28 replies to this topic

[Thirsty]

If anyone else caught this month's issue of Zymurgy, with the "Dear Zymurgy" letters, there is a letter addressing last issues article about Gordon Strong's suggestions on how to improve your chances in competition entries. One of the last things he says (I didnt reread the article, but paraphrasing from memory) is if a beer comes out post ferment missing some desirable traits, then try blending it with another to "doctor" the beer to be closer to a profile. Maybe blend a porter to add some maltiness or blend an IPA to add some bitterness. The guy who wrote the letter was really worked up that this is cheating, and that once a beer is brewed, accept what you have and learn from it, adjust next time, but if you "doctor" it you are going unnecessarily overboard, and submitting this beer for an entry is somehow dishonest or not pure. Although I can somewhat see where he is coming from, I still personally disagree. Blending guezes and lambics is purely an artform to get the desirable results, why should it stop at these? Why cant Gordon Strong blend whatever profiles he wants to make the "perfect balance". The letterwriter goes on to say that he would be disappointed to learn if some of the top NHC winning (or I guess any comp for that matter) came from an entry that was "doctored"I dont want to call anyone wrong, and he certainly is entitled to his opinion- but he was pretty adamant about it, and said many at his club felt the same way, and I dont see the big deal. Without starting a debate, what type of opinions do you guys have on this subject?

[MakeMeHoppy]

Don't pro brewers especially BMC blend their beers at least for consistency. I believe this is also true for the wine and liqour industry. It would only be cheating in my mind if you blended with a beer you didn't brew yourself.

[Thirsty]

Don't pro brewers especially BMC blend their beers at least for consistency. I believe this is also true for the wine and liqour industry. It would only be cheating in my mind if you blended with a beer you didn't brew yourself.

He actually makes that point in his stance, saying that you would need to throw that example out. And I agree, if you are doing blending with your own beer, who cares?

[chuck_d]

He actually makes that point in his stance, saying that you would need to throw that example out. And I agree, if you are doing blending with your own beer, who cares?

It's easy to make your argument if you can throw out the examples of beer that are made by blending. I'll call him wrong. I'm not familiar with the rules of competitions, but I don't think there is a rule against it. If there was a rule against blending, then yes it would be cheating. Otherwise that's just yet another process in making beer. What constitutes the blending anyways? Can it only be beer made with first worts? Only beer made from a single kettle boil? Only beer made from a single fermentation? What about batches that were split fermentations made from one kettle boil and then blended for packaging? I see no reason to prevent these practices from being available to the brewer.

[stellarbrew]

If it's not against the rules of the competition, then it's not cheating to do it.

[3rd party JKor]

I did read that letter, I thought he was getting worked up over nothing. I just seemed like he was pissed that some people out there try harder to win than he does.If you can produce great beer by blending, then you deserve to win. He made the point about not be able to recreate the brew within a single recipe, but why should you have to? You can just rebrew the beers you blended and blend them again. Isn't that what the original Porters were?

Edited by JKoravos, 03 January 2010 - 06:45 PM.

[Slainte]

It's not against the rules, and I see no reason to not allow blending. As long as the beer is a good example of the style, then it deserves to win.

[Salsgebom]

I agree that it's not cheating. Blending homebrew with homebrew is still homebrew, and if you can make a great beer that way (which is very difficult and unlikely) then kudos to the brewer. Besides, the doctoring method has a much lower chance of success than just making the proper beer in the first place. Adding beers of differing styles to catch their bitter or malty traits is usually a bad idea because a porter isnt just malty and an IPA isn't just bitter, they carry a whole package of flavor. I've made blends like that in my glass many times just for fun, and I usually have to pour it out.Now, blending beers of the same style works a little better. If you have an IPA that's too sweet, blending some IPA that came out too dry and bitter will round it out. But if you have time to think about and successfully brew a beer that is intentionally unbalanced for blending, you have a much better chance at winning a competition by just brewing the optimal recipe and cut your losses. Commercial breweries sometime cannot cut losses, and attempt a blend, but even then I would never expect it to be as good as a batch done right.

[djinkc]

I don't have a problem with it. I can see the point of the complainer. (this is the second current Zymurgy thread - where's my mag??) Most wouldn't even consider this.Really, most homebrewers that would blend a beer aren't thinking about entering a comp, I assume it's usually a rescue mission. Anyone intending to enter with a blended beer and expecting to do well certainly have my blessings. And if you get lucky, , you made it so enter it.

[Deerslyr]

I wouldn't call it cheating at all... so long as both beers were brewed by the entrant. But I think we all agree on that.Yes, the big boys blend, but they are blending "the same style" to gain their consistency. I don't think its the same thing, but yeah, they do it. And they do it well. It takes a trained palate to be able to do it. Which leads me to...if a homebrewer can figure out the right proportions to make an award winning beer out of two "meh" beers, then that is talent that shouldn't be squandered. I would think it would be very easy to go the other way and ruin it even more!I don't think that Sam Adams would necessarily go for it in the Long Shot competition due to time, ingredients, expenses etc., but I don't think that is the type of competition we are talking about.

[Stout_fan]

As long as he can give a recipe for each brew, blending instructions and can reasonably reproduce the submitted example, I've no problem with it.

[Thirsty]

I dont want to take the "blending" too far out of context. I reread the Gordon Strong article again, and I really think this guy was way overreacting. Gordon was talking about fine tuning with a small amount in a soda bottle, getting the exact profile, then carbing the bottle and transferring to comp bottles. He suggests if a beer turns out overly bitter or malty, to hang on to it- a better use may come from it than just consumption, that is the beer to use to "adjust" the comp beer. So it is not quite that he is keg blending or large scale, but more dialing in. That is taking your work pretty serious, and Gordon is a serious competitor- WTF is so wrong with that?I think the letterwriter is also missing the boat when he says "And encouraging people to doctor their beers, not to learn how to brew better beer but solely for the sake of winning a lousy competition ribbon, is not what I think our hobby (or Zymurgy magazine) is supposed to be about" Again he is entitled to his opinion, but as far as representing the homebrewing hobby, I think his perception is obtuse. He has been HBing for 15 years and says he has entered comps in the past. Many HBers take the competitive side very seriously, a lot more than just a "lousy competition ribbon" would suggest, and strive for perfection. If he is happy with his trial and error batches so be it- but where I think he lost it was forgetting the original article was tips on how to improve on competition strategy and results! I think why I got originally torqued up about the whole thing, is he says this is the consensus of his club, and after consideration really feels strongly about it. That made me think I was nuts, but by everyone's reactions here- it is telling me I am thinking in the majority.

[3rd party JKor]

I dont want to take the "blending" too far out of context. I reread the Gordon Strong article again, and I really think this guy was way overreacting. Gordon was talking about fine tuning with a small amount in a soda bottle, getting the exact profile, then carbing the bottle and transferring to comp bottles. He suggests if a beer turns out overly bitter or malty, to hang on to it- a better use may come from it than just consumption, that is the beer to use to "adjust" the comp beer. So it is not quite that he is keg blending or large scale, but more dialing in. That is taking your work pretty serious, and Gordon is a serious competitor- WTF is so wrong with that?I think the letterwriter is also missing the boat when he says "And encouraging people to doctor their beers, not to learn how to brew better beer but solely for the sake of winning a lousy competition ribbon, is not what I think our hobby (or Zymurgy magazine) is supposed to be about" Again he is entitled to his opinion, but as far as representing the homebrewing hobby, I think his perception is obtuse. He has been HBing for 15 years and says he has entered comps in the past. Many HBers take the competitive side very seriously, a lot more than just a "lousy competition ribbon" would suggest, and strive for perfection. If he is happy with his trial and error batches so be it- but where I think he lost it was forgetting the original article was tips on how to improve on competition strategy and results! I think why I got originally torqued up about the whole thing, is he says this is the consensus of his club, and after consideration really feels strongly about it. That made me think I was nuts, but by everyone's reactions here- it is telling me I am thinking in the majority.

I think he's just butthurt that Gordon whups his butt in competition. If you thumb to later in the mag where they show the competition results from recent BJCP events, the author had a best of show (I believe) beer in one of the comps. He's probably been wondering why he can't beat Gordon in the Nationals, and this 'doctoring' (which isn't even the proper term) gives him something to harp on and make him feel better about himself. He can say that Gordon is 'cheating' and that's why he can't beat him. ...or maybe I'm reading too much into it.

[MtnBrewer]

First of all, there's no way to enforce a rule that prohibits blending other than the honor system. Second, if a brewer has a specific goal in mind and uses blending to achieve that, then props to him. It's a lot harder than you think. The average brewer is probably just as likely to make the beer worse by blending so I give credit to anybody that can get it right. Bottom line is that if you think it's cheating, don't do it.

[JimInNJ]

Just an unfortunate use of the word "doctoring". For many people that word implies cheating. If instead he had said "blending to fine tune" would there have been the same reaction?- Jim

[BlKtRe]

How about blending a missed homebrew with a commercial one to fix your problem then entering it as your own. How many have done that or are willing to admit it. If this article is an issue with people, then blending with commercial examples could easily happen.

[MtnBrewer]

How about blending a missed homebrew with a commercial one to fix your problem then entering it as your own. How many have done that or are willing to admit it. If this article is an issue with people, then blending with commercial examples could easily happen.

Good point. Obviously there's no way to prevent that either or even to prevent someone from submitting a commercial beer as their own. So to that I say you're only cheating yourself.

[denny]

Without starting a debate, what type of opinions do you guys have on this subject?

Gordon brewed all the beers that were blended...what's the big deal? If you brew a stout that ends up tasting more like a porter, do you enter it as a stout? I don't.

[BlKtRe]

Gordon brewed all the beers that were blended...what's the big deal? If you brew a stout that ends up tasting more like a porter, do you enter it as a stout? I don't.

Yea, we all know that you always taste your beer and enter it in the corresponding category, but i don't think this is what the OP was talking about and not really the same thing.

[denny]

How about blending a missed homebrew with a commercial one to fix your problem then entering it as your own. How many have done that or are willing to admit it. If this article is an issue with people, then blending with commercial examples could easily happen.

You could take that a step further and just enter a commercial beer that you'd rebottled. I doubt many homebrewers would even consider either of these scenarios.