[ibru]

Jim, I thought she was your daughter.... Just kidding. It's great that you both enjoy many of the same things.

I second Denny that one of the best things about homebrewing is the people you meet. I haven't been to one of the "Biggies" but have been to several smaller homebrewing/craft beer events. Always come away with some new friends.

Bruce

[yso191]

I just went to my first BJCP prep class last night.  One of the questions I had which just hung in the air (didn't get answered) is: Does every beer start out with a 50 and then have points deducted, or does every beer start out a 0, and have points added.  It seems like a significant difference to me, with the latter leading to lower scores and the former leading to higher.

How do some of you experienced judges approach this?

[klickitat jim]

Id like to hear some views on that too.

I don't think I use either. I look at it, smell it. Make notes on that. Then taste and make notes. Then I start thinking about where the beer fits in the Scoring Guide. Some parts might be world class, like appearance ffor example, so that gets 3/3. Maybe aroma is just good. Good is 21-29 points out of 50, roughly 50%, so "good" aroma would get about a 6/12. This should all add up to an appropriate score, but you can adjust it later. As I gain experience and skill, I would like my score sheet comments to match the scores, and give at least one kudo and one suggestion. I have a long way to go.

[dbeechum]

Yeah, I tend to view the beer in it's parts, add them up and then see where we're at.

I think of scoring as an additive thing. Thinking of it as being "50 down" primes you too much to look for flaws. BJCP judges do that enough without having it reinforced by the scoring drive to turn into flaw monsters.

[denny]

I just went to my first BJCP prep class last night.  One of the questions I had which just hung in the air (didn't get answered) is: Does every beer start out with a 50 and then have points deducted, or does every beer start out a 0, and have points added.  It seems like a significant difference to me, with the latter leading to lower scores and the former leading to higher.

How do some of you experienced judges approach this?

There are two approaches, and I can't say I've seen one used more than the other.  You can do "top down" where you start by assuming a perfect score in every category and subtract for things that aren't right.  Or you can do "bottom up" and start at 0 and add points for things that are good.  I tend to do more "top down", but it's really a combo of both.

[S. cerevisiae]

I started to disagree, but then realized that is only because I am a judge.  I'm sure someone's going to take this the wrong way, but with a few exceptions I view a 30 on one of my beers as a waste of an entry fee.  My personal goal for some time has required a 36 to be satisfied.  But then, people use so little of the scale perhaps I need to adjust.  So, long story short, I sort of agree.

Here's one of my score sheets from a recent competition.  The judge who scored the beer is an experienced national judge.



I field tested the beer scored above before entering it into the contest.  I knew that it was very good beer.  However, as one can clearly see, a beer that had no major flaws and was "not too far off the mark" only received a score of 31.

[jeffy]

I like to score aroma, appearance and mouthfeel first, then I try to get an impression on how the overall beer will score before scoring the flavor and overall impression sections.
This is kind of a blend between top down and bottom up.  Any time I get near the upper limit of scoring I find myself looking for things I can notate that subtract the score from 50.  Same with a score under 29 - I make sure I write some specific reasons.

[AmandaK]

  However, as one can clearly see, a beer that had no major flaws and was "not too far off the mark" only received a score of 31.

Check out the bottom left of the score sheet. 31 falls into "Very Good: Generally within style parameters, some minor flaws." While sparse, his notes seem to indicate exactly that.

[dsmitch19]

I usually judge each category and then, after adding everything up, see if the score matches the scoring band I feel the beer should be in. Usually, I'm in the right area. Every once and while I'll have to adjust up or down a couple/few points if I think a beer deserves to be capped at a certain level (say a 29 because it misses the mark on style when my original scoring had come out at a 32 or bump up to a 38 when my original scoring was a 36).

I guess I've never really thought of starting at one extreme (0 or 50) and moving in a direction from there. I like a more holistic approach.

[S. cerevisiae]

Check out the bottom left of the score sheet. 31 falls into "Very Good: Generally within style parameters, some minor flaws." While sparse, his notes seem to indicate exactly that.

I posted the score sheet in response to udubdawg's reply to an earlier posting where I stated that the difference between a 30 and a 40 beer is often style guideline related, not beer quality related.  He stated that he personally feels that a score of less than 36 is a waste of an entry fee.   I am fairly certain that the best of show beer at this contest barely made it into the forties.  Most of the first place entries were in the mid-thirties.

[udubdawg]

I started to disagree, but then realized that is only because I am a judge.  I'm sure someone's going to take this the wrong way, but with a few exceptions I view a 30 on one of my beers as a waste of an entry fee.  My personal goal for some time has required a 36 to be satisfied.  But then, people use so little of the scale perhaps I need to adjust.  So, long story short, I sort of agree.

cheers--
--Michael

 

note he said 36, whereas I said 30.
also, note I said MY beers. 

I am extremely capable of judging my own beers.  If they are not up to par, I am not entering them in competitions. 
And yes, there are exceptions with areas I'm far from an expert on...oh, wait, I said THAT too.

...if you're going to attribute something to me, get it right.

[dkfick]

Check out the bottom left of the score sheet. 31 falls into "Very Good: Generally within style parameters, some minor flaws." While sparse, his notes seem to indicate exactly that.

I posted the score sheet in response to udubdawg's reply to an earlier posting where I stated that the difference between a 30 and a 40 beer is often style guideline related, not beer quality related.  He stated that he personally feels that a score of less than 36 is a waste of an entry fee.   I am fairly certain that the best of show beer at this contest barely made it into the forties.  Most of the first place entries were in the mid-thirties.

In general (but there are exceptions) a beer scoring in the mid 30's doesn't medal.  Of course this depends on the quality of the other entries.  But in general until it's scoring 37-38 it doesn't even make it to mini-bos to be in the running for a medal... If the 'general' scores are low for all the entires in a category that's when you'll start to see mid 30's medal because they were actually pushed up to mini-bos.

[S. cerevisiae]

In general (but there are exceptions) a beer scoring in the mid 30's doesn't medal.  Of course this depends on the quality of the other entries.  But in general until it's scoring 37-38 it doesn't even make it to mini-bos to be in the running for a medal... If the 'general' scores are low for all the entires in a category that's when you'll start to see mid 30's medal because they were actually pushed up to mini-bos.

You guys must live in generous scoring areas because scores of 40+ appear to be very rare in my area.   Judges around here are reticent to give a score above 35.  A score of 40 pretty much guarantees that a beer medals in BOS.  A 37 is a solid first place, and a 37 is a darn good beer that is almost perfect style-wise. 

[S. cerevisiae]

With respect to my beer, it had an O.G. of 1.060, which is within style.  The beer had an apparent attenuation of 80%.  That's how I received "sweet" and "dry" comments on the same beer.  The "less body" comment pretty much tells me that judges are not expecting a "big" beer in 2C.  One attribute that I knew was going to be a problem going into the contest was carbonation.  I brew beer to drink and share with friends and family.  I am not into gassy beer. I chose to enter this beer into the contest because it was truly one of those "Wow!" beers that totally catches one by surprise.  I have brewed the same basic recipe many times with different yeast strains, a slightly lower gravity, and a double mash over the years.  I bumped the gravity up five points, used flaked maize instead of corn grits, and performed a single decoction mash.  I also used a true pre-Prohibition yeast strain, which is highly flocculent.

[klickitat jim]

I'm so proud that my random posts go 5 pages and end in an argument.

For what its worth, yeast, I saw about 35 beers judged. One was below 20 until I was talked into rasing my score. One was over 40.