Australian Amateur Brewing Championship

[manticle]

My understanding is that every beer needs to be judged and given at least a courtesy score of 13.

 

[Weizguy]

My understanding is that every beer needs to be judged and given at least a courtesy score of 13.

+1

My courtesy score is about 15, and the feedback should be helpful to the brewer. I also provide my email address on the judging forms, in case they seek further info (and if I can recall the brew).

 

[MartinOC]

For some reason, I can't reply to multiple quotes, so I'm going to have to do it individually.

I thought that all beer submitted for judging should be judged, graded and provided with feedback.

Yep! If the feedback is that it's un-judgeable, then that IS the feedback.

Are you saying that these beers are less worthy of the feedback that they paid for?

Why waste time on a less-worthy entry & potentially ruin three palates?

Judges have robust and resilient palates. If they don't, then that's why there is water and crackers to cleanse and refresh their palates.

I would be quite incensed, as I have been with past comps, where the only feedback was "could not judge". That tells me the judges were probably too drunk and/or incapable of judging my beer, and definitely too lazy to provide the feedback I paid for.

Funny, it tells me that you produced a **** beer & didn't like being told-so in your feedback/judging sheets. Sour grapes, or just sour beer???

ALL beer is judgeable, OK? Who has the right to say that it isn't?

The judges. I refer you to Rule D6 of the AABC Rules & Regs:

D6. Judging. Judging will be by blind tasting. Where possible, each judging panel will
include at least one BJCP-qualified judge. Neither the judges nor the stewards serving the
judges should know the name of the brewer whose beer is being served. Judges decisions are
final and no correspondence will be entered into.

If the judges decide it's unjudgeable, then that's their decision - live with it!

Would you care to rephrase your reply, Martin?

 

[MartinOC]

My understanding is that every beer needs to be judged and given at least a courtesy score of 13.

From the Judging Guidelines:

"If a beer is a “gusher” or has an unpleasant aroma upon opening, a judge
should not just assign a courtesy score of 13 without tasting and
commenting on the characteristics of the beer. If the judges genuinely
believe that the beer may be dangerous or hazardous to their health, they
may state this belief and provide as much feedback as they can to the
entrant, leaving the scores blank."

Stating their belief that the beer is "unjudgeable" is a courteous way of saying "I'm not game to put this thing anywhere near my face, let alone swallow it!"

 

[NickB]

Respectfully, Martin, I disagree with a lot of what you're saying.

Personally, if I were to make the Nats, I'd be more than ropeable if I found out that a steward had stopped my beer reaching the judges.

Even if a beer is totally infected, feedback can still be written. Judges can taste and smell what they have in the glass and judge on those criteria. Even it if received the lowest score possible, I'd still prefer the judges to get the beer in their glasses.


Anyway, my 2c.


Cheers

 

[barls]

For some reason, I can't reply to multiple quotes, so I'm going to have to do it individually.

shouldn't the judges make that call not the stewards. Hence why they are called judges and are generally qualified
Mate if I entered a beer and it was a bad bottle or batch unknowingly I prefer to get the feed back from the judges that may help me correct it I future not get a response back not judged and find out later that the steward, who may or may not be a qualified judge, made the call and I've wasted my money.

 

[MartinOC]

Nick/Barls,

I think you've misunderstood me. I PERSONALLY don't make the decision - it's ALWAYS taken to the judges & THEY make the decision whether they actually want to judge it or not. If it's at VICBREW, I personally take it to the table (rather than the regular Steward) & discuss the situation with the whole panel & give them the option.

Sufficient clarification?

 

[manticle]

Yeah it did sound in the earlier post as if you would make that decision.

I agree with your clarification - at least this bit

I PERSONALLY don't make the decision - it's ALWAYS taken to the judges & THEY make the decision whether they actually want to judge it or not. If it's at VICBREW, I personally take it to the table (rather than the regular Steward) & discuss the situation with the whole panel & give them the option.

 

[Weizguy]

Funny, it tells me that you produced a **** beer & didn't like being told-so in your feedback/judging sheets. Sour grapes, or just sour beer???

So, if I make an arguably disgusting beer (foul, perhaps), and paid my money to have it judged, no-one is expecting that I just paid to get told my beer is sh!te, without any indication of the the source of the outrage to tasting of my beer?
No feedback that I should look at my sanitation or ingredients or yeast health?
Or flavour degradation due to age of the beer, or mention that it was a gusher (which may have been otherwise OK, but over-carbonated)?

<edit> BASICALLY, tell me why the beer is not judgeable! Why is it sh!t? Like I said, LAZY judging. I'm judging those judges...</edit>

...And what if I made a sour beer, but the judge didn't like the flavour, and told me it was infected, and "unjudgeable"? What then? Was it an intentional sourness or an out-of-character Brett sourness that was detected. Yes, I had that feedback for a Berliner Weisse.

Didn't anyone tell you not to mention the war? :blink:

 

[barls]

Been told one of my lambics was too sour for style

 

[Bribie G]

What you entering Bribie?

I rebrewed the Australian Premium Lager using JW Pilsner and Wyeast Danish and despite a couple of Hersbrucker plugs it doesn't seem to have the "noble" nose that you would get from the likes of Cascade Premium Lager or Hahn Premium in the good old days.

So I'm agonising about whether to enter it as just a Standard Lager or not. Might crack another tasting bottle tonight and see how it's got on in the couple of weeks since I tried the last one.

 

[Toper]

So, if I make an arguably disgusting beer (foul, perhaps), and paid my money to have it judged, no-one is expecting that I just paid to get told my beer is sh!te, without any indication of the the source of the outrage to tasting of my beer?
No feedback that I should look at my sanitation or ingredients or yeast health?
Or flavour degradation due to age of the beer, or mention that it was a gusher (which may have been otherwise OK, but over-carbonated)?

<edit> BASICALLY, tell me why the beer is not judgeable! Why is it sh!t? Like I said, LAZY judging. I'm judging those judges...</edit>

...And what if I made a sour beer, but the judge didn't like the flavour, and told me it was infected, and "unjudgeable"? What then? Was it an intentional sourness or an out-of-character Brett sourness that was detected. Yes, I had that feedback for a Berliner Weisse.

Didn't anyone tell you not to mention the war? :blink:

As someone who's had the chance to judge at Vicbrew several times,I'll give my 2c.If someone's entered and paid their good money,they deserve to have their beer judged and commented on.A good judge would never write a comment that a beer is "*****".Political correctness is the name of the game. It should make absolutely no difference whether a judge likes a certain style or not,they're judging against guidelines,not personal preference.I've only ever had 1 totally undrinkable beer,it was a massive infection,vinegar .The only comments were to check sanitation procedures..what more could anyone write? Gushers happen,they get judged the same as other entries,but if any possible off tastes are there ,it's kept in mind . Flavour degradition would be included in flavour/aroma comments on the score sheet,no reason not to judge it.You were told a Berliner Weisse was infected? That really shouldn't happen,someone not reading the guidelines correctly :unsure:

 

[MartinOC]

Ladies,

Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist & any more B&T about this issue than is warranted, let me tell you that in the 18+ years I've been Judging & Stewarding at state & national level, I could probably count on the fingers on one hand the number of catastrophic infections I've encountered. They happen VERY rarely & I've outlined to you the method I use of dealing with them - that's the important thing.

So, could everybody please just settle down & don't be so fkn precious. It's a HOBBY!!!!

Thank you for your generous consideration of this matter.

Edit: 18 years!? ****!! My liver must HATE me!

 

[Toper]

No knickers in a knot here

 

[Back Yard Brewer]

So, if I make an arguably disgusting beer (foul, perhaps), and paid my money to have it judged, no-one is expecting that I just paid to get told my beer is sh!te, without any indication of the the source of the outrage to tasting of my beer?

I'd maybe expect to get my $10 back?

 

[petesbrew]

Been told one of my lambics was too sour for style

Rock n Roll, Barls!

 

[petesbrew]

with regards to the entry forms (dropping mine off at Peakhurst tomorrow), there's spaces left for Final & original gravity.
Is this compulsory to add? Honestly I only have a rough guess for these.

 

[MartinOC]

with regards to the entry forms (dropping mine off at Peakhurst tomorrow), there's spaces left for Final & original gravity.
Is this compulsory to add? Honestly I only have a rough guess for these.

It's a double-check to make sure a "big" beer isn't judged in a category where it's inappropriate (ie. low alcohol).

As long as it doesn't stand-out as being out of the ballpark, you should be fine (let's face it - if you got this far, it's almost certainly OK). Just have a guess.

 

[petesbrew]

It's a double-check to make sure a "big" beer isn't judged in a category where it's inappropriate (ie. low alcohol).

As long as it doesn't stand-out as being out of the ballpark, you should be fine (let's face it - if you got this far, it's almost certainly OK). Just have a guess.

Cheers martin

 

[fcmcg]

I rebrewed the Australian Premium Lager using JW Pilsner and Wyeast Danish and despite a couple of Hersbrucker plugs it doesn't seem to have the "noble" nose that you would get from the likes of Cascade Premium Lager or Hahn Premium in the good old days.

So I'm agonising about whether to enter it as just a Standard Lager or not. Might crack another tasting bottle tonight and see how it's got on in the couple of weeks since I tried the last one.

I'm maybe confused , but I thought you had to place in a state comp and enter the beer you placed in , in your state and that was the only way you could enter ?
F