Nsw Amateur Brewing Competition

[Jay Cee]

Clearly we cant find a moderator when we need one your account is still open!

I did ask Batz (a moderator) to give me a 'time out' because I was pretty negative about Dave & Shawn's comments, but he said it was an admin request. Regardless, I'm still here, and I'm asking legitimate questions, because I do not understand the finer points of how this is panning out. People can say "Oh youre a f&&ing whinger" as much as they wish, but I'm querying matters relating to a comp that I entered. It's being done publicly firstly because I hope that others aren't going to miss out on a place due to administrative errors, and secondly because HUB have made this thread the official channel in which to communicate all aspects of the comp.

This is probably my fourth year of entering competitions, and I don't understand some of the details. Undoubtedly it would serve me well to steward next time 'round. I asked a question of Stuart Upton a few years ago as to why I placed lower than an award winner, and he took the time to explain it - I don't quite get it, but that's why we ask questions, right?

I think that flight might have had a third judge, personally I have always thought raw scoring was rather silly and that all results should be posted as percentage so in this case 105/150*100 or 70% or 35/50. I suspect #4 may have in fact have a score of 24.8/50 or 49.6% however you want to phrase it.

Yes, there were three judges for that flight, and the figure was not averaged out. I made my correct score evident in a thread earlier. As for raw scoring, Maybe, or maybe not a good idea. Whether it be one judge, multiplying by two, or three judges multiplying by 0.666 to determine an 'out of 100' score, I do think it's a solid system. I hadn't given it much thought until yesterday, and seeing the glaringly obvious 105 points. I knew where the error laid before I viewed the scoresheets.

Medals are decided on a score not a place, if all the beers in the flight were stunningly good and scored over 40/50, they might all be awarded a GOLD medals, but only one of them can get first place, beers scoring between 30-40 might be awarded a SILVER medal and so on, Im far from sure what the cut-off for the various divisions is, but thats a pretty common way to distribute medals in wine comps and the like.

What I don't understand is how a beer that ranked #15 scored a Bronze. The highest score in Category 17 (Farmhouse & Wild) was 81.5, and the lowest was 39 on a table of 20 entries. I'm not claiming to be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I'm reluctant to accept a Bronze certificate for a beer that was on the bottom-end of the tally sheet.

 

[Jay Cee]

I'm very happy with my silver certificate and yes I'll be showing it off to anyone that I can and telling them tall stories of how awesome the beer was. Thanks again.

Congratulations. Are you the Rob S. that scored 7th in Category 8 ? If so, that means that we both scored a silver certificate in the same category.

 

[a_quintal]

Yeah this seemed fairly obvious to me. Hence despite finishing fourth in a category I wasn't surprised I got a Silver because I was aware the actual beer score was high enough for that.

 

[bigfridge]

The#1 place in Category 13 should read as 70 points. This is due to three judges submitting totals of 33, 36 & 36, and recalculating to a % figure, which is BJCP standard. The scores that follow in the results sheet are significantly higher at 78, 76 & 74.5. I find it difficult impossible to accept the #1 award or the opportunity to compete in the Nationals if it means that another rightfully excellent brewer misses out due to a mistake.

Thank you Justin for your honesty - you have found an error, but your analysis is not correct. When your beer was judged there was a trainee judge and their score has been mistakenly added into the result. This has been corrected in the attached summary.

FYI, according to the AABC rules you are only prermitted to re-brew "If the original beer is no longer available, entrants may submit a
different beer in the same or a different style in that category".


View attachment NSW_State_Entries_2012.pdf

 

[Jay Cee]

Please just comply with our request and you will get your refund.

Keep it, Dave. Buy yourself a Delerium Tremens as my shout.

 

[bigfridge]

The cover letter accompanying the scoresheets would indicate that #1 = Gold, #2 = Silver & #3 = Bronze.

How does a beer placed 15th a Bronze ranking ?

The actual wording of the covering letter was:

"We have enclosed a complete copy of the results together with your score sheets and a certificate. Each certificate shows if your beer placed 1st, 2nd or 3rd, together with a Gold, Silver or Bronze ranking. This allows you to see both how good your beer was, together with a comparison against the other brewers."

So the "1st, 2nd or 3rd" represents how you went against other beers.

"Gold, Silver or Bronze ranking" allows you to see both how good your beer was.

The actual vales are:

38-50 Points: Gold
30-37 Points: Silver
25-29 Points: Bronze

These medals equate to the BJCP's scoring guide with Gold covering Outstanding (World-class example of style) and Excellent (Exemplifies style well, requires minor fine-tuning), Silver equates to Very Good (Generally within style parameters, some minor flaws). A bronze medal is awarded for those beers at the top end of the Good range (21 - 29 "Misses the mark on style and/or minor flaws"). This medal system is also similar to the awards at the Australian International Beer Awards for commercial breweries.

If your beer scored less that 25 you received a participation Certificate which is still something to brag about as 'you were there'.

Justin, I hope that this answers your query, but if you have any further questions please don't hesitate to ask.

 

[bigfridge]

Keep it, Dave. Buy yourself a Delerium Tremens as my shout.

Thanks but it doesn't help me at all as the entry fees were passed on long ago to the Treasurer and used to cover the comp expenses and thing like covering part of the judges out of pocket expenses like accomodation costs.

Dave

 

[Jay Cee]

Thank you Justin for your honesty - you have found an error, but your analysis is not correct.

Thanks Dale. I'm not comfortable in taking a placemark from others (and certainly not from the new #1, who brewed a beer that was leaps & bounds more exceptional thank mine) You might note that a few pages before I actually mentioned that I entered an infected IPA. A hearty congratulations to the new winners of Category #13 and I hope you all do NSW proud.

When your beer was judged there was a trainee judge and their score has been mistakenly added into the result. This has been corrected in the attached summary.

Here's another aspect where I hope you can clarify, without taking a passive-aggressive stance in your response. It is my understanding that in other comps of recent times, there have been instances where non-certified, apprentice and even non-BJCP-studying stewards have been enlisted to act as part of the judging panel, due to a shortage of (judge) numbers. In these instances, they were under the tutelage of the experts, and their scores were passed as legitimate.

In the case of those judging category #13, the scoresheets indicate that of the three judges, TWO of them were non-certified (not singular, as your comment suggests). Barry was the only one qualified to do so. Therefore, I wonder how you recalculated, based on your statement above ? If you are going to strike off the non-qualified members of the flight, then Barry's is the only one to be considered, and multiplied by 2. Which works out OK in your amended sheet, but let's be clear about it that only one person that you deem to be recognised is actually recorded.

That does beg the question though..... is there an expectation that comps should be run with only a single qualified person giving feedback?

FYI, according to the AABC rules you are only prermitted to re-brew "If the original beer is no longer available, entrants may submit a
different beer in the same or a different style in that category".

And what's your point ? I have no more of the IPA I entered, and frantically rebrewed beers based on the preliminary placings, only to be made aware that I didn't place (well in fact I'm alerting you guys to the error). I can't speak for the #4th placegetter who has been bumped into the qualifying zone, thanks to my posts today, but damn, he's going to be a bit miffed if he needed to re-brew for a 13th October entry deadline into the AABC.

I speak only of my own observations on the 'clerical errors'. How much deeper does it go ?


View attachment 57250

 

[AndrewQLD]

Just to clarify a point Jay Cee, you do not need to be BJCP certified to judge in a brewing competition, that is a qualification studied for and obtained by individuals for their own reasons and is not a requirement at any of the competitions that are held in Australia as far as I am aware. There are plenty of highly experienced judges out there that did not study for the BJCP exam and are just as good as those that have.

Andrew

 

[Jay Cee]

Yeah this seemed fairly obvious to me. Hence despite finishing fourth in a category I wasn't surprised I got a Silver because I was aware the actual beer score was high enough for that.

Would you feel the same about receiving a bronze 'medal' for placing 15th ?

The actual vales are:

38-50 Points: Gold
30-37 Points: Silver
25-29 Points: Bronze

These medals equate to the BJCP's scoring guide with Gold covering Outstanding (World-class example of style) and Excellent (Exemplifies style well, requires minor fine-tuning), Silver equates to Very Good (Generally within style parameters, some minor flaws). A bronze medal is awarded for those beers at the top end of the Good range (21 - 29 "Misses the mark on style and/or minor flaws"). This medal system is also similar to the awards at the Australian International Beer Awards for commercial breweries.

If your beer scored less that 25 you received a participation Certificate which is still something to brag about as 'you were there'.

Justin, I hope that this answers your query, but if you have any further questions please don't hesitate to ask.

So Dale, how many gold, silver & bronze awards were given in each category ? Heaps I assume.... just need to know whether two of the three certificate can rightfully be mounted in my trophy room (aka a big old box of crap buried in the spare bedroom)

It's a good thing HUB didn't organise prizes for placeholders, because I might have had second thoughts about relinquishing my erroneous #1.

Thanks but it doesn't help me at all as the entry fees were passed on long ago to the Treasurer and used to cover the comp expenses and thing like covering part of the judges out of pocket expenses like accomodation costs.

If that's your address on the envelope, then I would like to send you one of the killer IPA's I have re-brewed for the Nationals (that won't make the cut, as it turns out). I'll do this for the 'good effort' you have made (not to be confused with 'a job well done')

As you have kindly permitted me to ask questions, why isn't "Champion Brewer" recognised in the 2012 NSWABC ?

 

[Jay Cee]

Just to clarify a point Jay Cee, you do not need to be BJCP certified to judge in a brewing competition, that is a qualification studied for and obtained by individuals for their own reasons and is not a requirement at any of the competitions that are held in Australia as far as I am aware. There are plenty of highly experienced judges out there that did not study for the BJCP exam and are just as good as those that have.

Andrew

Hi Andrew, I have no issue with this, except for Dave striking the non-certified judge from the tally in the past hour.

The logic is all over the place.

 

[petesbrew]

The actual wording of the covering letter was:

"We have enclosed a complete copy of the results together with your score sheets and a certificate. Each certificate shows if your beer placed 1st, 2nd or 3rd, together with a Gold, Silver or Bronze ranking. This allows you to see both how good your beer was, together with a comparison against the other brewers."

So the "1st, 2nd or 3rd" represents how you went against other beers.

"Gold, Silver or Bronze ranking" allows you to see both how good your beer was.

The actual vales are:

38-50 Points: Gold
30-37 Points: Silver
25-29 Points: Bronze

These medals equate to the BJCP's scoring guide with Gold covering Outstanding (World-class example of style) and Excellent (Exemplifies style well, requires minor fine-tuning), Silver equates to Very Good (Generally within style parameters, some minor flaws). A bronze medal is awarded for those beers at the top end of the Good range (21 - 29 "Misses the mark on style and/or minor flaws"). This medal system is also similar to the awards at the Australian International Beer Awards for commercial breweries.

If your beer scored less that 25 you received a participation Certificate which is still something to brag about as 'you were there'.

Justin, I hope that this answers your query, but if you have any further questions please don't hesitate to ask.

Thanks for clarifying this.
I always wondered why an old 3rd place award I have has "silver medal" on it.

 

[bigfridge]

If that's your address on the envelope, then I would like to send you one of the killer IPA's I have re-brewed for the Nationals

No thanks - please keep your beer for a more appreciative audience.

 

[bigfridge]

It is my understanding that in other comps of recent times, there have been instances where non-certified, apprentice and even non-BJCP-studying stewards have been enlisted to act as part of the judging panel, due to a shortage of (judge) numbers. In these instances, they were under the tutelage of the experts, and their scores were passed as legitimate.

In the case of those judging category #13, the scoresheets indicate that of the three judges, TWO of them were non-certified (not singular, as your comment suggests). Barry was the only one qualified to do so. Therefore, I wonder how you recalculated, based on your statement above ? If you are going to strike off the non-qualified members of the flight, then Barry's is the only one to be considered, and multiplied by 2. Which works out OK in your amended sheet, but let's be clear about it that only one person that you deem to be recognised is actually recorded.

I really wish that you would read more carefully before you spin out of control.

I did not mention anything about certified judges - I explained that your additional score was from a trainee. The covering letter also explained what judges were used. BTW, the excluded judge only sat in for a few of the beers and there is very little time for 'tutelage'.

Could I please suggest that you address any further questions directly to the organising committe on the email addess contained in your results pack.

Over and out
David

 

[waggastew]

Just got my score sheets today. Thanks to all involved, some great feedback with some faults to work on. Time to go and do some research on reducing diacetyl........

 

[warra48]

Got my score sheet today as well. Some pointers as expected, but also some useful other ones and some encouraging ones as well, and the main criticism I expected is clearly not a fault in the style I entered. I'm happy with the outcome, but then, I'm not a glory seeker.

Worth the $7 I paid for my lonely entry. Would have been worth the $10, but I'm neither numerically challenged, nor generally under the influence of too much alcohol, so I didn't fall for that one.

For goodness sake, can we just draw a line under all of this, and get on with brewing beer?

Please, no more whinging. If you're not happy, don't enter next time, find a better hobby, or get your arsse down to the Hunter next time to straighten things out.
The people involved volunteered their time etc, so accept it all in good grace.

Mrs warra and I are planning to move to the Hunter region soon so, by this time next year, I hope to be able to offer some assistance.

 

[leeboy]

Got my feedback and it was spot on. Thankyou to all involved for the mammoth and in my opinion, accuracte results. Fantastic to have some good feedback to help point brewing to style in the right direction.

 

[a_quintal]

Got my score sheet today as well. Some pointers as expected, but also some useful other ones and some encouraging ones as well, and the main criticism I expected is clearly not a fault in the style I entered. I'm happy with the outcome, but then, I'm not a glory seeker.

Worth the $7 I paid for my lonely entry. Would have been worth the $10, but I'm neither numerically challenged, nor generally under the influence of too much alcohol, so I didn't fall for that one.

For goodness sake, can we just draw a line under all of this, and get on with brewing beer?

Please, no more whinging. If you're not happy, don't enter next time, find a better hobby, or get your arsse down to the Hunter next time to straighten things out.
The people involved volunteered their time etc, so accept it all in good grace.

Mrs warra and I are planning to move to the Hunter region soon so, by this time next year, I hope to be able to offer some assistance.

Spot on

 

[petesbrew]

+1 for what Warra48 said.
Got my notes yesterday and the input the judges gave was fantastic (and legible ).
Well detailed, constructive criticism = this is what these comps are all about.

You may enter beers that you feel are going to win, but for the feedback alone it's just as important to enter beers you're unsure about.

 

[bigfridge]

Just got my score sheets today. Thanks to all involved, some great feedback with some faults to work on. Time to go and do some research on reducing diacetyl........

I had intended to include a general judges summary in the covering letter - but forgot in all the rush ;-)

A common flaw observed by most judges was yeast health and oxidation - Diacetyl results from both. Yeast normally produce a pre-cursor of Diacetyl as an intermediate bi-product of fermentation but then re-absorb it as the sugar content of the wort is consumed. Stopping the yeast from doing their job by dropping the temperature or racking the beer too soon removes the yeast from suspension and hence stops any cleanup by the yeast. Oxidation during bottling converts the pre-cursor to Diacetyl which starts out as a faint honey character but then developes into Butterscotch and finally rancid butter - yum.

I judged half the APA's and Diacetyl was a common fault - these beers should be sparkling clean and the conventional yeasts (US05/1056/1272) are able to reduce far more than they produce.

HTH,
Dave