As a person who is starting down the road of a BJCP judge, this topic seems a bit confusing. We have style guidelines and judge beers based on the criteria of a category. Though we can’t tell the actual OG of a beer, I think we can pinpoint a stronger beer when we drink it.
Is this an issue with judging? No one has a recipe sheet in front of them after all. Is this a trend that seems to be consuming the brewing world where bigger is better? Or is it an awesome beer that tasted great and the gravity was hard to detect?
The best beers do win. My example is category 8, where a 1.040 bitter won. I would put good money up that the winner was up against some 1.060 or higher ESBs in that category.
Of course the Homebrewer of the Year award went to a guy with a Munich Helles at 1.051, which is right at the top of the guidlines, but it beat out some really big beers.
I do love seeing the “small beers” win, case in point Ordinary Bitters & Munich Helles. I’ve also seen cases outside of the NHC where a 60/- will be in the top three at a comp.
But back to the original topic, how can we as judges know for sure what the parameters are of the beer in hand? Testing of each beer is obviously out of the question, and relying on a home brewer to provide you with the OG/FG info may just invite some people to fudge the numbers a bit to be “in style”. ABV is one of the hardest things to pick out - some brewers are very skilled and can hide 8% in a 6% style. Should they be dinged for being good at what they do? Maybe… if you can even detect it. This is why I believe the guidelines are just that, guidelines. They are not hard and fast rules, they are aids to help the judges determine if a beer is great at what it claims to be. Should there be a discussion between the 2 or 3 judges drinking these beers? Absolutely. But some things (especially beer drinking) are just subjective.
I would also point out that while we all make our calculations of what the IBUs and the ABV is for a recipe, the fact is that there are uncertainties involved that make it difficult to know the actual levels. Things like age and storage conditions of hops, mash method, how long the beer was aged all affect IBUs. Fewer variables for ABV I suppose but even there you have measurement error and some differences in fermentables that could affect actual ABV.
I do think it would behoove people to brew to style for contests, but when you are wanting to win there are strategies that are obviously effective. And besides, we all already know what a typical recipe is for these styles, the nice thing about the NHC is that you get more complexity and yes some more liberal takes on a style.
Score every beer you can, do NOT use the style guide, limit yourself to 15 minutes, afterward review with the style guide and change anything you wish.
Under each section are items which need to be touched, even if all you can say is I didn’t get anything there.
You will be graded on completeness.
Bad beers, score them hard, no mercy scores (other than the 13 points for having something in the bottle)
I think there is subjectivity involved with any kind of judging including beer judging. Varying degrees of palate development, palate sensitivity to certain flavors, experience level, knowledge level and so on that come into play during a competition. It’s the nature of the beast, but I also believe that great beers win competitions. I’ve witnessed great beers plow right through to the BOS round on many occasions.
To the OP’s question: I think the winning beer probably stood far above in quality as compared to the other beers it was up against in the mini BOS round, eventhough it was more like an IAA.
I always make sure a great beer goes on to a mini-BOS no matter what scores are assigned.
The best beers will go through the mini-BOS to the next round
Practice often, either on homebrews or commercially available beers. If you can, find the listed commerical beers for a sub-style and judge it according to the guidelines. Since its fall, go buy a Spaten Oktoberfest and a Sam Adams Oktoberfest and see where they fall.
It’s pretty good. In terms of pure enjoyment I preferred his book “Radical Brewing”, but there is some useful information in Tasting Beer. Some of it can be found in the BJCP documentation (taste in a room free of distractions, smells, etc.). I think that the book made me want to think more about what I’m drinking, but it’s not going to help any one score National on the exam. Stick with the BJCP documents and good old practice for that.
FWIW - I like the idea of pushing guidelines a little from time to time. But, sometimes it happens accidentally - I just had a British Mild sneak beyond its intended ABV, because I mashed a little cooler than expected (that’s on me) and the yeast (S-04) just munched their way down a couple points lower than I expected as a result of the higher fermentability. That would simply cause it to go up to 8B, technically, but I was trying to brew an 8A. Just over the cusp, I would think I would rightly enter it as an 8B and try to get my mash temp better controlled next time to stick with an 8A that turns out to be to style.
Isn’t some of this on the brewers? Don’t enter a beer in a style category that you can objectively calculate to be out of style?
I hear what you’re saying, but I put the beer where it comes off impression-wise, not recipe-wise. I’m a judge, and if I know from tasting it that fellow judges are going to say my best bitter comes across as an 8A, I’m probably not going to put it in 8B.
FYI…I believe that is the second year in a row that exact recipe has won Gold in Cat. 10 at the NHC. It is the West Coast Blaster recipe from BCS. I have brewed it a few times and it is a fantastic beer!! Of course we all know that it isn’t the recipe but the brewers skill that makes a great beer
