23 replies to this topic

[SchwanzBrewer]

I had an interesting discussion with my brewing mentor last night about BJCP guidelines. He has made some award winning Belgian beers, one of which was scored a 48 a few years back by some old guy he keeps talking about, I think it was some guy named Charlie Papazian, whoever that is . What sparked this was Kens MLPA, which doesn't really fall directly into a category under the BJCP guidelines. Its a really good beer, and naturally that would be what I would expect to be award winning, but it might not score high enough in the specific categories. So this lead me to the question, why haven't the guidelines changed to reflect more beer styles so some fantastic beers get judged properly and get the respect they deserve? And why did they become so focused in the first place? Being a complete newb to home brewing I just want to make good beer that I can enjoy, so guidelines don't really have any place in my brewery. I guess my goal is ultimately to brew beer that I love, that doesn't necessarily have to be stylistically perfect, but could still win an award. How do you feel?Cheers,Rich

[DubbelEntendre]

I had an interesting discussion with my brewing mentor last night about BJCP guidelines. He has made some award winning Belgian beers, one of which was scored a 48 a few years back by some old guy he keeps talking about, I think it was some guy named Charlie Papazian, whoever that is . What sparked this was Kens MLPA, which doesn't really fall directly into a category under the BJCP guidelines. Its a really good beer, and naturally that would be what I would expect to be award winning, but it might not score high enough in the specific categories. So this lead me to the question, why haven't the guidelines changed to reflect more beer styles so some fantastic beers get judged properly and get the respect they deserve? And why did they become so focused in the first place? Being a complete newb to home brewing I just want to make good beer that I can enjoy, so guidelines don't really have any place in my brewery. I guess my goal is ultimately to brew beer that I love, that doesn't necessarily have to be stylistically perfect, but could still win an award. How do you feel?Cheers,Rich

I think that ultimately styles are a good thing. They are an indication of a particular kind of beer. Ultimately, this allows us as consumers to discuss beer and be in the same area right off the bat. For example, if I made a beer and was trying to describe it to you, without style guidelines, we might have a 10 minute conversation about the different flavors present in the beer. With styles I can say that it is in X style with Y focus.Furthermore, it allows judging to take place, so that a beer is judged with similar beers. You wouldn't want a Robust Porter in the same flight as an IPA, because someone might prefer IPAs in general to Porters. I think that the more you brew, the more you will find that the beer you make will fit into one of the pre-defined styles. For example, I would enter the MLPA into the American Amber instead of the Pale Ale because of the hopping levels. Sure, its called a Pale Ale, but according to the styles it more closely matches the American Amber based on the hopping level.

[MtnBrewer]

So this lead me to the question, why haven't the guidelines changed to reflect more beer styles so some fantastic beers get judged properly and get the respect they deserve?

They have. The guidelines have been revised twice in the last 6-7 years.

And why did they become so focused in the first place? Being a complete newb to home brewing I just want to make good beer that I can enjoy, so guidelines don't really have any place in my brewery.

And that's fine. Most of the beers I brew are "between the styles" also. I think that's where creativity lies. But remember what the purpose of the styles is. The purpose is to create a level playing field for competitions. The styles lay out a set of rules if you will for brewers to follow when competing with one another. They should represent common styles brewed commercially, both traditional and contemporary, and I feel that they do for the most part. To do this they need to be focused. Without that it would just come down to which beers the judges liked best.

[No Party JKor]

The Guidelines don't define the syles, the styles define The Guidelines. Commercial brewers aren't being dictated by style guidelines, they are dictated by what they like to brew and what sells to the public. The BJCP Guidelines are a snapshot of what commercial brewers are producing and selling.EDIT: If all the breweries who make dry stout started raising their ABV to 8% the guidelines would change. You see what I be sayin'?

Edited by JKoravos, 14 August 2009 - 10:34 AM.

[japh]

Being a complete newb to home brewing I just want to make good beer that I can enjoy, so guidelines don't really have any place in my brewery. I guess my goal is ultimately to brew beer that I love, that doesn't necessarily have to be stylistically perfect, but could still win an award. How do you feel?

Personally, I like the style guidelines as a starting point. Sure, you'll deviate, you'll change - but it gives you a place to start. If you're sitting there saying "uh, let's see, beer, what will I make" - especially as a newb - it can be overwhelming. Instead, you can work something out the way you like it with a good starting point. There's an old saying: you have to know the rules before you can break them.

[Sidney Porter]

What sparked this was Kens MLPA, which doesn't really fall directly into a category under the BJCP guidelines. why haven't the guidelines changed to reflect more beer styles so some fantastic beers get judged properly and get the respect they deserve? And why did they become so focused in the first place?

I have never had the beer in question but it sound like it is in the APA category which actually has a pretty big range, it can be made pretty dry or have a pretty prominate carmel flavor. I think Brewing classic styles actually has 2 recipe to represent each of them. You also have american Amber which has an overlap.IMO there are really only 2 styles that narrowly defined, California Common, which calls for a clone of Anchor steam and it is hop driven that it must have the woodiness of Northern Brewer. (IMHO a cali common is just an APA, AAA with northern brewer). The other style that that is pretty narrow is a Bo Pilsner, without the SAAZ and if it finishes too dry you now have a German Pils.Of the top of my head, I would change-I don't think we need American Standard and American premium, I would like to get rid of the premium, but add continntal pilsner (still in cat 1) these are beers like stella, heiniken, st pauli girl, etc. Right now they are lumped in with Michelob etc in the American premium.-I think that the export stout is trying to cover 2 different beers both a sweet version and a drier roastier version. I would say break them out... except we already have 6 stouts do we really need a 7th.-I think you could break the robust porter into an English and american version.-I have a problem with a lot of the Belgian descriptions, they read like a big list of flavors and aromas tha the beer could have. But the guidelines never discuss how these flavors need to fit together. I think this leads to brewers trying to get every flavor in there, and judging expecting every flavor, and judges not evauluating how the flavors need to work in harmony.-I could see justification to add an Imperial American Amber. I would would probably add it to the IPA category (EIPA, AIPA, IIPA) that seems like a better fit than American Ale (APA, AAA, ABA).-I could also see justification in adding sub categories to cat 23 (historical, commercial style not represented in BJCP, adaptations of BJCP styles, etc). In the big picture it doesn't matter but I think it would help people to understand what should be entered there.-I often question if 16e is needed or should those beers be sent to: 20, 21, or 23. -We could also get rid of 24,25,26,27, 28.-There are probably a lot European styles that are not represented, because they are not available in the US and have a tiny market in europe. some of these may be boarderline historic styles. I know there were beers added in 2004. The IIPA is the one that stands out.What style do you think are missing?

[SchwanzBrewer]

All good points. Personally, I don't know enough to change anything, but I think I would be interested in competing eventually. I was looking more toward the perception the board has about the guidelines and judging before I really jump overboard.Between my conversation last night and reading the comments from the 300# of grain thread, it made me curious, that is all. I wasn't intending for my tone to bash the guidelines in case you think I'm just a newb shooting off. My buddy gave me the New Complete Joy of Home Brewing to read so I can better myself before I take the first step into the rabbit hole.

[Sidney Porter]

All good points. Personally, I don't know enough to change anything, but I think I would be interested in competing eventually.

You should enter commander SAAZI think it is beginning of Oct. There will be a drop of location in Tampa.

[No Party JKor]

Kinda OT, but is there a database/directory of competitions I can look at to find comps in my area?

[Sidney Porter]

Kinda OT, but is there a database/directory of competitions I can look at to find comps in my area?

should be one at bjcp.org and at beertown.org (this is aha website)

[MtnBrewer]

I know there were beers added in 2004. The IIPA is the one that stands out.

Also Irish Red was added in 2004. Mostly what they did though was rearrange things. They changed what styles were grouped together in a lot of cases. Some of those changes I thought were good ones, others not so much. For example, I think they moved Dortmunder from Pilsner to Light Lager, which I'm not sure was a good idea. But at the same time they put American Brown with the other brown ales, which seems like a good idea to me. Didn't they also pull Imperial Stout out of Stouts and put it in Strong Ales?I hear what you're saying about Foreign Extra Stout. There's the export version and the tropical version. That gets a little confusing and we actually ran into that problem a little bit when I was judging Gnarley Barley. On the issue of Cali. Common (steam) I'd say it was (or should be) an altbier with NB but that's pretty close to an AAA anyway (I've always felt that Chico yeast was an altbier yeast at some point in the past). I tend to think that 16e needs to stay because Belgian beers are just different from the other beers that would be in 20, 21 or 23. I also don't see how we could get rid of 24 - 28. What commercial example would fall into your proposed Imperial Amber category? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just curious about what commercial beers are driving that category.Btw, Commander Saaz is Oct. 10. The one in Dunedin is that weekend too. There's one in Orlando in mid-Nov. as well.

[denny]

My buddy gave me the New Complete Joy of Home Brewing to read so I can better myself before I take the first step into the rabbit hole.

I'd recommend you put that aside and read Palmer's How to Brew instead.

[SchwanzBrewer]

I'd recommend you put that aside and read Palmer's How to Brew instead.

Already read it a few times. He did tell me that there are some out of date things in the Papazian book, but its still worth reading.

[MtnBrewer]

He did tell me that there are some out of date things in the Papazian book, but its still worth reading.

He was half right.

[djinkc]

I love having the guidelines. A lot of work was involved in creating them. Classic styles take a while to be recognized and considered for addition. RyePA is one that has been around for a while and still ends up in Cat 23. I'm sure its day will come.I look at them a couple ways. For one it can be a departure point for whatever you feel like brewing. On the other hand I think it is a good test for a brewer to be able to create a great beer within the guidelines, especially in competitions.

[MtnBrewer]

I love having the guidelines. A lot of work was involved in creating them. Classic styles take a while to be recognized and considered for addition. RyePA is one that has been around for a while and still ends up in Cat 23. I'm sure its day will come.

Personally I think RyePAs should be judged in APA or IPA. The focus there is on the hops, not the malt.

[djinkc]

Personally I think RyePAs should be judged in APA or IPA. The focus there is on the hops, not the malt.

Maybe I'm a bigger fan of Rye. I think its contribution is distinct when compared to an all barley malt ale. Just my 2 cents.

[MtnBrewer]

Maybe I'm a bigger fan of Rye. I think its contribution is distinct when compared to an all barley malt ale. Just my 2 cents.

I never said that I wasn't a fan of rye and agree with your description. But it seems that APA or IPA would be a lot better place to judge ryePAs than Cat 23.

[dagomike]

I think it's one thing to say here is an example that helps define the style, but another to expecting people to clone that beer in order to be in style. Also, there are many examples of most all the styles. Some range needs to be appreciated. If you can look at the style guide like that, then there is a lot of room to play.

[denny]

He was half right.