Looking for homebrewing gift ideas? Check out our previous gift guides here or here!
Also, if you enjoy BrewUnited, please consider doing your Amazon shopping via our affiliate link!
Also, if you enjoy BrewUnited, please consider doing your Amazon shopping via our affiliate link!
You're absolutely right in regards to the purpose behind the guidelines, and the structuring makes sense for that purpose, but even though the BJCP considers that the primary reason for these guidelines, they aren't really used that way. A lot of brewers use them as style guidelines in an of themselves, not for judging purposes but for definition. They're used to carve out what's appropriate for a style, to put a "name" to a style brewers want to brew.
So my argument isn't really that the new guidelines aren't beneficial for judging (and I love the new descriptions except for Dry Stout as it is), it's that the guidelines aren't only used for judging. A lot of people use them as general beer guidelines and definitions, which may be the mistake of the individual, but considering that the guidelines are one of the most comprehensive accounts of the styles, who can blame them? I think the old guideline layout facilitated both purposes, but the new guidelines cater to judging.
That said, it makes a lot of sense that the IIPA would burn your palate against an IPA, and I'm sure that sort of exhaustion happens pretty often.
Posted 34 days ago.
Again, from the introduction:
"We knowlots of people use our guidelines. We understand that many other organizationsor groups are using our guidelines for purposes beyond our original intent. Tothe extent that those groups find value in our work, we are happy to have ourguidelines used. We freely allow our naming and numbering system to be used byothers. However, dont make rash assumptions about the nature of beer and beerstyles based on applications of the guidelines beyond their original intent. Wealso know some craft brewers are using our guidelines to rediscover historicalstyles, or to brew styles not native to their country we are thrilled to beable to help advance craft beer in this way. Just remember that its not ouroriginal mission to do this; just a happy side-effect."
Also, they added Appendix A with alternate style groupings for a variety of educational purposes including a historical orgin, geographic origin, and generic style family."We knowlots of people use our guidelines. We understand that many other organizationsor groups are using our guidelines for purposes beyond our original intent. Tothe extent that those groups find value in our work, we are happy to have ourguidelines used. We freely allow our naming and numbering system to be used byothers. However, dont make rash assumptions about the nature of beer and beerstyles based on applications of the guidelines beyond their original intent. Wealso know some craft brewers are using our guidelines to rediscover historicalstyles, or to brew styles not native to their country we are thrilled to beable to help advance craft beer in this way. Just remember that its not ouroriginal mission to do this; just a happy side-effect."
Posted 34 days ago.
>However, dont make rash assumptions about the nature of beer and beerstyles based on applications of the guidelines beyond their original intent
>understand what the purpose of the guidelines is
I think this is the issue for me. The purpose of the guidelines, in my mind, isn't only what the BJCP has decided the purpose is. And they know that because, like you pointed out, they acknowledged it. Even if they decide the only purpose of the guidelines is judging, it is pretty clear that they understand judging isn't the only purpose of the guidelines.
I totally agree that the new guidelines, primarily the descriptions, are better for judging. And maybe the new tagging is better for learning too, but that doesn't really make up for a poor architecture of information. We have a saying in usability, "If you need to explain to someone why something is laid out the way it is, it isn't laid out well enough."
Edit: Going to listen to the NHC talk today though, I'm probably just stubborn and stuck in my ways. Happy to learn!
Posted 34 days ago.
Edited 34 days ago by Matt
Last night I was going to make the comment Ingogni made, but decided to hold off because I'm not a BJCP judge: one major stated purpose of the redesign of the guidelines is to more rationally group beers into flights for judging. The fact that the BJCP acknowledges other uses of the guidelines is irrelevant to the their mission, which is to train and credential beer judges and sanction beer judging competitions. The BJCP's purpose has to be primary to the interests of other organizations and individuals with different agendas when it comes to their own guidelines.
The fact that the BJCP provided alternative groupings and tags was a nice help by them for organizations that have a different purpose.
If you don't like the new groupings in the context of beer competitions, then that's tough, right? We all have the opportunity to become judges, move up the ranks, and volunteer in the BJCP committees for the next update.
If you don't like the new groupings in some other contex, then use one of the alternative groupings as your primary grouping (even sanctioned comps are allowed to group beers as they see fit), or use the tags to come up with your "better" grouping.
In terms of actual style descriptions, I've got a bone or two to pick, but for the most part it seems they have improved them. I'm disappointed with the Saison style description allowing room for only ales in the style of a certain clean brew (Dupont). Removing Boddington's as a commercial example is a travesty. And who was promised "infinite BJs" in order to add all of these Czech beers while disregarding every other country's omitted beers (with the exception of Tropical Stout, which totally could remain shoehorned in Export Stout)? In terms of one of my favorite styles, Dark Mild, could the BJCP not come up with a single commercial example than a non-British national could try in their home country, when even CAMRA admits the style has more vitality in the U.S. than in the UK. And especially in light of the fact that the U.S. style is actually different than the English style (U.S. style has no sugar or other ajduncts, while adjuncts are de rigeur in UK Dark Milds.) And again, how many beer judges in the U.S. will ever tryu any of those Czech commercial examples? It's like blind judges judging paintings painted by blind artists.
Posted 34 days ago.
Chino – I am pretty much in your camp. Personally, the inclusion of the more obscure regional styles, without a more comprehensive inclusion shows bias and influence on the committee. Politics aside, the heavy lifting here is pretty tremendous – it is an overhaul, and hopefully it will be a good framework moving forward.
I am curious to hear about some of the comps moving to the new guidelines. At first, the increase in categories looks like more work, but I am hoping that it streamlines things and makes our judges (and their jobs) yield better results. I do think that many comps will dramatically limit entry styles which has pros and cons. For me – it dramatically impacts my BJCP qualification – assuming I pass the Tasting Exam in Sept. If I do really well, then I will dig into the new guidelines and take the written next year. If I just pass – meh. May not pursue beyond recognized.
Posted 34 days ago.
Right, I understand that what I'm talking about isn't the BJCP's mission, but they do obviously understand that the guidelines themselves have grown beyond said mission, otherwise they wouldn't have discussed it in that intro or provided the alternate groupings. The guidelines were designed by judges for judges, but the judges aren't the only users here, and certainly they aren't the only interested party.
But, like you, I'm not a judge. I'm one of the other users, so my interest is obviously in that camp. Maybe when I do more judging and certification stuff, my opinion will change. I'm totally open to that, and obviously don't think that Strong or the other judges didn't think this through.
Agreed on this for sure, my "bone" is the Dry Stout category, which is now just blatantly Guinness. Which isn't all that surprising considering the historical significance and sort of "branded" style (no one thinks of dry stout without thinking of Guinness), but I wish there was more room for the style.
Posted 34 days ago.
> just blatantly Guinness
Well, hmm...I would disagree. I don't like that they use Guinness directly in the description, except for maybe the direct quote in appearance, but the ingredients thing seems overboard. BUT, if you've had murphy's or beamish, which are pretty much the only other authentic examples, the differences are so freaking subtle, the guideline could be exactly Guinness and those two beers would still be 49-50 point beers. It's just a style that doesn't have much leeway. Now, you might argue that the only reason that style has so little leeway is because of the worldwide market dominance of Guinness, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you, but in the absence of examples of irish stout that taste similar but still decidedly different than Guinness, how can the guideline be written around that? There's no example to conform it to, even in the homebrew sphere.Posted 34 days ago.
So, my beef elaborated:
The note on appearance, that Guinness note doesn't need to be there at all. The beer is adequately described without it, so that line doesn't really contribute anything beyond "Guinness really defines this style", which it does, but it also restricts the style in my mind.
I understand the comment about nitro, but again, that feels like a move because Guinness has really monopolized the style.
Like you, I think the ingredients description is overboard.
> the only reason that style has so little leeway is because of the worldwide market dominance of Guinness
That would be my exact argument, actually. Guinness has an intense monopoly on the style, but you're right there isn't anything else to conform the style guidelines too, and it isn't necessarily the guidelines I have issue with other than the obvious Guinness monopoly.
I think my issue is more from a judging standpoint. The guidelines allow for some hop aroma, some more esters, variable bitterness, all great. But with Guinness being such an obvious style marker, I worry (and have seen, maybe from bad judges) that Dry Stout submissions will be judged against Guinness, rather than the guidelines. This could be subtle, and judges may not even be aware they're doing it, but like you said what other markers are there?
I do like that they removed the acidic sourness from the flavor section, which deviates from the Guinness standard.
Also agreed I wish the Saison style allowed for Brett, not just from a historical perspective, but the idea of a Saison is a bit funky to me, needs some Brett.
Posted 34 days ago.
A lot of brewers use them as style guidelines in an of themselves, not for judging purposes but for definition. They're used to carve out what's appropriate for a style, to put a "name" to a style brewers want to brew.
Posted 34 days ago.
The good news is that it'll probably be 2-3 years before the next update instead of 7-8 like this latest update. Take a look back at some of the early BJCP guides (late 90's, early 00's), they're broken down into Olan-esque "hoppy/balanced/malty" categories and that's about it.
Brett is still the frontier of beer right now, I'm not surprised the guidelines aren't super up-to date with them. Considering the guidelines are still produced by a lot of the "old guard" it'll probably be a while before Brett is featured the way folks are clamoring for.
Posted 34 days ago.
ercousin'd
Posted 34 days ago.
I believe the proper terminology is "Canuck'd" or "Canadian'd"
Posted 34 days ago.
Sorry
Posted 34 days ago.
>What about the new guidelines prevent this?
Because the old categories were grouped by style. So, now, if you've brewed a stout and you're trying to place it, you have to hunt though different categories to find all of the stouts rather than just having the single stout category to place yourself in. From a hierarchy standpoint, this makes more sense to me (though I totally get the judging perspective here, and that the current guidelines may make more sense for this).
So rather than looking to a certain style, and then narrowing down the style, you're looking at specific characteristics and then drilling down from there. I think someone is more likely to say "I'm going to make an American Stout", per style, rather than "I'm going to make a dark, somewhat hoppy beer" and then drilling down from there.
Edit: Canadian'd works I think since it doesn't limit the comeback to Vancouver residents. There are other hockey teams in Canada!
Posted 34 days ago.
Edited 34 days ago by Matt
To appendix A we go!
Sorted by 2008 Guidelines (modified):(2)13.Stout
A.15B. Irish Stout
B.15C. Irish Extra Stout
C.16A. Sweet Stout
D.16B. Oatmeal Stout
E.16C. Tropical Stout
F.16D. Foreign Export Stout
G.20B. American Stout
H.20C. Imperial Stout
Sorted by Style Family:(3)11.Stout
A.15B. Irish Stout
B.15C. Irish Extra Stout
C.16A. Sweet Stout
D.16B. Oatmeal Stout
E.16C. Tropical Stout
F.16D. Foreign Extra Stout
G.20B. American Stout
H.20C. Imperial Stout
Posted 34 days ago.
