Not fair! No commercial blending!
This argument makes no sense. Please share your recipe for a bourbon oaked porter that doesn't involve blending.
If you take two mediocre malts and blend them together...
If you take a mediocre hop bill and add another...
Commercial brewers have this thing called the GABF and the World Beer Festival where they try to win. Many of those beers are marginal sellers. Some sell them just so that they can legally compete.
Well I guess that it follows that you have inconsistently arbitrary rules for what constitutes a finished beer as well as what makes an argument.Again without merit
Well first off I don't have a recipe for bourbon oaked porter... So unless there is more substance to your point...
Well first off I don't have a recipe for bourbon oaked porter... So unless there is more substance to your point...
Well then make a recipe with your two mediocre malts or hops... I am not suggesting that using multiple ingredients in a recipe is bad, I merely saying if you brewed a beer and its just ok, but want to enhance it with another beer that has the profile additions you are looking for, you are not a winner. Take the best of the two recipes, combine them, and brew that... don't just mix beers.
As far as the GABF... Again without merit... They are still doing it to sell a product... not necessarily to sell the product that they won with, but for the advertising mileage that goes with being a GABF winner...
From the BJCP website:You are never a winner. The beer is. You're not entering homebrewer competitions. You're entering homebrew competitions.
Remember, the major goal of competitions
is to educate the entrants and
to help them improve their brewing.
Well I guess that it follows that you have inconsistently arbitrary rules for what constitutes a finished beer as well as what makes an argument.
There's plenty of substance to my point. That you choose to ignore it is another matter entirely. How about this: make me up a recipe for a black and tan that doesn't involve blending.
You are never a winner. The beer is. You're not entering homebrewer competitions. You're entering homebrew competitions.
IMHO I consider blending to win a competition to be unsportsman
Then you need to learn more about the BJCP...
Please explain what is "arbitrary" about what I said?
Besides, my point was directed at why the GABF is not a valid argument. Your argument that I am being arbitrary about what a finished beer is the functional equivalent of "liar, liar, pants on fire." It is completely off point. If you think I am wrong about the commercial brewers having a profit motive to blend, then explain why.
Then explain your point. I don't recall there being a BJCP style category for Black and Tan.
You're kidding, right? Do they give YOU an award for YOUR BEER creating itself for a "HOMEBREW" competition?
say all I was intending to.By arbitrary, i mean this:
I am well aware of the style guides changing as recently as a few years ago. My point is that certain styles (I believe that Strong was talking about blending hoppy beers) are not blended (traditionally) and that nowhere in the style guide is blending mentioned for those beers.
Those that point out the argument that Macro and Micro Breweries blend IPAs APAs etc is true. Their reasoning is to sell their consumers a consistent product, not to win a homebrew competition. I am not saying that blending isn't as much of a craft as brewing. In the past when I was really into Daniel's Designing Great Beers and the history of certain styles of beer (around 2001 or so), I became obsessed with Old Ales and Stock Ales. I spent several years building up Old Ales and blending them with the younger beers. I learned a lot about the craft of blending and how it affected my brewing.
My point (and I appreciate and respect the civility of the counterpoints so far) is if one plays the game of style then they need to respect the history of the style and honor the style by brewing it to style. So if one enters a blended example of a style that is not traditionally blended into a competition, then they are a cheater. The word is pretty harsh. But I always inferred (possibly incorrectly) that there is a gentlemen's agreement that one brews to the historic examples given in the style guide. So if the beer is traditionally blended, blend away. If not, don't blend.
-Michael
It says nowhere in the BJCP guidelines about aging porters in bourbon barrels. It says nothing in regards to smoking grains before adding them to a stout. It says nothing about dry-hopping an English Pale Ale. By entering a beer in to a category after doing these types of things, does that make me a cheater?
I think what's arbitrary about the arguments being made is that the couple of people arguing against blending have drawn a line in the sand, for reasons I don't think have been very well explained. The only common argument I hear is something along the lines of "it's ok to add this, this, this, and this, and it's ok to do this, this and this, but as soon as you add beer to your beer, it's no longer acceptable." WHY?
Your commercial distraction is just that, Why would their contest entries be any less noble in your opinion?
I just want to clarify your stance, here.
Which, if any of the following techniques, do you have a problem with in regards to preparing a beer for a BJCP competition?
1. Dry hopping
2. Adding, for example, bourbon and/or oak chips to a beer.
3. Use gelatin, pectic enzyme, or other clarifying agents after fermentation is complete.
4. Filter your beer.
5. Blend a beer which is historically blended, e.g. Gueuze, Ould Bruin.
6. Use the dregs from commercial beers to harvest yeast.
7. Use commercially-produced hopped extract.
8. Add spices, fruits, or other flavorings after fermentation.
9. Add more yeast to a stuck fermentation.
10. Add amylase enzyme to dry out a beer.
I am well aware of the style guides changing as recently as a few years ago. My point is that certain styles (I believe that Strong was talking about blending hoppy beers) are not blended (traditionally) and that nowhere in the style guide is blending mentioned for those beers.
Those that point out the argument that Macro and Micro Breweries blend IPAs APAs etc is true. Their reasoning is to sell their consumers a consistent product, not to win a homebrew competition. I am not saying that blending isn't as much of a craft as brewing. In the past when I was really into Daniel's Designing Great Beers and the history of certain styles of beer (around 2001 or so), I became obsessed with Old Ales and Stock Ales. I spent several years building up Old Ales and blending them with the younger beers. I learned a lot about the craft of blending and how it affected my brewing.
My point (and I appreciate and respect the civility of the counterpoints so far) is if one plays the game of style then they need to respect the history of the style and honor the style by brewing it to style. So if one enters a blended example of a style that is not traditionally blended into a competition, then they are a cheater. The word is pretty harsh. But I always inferred (possibly incorrectly) that there is a gentlemen's agreement that one brews to the historic examples given in the style guide. So if the beer is traditionally blended, blend away. If not, don't blend.
-Michael
I just want to clarify your stance, here.
Which, if any of the following techniques, do you have a problem with in regards to preparing a beer for a BJCP competition?
1. Dry hopping
2. Adding, for example, bourbon and/or oak chips to a beer.
3. Use gelatin, pectic enzyme, or other clarifying agents after fermentation is complete.
4. Filter your beer.
5. Blend a beer which is historically blended, e.g. Gueuze, Ould Bruin.
6. Use the dregs from commercial beers to harvest yeast.
7. Use commercially-produced hopped extract.
8. Add spices, fruits, or other flavorings after fermentation.
9. Add more yeast to a stuck fermentation.
10. Add amylase enzyme to dry out a beer.
Did you really just praise the civility yet call people cheaters in the same breath?...
Wow, so now there are several cases being made for the idea that an amazing finished product is only "legit" if every aspect of the beer was as the brewer planned. Say I'm shooting for a 1.055 OG American Amber but I miss and hit 1.060. The beer is great and it wins best of show. I should probably hang my head in shame for winning with a beer that feel outside of my original intent.
The same tired dry hopping argument must be invoked again. What if I didn't PLAN to dryhop because I think my large flameout addition will be enough. What if it isn't enough and I skip the plan and dryhop a beer that later wins. Again, I suck right??
These competitions are specifically designed to evaluate the beers they are tasting against the guidelines and NOT how the brewer arrived at it. If they did, extract brewers would HAVE to be docked points in principal.
I'll stick with an objective standpoint in that, I have a vision of what I want to make and plan it out that way. If there are little surprises like some subtle flavor from the yeast that I didn't know about, that should be okay (as long as I knew about the yeast). Same can be said about hops and grain, and I say this because grain and hops have different characteristics depending on how they are treated. Some are gather at different times with different soil, roasted malts don't all get the same "roast" (some may be in the middle, while some are on the side etc.) and these are all subtlety we take into account.
There's nothing 'objective' about this. All of this is determined by some predetermined, subjective threshold about what constitutes an acceptable inaccuracy in the original intent of the brew. An 'objective' viewpoint would be, "blending is not against the rules, therefore it is not cheating nor unethical." All other opinions presented in this thread, as agreed upon by BigB above, are subjective definitions as determined by each person.
That last post has to be one of the most pompous things I have ever read.
You are never a winner. The beer is. You're not entering homebrewer competitions. You're entering homebrew competitions.
This cute play on words keeps being repeated, but it’s a ridiculous concept. The competitors beers are entered in a blind fashion so that the brewers abilities can be judged in a non-discriminatory fashion. The beer is a simple representation of its brewer’s skill and a BJCP competition is a way of comparing these skills in a fair way.The beer wins, not you. You get a pat on the back for putting the effort forth into making it, but you are not responsible for it in this case.
...
You are your beer!....
This cute play on words keeps being repeated, but its a ridiculous concept. The competitors beers are entered in a blind fashion so that the brewers abilities can be judged in a non-discriminatory fashion. The beer is a simple representation of its brewers skill and a BJCP competition is a way of comparing these skills in a fair way.
You are your beer!
No. Why would you think that a judge should be prejudiced by knowing who the brewer was? His skill at brewing this one beer is being judged, not his overall skill as a brewer. This shouldn’t be influenced by past performance or anything else but the sample he put up to representing himself on that day.I think you've counter-argued yourself. If you're evaluating the brewer instead of the beer, then why the need for blind entries? If someone is a better brewer then shouldn't their name be on that brew so it helps the judges make a decision?
You are your beer!
So, that means I am my yeast?But yeast made the beer.
But yeast made the beer.