BJCP score sheets

[captgus]

So before I emailed a handful of judges and annoyed them, I thought I would post this question here. I recently entered my first local home brew competition, looking for some unbiased feed back, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. I noticed going over the score sheets that the judges emails were provided and I was wondering, is there a protocol for emailing them? If I do send them an email, should my questions be geared towards their judging process or can I ask them for suggestions? For example, on one sheet, the suggestion was to try and finish the Saison a bit drier, fair enough, but my final gravity finished at 1.004, and I'm wondering how I could get it even lower. Is this an appropriate question to email a judge about?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

[TNGabe]

You can email, that's why it's on there, but don't expect them to remember anything specific about you beer. I don't remember anything about the last comp I judged, except the beer that was half grapefruit soda and accidentally entered in the wrong category.

If you want your saison to finish lower than 1.004, look at the recipe, yeast, and fermentation schedule. Did you mash low? Did you use sugar and if so at what percentage of fermentables ? What yeast did you use and how much did you pitch? What temp did you start at and did you ramp temp? Also keep in mind that many factors contribute to perceived dryness, not just finishing gravity.

 

[captgus]

Thanks Gabe, so it sound likes suggestions are rather pointless and any questions would best be geared towards their process. I suppose the notes then will have to suffice.

In answering your questions, I did a 90 min mash @ 147, 7.5% of my bill was sugar (half table sugar, half piloncillo) and pitched a 2L starter of WLP566. I fermented at 67 for the first 48 hours and then raised it to 90 over the course of the next 6 days. I bottle conditioned at 3 vols. Would bumping that up to say 3.5 help in the perception of a drier finished product?

 

[bethebrew]

Thanks Gabe, so it sound likes suggestions are rather pointless and any questions would best be geared towards their process. I suppose the notes then will have to suffice.

In answering your questions, I did a 90 min mash @ 147, 7.5% of my bill was sugar (half table sugar, half piloncillo) and pitched a 2L starter of WLP566. I fermented at 67 for the first 48 hours and then raised it to 90 over the course of the next 6 days. I bottle conditioned at 3 vols. Would bumping that up to say 3.5 help in the perception of a drier finished product?

In answer to your query.

 

[TNGabe]

Thanks Gabe, so it sound likes suggestions are rather pointless and any questions would best be geared towards their process. I suppose the notes then will have to suffice. In answering your questions, I did a 90 min mash @ 147, 7.5% of my bill was sugar (half table sugar, half piloncillo) and pitched a 2L starter of WLP566. I fermented at 67 for the first 48 hours and then raised it to 90 over the course of the next 6 days. I bottle conditioned at 3 vols. Would bumping that up to say 3.5 help in the perception of a drier finished product?

Quite possibly. So would adjusting post boil pH if needed. Should be around 5.0. Strips tend to read .2 high in my experience so I adjust my saisons using lactic acid to 4.8 on the strip.

 

[Bsquared]

These days if you want un-biased feedback, the best thing to do is join a Homebrew club or get a group of friends together and set up a blind tasting and critiques session. Often time when you are judging you have three sessions of 12+ beers to judge in roughly 90-120 min so you have ~10 min/beer. You are really trying to establish the aroma, flavor, and mouthfeel profiles and how they compare to the style guidelines for each beer first, then how balanced the beer is and its overall impression it makes on you. Troubleshooting a beer is really the last thing the judge will be doing, or at least its the last thing I do. Judges also don't have a lot of information in front of us when judging. we basically see the style and sub-group that the beer was entered, the number it was assigned, and any brewers notes. Information like final gravity and starting gravity are not known, and have to be deduced my mouthfeel and or alcohol strength, both of witch are very subjective and highly inaccurate.

Have you tasted the beer while looking at the score sheet, and tried to ascertain why the judge might have deduced the beer was not dry enough? Several things can make a beer taste less dry than it is, the judge might have been picking up on that. there could be slightly more higher alcohols present in the beer, that might not come across as fusal/solvent, but will add to a syrupy like feel. There could be a bit of Diacetyl that is at the low end of the threshold and the judge picked up that slickness.could be the beer had a lot of yeast in suspension or did not have high enough carbonation level...ect...ect...ect...troubleshooting a beer when judging is difficult unless its a blatant flaw, any suggestion is just a guess based on the judges perception of that beer at that moment. Like I said you best bet is to really look objectively at your beer and the score sheet, and also have someone else or a few people taste the beer while looking at the score sheet.

 

[duboman]

It' s perfectly fine to email judges, I have done it more than several times but as mentioned, don't expect them to remember your particular beer or their own comments so you need to help them out a bit.

I find that if I scan their score sheet and email that along with my recipe I get great comments and replies as they can reference their own comments along with the recipe (Which they don't get when they judge).

One thing, don't expect a rapid reply, they donate their time to judging and it's a lot of work to go through a recipe and comments but you should get some help when they get the time.

 

[captgus]

Got it and thanks. When I entered my beers for this competition, I was required to fill out quite a bit of information not limited to, grist, mash temps and times, boil times, hop additions, yeast, ferm temps and so forth. Being my first competition, I assumed the judges had all of this information before them, silly me.

 

[duboman]

Got it and thanks. When I entered my beers for this competition, I was required to fill out quite a bit of information not limited to, grist, mash temps and times, boil times, hop additions, yeast, ferm temps and so forth. Being my first competition, I assumed the judges had all of this information before them, silly me.

Yeah, no they don't but it's required so if your beer advances to say, BOS or something then they have it if they want it. During first round judging though, no.............

 

[captgus]

Yeah, no they don't but it's required so if your beer advances to say, BOS or something then they have it if they want it. During first round judging though, no.............

Learn something new every day.

 

[eulipion2]

For example, on one sheet, the suggestion was to try and finish the Saison a bit drier, fair enough, but my final gravity finished at 1.004, and I'm wondering how I could get it even lower. Is this an appropriate question to email a judge about?

I know I'm coming a bit late to the party, but I've judged quite a few competitions where the judges were either inexperienced with the style, or inexperienced altogether, though not typically on the Belgian table. Judges also taste a bunch of beers, so depending on what they judged before your beer, their palates may be a little wonky. Just saying, take your feedback with a grain of salt. If you enter your beer into multiple comps and get the same feedback, then you might consider worrying about it.

Also, since judges do judge so many, if you want to contact them, include specific questions, but not questions about the bottle they judged. For example, "You tasted my saison at XYZ competition, and you said it was a little too sweet. Could you recommend some ways I might dry it out?" and not, "Could you describe ABC about my beer?" Unless you have some kind of off-the-wall specialty, they really won't remember, and even then you shouldn't wait too long to ask.

While it's possible your beer had a perceived sweetness, or maybe something was wrong with the bottle they sampled, 1.004 is toward the lower limit according to the BJCP guidelines, which can be between 1.002-1.012.

 

[bethebrew]

Learn something new every day.

This summer I went to an event in Washington called Beerstock. They had roaming BJCP judges who you could grab and have sample your beer and give immediate feedback. Not a formal scoring, just ideas and comments on how you did and what you could improve. Like for me adding some Special B to my stout, for instance.

 

[TNGabe]

This summer I went to an event in Washington called Beerstock. They had roaming BJCP judges who you could grab and have sample your beer and give immediate feedback. Not a formal scoring, just ideas and comments on how you did and what you could improve. Like for me adding some Special B to my stout, for instance.

I'm confused. Were you already putting Special B in your stout and the judge told you it was completely out of place for the style (good advice) or that you would improve your stout by adding Special B (bad advice)?

 

[captgus]

I know I'm coming a bit late to the party, but I've judged quite a few competitions where the judges were either inexperienced with the style, or inexperienced altogether, though not typically on the Belgian table. Judges also taste a bunch of beers, so depending on what they judged before your beer, their palates may be a little wonky. Just saying, take your feedback with a grain of salt. If you enter your beer into multiple comps and get the same feedback, then you might consider worrying about it.

Also, since judges do judge so many, if you want to contact them, include specific questions, but not questions about the bottle they judged. For example, "You tasted my saison at XYZ competition, and you said it was a little too sweet. Could you recommend some ways I might dry it out?" and not, "Could you describe ABC about my beer?" Unless you have some kind of off-the-wall specialty, they really won't remember, and even then you shouldn't wait too long to ask.

While it's possible your beer had a perceived sweetness, or maybe something was wrong with the bottle they sampled, 1.004 is toward the lower limit according to the BJCP guidelines, which can be between 1.002-1.012.

Thanks eulipion2, the Saison actually scored well, I'm just looking to fine tune it. Actually, I suspect replicating it will be the hard part. As it turns out though, I did email a judge about another beer which received a score of 35 but when I added up the categories, should have been given a 39.

 

[eulipion2]

I did email a judge about another beer which received a score of 35 but when I added up the categories, should have been given a 39.

LOL My wife usually stewards. She realizes the importance of checking the math for all the drunks.

 

[TNGabe]

Thanks eulipion2, the Saison actually scored well, I'm just looking to fine tune it. Actually, I suspect replicating it will be the hard part. As it turns out though, I did email a judge about another beer which received a score of 35 but when I added up the categories, should have been given a 39.

Not sure questioning drunk math is a fruitful avenue.

LOL My wife usually stewards. She realizes the importance of checking the math for all the drunks.

That's a good woman you've got.

 

[eulipion2]

That's a good woman you've got.

Agreed!

 

[captgus]

Not sure questioning drunk math is a fruitful avenue.

Oh I don't really care about the math, or the score but thought it worth mentioning, a 4 point swing could be pretty substantial to someone that cares. In the end, the judge was cool with it and sent me a fairly detailed reply to my questions, so thanks to everyone who encouraged me to email him.

 

[eulipion2]

Oh I don't really care about the math, or the score but thought it worth mentioning, a 4 point swing could be pretty substantial to someone that cares. In the end, the judge was cool with it and sent me a fairly detailed reply to my questions, so thanks to everyone who encouraged me to email him.

Was it just the one judge, or was it the average score of all the judges? Sometimes judges will assign an "average" score lower or higher than what the math suggests it should be in order to give medals where they feel they belong. For example, say the judges give a witbier a final score of 36 , and a saison scores a 39, but when they're working out their final ranking they believe that the wit was a better example of its style. They might change the scores up or down without adjusting the scores on the scoresheets.

The final score doesn't have to be an average, it's just how most people do it.

 

[m3n00b]

I vote belle saison. It took my extract saison down to 1.004 from 1.060. I got a 38 on it. I'm sure AG could get a lot lower. Fermented in the 80s.

 

[mors]

yes send the scoresheet or at least the contents of it to the judge. Otherwise they will likely not remember it. Seeing the sheet may jolt the memory. I don't get emailed very often after judging but it's nice to receive them. I've only been emailed twice unsolicited (where I didn't ask them to email for whatever reason). At a FG of 1.004 I wouldn't worry about making it drier. The perception of the beers dryness seems to be the issue for the judge. They might still be learning too. I would look at things such as oxidation & bitterness which can have an effect on the impression of dryness.

 

[eulipion2]

I vote belle saison. It took my extract saison down to 1.004 from 1.060. I got a 38 on it. I'm sure AG could get a lot lower. Fermented in the 80s.

Agreed, Wyeast 3711 is my go-to (ferments out at around 70), then Belle Saison, which also does well in the low- to mid-70s.

 

[bethebrew]

I'm confused. Were you already putting Special B in your stout and the judge told you it was completely out of place for the style (good advice) or that you would improve your stout by adding Special B (bad advice)?

Apparently the judge gave me bad advice because I had none in what I called an RIS (probably more of an American stout). Actually I think the note he wanted is that raisony effect to make it a better RIS entry. Not a whole lot of it. So if that's bad advice, then I need to do more research into that style and see if it truly is. Special B is pretty good stuff I wouldn't hesitate to add it. When you get into the really big beers things can change and leave you with more room to be creative.

 

[TNGabe]

Apparently the judge gave me bad advice because I had none in what I called an RIS (probably more of an American stout). Actually I think the note he wanted is that raisony effect to make it a better RIS entry. Not a whole lot of it. So if that's bad advice, then I need to do more research into that style and see if it truly is. Special B is pretty good stuff I wouldn't hesitate to add it. When you get into the really big beers things can change and leave you with more room to be creative.

I like Special B, but I wouldn't use it in an imperial stout. If I were brewing for comps or to meet BJCP guidelines, I would avoid using ingredients that are from outside the region of the beer. I personally don't care for a fruity imperial stout, but if that's what you're after the fruit esters should be yeast derived IMO.

BJCP for RIS is all over the place. "Fruity esters may be low to intense, and can take on a dark fruit character (raisins, plums, or prunes)" That narrows it down, eh? Clearly, very optional.

If you're looking to get creative, BJCP isn't set up for it.

 

[bethebrew]

I like Special B, but I wouldn't use it in an imperial stout. If I were brewing for comps or to meet BJCP guidelines, I would avoid using ingredients that are from outside the region of the beer. I personally don't care for a fruity imperial stout, but if that's what you're after the fruit esters should be yeast derived IMO.

BJCP for RIS is all over the place. "Fruity esters may be low to intense, and can take on a dark fruit character (raisins, plums, or prunes)" That narrows it down, eh? Clearly, very optional.

If you're looking to get creative, BJCP isn't set up for it.

Not to worry. My important entry was an American Stout, scored 43, 43, and 44. No raisins in that one. Just a beautiful balance of malt and Amarillo and Cascade. Winner, front line. That US-05 does it again.

This other bottle was a leftover from another batch. It was all I had left. Had to bring something. Still maybe a 38. Who knows.

 

[m3n00b]

I love us05. Might be the best all around yeast.

 

[pjj2ba]

............While it's possible your beer had a perceived sweetness, or maybe something was wrong with the bottle they sampled, 1.004 is toward the lower limit according to the BJCP guidelines, which can be between 1.002-1.012.

It's the 866. I love this yeast, and I've gotten the same judges comments using it. To me, it seems that either this yeast itself tastes sweet, or it produces some sweet tasting compound. I had a 10% ABV saison I made with this yeast (a beast!). It finished quite low but had a slight sweetness to it (which I like). At some point while the keg was on tap I moved it for some reason or another. The next couple of pints were a little cloudy and DEFINITELY sweeter. Eventually the yeast settled and it went back to clear with a hint of sweetness.

I would suggest dropping your pH a little and/or upping the carbonation to offset the sweetness. Leave the recipe and fermentation as it was if the sweetness was the only complaint. You could change the yeast, but I wouldn't as I love the flavors from this yeast

 

[captgus]

It's the 866. I love this yeast, and I've gotten the same judges comments using it. To me, it seems that either this yeast itself tastes sweet, or it produces some sweet tasting compound. I had a 10% ABV saison I made with this yeast (a beast!). It finished quite low but had a slight sweetness to it (which I like). At some point while the keg was on tap I moved it for some reason or another. The next couple of pints were a little cloudy and DEFINITELY sweeter. Eventually the yeast settled and it went back to clear with a hint of sweetness.

I would suggest dropping your pH a little and/or upping the carbonation to offset the sweetness. Leave the recipe and fermentation as it was if the sweetness was the only complaint. You could change the yeast, but I wouldn't as I love the flavors from this yeast

Thank you and I agree with you on the yeast, I love it. As I see it, I could try two things, add a bit of acidulated malt to the grist, or up the carbonation a bit. On my next go around, I think I'll opt for the later and see what happens.

 

[bethebrew]

Watching judges judge a recent BJCP event was a bit like watching sausage being made. I get so wrapped up in the perfection like you apparently do OP that it hurt to see them grind that eraser to match scores.

A bit of a sad thing, IMO. But seeking to be the best is still a worthy effort.

Cheers.