Homebrew Alley IX

[FedoraDave]

John, take a look and see what ranking the judges have. I hate to have to say it, but sometimes the lower ranking judges are more hyper-critical, as if they're trying to prove a point, or make their mark, or something. With both my beers, the certified judges scored me higher than the others (in one case, "Reconized" scored me 2 points lower than the "Certified," and in the other, "Rank Pending" scored me 1 point lower than the "Certified.") Just some food for thought.

If you got some good comments and observations that you can use to your advantage, it's all good.

[John Sand]

I'm right with you Dave. When I put this with my other score sheets, I re-read them for some perspective. On one of my previous APAs, I got the comment: "Want a pint, then another pint".
Okay, that guy wasn't certified, but I think he was really smart!
The most helpful comments this time were about bitterness and hop flavor. Not all specific, but something I want to work on.

[Crazy Climber]

I've had some laughably-contradictory comments on scoresheets in the past, so I know where you guys are coming from. And, I totally agree with Dave's point regarding rank. The last comp I entered, it was very clear, for each beer, that the most useful feedback (and most observant) came from the higher-ranked judge.

Comments like the one John received saying that his beer was made with extract when it was all-grain are annoying. I know that judges are in a tough spot, as they know NOTHING about how the beer they're judging was made, and have to make some assumptions. But, we'd all be better-served if they merely documented their sensory observations and rated the beer vs. style. Trying to add process suggestions ("try a lower mash temp" for an extract beer, for example) is, to me, beyond the scope of competition judging. Unfortunately, Gordon Strong feels otherwise.

[John Sand]

I'm divided on that CC. Some suggestions are useful, others completely useless. I also think there is some element of beer snobbery that enters into it. The guy thinks he can taste an extract brew, and goes out on a limb with it. I've had other remarks that fit no recognized off flavors. I read an article about craft beer personalities. One of them was a guy that you could pour ten samples of one beer and he would tell you the difference between them. I had an amusing thought tonight: Defintion of a Homebrew Competition: A bunch of guys sitting around tasting things in beer that aren't there. And there is some of that. But there is some useful feedback. My Fatter Cat scored "Fair". I previously dropped one off for the homebrew club. Their notes mirrored the judges remarks. I consider that confirmation. Anyway, we can either compete, or not. When I was a rookie cop, I observed the veterans. Sometimes I learned what to emulate, sometimes the opposite. Outlying remarks or suggestions will be disregarded in brewing too.

[John Sand]

Dave, I haven't noticed a correlation between rank and odd remarks. The guy that thinks he can taste extract is a certified judge. He made other incorrect observations as well. Frankly I think it's a personality disorder. (Them, not me!)

[FedoraDave]

I agree that the judges should stay away from such comments as whether a beer is made from extract or grain. Both ingredients are acceptable for competition entries, so why make any comment about it at all?

But I have to disagree with Crazy Climber about process suggestions. A lower mash temp can result in a thinner beer, and may even contribute "alcohol burn." A small change of five degrees could make a big difference in the overall quality of the beer, and it's worth taking into consideration. And that change could affect every beer a person makes; not just another batch of that particular recipe.

Some of the comments I got were obviously subjective, which I guess can't be helped. But telling me it's not as sweet as they'd like that particular style to be doesn't help me. There isn't a Sweet-O-Meter being used to define the parameters, so unless it's over the top one way or another, and not at all in keeping with the style, don't split hairs. Although, that being said, the comment was part of the "Overall Impression" section, so perhaps it's not completely out of line.

As I've mentioned, I'm pleased with these recipes for myself, and it's gratifying and informative to get feedback from a stranger with a trained palate and knowledge of the style.

[Crazy Climber]

Just to clarify - my opinion is that judges shouldn't tell you what to change about your process...because they know nothing ABOUT your process!
They should stick to what they DO know, which is: their sensory perceptions of your beer, and how they relate to the style in which it was entered.
Anything beyond that is pure speculation and might be helpful (if the judge's speculation is correct) or might just make the judge look like a beer snob.

Some fictitious examples might help explain my philosophy on judging:

DO say this: "Mouthfeel is thin for the style."
DO NOT say this: "Consider using a higher mash temperature."
My reasoning: For all you know, Mr. Judge, this is an extract recipe!

DO say this: "I am getting a citrus hop character in the aroma of this Pilsner, which is not to style."
DO NOT say this: "Next time, use noble hops with this Pils recipe."
My reasoning: Maybe you're right, Mr. Judge, that I used 'C' hops...and maybe you're not. You have no idea. Stick to what you DO know, which is that you -- one person on one day -- perceived a citrus hop aroma. That is factual. Leave it to me to take that factual information and act on it as I see fit.

DO say this: "Diacetyl is detectable in this lager."
DO NOT say this: "Diacetyl is detectable - be sure to perform a diacetyl rest when fermenting lagers."
My reasoning: Thanks, Sherlock. I DID perform a d-rest. Maybe not long enough, or maybe not warm enough. But your process suggestion adds no value other than to make you look a little condescending. Mentioning that you notice diacetyl would have been completely sufficient, and very helpful on its own.

DO say this: "Strong esters are noticeable."
DO NOT say this: "Seems like beer may have been fermented too warm - pay attention to ferment temps."
My reasoning: Maybe I fermented at 65, but just used a yeast that throws a lot of esters.

Bottom line - IMO, judges should stick to what they know. They know what they're tasting/smelling/seeing. They don't know my recipe, my equipment, or my process. Their trained palates can provide me with great feedback that will help me improve my beer. Give me your expert opinion of the beer I put in front of you -- not your opinion of what I should have done/used differently...because you don't know that part!

See where I'm coming from?

[RickBeer]

I think you nailed in CC. Seems like many judges don't do that.

[John Sand]

Yep, your position is solid.

[BlackDuck]

Well said CC.

[FedoraDave]

Good points, and I see where you're coming from.

I don't know if it makes a difference in this competition, or in any others, but the entry process is quite detailed. A form had to be filled out online which included a lot of information, especially on the process. I don't know if the judges saw this (I would hope not, actually, as it might influence their perceptions of the beer and their comments before they even tasted it), but I have to think someone saw it, for whatever it's worth.

[John Sand]

I noted those forms Dave, but the details were optional. I didn't include any except where required (pumpkin spice beer). I also don't want the judges deciding how suitable my process. And in one case, the brew stats would have put my APA out of style. Neither judge noted the higher alcohol content, though one did suggest it was over attenuated.

[John Sand]

Just an update: One of the beers I submitted may have a slight infection. The judges found it over-carbed, so did my club. Two bottles I opened recently have foamed over, and have a sharp flavor I didn't notice before.