NHC Results.

The one judge had some positive comments in the drinkability section that I think should make you feel good about this beer and help you understand the scores.

 

Went 1/4 with my bRandy BA dark Lord clone placing 2nd in wood aged. Had 3/4 go to mini bos all scoring 38s (blonde stout,ba stout, milk stout) with my Flanders getting hammered and as scoring a 29 for having too low carbonation and too much acetic acid. I should have entered my passion fruit Berliner instead.

Last two years I've went 1/4 both going to mini bos in round 2 but no medals.

 

Read through the thread and am still a bit confused. You entered your "Brett type" IPA in the category? My experience is that 644 is very phenolic.

 

I fermented one intended to be an IPA but my OG was lower than expected. It went from 1.052 down to 1.013. So with an IPA grain bill and hopping schedule but an APA ABV I entered mine in a local comp in the American Pale Ale category. I'm with you on this one. Definitely no phenols in mine and more tropical fruity esters. Not sure it fits the '08 guidelines either but it scored well in that category. So I think you entered it right if you're ABV was in line with an IPA.

 

I think you entered it in the best category, but that's a big flaw in competitions like this. It might be an awesome beer just not do well when being judged.

The who "it's not Brett thing" is funny though because I bet when you brewed it, it was still listed as a Brett strain. Even now that it's technically Sacc it still acts more like Brett.

 

I wouldnt stress it. I can see why youre annoyed though

 

Not very many fun, explorative, or cutting edge beers have a place under the '08 guidelines.

 

well, IPA is a hard category to compete in. It truly is generally well entered and a lot of homebrewers make superb IPA's. You're being judged to style, and if you're using a yeast that doesn't match the style well, the judges are going to pick up on it. I think the feedback you got does make sense, even you recognize the yeast issue.
As far as IBU, that number is *at best* an estimate when you're using the calculation, rather than a measured in a lab value. Moreover, the IBU calc. cannot take into account the impact on the palate of the malt profile. When you've got a sweeter base you won't taste as much of the bitter. If your water has a particular mineral profile it impacts the taste of the bitterness. Additionally, the mineral profile in your water impacts your hop utilization. So, take that number with a grain of salt.

I once ('08) entered a brown ale as a northern english brown ale that used a smidgeon of Amarillo-why? because I like amarillo. That beer scored poorly, Amarillos didn't belong there. What I learned from that is, to think carefully about beers that are made for contests and those that aren't. You're kind of setting yourself up for failure when you do things outside of style and enter it in a competition. And, I make the decision during the recipe-formulation stage what the goal is for this beer, who is drinking it, and who I want it to appeal to. And, based on that match my recipe to that goal. (It gets down to the nitty gritty of which contest am I sending it to, and how do people in those regions prefer the beers).

If you're just looking for feedback, share a bottle with another brewer, and see what they say. You don't necessarily get constructive feedback from beer judging, because you just get a piece of paper and conversation is limited. I have gotten some useful feedback, but a lot of times, I don't. I make a pretty kickass Wee Heavy, and it has won competitions, even best in show once. But, that same batch of beer entered in a different contest was not as well liked (I think we confused them with the smidgeon of smoke malt in the recipe-and in retrospect, I should always detail that it is in the recipe-but, one judge said it was smokey and believed the smoke was phenolic-it's not). It is intended to be as objective, as possible, but, bias is invisible to the person who is biased and you can't fully remove bias from any human-judged endeavor.

 

It's even worse for huge comps like NHC. Judges vary so much by flight/region/time of day. One might be strict to style, another just goes with "This beer is GREAT!". You never know what you're going to get. NHC is frequently frustrating, two judging sheets that *completely* contradict each other. So my beer is both too hoppy and not hoppy enough for the style, while being under and over carb'ed? Thanks for the feedback folks!

 

I'm going to hide behind my riot shield before I say this: Competitions (to me) don't seem to be about good beer so much as they are about beers fitting into what the BJCP thinks they should be and then filtered through some random dudes beliefs about those guidelines are. It could be the best beer in the world or at least the most "popular" to use the term we do here on BA like @JohnSnowNW said with his Heady Topper comment and not do well in competitions because it is unique.

 

Not an NHC story, but the most recent interesting/funny comment I have read from a BJCP judge recently, for a coffee oatmeal stout entered in 21A...

"This beer was entered in the wrong category. Should have been in the stout category."

At first I thought maybe he was trying to say the coffee (the spice/herb/vegetable specified) wasn't noticeable enough. But the flavor section starts with the words "Mostly coffee," so I'm stumped.

Runner up for funny, from the same comp (different beer)... these words concluded the Overall Impression... "Best of luck next time!" But the beer got third in the BoS round.

 

Which raises the question -- when do the new guidelines get adopted? I expected they would have been part of this years comp.

The answer:
From a February 2015 post at BJCP

• Style Guideline Status Update
  
  The release of the new style guidelines has been delayed while we complete the final editing and review. We intended to release them by the end of 2014, primarily to allow the AHA NHC to use them in the upcoming season. However, the AHA informed us in November 2014 that they intended to continue to use the 2008 guidelines for the 2015 NHC, so that removed an artificial deadline.
  
  Since the last update, we have completed the internal review, and are now incorporating updates from a second external review. We are also expanding some sections to address comments we have received. Obviously, the name 2014 is moot at this point, so the new guidelines will be called the 2015 BJCP Style Guidelines, and should be released around the end of March 2015.
  
  The current guidelines remain in effect for exams and competitions. The same guidance as previously released applies to exams. We will allow at least a 6 month transition period before they will be in effect. A more detailed guidance statement will be released by the Exam Directorate after the guidelines are released. We will still need assistance at that time to translate and format the guidelines into additional versions.

 

How did you end up in the BOS round with that kind of comment? It seems like he/she would have hammered you enough that there would have been no chance.

 

YupI agree and think that's spot on.

 

Beats me. The score was fairly high. And the other judge scored it higher. Maybe it was the first beer tasted in the flight and the bar ended up being lower than he thought it would be.