NHC - impatiently waiting Score Sheets

[jdauria]

That’s awesome. My Schwarzbier failed to advance but they picked up some acetaldihyde. My NZ Pilsner advanced to 3 rounds but failed to move on to the 4th and final round, so I’m excited about that and got some decent feedback.

Pretty sure the 3rd round was the final round, otherwise the sheet would have said 3/4., So your beer was in the medal round.. if you read the revised Rules and Regulations https://cdn.homebrewersassociation....ew-Competition-Entrant-Handbook-2021-v2.1.pdf (AHA changed them after we all entered) page 11 explains the judging process...so your NZ Pilsner was in top 12. Congrats!

 

[jdauria]

So my results were this year were opposite of what I expected, my Schwarzbier was eliminated in first round while my American Wheat was in medal round. That's 3 beers in last two Nationals that have been in medal round but can't break through. Had a Helles and a Czech Dark make Finals medal round in 2019. Close but no cigar...guess it's a little boost to morale though that I am right there.

 

[riceral]

For Those that did get feedback. Without a numerical score, can we roughly equate the stars as the traditional scores? With the x on the line closer to one or the other meaning a higher or lower score? The score sheets seem less useful than other comps.. also no feedback from anything but round 1 seems odd.

Well, here is the feedback I got.

So, tell, me----What was good and what was bad about my beer?

So much for detailed feedback.

 

[jdauria]

Well, here is the feedback I got.

So, tell, me----What was good and what was bad about my beer?

So much for detailed feedback.

Hmmm...what was good...seems like everything. It's not like NHC has ever been "feedback rich"...but the sheets this year were a real joke. I swear, because it was in Denver, without Homebrew Con attached to it, they did not get all the National and Grand Master brewing celebrity judges like they normally did...so they had to scour Colorado for judges and got a lot of lower level recognized and certified judges, but not enough to judge everything and to take their time...so they basically had judges take a sip and judge, then move on to next beer. Only 316 judges in CO per the BJCP site, so how many out of staters judged I wonder? It seems like that thad 500 judges for 5000+ entries.

 

[CascadesBrewer]

So much for detailed feedback.

Wow! That is the worst sheet I have seen. No flaws checked and not even a star rating. The "feedback" given by the checkmarks are just low quality info that anybody can give "copper color, light beige head, mostly clear, med-high malt, etc."

I am worried that the AHA really screwed themselves this year and this will damage the AHA and their membership for years to come. I am a member and proponent of the AHA (did not enter any beers this year). I am sure they are hurting financially from 2020 cancellations and pulling off a large competition with the uncertainties of COVID is a challenge, but you cannot charge your base a premium then screw them over with this shoddy of a competition.

 

[Wayne1]

Here is a post and comments from a judge who was at the NHC:

reddit: insight from BJCP judge at NHC

 

[khannon]

So, I got a little more feedback than riceral, but not any of the "This is how you can do better" feedback, and none from round 2 or 3 which might have been nice.
I had kind of expected a score though as that might help hold up against other competition beers.
When looking into BJCP it seemed like feedback should come with some helpful advice. At ~$30/beer + AHA membership + shipping a 6 pack of each, seems like a little more feedback might be warranted. I get the shortage of judges, etc..

 

[Spartan1979]

People have been saying for several years that NHC is not the place to go if you're looking for feedback but that message doesn't seem to be getting through.

I am a BJCP National Judge and have judged the first rounds and the finals.

 

[khannon]

Yeah, what "people"? The competition suggested there would be decent feedback.. So I'm supposed to go look at the yelp reviews first? It's run by the AHA.. one of the larger groups for homebrewers..

 

[Dgallo]

Yeah, what "people"? The competition suggested there would be decent feedback.. So I'm supposed to go look at the yelp reviews first? It's run by the AHA.. one of the larger groups for homebrewers..

I get your frustration and I also get the pressures placed on the judges. I personally really wish they would give scores as thats a quantifiable standard, especially as we competitive homebrewers are very familiar with the 50 point system. I think it’s more about hating the game than the player (judges in this instance). But like the post said some judges took the easy route which is the issue.

 

[CascadesBrewer]

People have been saying for several years that NHC is not the place to go if you're looking for feedback but that message doesn't seem to be getting through.

I would agree that my understanding is that national is more of an arena for experienced brewers to compete for medals, but people also look at the score as a yardstick on their brewing execution. If this is the first year they dropped giving a score, somebody needs to rethink that decision. Entering 3 beers and getting 42, 35 and 31 would mean something...vs "2/4". Many people did not get stars marked (or got confusing marks on the stars) and got very limited comments. The feedback on @khannon example seems well done.

 

[Dgallo]

NHC sent out a survey. Check your emails

 

[BrewMan13]

I filled it out promptly