Salvagebeer Homebrew Beer Blog

You may recall that I entered my Smoked Porter and one of my cysers into a couple of competitions last month. The results are in for one of them, and as promised, I’m going to share. I got the results from the New England Regional Homebrew Competition.

I’m a bit disappointed – but not because of the actual scores I got, which are okay, given that this was my first foray into competitions. My disappointment stems more from the presentation and judging itself.

I received my results in a manila envelope with no return address. That’s all well and good, I suppose, as I could easily just open the envelope and the mystery is solved, but the score sheets themselves contain no indication as to which competition they come from – they’re the generic BJCP score sheets from the website. As I’ve entered a couple of competitions with these brews – something I’m sure happens with some frequency – some indication, insert, or cover letter would have been appropriate. I had to use the actual postmark on the envelope to determine what I was reading.

My second gripe comes down to experience and certification. Of the seven “judges” that evaluated my beer, only three were BJCP certified, and two indicated that they were “novice” level non-BJCP judges. This could easily indicate that they are simply some joe off the street. Given that there is an “Experienced (but non-BJCP)” category, a novice level judge must truly lack training and skill. A small competition put on by a club might reasonably lack sufficient qualified judges, but this is the NEW ENGLAND REGIONAL COMPETITION we’re talking about here, and sending novice judges to the table is inexcusable. I’m not trying to cry foul here, and whine that my brews deserve a higher score than they received. I’m happy with my score, and find the feedback to be relatively consistent (whether that’s due to judging skill or guidance provided by the head judges, I don’t know). I’m just saying that I expected more for my entry fee from a large regional comp like this one.

Judging-wise, I’ll start with the Porter. My final score is a 29.5 out of 50, putting the beer at the top of the “Good” category. As a score of 30 would have popped me into the “Very Good” category, I feel that the judges are making a pretty assertive point with this score.

“Good” means:
A satisfactory beer that generally fits the style parameters. Scores near the upper end of this range may have only a few minor flaws or be slightly out of style and also may be lacking in balance or complexity. Scores near the lower end of this range tend to have more flaws and are likely to have stylistic inconsistencies as well.

This is born out in the judging sheets, the gist of which can be summed up through examples:

Two judges out of four checked the “astringent” box.
“Smoke aroma definitely dominates the profile.”

“Body is mild…”

“A good drinkable beer overall, but the smoke flavor and aroma overpower the beer.”

“Smoky flavor is good – a little more base beer character would be nice.”

“…sourness in finish…”

“…left with a bitter finish that is somewhat distasteful.”

From a National ranked judge:

“Flavor has lots of hops and some malt to balance. Smoke is evident and pleasant, though a bit of a clash with the hops bitterness. Some sourness (acetic acid like) indicates an infection. Phenols may be due to so much smoked malt.”

“Body seems a little thin for the style…”

“…good try and keep tweaking your base porter recipe.”

I keep telling you, dear reader, that I’m not an expert in this stuff. Overall, I expected to see slightly better scores for this beer, but I see what the judges were saying. The body could have definitely been stronger, and I do have a bit of an acetic house-flavor going on that I’m attempting to remedy through cleaner practices. That said, I think I like a little more acetic tang in my beer than the average judge, and I would do well to keep that in mind when brewing to compete (not that I’m claiming to have done it on purpose, just that I really appreciate a mild sourness, and would likely be far more enthusiastic about this “flaw” than most).

I take the comments on body and malt flavor very much to heart, and I think that the beer truly could have been a bit less thin. The addition of some flaked grains, oatmeal, or maybe even some unsmoked munich would be an improvement.

Regarding the smokiness, I really did go for broke with this beer, choosing to smoke almost all of my grain, rather than the pound called for in the recipe. This surely pushed this beer into the “extreme beer” category, and out of the comfortable range. This is the single aspect of the brew that was judged as a negative that I feel came out just the way I wanted it to, and even if it cost me some points in judging, I wouldn’t change a thing in regards to the smoking of the grains.

On to the cyser, my apple mead. There’s no reason to quote big blocks of text, as the judges all pretty much said the same things: could use more honey, a bit harsh, pretty dry, and not carbonated enough. Even so, I scored a 33, Very Good:

“Beers in this range have a minor flaw (technical or stylistic), or may be lacking in balance or complexity”

I entered the cyser under semi-sweet, as that’s where it seemed to be the last time I drank much of it. It’s gotten drier, and would have been better entered under the dry category. I intended the cyser to be still, which is apparently not true to the BJCP style. Ultimately, I knew that this was not a world-class cyser when I entered it. I do expect that it will improve greatly with another couple years in the bottle. I should have entered my 2005 mead.

There it is, folks, my first competition. I’m really happy with the feedback, and to have entered the competition game. I’m kind of looking forward to the end of the experiment I’m working on, so that I can get back to brewing different styles again.