What style of beer did you have???
Sounds like you did not rebrew it. Depending on the style, that could easily result in a 10+ point drop - no matter how you stored it. You are looking at a beer that was stored for 3-4 months… which might make the beer 5-6 months from brew day. That could be disaster in a lot of styles.
Both of mine scored higher at the Finals than they did at the regional - but, I rebrewed both of them.
Thanks for your feedback. I entered an American Brown Ale. I did not rebrew, but will in the future. I honestly did not expect to make it past the first round and was pleasantly surprised when I received the score i did.Unfortunately I did not have time to brew another batch for the final round.
Some of the comments did not seem age related but seemed to vary by things that wouldn’t change with time. (Carbonation, body)
The feedback was still good, it just didn’t provide quite the direction i was hoping for.
Inconsistent or incorrect feedback happens. I am used to getting it with pale lagers in competitions. A judge might detect diacetyl in a beer when there clearly is none, simply because of a process or ingredient that they are not familiar with. That is frustrating, so I feel your pain.
I am a BJCP judge and I judge several competitions per year and I know that some judges are hypercritical and narrow in their judging to the point that they really don’t know a whole lot about newer techniques and ingredients and will attribute a non existent flaw to a beer as a result of their limitations. I don’t hold it against them, I just don’t put much weight in their comments, however well intentioned they may be.
Here is an example: a friend of mine got an 11 on a Pilsner in a competition. The following week that same Beer took Best of Show at a larger competition. It was not a case of a flawed bottle, because he was judging at the same competitions and drank from the low-scored bottle after the judging was completed, because he wanted to taste what flaws the judge had found - none were present.
In the case of first round and final round differences I would suggest a score of 45.5 may have been a bit high. The question then becomes the experience of the judges in each round. Often a set of judges is consistent with scores across a flight even if they are high and low. That is why the mini-BOS carried out as it was in the NHC second round will level the field.
As far as someone getting an 11, in most comps 13 is the courtesy low score. The beer would have to be completely awful to be an 11. Typically even an out of style entry would earn 20-29 depending upon how well it met the incorrect style. It sounds like it may have been a bottle infection. I had a buddy once who I judged his beer. One bottle was infected, the other was perfect. We scored it a 19 and had we been given the other bottle he would have been in the high 30s to low 40s because we sampled the bottle. He thought his cleaning and sanitation was perfect, but apparently the bottle we judged was not cleaned effectively. It was stated in this case the brewer drank from the bottle which was judged which seems to indicate the entrant was hovering over the judging. The question is why was the beer scored an 11?
I’ll second the comment that most first round beers need to be rebrewed for the second round. Aged styles can obviously ignore that comment.
The other thing that I do to monitor temperature and packaging effects (to some degree), is to bottle an extra sample of beers that I send off to competition. Those beers are then chilled and sampled at about the same time as the competition to see if my samples are still in good shape. Of course, the variables that I can account for are the vibration during shipment and any temperatures that they experience. My stored samples just get stored at room temperature under my brewing bench.
That extra sample technique does help reveal inadequate packaging techique and the natural aging progression that exists for any beer. Your contest beers are not likely to be any better than your samples.
So my take-away from this is to definitely re-brew between rounds, and try to control the conditions while shipping. Expect some variation in scores due to judges preferences.
But, going back to part of my original comments, shouldn’t there be more consistency with respect to characteristics that would not be expected to change due to age, like carbonation, body, or balance?
FWIW, I find this competition one of the best ways for me to identify areas of improvement. I myself have a cast iron tongue and have a hard time picking out subtle details that set beers apart.
My thanks to all the BJCP judges who dedicated their time to this competition.
Body and balance can change over time. Carbonation can lessen or increase based on a number of factors.
As far as feedback, enter local comps for more complete feedback, the NHC uses a score sheet which does not always provide the level of feedback one would get from an experienced judge at a local comp.
Packaging and handling issues are usually the culprit when a disparate result is received among competitions closely spaced in time, for sure. But again, my friend happened to have the exact bottle that was judged (he was judging other styles and asked the steward to save the bottles that were judged, so he could try his entry).
He is a highly award winning homebrewer and I trust his palate. He chalked it up to experience and human perception differences. Setting aside the score, stated “flaws” that are not present is particularly annoying. I have taken issue with a judging partner when the flaw found by the other judge is simply not present. Thankfully, it is usually resolved by bringing in another judge to get his or her take on the matter. Finally, I appreciate that a younger palate is likely more able to perceive things more sensitively than an old dog like me, but when it’s not there, it’s not there and it is okay to admit that judges, like umpires in baseball, sometimes miss the call.
Best of luck to the OP with his Brown Ale rebrew.