they expect judges to use their own devices, what are they going to do when a judge’s smartphone gets a beer spilled on it?
At most of the comps that I judge, many of the judges are using their smart phones to reference the BJCP guidelines. That said, I wouldn’t want to fill out a score sheet by “typing” on my smart phone.
Type to text is a great thing! Honestly, this might be my age showing, but I’d rather be digital. Worst case scenario-pens and paper forms. Best case scenario? You’ve eliminated tallying scores, emailing scoresheets. You can have an in app bjcp guide, or a guided tasting mode… I’m getting a little tempted to dust off my C programming skills…
We’re talking gold medal final round recipes, not first round ones.
Also the quotation marks implied that it’s not always true.
Understood, but an important point still applies to final round beers too. They are not all ‘great’.
Exactly