Somehow I haven’t written here in almost six months, but it doesn’t mean I haven’t been busy. This week I wrote a guest article at San Diego Beer News about an awesome project focused on San Diego-grown hops that I’ve been involved in. I really hope the students have an engaged audience with great questions at at White Labs Brewing Company tomorrow..
This morning I received the RTP (Report to Participant) from my June 2023 BJCP® Mead Tasting exam saying I passed the exam (86 out of 100 means National-level scoresheets)! So, once the Beer Judge Certification Program® (BJCP®) Online Judge Record database updates, I’ll officially be a BJCP® Mead Judge. Hopefully that same periodic update will include my cider tasting exam and beer written exam results to add BJCP® Cider Judge and BJCP® Nation Beer Judge to the masthead. But I’ll wait until it’s official.
Since the BJCP® is an all volunteer organization, and to ensure there is internal validity to the scoring of tasting exams, the exams have a complex grading process and timeline. First, the exam administrator sets the date/time of the exam, recruits proctors, and finds examinees. Exams are limited to 12 seats, so depending on the geographic area and time of year, there is often more demand than supply. The administrator selects the beers to be samples (2-3 oz of six beer styles) and gets the materials ready. The two to three proctors take the exam alongside the examinees (15 minutes per sample times six samples equals 90 minutes total). The tasting exam is a blind exam where the administrator or a steward distributes a sample and declares the beer style from the 2021 BCJP® Style Guidelines (e.g., 2B International Amber Ale, 15A Irish Red Ale, 21B Specialty IPA: Red IPA). The exam is closed book for examinees but open book for proctors, and proctors can discuss their results while tasting the exam but examinees cannot talk. The examinees and proctors complete a one-page scoresheet for each sample to judge whether the beer in front of them best matches the style guidelines.
This leads to a lot of nonverbal, guttural noises from examinees as they come across different sensory attributes in the thimble-worth of beer in front of them. Occasionally there’s muttering of “what is that?!?” with furrowed brows. When the time is up and scoresheets turned in, there is a collective exhalation and wringing of cramped hands (who write for 90 minutes straight anymore?). The proctors come to a consensus score for each sample, they and the administrator may share the results. The administrator is tasked with providing a variety of beer styles and conditions (e.g., possibly dosed with off-flavors listed on the left of the scoresheet or even simple saying “this is an IPA” when it’s really a Belgian Pale Ale). If the results are shared there’s always a lively debate about individual beers, consternation about whether you wrote enough or will get enough points to get to next level in judging status, or berating oneself for missing something obvious. It’s a lot of fun!
Grading is evenly based on 1. Perceptive Accuracy, 2. Descriptive Ability, 3. Feedback, 4. Completeness, 5. Scoring Accuracy. #2, 3, and 4 are all within the examinee’s control: make sure you use good descriptive language including varying word choices and intensities (e.g., medium-high Eureka lemon peel, low pink grapefruit juice hop aroma), accurate feedback (e.g., beer tastes a little “green” or of cut grass, if you dry-hopped, consider transferring beer off the hops earlier or consider using 1/4 less hop matter), and filling in every line and check box. #1 and 5 are completely outside of the examinee’s control as they are graded against what the proctors and other examinees found in the glass in front of them. Sensory analysis is subjective to the individual but can be objective in the aggregate, meaning if everyone else picked up diacetyl (the artificial move theatre popcorn flavor) but I didn’t, then it’s most likely that it’s there and I missed it. So I would get scored down. Similarly, proctors may sense similar perceptions but come up with divergent scores (e.g., one says 29 “too sweet, out of style” the other says 40 “on the edge of the style but tasty”). So the proctor consensus score is evaluated alongside the examinee consensus score.
The exam scoresheets are kept blind with a unique participant ID. Once the exam is done, the scoresheets are scanned and sent to BJCP® headquarters. They are evaluated by a series of experienced judges who volunteer their time to grade packets of exams. First the proctors’ sheets are compared and concatenated. Then individual scoresheets are compared to the proctors’ sheets by two separate graders. Finally, all sheets are reviewed by two exam administrators who create the RTP with feedback on how someone did. As I said above, while sensory is subjective and everyone has their blind spots, the overall consensus summary in the RTP tells a clear story. And it only took at least 10 volunteers from start to finish!
I appreciate the thoroughness of this process, and if I get to National BJCP® Beer Judge level I plan to dive into volunteering with grading. Currently, the average time between an exam and the grades being posted in five to six months, so my mead exam mentioned up to is right on track. Fingers crossed. Thanks to all the volunteers who make the exams, competitions, and organization as a whole happen!
Unlike the BJCP®, my Advanced Cicerone® tasting exam results within one month. I barely passed the oral exam with an 81 but received 52 (out of 100) on the tasting exam. I’ll write a longer post on the process later, but that’s actually better than I expected. It’s a tough exam with some crossover with the BJCP® tasting and written exams. But that marathon in late June (judging NHC, presenting our seminar at Homebrew Con, taking the BJCP® Cider and Mead tasting exams and the BJCP® written exam, and attending Homebrew Con) just wiped me out. I’ll retake the Advanced tasting after a year or two of dedicated studying, especially on off-flavors and style discrimination. Though I should say, for style discrimination, when presented a beer and told it’s A, B, C, or D, at least I narrowed all of the down to two of the four. Half the time I just picked the incorrect one. Thanks to Jen Blair for organizing a great exam, Paul Daley for a tough oral exam, and Dan Imdieke for proctoring the exam. Back to studying!
Additionally, I am now the co-chair of the Craft Maltsters Guild Technical Working Group. This non-profit trade organization advocates on behalf of craft malthouses who make the base malts and specialty malts used for brewing beer and distilling spirits. The Technical Working Group (soon to be renamed Education Committee) is creates and coordinates educational classes, webinars, educational content and resources, and the Malt Cup, a one-of-a-kind international competition focused on malt. I got involved by volunteering to judge for the Malt Cup last year, and it was a great experience both in expanding my sensory and competition organizing experiences and in meeting great, passionate people involved in the malt industry. So I volunteered. The first round Certificates of Analyses (COAs) have been completed, and samples will be sent out to remote judges soon. The Best of Show judging will take place before the Craft Malt Con at UC Davis in February. It’s going to be a great event and I’m excited to be helping organize and to learn more.
Since it’s been a busy year I haven’t had the chance to participate in the QUAFF Homebrew Club-Only Competitions (COCs) as much as I would have liked. So I have handed over my reign as COC coordinator to the incoming (much more experienced) organizer. I submitted my final BJCP® competition organizer report, and I am excited by the 2024 calendar.
I jumped on the opportunity this summer to join the inaugural Oyster Master Guild Level One: Certified Oyster Ambassador class. This was a really cool experience and a well organized class to train oyster shuckers in a comprehensive manner similar to wine sommeliers, beer Cicerone®, coffee baristas, Certified Pommeliers™, KCBS BBQ Judge, ACS CCP®, and other food professional credentialing programs. We’re lucky to have the Carlsbad Aquafarm 30 minutes away from home were I can pick up beautiful fresh Lunas and Blondes that taste like the merroir of Southern California. I look forward to the level two program.
I also got to help edit my friend and awesome write Beth Demmon’s new book The Beer Lover’s Guide to Cider: American Ciders for Craft Beer Fans to Explore. Check it out if you like beer, cider, and/or a glimpse of the change in drinks landscape in the US. Beth’s book and transparency with her process really helped instill in me that, with a clear enough vision, and being unafraid to seek out help, you can manifest the project you’ve had in your head for years.
Finally, I judged the North American Guild of Beer Writers (NAGBW) annual awards for the first time. That was a great opportunity to read diverse voices telling unexplored stories that I otherwise may not have come across. The other judges comments also made me re-evaluate what I brought to each piece (e.g., when I thought a piece wasn’t as great as other but they advocated for it, I gave it another critical look, and vice-versa). I’ll hopefully be judging again next year because it was a lot of fun and very informative.
Last but not least, my kids love doing little sensory sessions with snacks. We bought the seasonal Trader Joe’s Taste Test of Caramels and sampled them over a few nights, with the kids’ feedback ranging from “MMMmmm yummy” to “this one is more chocolately than the other and the caramel is less oozy, but I kinda like it because it doesn’t stick in my teeth as much” and “this tastes like a candle.”
It’s been a fun and busy year. I’m going to take the next 25 days to brainstorm goals and objectives to actually get more writing done in 2024. And to enjoy the holidays with my loved ones. I hope you do as well. Cheers!
Mural Brewing 
Leave a comment