NHC 2023 First Round

[oldschool]

Short rant here. I’ll preface my rant by saying that I imagine it’s difficult to pull off such a large competition so timing must be tricky.
But, it takes an absurd amount of time to post results from the first round. So if you make it to the second round, there already isn’t enough time to prepare for and brew the beer again to submit it for the final round with shipping time. At least that is if you submitted lagers which would commonly be “up to” 6 weeks grain to glass.
One could argue to submit the original beer but that’s not a nice way to present beer at a competition.
Anyway…
That’s all,

 

[Braufessor]

I'm entered in Kansas City..... they don't even judge until next week. I entered 2 lagers and some ales. I rebrewed my lagers 3 weeks ago "just in case". Im rebrewing my ales over the next 3 weeks. Worst case scenario, I'm Drinking the helles and other beers in June instead of bottling and shipping them.

 

[505-Brewer]

I generally agree but the rules are posted up front from the beginning. Timing the brew can be important but the locations judging later had the same entry deadline so that messes up that plan. I should be rebrewing a few beers but dont know if I will. I generally only enter beers that will keep or age/lager well for this very reason. Good luck to you!

 

[oldschool]

Good luck to you all as well! I’m rebrewing one of the lagers anyway. Regardless, they could expedite the process if it were important to the organizers.

 

[505-Brewer]

Online entries paid and finalized across the board. Same date for all. But have earlier competitions release results within 2 weeks of judging. Want to know earlier then pick an early site. Got busy and still need to brew? Pick a later site. Seems fair to me as long as everyone gets their site of choice. Entries should be due some set time away from judging. Not all on same day.

 

[Bobby_M]

Online entries paid and finalized across the board. Same date for all. But have earlier competitions release results within 2 weeks of judging. Want to know earlier then pick an early site. Got busy and still need to brew? Pick a later site. Seems fair to me as long as everyone gets their site of choice. Entries should be due some set time away from judging. Not all on same day.

I think releasing all the results on the same day is the fairest way to handle it. It's a scramble, but everyone is subject to it.

 

[jdauria]

I pretty much plan every year on rebrewing small batches of the beers I sent, especially since I send mostly lagers, usually around April. For example, this year I sent a NZ Pils that's been killing it in other comps, a Czech Dark and a Best Bitter...I have already brewed the NZ Pils last week, will brew the Czech Dark next week...the Bitter, I don't expect to advance, so I just saved 3 bottles of the original batch if by some miracle it did.

My pet peeve is the lack of communication and updating status of first round sites on their website. For example, I am in Philly that judged 3/31-4/1. But they have not changed the status from "entries checked in" to 'verifying results"...so TELL US WHY...did they not have enough judges and are not finished yet? It's happened before where regions did not finish until weeks later. But if that's the case, change the status to "still judging". Also, I know they say they want to release all the results at once, but i know in past years I have seen early judging regions results posted before others have been done.

 

[Bobby_M]

Good luck to you all as well! I’m rebrewing one of the lagers anyway. Regardless, they could expedite the process if it were important to the organizers.

Let Julia know how you feel. American Homebrewers Association Director [email protected]

 

[Sammy86]

Let Julia know how you feel. American Homebrewers Association Director [email protected]

@julia_1

 

[CascadesBrewer]

This was my first time entering NHC...well I entered once or twice over 20 years ago when my beers sucked and I was looking for some feedback.

The wide range of judging dates seems to be an issue they should address. Has it been like this in the past? I sent my beers to Philly (the closest to me). The shipping to judging window seemed reasonable there. I am not sure how I would time a brew day to have a fresh beer for some of the locations with a 6 week delay. My IPA was a bit young when I shipped it, but I was hoping it would be near peak by judging.

The cost is pretty outrageous as well. Hopefully this means I will get good quality feedback from well qualified judges. I just feel like I also get that from $10 entry fee competitions. There are also plenty of 500+ entry competitions where you can compete against top notch brewers for medals. It was a bit of a spurge this year, but it is hard for me to picture myself spending $150 (not counting the cost of brewing) to have somebody drink my beers. Of course, if I somehow managed to win a medal or two, that would likely change my mind!

I was not crazy about my IPA, but it seemed pretty decent around April 1 and has gotten decent scores in some other competitions. That is the only one I planned to rebrew if it advanced. I have bottles of my English Porter, American Porter and Dubbel set aside. The Porters might not be in ideal shape come June 21, but the Dubbel should be.

 

[BrewZer]

So if you make it to the second round, there already isn’t enough time to prepare for and brew the beer again to submit it for the final round with shipping time. At least that is if you submitted lagers which would commonly be “up to” 6 weeks grain to glass.
One could argue to submit the original beer but that’s not a nice way to present beer at a competition.

I rebrewed my lagers 3 weeks ago "just in case". Im rebrewing my ales over the next 3 weeks.

I’m rebrewing one of the lagers anyway.

I pretty much plan every year on rebrewing small batches of the beers I sent, especially since I send mostly lagers, usually around April.

Color me confused -- how can you reasonably say that a "rebrewed" beer is the same beer that was judged in the regional round? Unless your home brewery has extraordinary process control, it seems to me there are just too many uncontrollable variables to expect identical results between two batches of beer, albeit from the same recipe.

 

[pvtpublic]

Color me confused -- how can you reasonably say that a "rebrewed" beer is the same beer that was judged in the regional round? Unless your home brewery has extraordinary process control, it seems to me there are just too many uncontrollable variables to expect identical results between two batches of beer, albeit from the same recipe.

It's not too difficult to reproduce results in your beers as long as you know your system and your process. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "uncontrollable variables". Would you care to elaborate?

As far as judging is concerned, there's two main factors regardless if its the same batch or a re-brew; 1 It's about making a really enjoyable beer and landing in the spectrum of a style, not a specific and narrow target.
2 It partially comes down to the luck of the draw. Pallets fatigue, flight order isn't ideal, a judge is having an off day, etc.

Also, depending on style, it could be beneficial to re-brew, for freshness-sake. A fresh brew of a Hefeweizen could make a huge difference, whereas a stout could actually benefit from using the same batch due to aging.

 

[Spartan1979]

Hopefully this means I will get good quality feedback from well qualified judges.

NHC is not the competition to enter if you're looking for feedback. There are very few written comments on the scoresheets they use for this competition. NHC is more about winning medals.

 

[Spartan1979]

Color me confused -- how can you reasonably say that a "rebrewed" beer is the same beer that was judged in the regional round? Unless your home brewery has extraordinary process control, it seems to me there are just too many uncontrollable variables to expect identical results between two batches of beer, albeit from the same recipe.

When I took a silver medal in Pilsner in 2019 I rebrewed my beer after the first round. I have my process and system down well enough that my beers are pretty consistent from batch to batch. But you could tweak the recipe for the recipe for the second round if you want to. If you're in a category like IPA, you could brew a completely different IPA if you wanted to. There's nothing in the rules against it.

 

[BrewnWKopperKat]

NHC is not the competition to enter if you're looking for feedback.

FWIW, for the 2023 competition, the competition site (link as of Apr 19, 2023) stated the following:

• During the First Round of judging, all entrants will receive Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP) scoresheets for their entries, which include constructive feedback and numerical scores. First Round scoresheets will be available to entrants after First Round judging has concluded in early May.
• In addition to the First Round BJCP scoresheets, Final Round entrants will receive written judge feedback cards similar to those used in the 2022 NHC. (Note: feedback cards do not include numerical scoring.)

---

eta: this recent Basic Brewing Radio episode (link) may be of interest.

​

 

[CascadesBrewer]

Color me confused -- how can you reasonably say that a "rebrewed" beer is the same beer that was judged in the regional round? Unless your home brewery has extraordinary process control, it seems to me there are just too many uncontrollable variables to expect identical results between two batches of beer, albeit from the same recipe.

I am not sure if there are official rules about this. My understanding is that winning the first round just gives you the ability to enter a beer into the same category in the final round. Generally, if your beer did well in the first round, you probably don't want to make any radical changes. If you have time, I don't see any issues with making tweaks based on feedback from the first round, or just from your own personal evaluation of the first batch.

NHC is not the competition to enter if you're looking for feedback. There are very few written comments on the scoresheets they use for this competition. NHC is more about winning medals.

Some statements by Julia Herz makes me think they are trying to address this. I am a supporter of the AHA and I want to see them succeed...or at least survive. If the NHC is charging a premium price (3X most competitions!) then they are going to have to offer a premium product to keep people entering. Quality feedback from top notch judges would be one selling point. If it is just am expensive competition with a long delay between shipping, judging, and feedback, just to get low quality feedback, then I will direct my competition efforts and money toward other regional competitions that offer a better product for less money.

 

[BrewZer]

It's not too difficult to reproduce results in your beers as long as you know your system and your process. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "uncontrollable variables". Would you care to elaborate?

I'm mainly talking differences between batches of yeast, water, malts and hops.

Again, I'm thinking as a casual homebrewer, not someone who buys in sufficient bulk to ensure multiple batches over time are made exactly the same way with exactly the same ingredients. As hard as I try in replicating a batch, something is always distinguishable, different enough to say "oops, that's not quite the same."

 

[jdauria]

Color me confused -- how can you reasonably say that a "rebrewed" beer is the same beer that was judged in the regional round? Unless your home brewery has extraordinary process control, it seems to me there are just too many uncontrollable variables to expect identical results between two batches of beer, albeit from the same recipe.

Of course it's not the same exact beer, but there is nothing in NHC rules that says it has to be, it just needs to be the same style. Pretty much every year I take feedback on the first round beers from scoresheets from other comps (only from licensed judges) and will tweak the recipe based on feedback. There are tons of NHC entrants who do the same. It's been working for me, as while I have not medaled at finals, I am on a 4 year (excluding the canceled year) streak of having at least 1 beer (twice 2 beers) make the final 12 beers for their category, mini BOS medal round at finals.

For this year for example, my NZ pils has been killing it in comps around the country but a few judges feel the hop aroma could use some enhancement. So the rebrew, more of the hops were pushed to late in boil/whirlpool. The Czech Dark, which is 50/50 on advancing, was not my greatest, I could not get a key malt I like to use in the style so subbed something I never used before, and while it was good, it was not great. The rebrew this weekend will use the malt I could not find before. Both of these lagers I brewed in December to have them ready for shipping to the regional in March...by time June rolls around, if I saved bottles of the original, neither would be in it's prime.

 

[Bobby_M]

I'm mainly talking differences between batches of yeast, water, malts and hops.

Again, I'm thinking as a casual homebrewer, not someone who buys in sufficient bulk to ensure multiple batches over time are made exactly the same way with exactly the same ingredients. As hard as I try in replicating a batch, something is always distinguishable, different enough to say "oops, that's not quite the same."

The kind of brewers who regularly medal at NHC are the types that take a lot of care in repeatability and good ingredient control.

 

[Braufessor]

Color me confused -- how can you reasonably say that a "rebrewed" beer is the same beer that was judged in the regional round? Unless your home brewery has extraordinary process control, it seems to me there are just too many uncontrollable variables to expect identical results between two batches of beer, albeit from the same recipe.

I don't know that anyone said the rebrewed beer "is the same beer that was judged in regional round." It isn't..... But, a rebrewed, fresh british bitter is certainly better than one that is 5 months old. Most people who can brew a beer good enough to get top 3 in a regional round know enough about what they are doing to brew it again in a way that is as good as, or maybe even better than the first batch.

 

[BrewZer]

So I guess the consensus here is that the HBC isn't about the "best beer" -- it's about the best brewer*...

Or the one who can brew a beer good enough to make it thru the first round and hope they can replicate that for the second.

*I suppose to measure that accurately, they'd have to judge TWO samples of the same beer style brewed in two different batches by the same brewer. Of course, by delegating the first sample to the regionals, they're not going to get that comparison.

 

[Bobby_M]

So I guess the consensus here is that the HBC isn't about the "best beer" -- it's about the best brewer*...

Or the one who can brew a beer good enough to make it thru the first round and hope they can replicate that for the second.

*I suppose to measure that accurately, they'd have to judge TWO samples of the same beer style brewed in two different batches by the same brewer. Of course, by delegating the first sample to the regionals, they're not going to get that comparison.

I don't think you can make any of those assumptions as the standard operating procedures. There are a few ways to end up winning at the final round.

1. Enter a beer that does well with aging. E.G. I've medaled in NHC first round with the same English Barleywine two years in row and both years they scored 40 in the final round with no medals. They just as easily could have picked up a 3rd in both but just came down to a mini-BOS beauty contest. These kinds of beers don't get rebrewed between 1st and final rounds. They couldn't and shouldn't.

2. Enter a beer that doesn't benefit from age but brew it as late as possible, bottle as late as possible and keep the keg very cold. It won't work for IPA or Pale Ale, but almost any other style can stand for sitting at 34F in the keg for a few months if it was brewed and packaged well. Maybe it peaks in the first round, but still scores well enough in the final round.

3. Rebrew between rounds and both of them are above average to great, either exactly the same or within some margin.

4. Pure luck.

Every competition is a judge of the best beer for the style entered. Then the BOS round is to pick the best beer that won first place on its table. It just so happens that sometimes those beers are also created by the best brewers. Or you could say that the best brewers are those who more often than not will medal for whatever they put into competitions. Anyone should be able to brew a great beer occasionally. The best brewers rarely brew a "decent" beer.

One way to look at the two round NHC is that the first round just qualifies the brewer. Yes, you can make a very good "xxx style of beer". Now you can compete in the big show for that style. The brewer decides how to best handle that opportunity.

 

[oldschool]

I think it adds a dynamic to the competition- that is there being a benefit to a rebrew. I’m just annoyed that they don’t allow enough time for the lager rebrew because they can’t judge and finalize results within a couple days. It really isn’t that difficult.

 

[CascadesBrewer]

I’m just annoyed that they don’t allow enough time for the lager rebrew because they can’t judge and finalize results within a couple days. It really isn’t that difficult.

I think it is more that the first round judging sites are spaced out over a 4 week period. Some of the sites just finished judging last weekend. I would agree with the decision to not give an advantage to entrants from the earlier judged sites and release all the results at the same time. Yeah, maybe they could release the results a week earlier than May 3, but I am not sure that makes a huge difference.

In the time since I mailed off my entries to NHC, I brewed a Pale Ale, entered that into another competition, and I expect to have the results for that competition announced on Saturday, before the NHC results are released.

Hopefully I have a few beers advance, maybe even win a medal at Nationals, get great feedback from all the judges, and feel like my $150 investment was worth it!

BTW, I am not sure what to expect from my entries:

• American IPA: Similar to a recipe I have entered in competitions before with a Gold and a Silver. I was not that crazy about this batch. It scored well in 2 other competitions and won a Silver. 50% chance to advance.
• American Porter: My personal favorite of my entries. It won a Bronze in another comp with 37.5, but scored a 30.5 in another. Another 50% chance to advance.
• English Porter: Minor tweaks to a recipe that won a Gold a few years ago, but this one came out dull. It would be a surprise if this advanced.
• Belgian Dubbel: A recipe that I really like, but fermentation pushed itself up to 78F in a 68F ambient room (my ferm chamber was tied up with other entries). It is a bit young with an alcoholic bite. Maybe a 20% chance to advance, but I hope it will age to be ready for competitions in the fall.

 

[kingmatt]

I understand not posting results until all the sites have been judged, but we are 3 days out from the last site judging and still nothing, which is a bit frustrating.

The "verifying results" argument doesn't hold much water with me, as my local club holds a larger competition than any one NHC site every year and are able to "verify" and post the results within hours.

Hopefully they aren't just waiting til the May 3 date they posted on the website.

 

[CascadesBrewer]

Winners list is out:
https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/national-homebrew-competition/winners/
I also got an email with links to my scoresheets. They are not as useful as sheets from other competitions, but they are something.

I don't have to worry about scheduling a rebrew as none of mine advanced. My Dubbel scored a 42, but did not place.

I guess I should swap out Willamette hops in my American Porter for a more recognized American hop. The feedback seemed to be "no hop character" and all the aroma and flavor "flaws" described what Willamette hops smell and taste like. That means I can drink the bottles I set aside incase I needed to send them to the 2nd round!

 

[kingmatt]

My Czech Pilsner took first in Philly...good thing I decided to re-brew it last week just in case. Hopefully it holds up to the original.

 

[BrewZer]

My, my -- my maibock wasn't appreciated, I guess. I got 29/50 on it, with the two judges mostly consistent but varying on whether it was malty or hoppy in the balance. One judge tasted low acetaldehyde, the other low phenols. Both complained about alcohol heat, but if you look at the Maibock style sheet, it's supposed to have higher alcohol, so I'm not sure if it's a flaw or a feature. They didn't like it -- clearly -- but it was entered as a 4C - Helles Bock due to style limits, which don't differentiate between a Helles Bock and a Maibock. I'm not sure I got the benefit of the Maibock characteristics.

Anyway, I got feedback at $15 a pop, so I guess I can say I won't be doing that again.

I much prefer the feedback my house guest gave me yesterday -- "Can I have another one of those, please?"

 

[AlexKay]

I do get pretty disappointed when a beer I think is really good doesn't score well. Sometimes I send a beer in that I know isn't perfect, or that doesn't quite fit a category, and if judges don't like those it's easy to roll with that. But when they find flaws I don't think are there it's very discouraging.

This year I entered a rauchbier that's scored in the low 40s at a couple of other competitions ... and it got a 26. Same recipe, same batch. But now apparently it has acetaldehyde? I don't know what to think.

Overall I think I enter competitions to get a straight hedonic impression from a couple of strangers. This tells me if other people like my beer, when I'm not standing there and it doesn't have a free-beer-is-good-beer halo. But it's rare that I get specific and actionable feedback.

 

[Bobby_M]

Scored a 45 with a specialty Mead. First place and moving on. Look out!