Is "doctoring a beer cheating?
#1
Posted 03 January 2010 - 05:15 PM
#2
Posted 03 January 2010 - 05:22 PM
#3
Posted 03 January 2010 - 05:24 PM
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?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.
#4
Posted 03 January 2010 - 06:41 PM
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.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?
#5
Posted 03 January 2010 - 06:41 PM
#6
Posted 03 January 2010 - 06:42 PM
Edited by JKoravos, 03 January 2010 - 06:45 PM.
#7
Posted 03 January 2010 - 07:41 PM
#8
Posted 03 January 2010 - 08:01 PM
#9
Posted 03 January 2010 - 09:31 PM
#10
Posted 04 January 2010 - 09:12 AM
#11
Posted 04 January 2010 - 09:18 AM
#12
Posted 04 January 2010 - 09:35 AM
#13
Posted 04 January 2010 - 10:02 AM
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.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.
#14
Posted 04 January 2010 - 10:03 AM
#15
Posted 04 January 2010 - 10:13 AM
#16
Posted 04 January 2010 - 10:17 AM
#17
Posted 04 January 2010 - 10:21 AM
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.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.
#18
Posted 04 January 2010 - 10:23 AM
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.Without starting a debate, what type of opinions do you guys have on this subject?
#19
Posted 04 January 2010 - 10:26 AM
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.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.
#20
Posted 04 January 2010 - 10:27 AM
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.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.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users