It’s OK to be Judgmental When We’re Talking beer

Judging a beer contest is a surprisingly solemn event. It turns out that it involves a lot more sitting and thinking than drinking and shouting. One spends most of his time writing thoughtful criticism or simply staring at the brew in front of him trying to figure out whether the beverage’s color is more copper-amber or reddish-auburn.

Last weekend, at the Gold Country Brewers Association annual Celebrewtion, I was lucky enough to serve as a judge for their homebrew competition. Over 70 beers by dozens of proud Sacramento-area homebrewers were turned over to be judged by a panel of almost 30 judges. The range of beers went from palest light golden lagers to  syrupy thick meads to ink black imperial stouts.

Each panel of three judges was given a flight of beers, typically about eight beers in total, to judge on aroma, appearance, flavor, and overall execution. Being a first-timer, I was grouped together with a more experienced judge who could show me the ropes. We started by looking over our list of beers and going through the general rules.  We were in the stouts and strong ales category which included barleywine, old ale, and Russian Imperial Stout.

As we went through our eight beers I realized that most of this judging thing has very little to do with what I, the judge, actually like in a beer. As a resource, each judge is given a copy of the Beer Judge Certification Proram (BJCP) Style Guide, and is expected to judge the various beers on their execution of style (those more experienced judges already have the BJCPSG downloaded to their iPhones). So, rather than noting that I liked the flavor or aroma of a particular brew, I judged it based on how close it came to the ideal hopiness, or maltiness, or sourness, prescribed by the style guide. And I was expected to do it quietly.

For each beer, each one of our judging trio would take a look at his one-ounce sample, give it a good sniff, look at it again, swirl it around a little bit, take a tiny sip, put it back down, give it another good sniff, drink a little more, swirl it around some more, jot down a few thoughts, sip again, erase what he just wrote, siff again, write some more, drink the rest of the taste, write a bit more, and then sit and wait for the other two to finish so that we could finally talk. You see, it’s only after you’ve put your thoughts down on paper that one can actually talk to the other judges about the beer.

The standout in our group was the very first beer we tasted.  It was a Russian Imperial stout, black/brown with the faintest hint of amber deep down. The aroma was of rich, strong coffee, and charred grain, the flavor deep and complex, leaning toward the burnt coffee end of the spectrum with a warm and sweet alcohol finish. It was the perfect beer for a judging that began at 9am on a drizzly Saturday morning.

The big winner for the day was frequent ‘Rag commenter Chadd McNicholas who took “Best in Show” honors with his Dortmunder Export, which according to the style guide “has the malt profile of a Helles, the hop character of a Pils, and is slightly stronger than both.” Don’t ask me what any of that means. Second place was grabbed by Matthew Quok with a Kolsch, a lighter German variety, and third went to Danell Brewster, one of the many female brewers in the competition, for her Chocolate English Mild.

What I learned overall, is that anyone with a passion for beer can be a beer judge. It sure helps if you know how to brew, as it allows you to provide more direct feedback to the homebrewer on techniques that might improve her brews in the future, but for the rest of us who can’t manage to fit that still in their garage, there’s still hope that a treained palate and sheer gumption can vault us to the top of the pile when it comes to beer judging.  Or at least get us invited back for next year.