[klickitat jim]

Wait... my mead got judged by a Grand Master BJCP judge. That feedback was really good - if brief. Not much chance to get a Grand Master touching anything I submit regionally or at other comps. The ability to get a beer in front of really experienced palettes is part of the motivation.

I guess I hadn't thought of that.

[toby]

Wait... my mead got judged by a Grand Master BJCP judge. That feedback was really good - if brief. Not much chance to get a Grand Master touching anything I submit regionally or at other comps. The ability to get a beer in front of really experienced palettes is part of the motivation.

Yeah, same here (re: the Grand Master) and I even know who he is.  If I was going to question anything, honestly, it would be why they docked it a significantly higher percentage for Flavor than they did OI.

[wv_brewer]

I'm interested to know how many of you bottle your submissions from chilled kegs and how many of you naturally carb in the bottle.  Do you think there is an advantage of one over the other as it relates to competition submissions?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[udubdawg]

Wait... my mead got judged by a Grand Master BJCP judge. That feedback was really good - if brief. Not much chance to get a Grand Master touching anything I submit regionally or at other comps. The ability to get a beer in front of really experienced palettes is part of the motivation.

I guess I hadn't thought of that.

some damn good judges there, as always.  Just as an example in the afternoon my Cat 28 flight also had dbeechum, Michael Fairbrother, and a couple Grandmaster judges who both know cider.  Before she was given an afternoon judging assignment AmandaK, a great judge in her own right, wanted to come over to be our steward and learn.  The feedback on a beer checklist may be thin, but with the level of experience and expertise at the event, the results are pretty freaking legit. 
Just sayin'

[jeffy]

Wait... my mead got judged by a Grand Master BJCP judge. That feedback was really good - if brief. Not much chance to get a Grand Master touching anything I submit regionally or at other comps. The ability to get a beer in front of really experienced palettes is part of the motivation.

I guess I hadn't thought of that.

some damn good judges there, as always.  Just as an example in the afternoon my Cat 28 flight also had dbeechum, Michael Fairbrother, and a couple Grandmaster judges who both know cider.  Before she was given an afternoon judging assignment AmandaK, a great judge in her own right, wanted to come over to be our steward and learn.  The feedback on a beer checklist may be thin, but with the level of experience and expertise at the event, the results are pretty freaking legit. 
Just sayin'

I ended up as a steward for the final round in the morning because of sinus issues.  There was absolutely no time for any learning, as keeping up with the beers and the paperwork was pretty time consuming.  Stewards sometimes have to bust their butts.

[klickitat jim]

Well I think it's awesome that these guys are willing to do all that work and yes, GM feedback would be great. I'm just saying that if, or when, I get a beer to advance, I'd be perfectly happy just to know where it placed.

[reverseapachemaster]

I can't put my finger on it... but there's just something wrong about lowering scores for a lack of intangibles.

Not sure I understand?  I can see it easily being a difference maker when you get to that point.  If it knocks the Overall Impression down to an 8, Flavor to a 15 or 16, and Aroma to a 9 or 10, you're already 10 points in the hole.

If something's intangible, you shouldn't notice it anyway. 

So you lost points because someone noticed that they failed to notice what wasn't there.

Maybe they chose their words poorly.

I don't understand how somebody even thought that made sense to put on a score sheet. When judging against a detailed criteria, like the BJCP guide, the score should reflect how well the beer compared to the criteria set out and nothing else. A judge should not be making up new criteria.

It doesn't even make sense to talk about intangibility and beer. Beer is judged on sensory perception alone. If a character about the beer is intangible--cannot be grasped--then it is either not present or impossible to judge. This is somebody who has spent too much time watching ESPN talking heads blabber on about intangibles with sports players.

I suspect the judge thought this was a keen way to explain that the beer was flat flavor-wise or lacked complexity that would have given a better impression. Saying it lacked intangibility is worthless to the brewer. The judge should have mentioned with specificity what was lacking.

It's judging like that which makes me feel comfortable not entering competitions.

[toby]

Well I think it's awesome that these guys are willing to do all that work and yes, GM feedback would be great. I'm just saying that if, or when, I get a beer to advance, I'd be perfectly happy just to know where it placed.

That's effectively what MCAB did this year.  Their judging sheets were smaller than the average grocery store receipt. 

I don't understand how somebody even thought that made sense to put on a score sheet. When judging against a detailed criteria, like the BJCP guide, the score should reflect how well the beer compared to the criteria set out and nothing else. A judge should not be making up new criteria.

Keep in mind that this comment was in the overall impression section and on the checklist scoresheet (and Final Round of NHC).  The whole point of that section is overall drinkability and character.  As I said, if I was going to question anything, it would be why they dinged the Flavor so much (12/20) in comparison to their OI scores (7/10 and 8/10 with one checking the 'I would drink a pint of this' box and the other checking the 'I would pay for this beer' box).

It doesn't even make sense to talk about intangibility and beer. Beer is judged on sensory perception alone. If a character about the beer is intangible--cannot be grasped--then it is either not present or impossible to judge. This is somebody who has spent too much time watching ESPN talking heads blabber on about intangibles with sports players.

Intangibles come up all the time when talking about judging beer.  Drinkability and enjoyment are the biggest intangible factors.  Generally speaking I don't think judges should judge styles they know they don't enjoy, but even in styles that I enjoy, I've encountered examples that were just a little lacking overall.  Granted, usually when that happens, it's on a regular scoresheet and I have more time and space to explain, but my point is that there are definitely intangibles involved in judging beer, otherwise the OI section wouldn't be there.

I suspect the judge thought this was a keen way to explain that the beer was flat flavor-wise or lacked complexity that would have given a better impression. Saying it lacked intangibility is worthless to the brewer. The judge should have mentioned with specificity what was lacking.

I suspect it's more my original impression that the beer just experienced a little extra oxidation due to heat in transit.    But like I said, in this case, time and space don't allow for much specificity.  If I thought there was a chance Ted remembered the beer, I'd probably email him about it, but more for what about the Flavor was different compared to OI.

It's judging like that which makes me feel comfortable not entering competitions.

Again, don't forget that we're talking about Final Round NHC.  There are certainly limitations on the format that you are not going to encounter in the run of the mill competition.

[brewinhard]

+1 and to see how they would score it/comment on it. 

[santoch]

I wish fewer people would re-brew after first round.  Especially bigger beers and lagers.  They just aren't ready.

ya wanna rebrew your hefe or IPA, that's cool. 

Was talking at NHC to Randy Scorby - I can't remember if it was his current Schwarzbier Gold or his previous HBOTY winner Classic Rauchbier (or maybe it was both?), that was >1 year old at the time.

Randy's HBOTY Rauchbier was closer to 2 yrs old when it won.

I actually remember judging mini-BOS with Tim Hayner on that beer 1st round (we had no idea whose it was).  A few beers stick out in your mind when you judge them and this was one of them.  The balance of toasty malt, moderate smoke, and light bitterness was absolutely perfect.  Tim and I knew that beer was something special when we sent it on as the gold winner that day.
Randy told me that when he first brewed it, it tasted really harsh, so he just threw the keg in the back and forgot about it for about a year.
That goes to show you - you really should NEVER dump a young beer.  Age it out and if it still tastes bad after a year, then throw it out.

Steve

[santoch]

Toby - the cutoff between 37 and 38 is significant.  That is where it changes from "very good" to "excellent".  In your case, it is very possible that the judge was making that distinction.  My guess is the flavor score being lower than OI probably indicated it was due to subtle stylistic character issues as opposed to drinkability factors.

I think I remember checking the "send me the recipe" box on a beer I gave a 25 before.  It was delicious but wrong for the style entered.

PS - regarding GMs evaluating your beers-
If anybody ever wants me to evaluate a beer for them, pm me.  I'm always open to that.  The caveat is that I live near Seattle so shipping can get expensive.

HTH-
Steve

[jeffy]

I wish fewer people would re-brew after first round.  Especially bigger beers and lagers.  They just aren't ready.

ya wanna rebrew your hefe or IPA, that's cool. 

Was talking at NHC to Randy Scorby - I can't remember if it was his current Schwarzbier Gold or his previous HBOTY winner Classic Rauchbier (or maybe it was both?), that was >1 year old at the time.

Randy's HBOTY Rauchbier was closer to 2 yrs old when it won.

I actually remember judging mini-BOS with Tim Hayner on that beer 1st round (we had no idea whose it was).  A few beers stick out in your mind when you judge them and this was one of them.  The balance of toasty malt, moderate smoke, and light bitterness was absolutely perfect.  Tim and I knew that beer was something special when we sent it on as the gold winner that day.
Randy told me that when he first brewed it, it tasted really harsh, so he just threw the keg in the back and forgot about it for about a year.
That goes to show you - you really should NEVER dump a young beer.  Age it out and if it still tastes bad after a year, then throw it out.

Steve

Was that the Rauchbier that won in Oakland?  If so, I had that one twice - once at mini best of show for the round, and again at the best of show.  Great beer.

[udubdawg]

Scoresheets arrived. 32, my lowest Finals score yet.   
 Man this was really not my year!  I guess ya never know; even that slam dunk you call your best ever just might not hit the judge's palate right that day. 
...see ya in Baltimore. I plan to return to that stage! 

[toby]

Toby - the cutoff between 37 and 38 is significant.  That is where it changes from "very good" to "excellent".  In your case, it is very possible that the judge was making that distinction.  My guess is the flavor score being lower than OI probably indicated it was due to subtle stylistic character issues as opposed to drinkability factors.

I agree that it's a significant breakoff point.  I generally score OI for style also, though.  I would then comment on why (had this exact thing happen last week with a beer that would have made a very good German Pils entered as a Kolsch).  Reading between the lines on his comment, I'm pretty convinced it was heat/oxidation taking it down a notch.  I'd gladly send you a bottle if I had any left.  I had a bomber I brought to the banquet and we drank the last howler of that batch at the Beer Bloggers Conference in Asheville.

[santoch]

Yeah, I hear you.  I'd scan the sheet and email him. The worst that can happen is he doesn't remember.
If it's Ted H, then I'll tell you he's a great guy and he I'm sure will be happy to go over it if he remembers it.  Seeing the sheet will likely jog his memory.

HTH-
Steve