# Filtered Beer V's Non Filtered In Comps



## Online Brewing Supplies (12/6/08)

I was a judge at the Perth Royal Beer Show yesterday. There was 2 panels of 6 judges . When we were getting ready to judge we were posed with a very interesting question from one of the senior judges.
How do you judge Filtered entries versus non filtered ?
The problem being if you filter your entry and it is not clear you get points deducted but if you enter a non filtered beer and it comes out cloudy you do not have points deducted. Obviously some beers are allowed to be cloudy, Heffe's etc.
We though this was not fair to the brewers that had done the extra work to filter.Now we did have a lot of cloudy beers come through and the entries did not lose points.
So the question , or really what I want is your point of view on this so we can put some suggestions forward for next years show. All in all the show had some very fine examples of beers from the home brewer section and really showed the quality of brewing happening out there.
GB


----------



## bconnery (12/6/08)

Why differentiate?
Clarity is clarity, and is either desired for the style or not.
The method used to achieve that clarity should be irrelevant. 
You lose points if the beer should be clear and isn't. 
If you go to the effort to achieve that, and do, then you get the points. 

Was it a requirement that entries indicated that they were filtered?


----------



## Asher (12/6/08)

I thought points were awarded for appearance. If it isn't to style then less points given.... Simple - be it cloudy or hazy (judge the difference?)
GB - A little more info on the judging process of this event compared to a BJCP one may clarify your query a bit. 



> Judges shouldn't make the assumption that a beer has been filtered because its clear , Maybe the brewer is just better at bottling an entry than the other. All still part of brewing in my mind.
> 
> My beers are clear and not filtered, just CP filled from a lagered keg. If their not clear it's haze and should hopefully be scored down accordingly.
> 
> Sounds to me that the problems may lie in the Stewarding/Storing/Pouring not the Scoring B)



Of course all the stuff in quotes only maks sense if entrants wern't asked if their beer was filtered... But they were
Still - need more info on the scoring/judging process here.


----------



## Darren (12/6/08)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> I was a judge at the Perth Royal Beer Show yesterday. There was 2 panels of 6 judges . When we were getting ready to judge we were posed with a very interesting question from one of the senior judges.
> How do you judge Filtered entries versus non filtered ?
> The problem being if you filter your entry and it is not clear you get points deducted but if you enter a non filtered beer and it comes out cloudy you do not have points deducted. Obviously some beers are allowed to be cloudy, Heffe's etc.
> We though this was not fair to the brewers that had done the extra work to filter.Now we did have a lot of cloudy beers come through and the entries did not lose points.
> ...




How would you know that a cloudy beer is the result of poor filtering?

My experience says it does not matter. If the style should be "bright" (eg Pilsener) then slight cloudiness should be penalised. This is one reason that kit beers score well in competitions as they are almost always very clear. AG beers usually have slight/moderate haze.

cheers

Darren


----------



## T.D. (12/6/08)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> We though this was not fair to the brewers that had done the extra work to filter.



Or on the flipside, what about the brewers who have not filtered but have made crystal clear beer? Surely this is to be commended more than somebody who has just whacked the beer through a filter???

Its a good question you ask though. Very hard to monitor, and even if you could seperate the filtered and non-filtered beers, how do you know how many points to award/deduct from beers once you know whether they have been filtered or not. 

In my opinion, it would be easier just to make a rule that all beers entered must not be filtered. This will provide a much more transparent (pardon the pun) process in awarding points for appearance and clarity. Furthermore, it will award those brewers who have produced a clear beer, without using filters. Just my view on the issue.


----------



## BoilerBoy (12/6/08)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> I was a judge at the Perth Royal Beer Show yesterday. There was 2 panels of 6 judges . When we were getting ready to judge we were posed with a very interesting question from one of the senior judges.
> How do you judge Filtered entries versus non filtered ?
> The problem being if you filter your entry and it is not clear you get points deducted but if you enter a non filtered beer and it comes out cloudy you do not have points deducted. Obviously some beers are allowed to be cloudy, Heffe's etc.
> We though this was not fair to the brewers that had done the extra work to filter.Now we did have a lot of cloudy beers come through and the entries did not lose points.
> ...



Interesting, I just wrote in the new inventors thread that I have tried filtering into bottles and within the time frame it takes to carb up, beer absolutely glass clear going into the bottle becomes clouded with yeast and still seems to remain in suspension.
Its still probably clearer than the unfiltered beer, but once you have declared a beer filtered expectations are altered particularly for the purposes of judging, which as I have stated above would probably lend itself to some degree of disappointment.

Cheers,
BB


----------



## glennheinzel (12/6/08)

bconnery said:


> Why differentiate?
> Clarity is clarity, and is either desired for the style or not.
> The method used to achieve that clarity should be irrelevant.
> You lose points if the beer should be clear and isn't.
> If you go to the effort to achieve that, and do, then you get the points.



+1

I would think that a judge should be assessing the end product and not the process.


----------



## Hutch (12/6/08)

T.D. said:


> In my opinion, it would be easier just to make a rule that all beers entered must not be filtered.


I don't think this is at all feasible - how would you police such a rule?
In my opinion, filtering is just another component of homebrewing these days, no more advanced than kegging, using polyclar, kettle finings, liquid yeasts, etc. etc.
I don't think there should be any reason for a beer to be judged on whether it has been filtered or not, just as it shouldn't be judged on any other advanced brewing practices employed by the brewer.


----------



## Stuster (12/6/08)

Rukh said:


> +1
> 
> I would think that a judge should be assessing the end product and not the process.



+1.

I'm with Rukh and bconnery. Comps judge the beer.


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (12/6/08)

bconnery said:


> Why differentiate?
> Clarity is clarity, and is either desired for the style or not.
> The method used to achieve that clarity should be irrelevant.
> You lose points if the beer should be clear and isn't.
> ...


Yes it was required that you state filtered or not.
GB


----------



## warrenlw63 (12/6/08)

About time we got another thread that goes around in continual circles. <_< 

In regards to the crux of your question GB I don't think there's a need to differentiate.
Can't see people embracing a check box on a competition for that says. Filtered or Non Filtered. Quite silly really.

I'll check up on this one in another 10 pages.  

Warren -


----------



## fraser_john (12/6/08)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> I was a judge at the Perth Royal Beer Show yesterday. There was 2 panels of 6 judges . When we were getting ready to judge we were posed with a very interesting question from one of the senior judges.
> How do you judge Filtered entries versus non filtered ?
> The problem being if you filter your entry and it is not clear you get points deducted but if you enter a non filtered beer and it comes out cloudy you do not have points deducted. Obviously some beers are allowed to be cloudy, Heffe's etc.
> We though this was not fair to the brewers that had done the extra work to filter.Now we did have a lot of cloudy beers come through and the entries did not lose points.
> ...



Kinda with Warrenlw63 on this one, bit of a circular thread! But it does make you wonder! For example, American Pale Ale on http://www.homebrewtalk.com/wiki/index.php/American_Pale_Ale is described as, and I quote "Generally quite clear, although dry-hopped versions may be slightly hazy.", however, one of the prime examples, Sierra Nevada, is quite cloudy, a cloudiness that I do not think can be solely attributed to the dry hopping process.

I would actually think that trying to decide on how to interpret all the styles and every other little influence on the final beer is not something I would like to try and do!!!!!! Probably why I do not enter comps...... oh, that and I am too lazy to wash a bottle to fill from the keg with!


----------



## hillbillybreweries (12/6/08)

in Vic Brew sanctioned comps we judge according to the style guidelines provided by them. They are pretty much based on the BJCP guides and the beer's clarity is judged according to them. The beer is served in Jugs and the clarity scored as it has come to the judging table. Bit confused as to why a brewer would be rewarded one way or the other for filtering or not filtering. Likewise we all choose whether to enter bottle conditioned for some styles or counter pressure filled. Sometimes either way works for and against us.


----------



## reVoxAHB (12/6/08)

fraser_john said:


> Kinda with Warrenlw63 on this one, bit of a circular thread! But it does make you wonder! For example, American Pale Ale on http://www.homebrewtalk.com/wiki/index.php/American_Pale_Ale is described as, and I quote "Generally quite clear, although dry-hopped versions may be slightly hazy.", however, one of the prime examples, Sierra Nevada, is quite cloudy, a cloudiness that I do not think can be solely attributed to the dry hopping process.



Jeeze, that's funny. The last SNP I had (two weeks ago?) was very-bright... not the slightest bit cloudy. Damn thing had low-levels of DMS, too  and at $7.00 a bottle (via recent G&G import), I was _really not_ _impressed_. 

faqs from Sierra Nevada state, "All our bottled beer is brewed, filtered, and packaged without the use of isinglass, bone char, or any other animal by-product." 

note the use of the word, _filtered_

and they go on to state, "We dose back a small amount of fermentable sugar and yeast into the bottle. The fermentation creates the finished carbonation and flavors unique to our beer. As the beer is poured, the yeast will re-suspend and appearance is cloudy, or slightly particulate. The yeast will not adversely affect the flavor of the beer."



reVox


----------



## warrenlw63 (12/6/08)

reVox said:


> bone char




Eeeeewwwwww!!!! WTF?  

Edit: Just wiki'd charcoal. I'd assume they'd be talking water filtration there.

Warren -


----------



## T.D. (12/6/08)

I'm sure I'll offend the filtering brigade out there but I really think that filtering is an artificial part of brewing. Its akin to blending 5 different beers and taking home 1st prize in a comp. Technically nothing wrong with it, but would you really feel like you'd produced the best beer? I mean, I could take a bottle each of kolsch and English Bitter, both as muddy as hell, filter them, carefully blend them, add some liquid cascade hops and enter it as the "perfect" APA. Would anybody here feel good about winning a gold medal with such a beer? How would you feel if you had produced a near perfect unfiltered APA brewed from scratch, only to be pipped at the post by a reverse-engineered beer that started off as a pretty poor effort? I wouldn't be too happy. To me this is not what home brewing is about.


----------



## Stuster (12/6/08)

T.D. said:


> I mean, I could take a bottle each of kolsch and English Bitter, both as muddy as hell, filter them, carefully blend them, add some liquid cascade hops and enter it as the "perfect" APA.



Hooray. A new technique. :super: 

The floating mash stuff sounded a bit suss but this must be great. Tell us more about how you do it.


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (12/6/08)

Asher said:


> I thought points were awarded for appearance. If it isn't to style then less points given.... Simple - be it cloudy or hazy (judge the difference?)
> GB - A little more info on the judging process of this event compared to a BJCP one may clarify your query a bit.
> 
> 
> ...


I think the main relative section in judging here is the Color, Clarity and Head retention. There is 3 points to this section, points are deducted for faults in these areas.All beers were judged under BJCP guidelines. Most of the entries failed to nominate a BJCP guideline ! so this made judging even harder.We were left to make assumptions on exactly which style these beers were.Example: Given a broad entry stated as a Amber ale. So which style of Amber as was it ? Alt , American Etc. So to be fair we picked a style by consensus after tasting and judged to that.I think the Clarity issue needs to be defined before next year.If I filter and get haze in my entry I lose points yet if I send a bottle conditioned beer in I will not lose points as the beers were judged.
GB


----------



## SJW (12/6/08)

> +1.
> 
> I'm with Rukh and bconnery. Comps judge the beer.


+2


----------



## T.D. (12/6/08)

Stuster said:


> Hooray. A new technique. :super:
> 
> The floating mash stuff sounded a bit suss but this must be great. Tell us more about how you do it.


 :lol: a purely hypothetical scenario I must concede Stu!

But you know what I mean, it is technically possible. You can take two totally different beers and make them into a style that's nothing like either of them. So everything changes from being a brewing exercise to a blending/tweaking/polishing exercise. 

I have no problem with filtering if a beer turns out excessively cloudy unexpectedly. But assuming that every beer will end up being filtered I think can lead to the rest of the brewing process taking a bit of a back seat. I've always maintained that if you brew a beer well at every point in the process there are usually very few clarity problems at the end.


----------



## kevnlis (12/6/08)

Sounds like someone wants to sell more beer filters h34r:


----------



## reVoxAHB (12/6/08)

T.D. said:


> I mean, I could take a bottle each of kolsch and English Bitter, both as muddy as hell, filter them, carefully blend them, add some liquid cascade hops and enter it as the "perfect" APA.



Well, I would think the use of German nobles (Hallertau, Tettnang, Spalt or Hersbrucker) in the kolsch alone would come through in yer "perfect" APA, and be scored appropriately. That is to say, scored down as not to style for APA. 

A 50 point BJCP Scoresheet puts Appearance at only a potential score / out of 3. This includes perception of colour, clarity, head (including retention, colour and texture). That means, you've got 47 other points to make up... granted, a filtered beer might add to a judges overall impression, if bright to style but yer not gonna win a comp just because you've filtered a beer bright. 

It doesn't make sense to me to have judges scoring for/or against filtration... eg entry checked box for filtered, it's a kolsch and cloudy so marked down. I would think a cloudy kolsch would be marked down in apprearance (or not as high as a bright kolsch) irregardless of filtration. Marking an entry down even further, just becuase it's been filtered, doesn't make sense. It's either appropriate to style in appearance (and presumably attractive), or it's not. 

reVox


----------



## Stuster (12/6/08)

reVox said:


> Well, I would think the use of German nobles (Hallertau, Tettnang, Spalt or Hersbrucker) in the kolsch alone would come through in yer "perfect" APA, and be scored appropriately. That is to say, scored down as not to style for APA.



Ah, no, you can use any American hops in an APA. Since those include varieties derived from German and UK hops I think you'd be hard pressed to say any hop variety was wrong for an APA. If you can use Liberty or Mount Hood, why not Hallertau or Spalt?  

Anyway, I think you make good points. And so does T.D. (even though I'm disappointed that his technique was a fake.   ) I'm not really for filtering in my own beer either, but heck if people want to filter and feel it makes a better beer _for them_ then that's great.

GB, if it's a style which calls for clear beers, it should get marked down if the beer is hazy, filtered or not. Sounds like it might be the solution might not be anything to do with filtering/not but just that the entries should be more specific about what style it is.


----------



## matti (12/6/08)

> Why differentiate?
> Clarity is clarity, and is either desired for the style or not.
> The method used to achieve that clarity should be irrelevant.
> You lose points if the beer should be clear and isn't.
> If you go to the effort to achieve that, and do, then you get the points.



I fully agree with BC comment on the 1st post.

The ultimate winner are the BEST beers that are closest to style.

You could if you choose have two classes of each but then the judging would take twice as long and the entry cost of these competition would go up the Richter-scale and I woul;d lose interest pretty quickly.

Beer is beer.
Some good, some better and some brilliant :lol:


----------



## T.D. (12/6/08)

reVox said:


> Well, I would think the use of German nobles (Hallertau, Tettnang, Spalt or Hersbrucker) in the kolsch alone would come through in yer "perfect" APA, and be scored appropriately. That is to say, scored down as not to style for APA.



With the amount of American hops I generally use in an APA I highly doubt you'd detect any whimpy nobles coming through! :lol:


----------



## Thirsty Boy (12/6/08)

T.D. said:


> I'm sure I'll offend the filtering brigade out there but I really think that filtering is an artificial part of brewing. Its akin to blending 5 different beers and taking home 1st prize in a comp. Technically nothing wrong with it, but would you really feel like you'd produced the best beer? I mean, I could take a bottle each of kolsch and English Bitter, both as muddy as hell, filter them, carefully blend them, add some liquid cascade hops and enter it as the "perfect" APA. Would anybody here feel good about winning a gold medal with such a beer? How would you feel if you had produced a near perfect unfiltered APA brewed from scratch, only to be pipped at the post by a reverse-engineered beer that started off as a pretty poor effort? I wouldn't be too happy. To me this is not what home brewing is about.



But thats exactly what winemakers do - and whiskey makers - and brandy makers - and its all considered to be part of the art. I also think that that the makers of things like Rodenbach and most of the lambics and traditional old ales and Newcastle Brown, might not be all that happy that you have just used their standard techniques as an example of invalid brewing practice.

Mind you, from my point of view, I don't think that you can actually do what you are suggesting. I mean this bit ". . . pipped at the post by a reverse-engineered beer that started off as a pretty poor effort?. . . " IMHO - you just couldn't do it. If the beer was bad from the start, then its never going to be good no matter how you blend it. All thats going to happen is that you might blend a good beer with a bad beer and end up with twice as much average beer.

If its done on purpose though.... I make a keg of underhopped Bitter, there's nothing wrong with it, just not bitter enough, so I make another keg of bitter and I deliberately make it extra bitter. Blend the two and now I have two kegs of good beer. I see that as just smart brewing, not cheating.

But to each his own - everyone brews for their own reasons & I'm not knocking yours.

In a competition though, surely the object of the game is to end up with a glass of great beer - I cant see why the "how" should really have anything much to do with it

Thirsty


----------



## kevnlis (12/6/08)

One of my favourite styles (Porter) would not exist but for the blending of beers. It was of course done for cost reasons in the old days, but surly was continued for the reason of taste...


----------



## Adamt (12/6/08)

I'd always though that the "filtered" checkbox was mainly for the stewards serving the beer, as a reminder that if it isn't filtered to be careful when reaching the end of the bottle.


----------



## Kai (12/6/08)

Adamt said:


> I'd always though that the "filtered" checkbox was mainly for the stewards serving the beer, as a reminder that if it isn't filtered to be careful when reaching the end of the bottle.



Ditto that.

While I'm here I'll jump back on my soapbox and say again that it should be all and only about the beer in front of you. I don't care if it's filtered, fined, blended, kit, grain, commercial, produced on a blinged-out system or brewed in a bucket. If the brewer has produced it themselves and deemed it suitable for entry into a particular class then that's all that matters to me.


----------



## Darren (12/6/08)

reVox said:


> A 50 point BJCP Scoresheet puts Appearance at only a potential score / out of 3. This includes perception of colour, clarity, head (including retention, colour and texture). That means, you've got 47 other points to make up... granted, a filtered beer might add to a judges overall impression, if bright to style but yer not gonna win a comp just because you've filtered a beer bright.
> 
> reVox




Hey Revox,
In a class where "bright" is "important" you can almost be assured that a bright beer wins. So yes, you will win with a beer that is great in every other respect AND is bright.

In actual fact, a kit beer will fare well in a comp mainly because of its clarity (overall impression)

cheers

Darren


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (12/6/08)

Kai said:


> Ditto that.
> 
> While I'm here I'll jump back on my soapbox and say again that it should be all and only about the beer in front of you. I don't care if it's filtered, fined, blended, kit, grain, commercial, produced on a blinged-out system or brewed in a bucket. If the brewer has produced it themselves and deemed it suitable for entry into a particular class then that's all that matters to me.


Hi Kai Did you enter ? If so did you nominate a BJCP Style guideline ? 90% of enteries didnt. I agree Its is all about the beer in front of you but you need to know what in the Glass to judge objectively. Doesn't matter how you brewed the beer and we didn't want to know that anyway. I think the judges were being kind to bottle conditioned entries by not penalising for cloudy beers but it does need to be resolved for next year so we all, both judges and brewers know were they stand
GB


----------



## Ross (12/6/08)

Kai said:


> Ditto that.
> 
> While I'm here I'll jump back on my soapbox and say again that it should be all and only about the beer in front of you. I don't care if it's filtered, fined, blended, kit, grain, commercial, produced on a blinged-out system or brewed in a bucket. If the brewer has produced it themselves and deemed it suitable for entry into a particular class then that's all that matters to me.



+1 

GB, I'm amazed any comp has decided to judge filtered beers clarity differently to bottle conditioned in the way that you mention.

TD, filtering achieves exactly the same as cold conditioning your beer for a period of time. There's no greater skill in allowing your beer to clear over time against filtering - i really don't understand your logic on this one.

cheers Ross


----------



## Darren (12/6/08)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> it does need to be resolved for next year so we all, both judges and brewers know were they stand
> GB




GB,
Usually a judge has the discretion to move a beer to a more appropriate class (if possible). 

Any HBer who actually nominates the exact style on their entry form is a fool.

So long as a Brown ale is in Brown ale class or a European lager is in the European Lager class, let the judges decide.

Darren


----------



## Stuster (12/6/08)

Darren said:


> Any HBer who actually nominates the exact style on their entry form is a fool.



Most comps I've entered on the right side here ask for the class on your entry. SA ones don't? :unsure:


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (12/6/08)

Darren said:


> GB,
> Usually a judge has the discretion to move a beer to a more appropriate class (if possible).
> 
> Any HBer who actually nominates the exact style on their entry form is a fool.
> ...


Its up to the brewer to enter the apropriate style guidline class.Not for the judges to guess what style you are trying to brew.With your example of Brown Ale you would expected to nominate a style such as American Brown Northern English Nut Brown or what ever.If you brewed and English brown and we judged it as Amercan brown and marked you down on points would you be happy.More info about the style the better the judging will be.
GB


----------



## Darren (12/6/08)

Class yes. Sub class no. 99% of entrants in a HB comp dont even know there are subclasses

I have received judges comments saying something like> Great Boh Pils. Bad luck you entered as German Lager or vica versa.


My experience also says that a certain number of judges at HB comps have no idea about sub-classes. This is not the fault of the comp but purely the result of having to use volunteers

cheers

Darren


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (12/6/08)

Ross said:


> +1
> 
> GB, I'm amazed any comp has decided to judge filtered beers clarity differently to bottle conditioned in the way that you mention.
> 
> ...


Ross this is why I put the question up for comment , I am of the same opinion.If you get 6 samples and only 1 is cloudy then its obviously the bottom of the bottle and you can allow for this , as we did.But when all samples are cloudy I believe it must be marked down.
GB


----------



## oldbugman (12/6/08)

> however, one of the prime examples, Sierra Nevada, is quite cloudy, a cloudiness that I do not think can be solely attributed to the dry hopping process.



That's how I remembered it too, till the other night when I had one and it was brilliantly clear.

my mate in the states that regulary buys kegs of it says it has changed. and is less yeasty.


----------



## oldbugman (12/6/08)

Also, when I (totally untrained) stewarded for the NSW state comp I decanted into a jug behind the scenes and made sure the bottle wasnt even seen by the judges.


----------



## Batz (12/6/08)

Darren said:


> Class yes. Sub class no. 99% of entrants in a HB comp dont even know there are subclasses
> 
> I have received judges comments saying something like> Great Boh Pils. Bad luck you entered as German Lager or vica versa.
> 
> ...




Spot on Darren

I stopped brewing for comps. because of the styles/sub-classes.
Get back to brewing a beer you like and your on the right track...I had too many different results from judges,after all it only what they like.I'll give wheat beer a bad sore of course.

Batz


----------



## Kai (12/6/08)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> Hi Kai Did you enter ? If so did you nominate a BJCP Style guideline ? 90% of enteries didnt. I agree Its is all about the beer in front of you but you need to know what in the Glass to judge objectively. Doesn't matter how you brewed the beer and we didn't want to know that anyway. I think the judges were being kind to bottle conditioned entries by not penalising for cloudy beers but it does need to be resolved for next year so we all, both judges and brewers know were they stand
> GB




Unfortunately I didn't enter nor have anything to do with the judging side. Definitely don't agree with being nicer to unfiltered beers though, if that's what was happening.

Darren, colour me a fool then as i always specify the style when I enter a beer.


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (12/6/08)

Darren said:


> GB,
> Usually a judge has the discretion to move a beer to a more appropriate class (if possible).
> 
> Any HBer who actually nominates the exact style on their entry form is a fool.
> ...


Just a quick update the regulations for the Perth Royal Beer show state,Exhibitors will be limited to one entry in any one sub class of a section.It also mentions that the entry label must show the number of the class and Subclass.
Thems he rules and the conditions.If you dont like that then dont enter these type of comps.
GB


----------



## Darren (12/6/08)

Kai said:


> Darren, colour me a fool then as i always specify the style when I enter a beer.




Kai,

Yeah i used to until I got comments similar to above. You can give to much information which will be subjected to subtle nuances (and experience) of the judge.

I am always happy to judge a beer against all styles in a class and score appropriately against the best fit style.

cheers

Darren


----------



## Darren (12/6/08)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> Most of the entries failed to nominate a BJCP guideline ! so this made judging even harder.We were left to make assumptions on exactly which style these beers were.Example: Given a broad entry stated as a Amber ale. So which style of Amber as was it ? Alt , American Etc. So to be fair we picked a style by consensus after tasting and judged to that.I think the Clarity issue needs to be defined before next year.If I filter and get haze in my entry I lose points yet if I send a bottle conditioned beer in I will not lose points as the beers were judged.
> GB
> 
> 
> ...



GB,

You are new at this arn't you?
In the ideal world everyone would enter these comps as they should. The fact remains that the best judged beer wins whether the entrant intended to make a stout (originally) but somehow it turned into an award winning pilsener.

As I said before, many HB judges could not tell you the difference let alone taste the difference between a northern brown and an english pale ale as there is considerable overlap between many styles. Usually it is upto the personal preference of the judge.

cheers

Darren


----------



## T.D. (12/6/08)

Ross said:


> TD, filtering achieves exactly the same as cold conditioning your beer for a period of time. There's no greater skill in allowing your beer to clear over time against filtering - i really don't understand your logic on this one.



My logic is that basically you can effectively "buy" extra points in a comp purely by purchasing a filter. That would understandably get up the noses of other brewers who have not filtered but produced a beer that, apart from appearance, is technically superior, yet have scored less overall.

To me filtering is a bit of a bandaid solution. It basically is a quick fix for a cloudy beer. I maintain that if beer is brewed well at every point in the process (all things being equal) the end result is clear beer. Some of my clearest beers haven't had any fining agent or filter withing 100 yards of them. Similarly, some of my cloudiest ones have been those that I've used whirfloc and CC'd etc. At the end of the day, I put it down to the brewing process itself.

But having said that if you want to filter then that's great, I certainly won't stand in your way.  

I gave up entering comps long ago for the very reasons outlined in this thread. I know when I've produced a good beer, and that's all I care about these days.

:beer:


----------



## Ross (12/6/08)

Darren said:


> As I said before, many HB judges could not tell you the difference let alone taste the difference between a northern brown and an english pale ale
> cheers
> 
> Darren



If they can't tell/taste the difference between a brown ale & a pale ale .....Then maybe they shouldn't be judging. 

Cheers Ross


----------



## ausdb (12/6/08)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> I was a judge at the Perth Royal Beer Show yesterday. There was 2 panels of 6 judges . When we were getting ready to judge we were posed with a very interesting question from one of the senior judges.
> How do you judge Filtered entries versus non filtered ?
> The problem being if you filter your entry and it is not clear you get points deducted but if you enter a non filtered beer and it comes out cloudy you do not have points deducted. Obviously some beers are allowed to be cloudy, Heffe's etc.
> We though this was not fair to the brewers that had done the extra work to filter.Now we did have a lot of cloudy beers come through and the entries did not lose points.
> ...



As chief steward from the WA state comp last year here is my $0.02 worth. I don't think you should be stating whether filtered or unfiltered but you should be stating whether bottle conditioned or not. That way the stewards have a fighting chance of serving your entry up to the judges in the best possible condition and also in the marshalling and prejudging stages making sure the beers dont get roughly handled. Also for bottle conditioned beers supplying in more than one bottle is better to meet the entry requirements as if your beer goes on to a medal round or is rejudged by different judges, then at least the stewards can try and serve from a fresh bottle that hasn't been all stirred up from pouring the previous rounds tastings.

Also I'm with the others on the style and subclass thing, you brewed the beer your knew what you tried to brew so don't leave it up to the judge to decide where it fits best :icon_cheers:


----------



## Darren (12/6/08)

ausdb said:


> As chief steward from the WA state comp last year here is my $0.02 worth. I don't think you should be stating whether filtered or unfiltered but you should be stating whether bottle conditioned or not. That way the stewards have a fighting chance of serving your entry up to the judges in the best possible fashion and also in the marshalling and getting ready stages making sure the beers dont get shaken up too much. Also for bottle conditioned beers supplying in more than one bottle is better to meet the entry requirements as if your beer goes on to a medal round or is rejudged by different judges, then at least the stewards can try and serve from a fresh bottle that has been all stirred up from pouring the previous rounds tastings.
> 
> Also I'm with the others on the style and subclass thing, you brewed the beer your knew what you tried to brew so don't leave it up to the judge to decide where it fits best :icon_cheers:




Ausdb,

Nah, stewards should assume it is bottle conditioned (afterall 90% HB in comp will be 8))

I would say that the Mash paddle is the only competition in Australia that class and subclass are important.

cheers

Darren


----------



## Darren (12/6/08)

Ross said:


> If they can't tell/taste the difference between a brown ale & a pale ale .....Then maybe they shouldn't be judging.
> 
> Cheers Ross




Ross,

I agree (for a change). If you needed to ask the original question in this thread maybe you should not have been judging either  

cheers

Darren


----------



## Kai (12/6/08)

Darren said:


> Ausdb,
> 
> Nah, stewards should assume it is bottle conditioned (afterall 90% HB in comp will be 8))
> 
> ...



I thought the mash paddle was only one class/subclass/style/whatever? though i guess that would make choosing the right one important


----------



## randyrob (12/6/08)

Well Done Neville for stepping up to the plate and judging a local comp!

i sure hope u had a good day :icon_cheers: 

Catch u tomorrow for a beer and a chat

Rob.


----------



## Whistlingjack (12/6/08)

Darren said:


> Sub class



WTF??

WJ


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (12/6/08)

Darren said:


> GB,
> 
> You are new at this arn't you?
> In the ideal world everyone would enter these comps as they should. The fact remains that the best judged beer wins whether the entrant intended to make a stout (originally) but somehow it turned into an award winning pilsener.
> ...


Darren you are talking about people who have been chief judges in the Australian international beer awards and are invited to judge in big international beer comps most others are pro brewers. Pull your head in ! You sound like the one who doesnt know whats going on.Just because they give up their time and knowledge to judge HB doesnt mean they are cranks like you.Back under your rock.No more to say to you.
Harsh for me but ...........
GB


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies (13/6/08)

randyrob said:


> Well Done Neville for stepping up to the plate and judging a local comp!
> 
> i sure hope u had a good day :icon_cheers:
> 
> ...


A Good day and some fine beers.See you on Friday.
GB


----------



## hoohaaman (13/6/08)

Darren,do you have a book out?I'd love to purchase it.

I even have a working title for it...................

"A Glass Half Filled"

Even gave relevance to SA/NZ accent in the title,cool eh B)


----------



## PartyPooper (13/6/08)

Although I like to filter my beer for clarity, beer to me, is primarily about taste, therefore IMHO, the vast majority of points should reflect such. In homebrewing, clarity is a nicety, not a necessit (for me anyway).


----------



## warrenlw63 (13/6/08)

warrenlw63 said:


> I'll check up on this one in another 10 pages.



LOL! Only 7 pages to go.

FWIW It seems that comps have come a long way (in some ways) to when I stopped judging them in 2002.

Back then you could only get 3 definitions that were deemed "faults"

(1) Needs more malt
(2) Needs more hops
(3) (usually reserved for Belgians) needs more complexity

Batz and TD made valid points. Make it for yourself and those who enjoy it... Comps are merely for people who crave reassurance on their hobby (note; this is not applicable to all). Just my opinion and good luck to the others who enjoy it.

If a definition is decreed that filtered or non filtered beers have to be listed then I'm glad I don't bother anymore. I'm only guessing that BJCP certification only enhances the boundaries of "know-it-allism" (note; once again this is not applicable to all).

Warren -


----------



## Darren (13/6/08)

Gryphon Brewing said:


> Darren you are talking about people who have been chief judges in the Australian international beer awards and are invited to judge in big international beer comps most others are pro brewers. GB




Hey GB, 

No I am talking about you as you asked the question.

cheers

Darren


----------

