The 2014 NHC First Round - Results/Speculation Thread

[Darwin18]

I'm a Noob and would relish the opportunity to learn more about judging from experienced judges. I'm not new to brewing, I've been doing it actively for 23 years and I judge our club competition monthly. The opportunity to see how a large event is handled would be great. I still may have another three months to wait for the results from my tasting exam and I have learned patience is a requirement in this hobby. Don't forget, the folks running this are volunteers.

The best quote I've heard about why the BJCP process is so unwieldy is "It's beer geeks deciding which other beer geeks get let into their club."

There's nothing at all wrong or improper with getting "noobs" involved in larger competitions so that they can see they're run and gain experience by talking and interacting with judges. The best place to put these people is as stewards though, not active judges. The opportunity to learn and spend the day talking about beer with like minded people is what I really enjoy most about participating in competitions.

In smaller competitions, I'm not usually thrilled to see my entry judged by an apprentice or non-BJCP judge but usually they're paired up with someone experienced. I also don't pay $14 an entry + shipping for those types of competitions either. That's my hang up. $14 per entry + shipping came out to around $75. That Nashville is still judging entries and is desperate enough to beg for judges, even those with no experience, is troublesome.

At the end of the day it is what it is. Lesson learned is to request a center that has a strong record of handling the volume entries and processing score sheets and results quickly.

 

[JustLooking]

Lesson learned is to request a center that has a strong record of handling the volume entries and processing score sheets and results quickly.

Or if your beer sucks, send it to Nashville. You might win. :cross:

 

[Kuhndog]

They need more BJCP judges everywhere, it's people like myself that are contributing to the problem. I want to be a judge, but It's just not a clear enough path for me so I stop
I think they need to stream line the entire process to get more judges to sign up.


I'd be pretty mad if I went through the expense of brewing a beer, bottling,shipping and paying for the competition to have some one learning how to judge with my beer. I think the cost is much more that $14

I couldnt' agree with you more on needing more judges but it's not an easy thing to do if you don't want to be at the lowest level. I've been told by many people including a commerical head brewer that I have a palate for things and he has even suggested that I become a judge but when you look at what they require...it's ridiculous. I could be a certified oracle database administrator easier than being a BJCP judge...what does that say about the judging program? I personally don't think the AHA really thought this year's competition through. They need to locate centers closest to competing members and where judges are located. But most of all, they need to seriously rethink their judging program. I know they see this competition as a great money maker but it's only as good as how it is run and coordinated.

 

[Darwin18]

I couldnt' agree with you more on needing more judges but it's not an easy thing to do and the cost/training involved. I've been told by many people including a commerical head brewer that I have a palate for things and he has even suggested that I become a judge but when you look at what they require...it's ridiculous. I could be a certified oracle database administrator easier than being a BJCP judge...what does that say about the judging program?

Honestly, it's not difficult, and when I see statements like that I wonder if people really do know what the process entails:

1) Take the online test. Anyone who spends some time on HBT should be able to pass this easily.

2) Register for tasting exam. This is the difficult part as demand is currently beyond supply at the moment. However, I would strongly urge you to at least get on the wait list as you would be amazed how many people drop at the last minute. I was something like 20th on the wait list when I took the exam and people dropped like flies.

3) Take the tasting exam. If you have the capability to intelligently write what you are perceiving and have a basic knowledge of the guidelines then you should have the ability to at least score a 60. It's only a couple hours of your life as well.

How is this that difficult of a process? I can understand if you live in a part of the country where there are no tests or you would have to drive way out of the way to take it. It does take a few months to get the exams graded but I was thoroughly impressed by how seriously it was graded and the level of feedback that I received.

 

[bob1852]

You wish you got this much feedback. This year even the qualifying round is using the checklist score sheets. I entered four beers. The only one that had any feedback was the one that won 1st place. I got a 27 for my pale ale, with no feedback at all. Nothing on the sheet was circled (indicating problems), no off flavors noted, all the right boxes checked, but still a 27. WTF! It does not seem like even BJCP judges know how to use these score sheets correctly.

Not that I need an essay on each beer, but a couple of words showing why it was scored a 27 would be nice.

I quit entering Mazer Cup because of the checklist score sheets. I just personally don't like them for competitions.

Lesson learned is to request a center that has a strong record of handling the volume entries and processing score sheets and results quickly.

So don't enter NHC then?

Just because one Region is good one year, doesn't it will be the next year...

Honestly, it's not difficult, and when I see statements like that I wonder if people really do know what the process entails:

1) Take the online test. Anyone who spends some time on HBT should be able to pass this easily.

2) Register for tasting exam. This is the difficult part as demand is currently beyond supply at the moment. However, I would strongly urge you to at least get on the wait list as you would be amazed how many people drop at the last minute. I was something like 20th on the wait list when I took the exam and people dropped like flies.

3) Take the tasting exam. If you have the capability to intelligently write what you are perceiving and have a basic knowledge of the guidelines then you should have the ability to at least score a 60. It's only a couple hours of your life as well.

How is this that difficult of a process? I can understand if you live in a part of the country where there are no tests or you would have to drive way out of the way to take it. It does take a few months to get the exams graded but I was thoroughly impressed by how seriously it was graded and the level of feedback that I received.

You're forgetting #4 - VOLUNTEERING your time on weekends to blindy judge homebrew comps, often drinking nasty beer, and then lurking on forums seeing how much people are bitching about competions run 100% by volunteers (on their weekends usually).

I find these threads comical. Last year everyone was bitching because they couldn't enter as many beers as they want. Now everyone is bitching because their beers aren't being judged in what they perceive to be a timely manner by experienced judges. Guess what? Gordon Strong ain't gonna judge all ~9,000+ first round entries.

The problem is the shortage of judges. I wish AHA/NHC would scale back the competition and not place an unreasonable burden on these enthusiastic volunteers that just aren't in a position to run a competition of this size; even if they think they are when they sign up for it. But, then people would ***** about that too....

So how do you get more judges? Get n00bs to assist with judging...but no, people ***** about that too...

Remember the HBT competitions? Why aren't they happening anymore? Bitching, bitching, bitching, about everything...

Anyone know Ken Schramm? Know why he took a break from GotMead? Bitching, bitching, bitching about mead comps....


So much luck goes into winning these compeitions; it's pretty stupid to think you're being disadvantaged because your English mild sat around an extra week and was judged by a n00b (who likely is going to score it the exact same as the experienced judge).

Finally, if you don't think you're getting your $14/entry worth, quit entering. Plenty of local comps to ***** about their process, judges, and scoring.

 

[mwilcox]

re: feedback - there are two competitions I can think of where I'm not after feedback. The MCAB Finals, and NHC. I enter the ones that from previous feedback I know have a shot at making the stage. I would suggest that if feedback is the NHC goal there are cheaper alternatives available. But to each their own.

I also note that according to the AHA the majority of their survey respondents favored inclusion of as many members as possible in NHC. Using the checklist scoresheets speeds up the process a bit, and allows more entries to be judged in a timely manner. In order to get more people in, something had to give. Letting everyone in, letting everyone enter what they want, keeping costs down, giving lots of feedback, from very experienced volunteer judges - it all has to be balanced.

I personally don't think the AHA really thought this year's competition through. They need to locate centers closest to competing members and where judges are located.

Judge centers are located in areas where teams/clubs volunteered to hold them. From a previous Zymurgy we learned that there was room to expand the First Round from 11 to 14 Regions. We ended up with 12. 1500 potential entries lost.

I know they see this competition as a great money maker...

don't agree with this part at all.

cheers--
--Michael

 

[Braufessor]

I personally don't think the AHA really thought this year's competition through. They need to locate centers closest to competing members and where judges are located.

I think, ideally, you are right. However, I wonder what the reality is? There are a dozen regional competitions this year to accommodate the very high demand seen over the last couple years. How many other "sites" volunteered to host a regional and were denied? My guess, and it is only a guess, is that they probably had enough trouble just trying to get 12 groups to volunteer to put 12 regionals together, much less worry about picking and choosing where they would be at.

......it's only as good as how it is run and coordinated.

Overall, I think it is very well run for a competition of its size and a competition that has a variety of competing obstacles to overcome that are mutually exclusive of each other. How do you run a competition that lets everyone participate where they want, as much as they want, when they want, while being exclusive in its attempt to recognize the best brewers/beers? Also, how do you make sure everything is reported instantly, and yet correctly with no errors? And, do it all with a limited # of volunteers..... It is a tall order.

I don't think it is all perfect by any means. There are obviously some things that should/need to be improved and fixed. But, overall, there were a lot of steps in the right direction this year. Hopefully there will be more steps in the right direction next year.

The bottom line is this - of all the 10,000 entry competitions out there, there are none that are run any better....

 

[the75]

I quit entering Mazer Cup because of the checklist score sheets. I just personally don't like them for competitions.



So don't enter NHC then?

Just because one Region is good one year, doesn't it will be the next year...



You're forgetting #4 - VOLUNTEERING your time on weekends to blindy judge homebrew comps, often drinking nasty beer, and then lurking on forums seeing how much people are bitching about competions run 100% by volunteers (on their weekends usually).

I find these threads comical. Last year everyone was bitching because they couldn't enter as many beers as they want. Now everyone is bitching because their beers aren't being judged in what they perceive to be a timely manner by experienced judges. Guess what? Gordon Strong ain't gonna judge all ~9,000+ first round entries.

The problem is the shortage of judges. I wish AHA/NHC would scale back the competition and not place an unreasonable burden on these enthusiastic volunteers that just aren't in a position to run a competition of this size; even if they think they are when they sign up for it. But, then people would ***** about that too....

So how do you get more judges? Get n00bs to assist with judging...but no, people ***** about that too...

Remember the HBT competitions? Why aren't they happening anymore? Bitching, bitching, bitching, about everything...

Anyone know Ken Schramm? Know why he took a break from GotMead? Bitching, bitching, bitching about mead comps....


So much luck goes into winning these compeitions; it's pretty stupid to think you're being disadvantaged because your English mild sat around an extra week and was judged by a n00b (who likely is going to score it the exact same as the experienced judge).

Finally, if you don't think you're getting your $14/entry worth, quit entering. Plenty of local comps to ***** about their process, judges, and scoring.

The only thing comical here is someone looking to defend what's happening in Tennessee. People have a right to their opinions, bottom line. You're not always going to like what you hear, but if someone's response to negativity is to take their ball & go home, then that says more about them than it does about those with opinions. The AHA website said Tennessee would be judged over the three day period, obviously that didn't happen. NOT A MAJOR DEAL THOUGH.

I think the fact that the organizer actually said PUBLICLY that they are looking for newbies who want to judge or learn to judge at a national competition was a bigger mistake. You have nearly 200 people waiting with bated breath (even though AHA said that they will try to get results out by May 16th) to hear what happened to their entries. Making public requests for newbie judges is not a good sign.

As for the volunteer thing, it is definitely a valid point! Volunteers make this wonderful world of homebrewing go around. How do I know? Because I just volunteered at the San Diego judging this past weekend. The event was highly organized & those who ran it were prepared to handle it. That isn't taking place in Tennessee. I feel for the organizers there, I really do. I know that they are feeling a lot of anxiety & frustration. I think the plea for newbie help is a sure sign of that.

We have organizations that are doing a fantastic job of running events & it sounds like just one (so far) that is struggling. It might cost a bit of money, but maybe some of these "volunteer" organizers who have a solid track record could be paid to travel & lead other sites. There are answers. There are solutions. There are possibilities. The solution that is not acceptable is to bark back at the people who take issue with something. Squeeky wheel gets the grease & Tennessee needs some grease.

On a side note, I'm so sick of hearing "Well, if you don't like it, then you need to volunteer" Funny thing is, it's always the volunteer saying that. What ever happened to people helping out without feeling a need to be recognized.
Out of every negative comes something positive & I'm sure next year's NHC will be even better. We've seen that happen year after year, but if nobody ever spoke up about negative issues, then nothing would have changed.

 

[NervousDad]

I think they need to emphasize that this is not a "feedback" competition. I'm not super happy about the beers that I submitted, but I would have never submitted them if I didn't think they had a shot to place. If they come back with a low score that's okay too. My goal was to place, not to receive feedback.

I like the checklist format and I wish other comps would use this format to stop judges from deducting points to fit what they this the score of the beer should be.

Example, I submitted a beer and in the appearance I got "brilliantly clear straw color with two finger head" but only got two points out of three.

Just too many people, too few judges.

 

[Darwin18]

So don't enter NHC then?

Just because one Region is good one year, doesn't it will be the next year...

That's a real possibility.

You're forgetting #4 - VOLUNTEERING your time on weekends to blindy judge homebrew comps, often drinking nasty beer, and then lurking on forums seeing how much people are bitching about competions run 100% by volunteers (on their weekends usually).

I've volunteered many times and only been to a few competitions where I'll truly never go back because they were so poorly run / managed. I've yet to see one go on for two weeks though....This is a new one for me.

I find these threads comical. Last year everyone was bitching because they couldn't enter as many beers as they want. Now everyone is bitching because their beers aren't being judged in what they perceive to be a timely manner by experienced judges. Guess what? Gordon Strong ain't gonna judge all ~9,000+ first round entries.

The problem is the shortage of judges. I wish AHA/NHC would scale back the competition and not place an unreasonable burden on these enthusiastic volunteers that just aren't in a position to run a competition of this size; even if they think they are when they sign up for it. But, then people would ***** about that too....

So how do you get more judges? Get n00bs to assist with judging...but no, people ***** about that too...

Remember the HBT competitions? Why aren't they happening anymore? Bitching, bitching, bitching, about everything...

Anyone know Ken Schramm? Know why he took a break from GotMead? Bitching, bitching, bitching about mead comps....


So much luck goes into winning these compeitions; it's pretty stupid to think you're being disadvantaged because your English mild sat around an extra week and was judged by a n00b (who likely is going to score it the exact same as the experienced judge).

Finally, if you don't think you're getting your $14/entry worth, quit entering. Plenty of local comps to ***** about their process, judges, and scoring.

I don't think people are really bitching that much in this thread. It's all purely speculative which is in the title...

Does anyone really expect to have their entries all judged by a Grand Master level judge? I don't think so. The basic expectation is at least BJCP-recognized and above, and for the amount of money being dished out I think that's a fair expectation. If the poor local club can't come up with enough judges, maybe they shouldn't be hosting the event in the first place?

I mean after all, it's not like Nashville didn't have problems in the past hosting the NHC first round. Wait, they had similar issues last time in 2011???

I also don't think anyone really thinks their entry is being disadvantaged by being judged a week later (although that's a week later it could been in the keg) or being judged by a non-BJCP judge. I think what people are seeing though are a lot of inconsistencies from site to site, although not even close to what went on last year, and are questioning it. I think that's very fair to question why most centers can run, process, and handle entries while others struggles to even find enough judges to finish. Since it is the AHA's name on it, I would hope they would wonder as well.

Perhaps instead of blaming the judges, the BJCP, or the people helping out with the competition any blame should go first to the people who organized and ran the competition. Obviously they vastly overestimated their ability to complete this type of competition and I would really hope that the AHA notices this and looks for a better first round center.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter. Not really. I know I get frustrated, but none that matters. It's just a homebrew competition. That's why I stick to the Carolina Brewer of the Year Circuit - I know most of the judges, and I know that my entries will be judged by quality judges and the results posted in a timely manner. It's a terrible thing that we don't do any HBT competitions anymore - I never did get the chance to enter one of those.

 

[Braufessor]

I think the fact that the organizer actually said PUBLICLY that they are looking for newbies who want to judge or learn to judge at a national competition was a bigger mistake. You have nearly 200 people waiting with bated breath (even though AHA said that they will try to get results out by May 16th) to hear what happened to their entries. Making public requests for newbie judges is not a good sign.

I do think this is a valid criticism..... If my beers were at that regional, It would be hard not feel slighted/concerned/angry.

If they indeed use first time volunteers for judging, that is pretty hard to justify. On the other hand, if it is just bad communication on a facebook page - that is unfortunate, but not tragic. Hopefully, it is more along the lines of:
"Hey - we need all of you experienced judges to finish this up. And, if any inexperienced people want to get their feet wet as a third judge, or a steward, this is a great chance to take part too."

 

[bob1852]

I've yet to see one go on for two weeks though....This is a new one for me.

I think it was NY a couple years ago (when 1st round was one entry)....there were rumors about mini-BOS being judged the day after the main judging took place.

How the hell do you pull that off with one bottle?

 

[nickmv]

There's nothing at all wrong or improper with getting "noobs" involved in larger competitions so that they can see they're run and gain experience by talking and interacting with judges. The best place to put these people is as stewards though, not active judges. The opportunity to learn and spend the day talking about beer with like minded people is what I really enjoy most about participating in competitions.

In smaller competitions, I'm not usually thrilled to see my entry judged by an apprentice or non-BJCP judge but usually they're paired up with someone experienced. I also don't pay $14 an entry + shipping for those types of competitions either. That's my hang up. $14 per entry + shipping came out to around $75. That Nashville is still judging entries and is desperate enough to beg for judges, even those with no experience, is troublesome.

At the end of the day it is what it is. Lesson learned is to request a center that has a strong record of handling the volume entries and processing score sheets and results quickly.

I just posted on Music City Brewers' Facebook stating great concern for them appearing to be begging for judges with zero experience. I sure hope they know what they're doing. I know they've drawn a lot of criticism in past years.

This is the NHC and is the biggest competition in the nation each year. There's a standard to be held to.

 

[Darwin18]

I think it was NY a couple years ago (when 1st round was one entry)....there were rumors about mini-BOS being judged the day after the main judging took place.

How the hell do you pull that off with one bottle?

Maybe they just really like the taste of stale cardboard in NYC?

 

[stevo155]

I think it was NY a couple years ago (when 1st round was one entry)....there were rumors about mini-BOS being judged the day after the main judging took place.

How the hell do you pull that off with one bottle?

Yeah...Saratoga Springs. That was the rumor that bottles were opened and left open. I also believe it took them 2 weekends to finish that one up too. I had entries there that year and said I send to a different region the next year if they repeated...thankfully it hasn't been back there since.

 

[jbaysurfer]

You wish you got this much feedback. This year even the qualifying round is using the checklist score sheets. I entered four beers. The only one that had any feedback was the one that won 1st place. I got a 27 for my pale ale, with no feedback at all. Nothing on the sheet was circled (indicating problems), no off flavors noted, all the right boxes checked, but still a 27. WTF! It does not seem like even BJCP judges know how to use these score sheets correctly.

Not that I need an essay on each beer, but a couple of words showing why it was scored a 27 would be nice.

The checklist scoresheets ARE indeed new, so there's going to be a learning curve. Many judges didn't know that you were supposed to circle the areas of deficiency (I'm one of them) until it was too late. For my entrants at least, if a beer was deficient, or merited a score rationale, I took the time to write things out, as did all of my judging team partners. For flawed beers, the checklist sheets are very straight forward, and all flaws should be accounted for.

I can speak to a couple issues brought about on this thread, having just finished judging one of the regions this weekend:

1) BCJP certification is difficult to obtain. The simple 3 step process posted above is true, but getting an exam seat is VERY difficult. I spoke with one certified judge at the competition this weekend who literally took 10 years to find a seat at an exam that was near enough him to merit the travel.

2) "Newb" judges in our region were like me. Provisional Judges with BJCP Judge numbers who simply needed an opportunity to sit for an exam. Many of us have several years of judging experience and I personally have judged many contests. I'm also an accomplished brewer myself, and well qualified to judge the regional. Furthermore, in our region at least (Sac, VERY well run IMHO) those judges like me were paired with very accomplished/high ranking judges in teams. Both scores had to be within a certain range of each other, so each selection was discussed between the judging teams to make sure that any outlying scores were addressed.

3) I entered beers as well. Considering the massive volunteer effort I saw put forth in our region, I feel my $14 entry fees were money very well spent. There's a line every year now for these entries. If you're not happy about something then don't enter next year and let someone who's not jaded about it all have the entry spot. We had about 900 beers to cover in 5 judging sessions. There was prejudging done in several impacted categories to thin the list, and the breakouts into preliminaries and mini-best of shows made it all possible.

Thank you to the volunteers who GIVE freely of their time and effort, and take the opportunity of judging your/our beers with great thoughtfulness. It's not an easy job, and inevitably, as is the nature of competition, some competitors are going to be unhappy. But walk a mile, volunteer, learn to judge, be glad that others have done that for you and your $14 entries. Trust me as a brewer when I say, the time they volunteered was on par with the time you devoted to crafting your beer!

Thanks to AHA and the NHC Sac Region and leadership!!!! I left VERY impressed...now if my beers don't end up doing well, I'm going to delete this post and complain vociferously! (just kidding!)

PS, All judging was completely blind, so I do not have any results information for you. All I can say was that overall, the flights I saw contained some very well crafted beers. The brewers deserve congratulations as one very tenured judge commented to me about how the quality of entries has seen tremendous improvement that last few years.

 

[jbaysurfer]

Hey jbaysurfer,

Thanks to you and rest of the volunteers for your efforts this last weekend! Any idea when the Sacramento scores will be posted in the online portal or score sheets mailed?

Thanks!

Thanks Matt! Unfortunately I do not know when the scores will be posted. Within the next 2 weeks for sure...but hopefully earlier. As a competitor also, I'll be waiting with bated breath along with you. Best of luck!

 

[sketerbuck]

Any chance you have an eidetic memory and can post the results here?

Not even close…Sorry

 

[sudndeth]

What the guys at Nashville don't understand is that this is the Fu$&ing Catalina Wine Mixer.

 

[Kuhndog]

re: feedback - there are two competitions I can think of where I'm not after feedback. The MCAB Finals, and NHC. I enter the ones that from previous feedback I know have a shot at making the stage. I would suggest that if feedback is the NHC goal there are cheaper alternatives available. But to each their own.

I also note that according to the AHA the majority of their survey respondents favored inclusion of as many members as possible in NHC. Using the checklist scoresheets speeds up the process a bit, and allows more entries to be judged in a timely manner. In order to get more people in, something had to give. Letting everyone in, letting everyone enter what they want, keeping costs down, giving lots of feedback, from very experienced volunteer judges - it all has to be balanced.




Judge centers are located in areas where teams/clubs volunteered to hold them. From a previous Zymurgy we learned that there was room to expand the First Round from 11 to 14 Regions. We ended up with 12. 1500 potential entries lost.



don't agree with this part at all.

cheers--
--Michael

You don't agree that the competition is a money maker for the AHA? Really? By making it an AHA member only competition I bet there was a pretty big increase in membership following that announcement. Otherwise, you just don't enter. I've been involved in events that became membership only events and believe what you will but I saw each one of them drive up membership numbers in the process. You have to be a member to play kind of thing.

BTW - where does the $14/entry go then if it doesn't make money for the AHA? How many entries this year?....and considering its run by volunteers...do the math.

 

[mwilcox]

You don't agree that the competition is a money maker for the AHA? Really? By making it an AHA member only competition I bet there was a pretty big increase in membership following that announcement. Otherwise, you just don't enter. I've been involved in events that became membership only events and believe what you will but I saw each one of them drive up membership numbers in the process. You have to be a member to play kind of thing.

BTW - where does the $14/entry go then if it doesn't make money for the AHA? How many entries this year?....and considering its run by volunteers...do the math.

I won't pretend to have an itemized list of the AHA's expenses, but I do know how expensive it is to run a regional competition. Then consider in mailing scoresheets, ribbons, instructions, "certficates" etc to all parts of the country. Ship those medals to those who don't pick them up in Grand Rapids. Truck scoresheets and those unclaimed prizes back to Boulder to be shipped out. Rent out a big room or two in a convention center to seat a couple hundred judges and a bunch more stewards and staff. Feed those judges a lot, and that's not even counting what you spent to feed them in the First Round. And oh yeah, pay a portion of Janis' salary, as this is her job.

Do all those things and doubtless others we haven't even thought of, and this becomes not quite the financial windfall you suggest.

as for non-members, they made up less than 1% of the 7757 entries in 2013. Doubt the stat? - it's from the a member of the Governing Committee. We know there are some who joined the AHA to get access to NHC, but I believe the number is small. I would suggest it is dwarfed by the number who become AHA members to have access to buying GABF Members Only Session tickets.

cheers--
--Michael

 

[Darwin18]

I think until the AHA actually discloses some financial information both you guys are right. It's pure speculation on either side. Something small and very basic like a pie graph figure in Zymurgy showing where the $14 per entry goes towards funding in the organization would go a very long way to ending financial speculation. NCDOT does this with our annual vehicle registration fee statements. FWIW, I do not at all think that the AHA is pocketing money and stashing profits, however I also wouldn't have thought the BJCP would have had an embezzlement issue in their organization.

I also sort of question that 1% number the AHA has thrown around. That be ~78 entries for the entire competition that was sent in in 2013 by non-AHA members. I was non-AHA last year and I sent in four myself. I saw several other people on HBT who were non-AHA members that had also participated. No doubt that the bulk of 2013 entries were sent in by AHA members but that low of a number makes me, personally, a bit doubtful.

 

[Darwin18]

I think until the AHA actually discloses some financial information both you guys are right. It's pure speculation on either side. Something small and very basic like a pie graph figure in Zymurgy showing where the $14 per entry goes towards funding in the organization would go a very long way to ending financial speculation. NCDOT does this with our annual vehicle registration fee statements. FWIW, I do not at all think that the AHA is pocketing money and stashing profits, however I also wouldn't have thought the BJCP would have had an embezzlement issue in their organization.

I also sort of question that 1% number the AHA has thrown around. That be ~78 entries for the entire competition that was sent in in 2013 by non-AHA members. I was non-AHA last year and I sent in four myself. I saw several other people on HBT who were non-AHA members that had also participated. No doubt that the bulk of 2013 entries were sent in by AHA members but that low of a number makes me, personally, a bit doubtful.

 

[jbaysurfer]

Darwin,

You make great points, but to me to most salient part of mwilcox' post is that whatever the number is of people who joined for NHC, it's dwarfed by the people who joined to buy GABF tickets.

Since we all have ideas and suggestions, I would like for AHA to have a special Pre-pre sale for NHC entrant members

 

[BuckheadBrewer]

The latest I found re: Austin.

http://bjcp-austin.blogspot.com/2014/04/post-judging-update.html

 

[bob1852]

Any rumors out of San Diego region?

 

[jnacey]

Philly's sheets came in. I got a 39 on a beer in 16E and a 35.5 on a beer in 21A. Neither advanced. My first comp so pretty happy regardless. Well done with turnaround I must say.

 

[mdterps187]

How'd you receive your scores? I submitted for Philly and have been checking the brewingcompetition.com site.

 

[jnacey]

They were mailed.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[mdterps187]

Thanks for the heads up!

 

[novahokie09]

You wish you got this much feedback. This year even the qualifying round is using the checklist score sheets. I entered four beers. The only one that had any feedback was the one that won 1st place. I got a 27 for my pale ale, with no feedback at all. Nothing on the sheet was circled (indicating problems), no off flavors noted, all the right boxes checked, but still a 27. WTF! It does not seem like even BJCP judges know how to use these score sheets correctly.

Not that I need an essay on each beer, but a couple of words showing why it was scored a 27 would be nice.

The sheets instruct the judges to not give feedback. In fact, the sheets basically state to only provide feedback when the score sheet does not provide a reason to why the score was marked down. If something was out of style, the judges are supposed to circle the appropriate intensity per style guidelines. If there were any flaws, then they are instructed to check where the flaws were perceived (aroma, flavor, or mouthfeel) and describe the intensity at the bottom. On top of that, the space provided to comment on the check sheet score sheets is extremely limited. It's difficult to write anything, even if the judge wanted.

The obvious purpose of the first round is to select the best three beers of the category, which gets pretty subjective at the mini-Best of Show round. If you're paying $14 for feedback in the NHC 1st round, you're wasting your money because, wrong or right it may be, it's not the purpose of entering beers in NHC.

 

[jbaysurfer]

Philly's sheets came in. I got a 39 on a beer in 16E and a 35.5 on a beer in 21A. Neither advanced. My first comp so pretty happy regardless. Well done with turnaround I must say.

Those are great scores. The 39 was likely one of the better scores qualifying for the Mini Best of Show, but you could be the top qualifier for MBOS and stlll get bumped. Nice work.

 

[jnacey]

Those are great scores. The 39 was likely one of the better scores qualifying for the Mini Best of Show, but you could be the top qualifier for MBOS and stlll get bumped. Nice work.

Thanks! Unfort the 39 didn't advance to mini BOS. I'm flattered to get the score I did and I'm sure it was up against some great beers.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[jbaysurfer]

Thanks! Unfort the 39 didn't advance to mini BOS. I'm flattered to get the score I did and I'm sure it was up against some great beers.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

Had to have been!

 

[CadillacAndy]

It's difficult to write anything, even if the judge wanted.

Disagree here. There is plenty or room to make comments. Certainly not as much room as the regular sheet, but enough room if the judge wanted to write a sentence or two. I filled out 40+ scoresheets in Zanesville this past weekend and wrote comments on pretty much every sheet.

The obvious purpose of the first round is to select the best three beers of the category, which gets pretty subjective at the mini-Best of Show round. If you're paying $14 for feedback in the NHC 1st round, you're wasting your money because, wrong or right it may be, it's not the purpose of entering beers in NHC.

100% agree with this. NHC is not the place to get quality feedback for your beer. That is what all the other local/regional/etc competitions are for.

 

[jbaysurfer]

Disagree here. There is plenty or room to make comments. Certainly not as much room as the regular sheet, but enough room if the judge wanted to write a sentence or two. I filled out 40+ scoresheets in Zanesville this past weekend and wrote comments on pretty much every sheet.



100% agree with this. NHC is not the place to get quality feedback for your beer. That is what all the other local/regional/etc competitions are for.

I think that statement is being made relative to the copious space for writing, and the fact writing was encouraged, on the old sheets. Like you, I made comments on every single beer I judged...but on occasion old habits led to me running out of room. Compared to the old sheets the comment space is very limited IMHO.

 

[stevo155]

Thanks! Unfort the 39 didn't advance to mini BOS. I'm flattered to get the score I did and I'm sure it was up against some great beers.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

Not to get your hopes up, but wait until the official NHC scores are released. A couple years ago I sent beers to Philly and got my sheets back and none showed they placed. Well, when the official results were released, my Munich Helles actually placed 2nd ( and went on to place 2nd in the finals). Thankfully I didn't drown my sorrows by drinking the rest when I got my sheets back. :cross:

 

[jnacey]

Not to get your hopes up, but wait until the official NHC scores are released. A couple years ago I sent beers to Philly and got my sheets back and none showed they placed. Well, when the official results were released, my Munich Helles actually placed 2nd ( and went on to place 2nd in the finals). Thankfully I didn't drown my sorrows by drinking the rest when I got my sheets back. :cross:

Gah! Already drank them last night! Gulp...


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[HungusBrews]

Did anyone get their score sheets back from NYC yet? Philly really went above and beyond with a super quick turnaround!

 

[NervousDad]

Got my score sheets back from Philly. Just as I thought my Sessionable APA (56 entries) got destroyed with a 25, but got a 36 under the 23A category. I got a 41 (mini-BOS) for my Wee Heavy and a 38 for my IPA.

There was nothing checked off for placing. but I don't think a 41 would would get a medal.