I am mixed on the new guidelines at this point. I think some reorganization was needed, but there are going to be a lot of new categories and a loss of some. Some are changing names.
It will likely be quite some time before the revised guidelines are incorporated into the entrance exam. The official revision will not be phased in until the end of the year according to the presentation. Keep an eye on the BJCP website for more info.1.) I am looking at starting the BJCP process...... will these changes be immediately implemented into the testing process? If I am studying the current guidelines..... and take on line test in a month or two - Will the test be based on the current guidelines or the ones coming out in the next couple weeks?
2.) When will these "styles" show up in competitions? Is this something that will be showing up in competitions a couple months from now, or is it something that will show up next year?
At least it will be hard to find a style that doesn't fit your beer.
That's what had me curious. Unless I missed something, the styles are listed there, but there are no descriptions. In his article, Jamil also listed them separately, but chose to describe both in terms of a Belgian style beer. I was hoping that in the verbal part of the presentation that Gordon got more specific.Gordon's slides had Belgian IPA and White IPA listed separately as "Specialty IPAs".
He doesn't get into much more detail unfortunately, so we're going to have to wait until the full draft release in the next couple weeks. The formats for the new guidelines are a lot more functional for judging. The draft guideline for Kentucky Common follows the new format and was presented at the Judge's reception. It's posted online:That's what had me curious. Unless I missed something, the styles are listed there, but there are no descriptions. In his article, Jamil also listed them separately, but chose to describe both in terms of a Belgian style beer. I was hoping that in the verbal part of the presentation that Gordon got more specific.
I think the issue is that the witbier (White Beer) sub-category is traditionally a Belgian style. The reason for being listed separately is the characteristics of a witbier/IPA hybrid are going to be different than a Belgian IPA (which is probably effectively a more aggressively hopped Belgian Pale Ale).See I would not fit a White IPA into a Belgian Category unless it had a noted Belgian Yeast character. However, if it had all of the other indications of a White Beer with the strength and hoppiness of an IPA, it might fit the White IPA category.
Man what is with all the white IPAs lately? White is the new black?
Personally, I think white IPA, black IPA, Belgian IPA are pretty weak styles. Just because you throw a bunch if hops into something doesn't mean it's going to be good. Now maple smoked bacon peanut butter bourbon vanilla porter aged on cherries, there's a style.
The joke at the start of the seminar is that Gordon Strong showed a slide that said: "New Style: Black IPA" The next part of the slide basically indicated that Black IPA encompassed the entirety of the proposed changes.
From what I gather that's exactly what it will be. They will just be writing up descriptors of the more definable specialty IPAs to give the judges something to base their scores on. In other words, both will be specialty IPAs, but if you designate it as being a Belgian IPA, the judges should use those descriptors to score you.My comment was not a real critique. I was just being snarky. I guess my more serious question would be, why not just have a "specialty IPA" category, rather then legitimize some marginal styles.
Enter your email address to join: