"The BJCP Provisional Beer Styles and BeerSmith"

[peebee]

Received an email from Beersmith yesterday titled "The BJCP Provisional Beer Styles and BeerSmith". Oh goodie.

I have in the past ranted about the BJCP "styles" because their descriptions of British beers were so off. But that was my mistake, the "style guide" makes it clear they are descriptions of the beers now and not descriptions of historical beers. Okay, so the garbage written about British beers was the interpretations of people in no way affiliated with the BJCP. Profuse apologies, now let me look at these new updates ...

It starts with "BJCP style are used in most home brew competitions here in the US". Probably Brad Smith's words? I do still believe the "styles" have leaked out of the US and are doing irreparable damage to traditional beers in the UK (and probably much wider afield). Still, not really the BJCP's fault? Though the do nothing to distance themselves from these leaks and even seem to encourage their program aboard. No matter, we can let that pass?

Oh look. There's a British beer in the updates:

• Burton Ale (17A): A rich, malty, bitter and historic strong ale from the Burton-on-Trent area in England. From the guide: "A rich, malty, sweet, and bitter dark ale of moderately strong alcohol. Full bodied and chewy with a balanced hoppy finish and complex malty and hoppy aroma. Fruity notes accentuate the malt richness, while the hops help balance the sweeter finish. Popular in Burton before IPAs were invented, widely exported to the Baltic countries. After 1822, reformulated to be less sweet and strong. Most popular in the Victorian Era, with several different strengths available in the family. The strongest versions evolved into English Barleywines. Became less popular after WWII, eventually dying out around 1970."

I've got a "Burton" on for Xmas: An attempt at Whitbread "33" (pre-WWII) dragged out of Ron Pattinson's scribblings ("Strong, Volume 2", but also, in a slightly different later recipe: Let's Brew Wednesday - 1939 Whitbread 33). Now what have BJCP (allegedly) written ... "historical strong ale from the Burton-on-Trent" ... well, yes, very early in the 18th C. when the Trent navigation was complete "Burton" was shipped to London and took over from "Darbie Ale" (Derby Ale) which got to London the hard way (overland), but "Burton Ale" was very likely made from local S. Derbyshire malt which had reputation for being very light in colour and didn't reek of smoke (straw was used to fuel the kilns, and later coke, made from "sea-coal" - an extraordinarily early use of coke at the latter half of the 1600s). What next ...

"A rich, malty, sweet, and bitter dark ale". It was an "Ale"! By that time a hopped ale, which is perhaps how it managed to survive the journey to London without spoiling. But hopping would be low, hence "malty". "Bitter"? Well, it would have been relative to other (unhopped) Ales. And being an "Ale" attenuation would likely be poor (really poor!) hence "sweet". And "dark" ... hang on, that's exactly what it wasn't! I think they've skipped some 250 years (to WWI and II) when "Burton" was made darker, otherwise it had been made as light as possible. This is getting worrying, what next ...

Bit seemingly referring to modern interpretations, don't know what 1822 is referring to, some junk about different strengths in the Victorian period (isn't that the way for any beer?), some evolved into "Barleywine" (cobblers!) ...

This is just horribly inaccurate bulls***! I hope the BJCP isn't behind all this?

 

[Agentgonzo]

One of the mistakes I make after joining the forums was too pay attention to the BJCP.

I find the best was too use the BJCP guidelines is just to ignore them completely.

They are guidelines for judging beer and for grouping together similar beers to be judged together, to prevent trying to compare a stout Vs an IPA at a judging table. They are not intended to be used as guidelines for making beers.

Whilst they say their guidelines are "descriptive, not prescriptive", this is utter ********, as they use very strongly prescriptive wording like like "xyz is allowed", "should" and a whole host of other strong language.

It's also (as you've noted), VERY America-centric (which isn't a surprise really) with the category descriptions being what Americans brew, rather than Germans/Brits/Belgians etc

Have a conversation in a local pub with a bunch of regulars, the publican and a local brewer and you'll get a very different description of a beer style than the BJCP in this country

 

[Big_Eight]

One of the mistakes I make after joining the forums was too pay attention to the BJCP.

I find the best was too use the BJCP guidelines is just to ignore them completely.

They are guidelines for judging beer and for grouping together similar beers to be judged together, to prevent trying to compare a stout Vs an IPA at a judging table. They are not intended to be used as guidelines for making beers.

Whilst they say their guidelines are "descriptive, not prescriptive", this is utter ********, as they use very strongly prescriptive wording like like "xyz is allowed", "should" and a whole host of other strong language.

It's also (as you've noted), VERY America-centric (which isn't a surprise really) with the category descriptions being what Americans brew, rather than Germans/Brits/Belgians etc

Have a conversation in a local pub with a bunch of regulars, the publican and a local brewer and you'll get a very different description of a beer style than the BJCP in this country

Then contact them with what you believe are accurate descriptions of the styles in question and keep contacting them. I look at these guidelines as criteria they use to judge at competitions and nothing more.

If enough of you complain and send them what you believe are the right descriptions maybe they will start to listen.

Here is their page with contact emails. There is one for Europe.

Edit: Also the 2021 guidelines can be found on their website as well for your critiquing pleasure.

https://www.bjcp.org/contact-us/

 

[The Baron]

And that's why I do not enter competitions I make my beers to my style and not to Americanised interpretations of what they think a English beer should be.
I very rarely get all the ticks in the boxes when I brew with Brewers Friend but I do not give a $hit I think we know English Ales/Beers better than BJCP

 

[Big_Eight]

Here's the full BJCP Guideline.

edit: For some reason it won't let me paste the whole thing here is the link.

An entry category more than a style; the strength and character of examples can vary widely. Fits in the style space between normal gravity beers and Barley Wines. Can include pale malty-hoppy beers, English winter warmers, strong dark milds, smaller Burton ales, and other unique beers in the general gravity range that don’t fit other categories. Judges should allow for a significant range in character, as long as the beer is within the alcohol strength range and has an interesting ‘British’ character, it likely fits the style.

History​

A collection of unrelated minor styles, each of which has its own heritage. Do not use this category grouping to infer a historical relationship between examples – none is intended. This is a modern British specialty judging category where the ‘special’ attribute is alcohol level.

Characteristic Ingredients​

Grists vary, often based on pale malt with caramel and specialty malts. Some darker examples suggest a light use of dark malts (e.g., chocolate, black malt). Sugary and starchy adjuncts (e.g., maize, flaked barley, wheat) are common. Finishing hops are traditionally English.

Style Comparison​

Significant overlap in gravity with Old Ale, but not having an aged character. A wide range of interpretations is possible. Should not be as rich or strong as an English Barley Wine. Stronger than the stronger everyday Strong Bitter, British Brown Ale, and English Porter. More specialty malt or sugar character than American Strong Ale.

Vital Statistics​

IBU​

30 - 60

SRM​

8 - 22

OG​

1.055 - 1.080

FG​

1.015 - 1.022

ABV​

5.5% - 8%

Commercial Examples​

Fuller’s 1845, Harvey’s Elizabethan Ale, J.W. Lees Moonraker, McEwan’s Champion, Samuel Smith’s Winter Welcome, Shepherd Neame 1698.

Past Revision​

British Strong Ale (2015)

Edit: Let's also not forget the organization is a U.S. organization founded in the US.

From BJCP Website:

BJCP History​

The BJCP was founded in 1985 as a joint venture between the American Homebrewers Association (AHA) and the (now-defunct) Home Wine and Beer Trade Association (HWBTA). Pat Baker from the HWBTA was the driving force behind the program with support from Charlie Papazian of the AHA.

 

[Big_Eight]

And that's why I do not enter competitions I make my beers to my style and not to Americanised interpretations of what they think a English beer should be.
I very rarely get all the ticks in the boxes when I brew with Brewers Friend but I do not give a $hit I think we know English Ales/Beers better than BJCP

Of course you do! Why don't you folks start something similar to BJCP in Europe and get it to take hold. This would be a good way to help preserve tradition.

 

[SMP Brewery]

Bit seemingly referring to modern interpretations, don't know what 1822 is referring to, some junk about different strengths in the Victorian period (isn't that the way for any beer?), some evolved into "Barleywine" (cobblers!) ...

Looks like they got it from Wikipedia.. "When the Russian government imposed a prohibitive tariff on beer imports in 1822, Samuel Allsopp introduced a less sweet and more bitter version of Burton ale and marketed it across England and as far as Australia." supposedly from this book..

https://openlibrary.org/books/OL23428004M/Burton_and_its_bitter_beer

 

[dmtaylor]

I could be wrong, but I'll bet I'm probably not too far off...

The BJCP guidelines are basically drafted by one person alone (Gordon Strong), then reviewed by a team of ~10 of his buddies, after which any comments are incorporated by that same person (GS) to his own satisfaction. He's the number one ranking judge in the organization, so we can provide him with all the feedback in the world, but in the end he maintains executive ownership of his guidelines.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I hope that I am.

I know that back in 2014 timeframe when the 2015 guidelines were being put together, comments were solicited from any judge in the world who felt like participating. I participated. Guess how many of my comments were incorporated. Take a guess.

Then contact them with what you believe are accurate descriptions of the styles in question and keep contacting them.

If enough of you complain and send them what you believe are the right descriptions maybe they will start to listen.

Good luck with that.

 

[Obadiah Boondoggle]

Let's call a spade a spade

Who really decides beer names

Marketing people

They decide if calling it e.g. a porter rather than a stout would mean they sell more

So why don't you see any marketing of bitters any more? Because it's believed that "bitters" won't sell

Without getting too specific you can't buy any Robinsons "bitters" any more but you can buy a "premium golden ale" - same beer - different marketing

What's a barley wine?

Well when wine was becoming more popular the marketing people decided - well let's call beer "barley wine" i.e. an alcoholic drink made from barley (i.e. beer not wine)

Getting hung up on names is not helpful - let's just enjoy drinking an alcoholic drink made from cereal crops and leave it at that

 

[Big_Eight]

I could be wrong, but I'll bet I'm probably not too far off...

The BJCP guidelines are basically drafted by one person alone (Gordon Strong), then reviewed by a team of ~10 of his buddies, after which any comments are incorporated by that same person (GS) to his own satisfaction. He's the number one ranking judge in the organization, so we can provide him with all the feedback in the world, but in the end he maintains executive ownership of his guidelines.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I hope that I am.

I know that back in 2014 timeframe when the 2015 guidelines were being put together, comments were solicited from any judge in the world who felt like participating. I participated. Guess how many of my comments were incorporated. Take a guess.



Good luck with that.

That's a damn travesty. I'll take a guess and say none of your comments were incorporated lol.

 

[SMP Brewery]

To put a positive spin on them. I’ve done 16 brews now and wouldn’t no where to start designing a beer. I’ve really enjoyed the brew and swap that’s on here as it gives me a guide line of what’s required (might have got it wrong for the last one but hay ho).
Since then I’ve brewed a version of one of those beers that probably wouldn’t meet the guide lines that we really enjoyed (my wife probably drank more than me). That’s what I enjoy designing a beer not just copying a recipe.

 

[Agentgonzo]

Who really decides beer names

Some names have evolved naturally like all language, as It's handy to have a name like porter/stout/IPA/session so people know what you are talking about.

But once you start defining new names like Burton Ale and Belgian Golden Strong that no-one uses in normal conversation, then your usefulness has hit it's end.

 

[foxy]

Received an email from Beersmith yesterday titled "The BJCP Provisional Beer Styles and BeerSmith". Oh goodie.

I have in the past ranted about the BJCP "styles" because their descriptions of British beers were so off. But that was my mistake, the "style guide" makes it clear they are descriptions of the beers now and not descriptions of historical beers. Okay, so the garbage written about British beers was the interpretations of people in no way affiliated with the BJCP. Profuse apologies, now let me look at these new updates ...

It starts with "BJCP style are used in most home brew competitions here in the US". Probably Brad Smith's words? I do still believe the "styles" have leaked out of the US and are doing irreparable damage to traditional beers in the UK (and probably much wider afield). Still, not really the BJCP's fault? Though the do nothing to distance themselves from these leaks and even seem to encourage their program aboard. No matter, we can let that pass?

Oh look. There's a British beer in the updates:


I've got a "Burton" on for Xmas: An attempt at Whitbread "33" (pre-WWII) dragged out of Ron Pattinson's scribblings ("Strong, Volume 2", but also, in a slightly different later recipe: Let's Brew Wednesday - 1939 Whitbread 33). Now what have BJCP (allegedly) written ... "historical strong ale from the Burton-on-Trent" ... well, yes, very early in the 18th C. when the Trent navigation was complete "Burton" was shipped to London and took over from "Darbie Ale" (Derby Ale) which got to London the hard way (overland), but "Burton Ale" was very likely made from local S. Derbyshire malt which had reputation for being very light in colour and didn't reek of smoke (straw was used to fuel the kilns, and later coke, made from "sea-coal" - an extraordinarily early use of coke at the latter half of the 1600s). What next ...

"A rich, malty, sweet, and bitter dark ale". It was an "Ale"! By that time a hopped ale, which is perhaps how it managed to survive the journey to London without spoiling. But hopping would be low, hence "malty". "Bitter"? Well, it would have been relative to other (unhopped) Ales. And being an "Ale" attenuation would likely be poor (really poor!) hence "sweet". And "dark" ... hang on, that's exactly what it wasn't! I think they've skipped some 250 years (to WWI and II) when "Burton" was made darker, otherwise it had been made as light as possible. This is getting worrying, what next ...

Bit seemingly referring to modern interpretations, don't know what 1822 is referring to, some junk about different strengths in the Victorian period (isn't that the way for any beer?), some evolved into "Barleywine" (cobblers!) ...

This is just horribly inaccurate bulls***! I hope the BJCP isn't behind all this?

It is like any competitive sport, there has to be rules and a guideline to keep within the rules otherwise judges would be about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike. Rules are needed to judge. Where would a home brewer interpret these rules? By an online brewing program, how accurate is the brewing program? Is the colour within the guide lines? Is the IBU within the guide lines? Is the alcohol limitation within the guide line? So what do judges really judge? Colour but to what degree? IBU doubt it. Alcohol content, I would say no, I can but only after half a schooner, not a sip. Clarity well that's easy, I have mentioned before though its only a few points it has a psychological effect on the judges so really worth more. The judges are most useful detecting off flavours mostly only the certified not the registered. But a line has to be drawn in the sand otherwise why have comps?
Obidiah said, whats in a name nothing. But with the BJCP program there is now names, like you peebee I don't fully agree I have had issues with judges in the past who don't fully understand what they are judging but it is a start to conformity.
I would just like to add I agree with what Big Eight states that lobbying the BJCP powers that be could be worthwhile if enough folk get on board.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Well when wine was becoming more popular the marketing people decided - well let's call beer "barley wine" i.e. an alcoholic drink made from barley (i.e. beer not wine)

I have often wondered why its called wine.

 

[Clarence]

I have often wondered why its called wine.

I always thought it was because it approached wine strength in the days when wine was less commonly drunk and when, for example, a 12% wine was considered a particularly strong wine.

 

[An Ankoù]

Then contact them with what you believe are accurate descriptions of the styles in question and keep contacting them. I look at these guidelines as criteria they use to judge at competitions and nothing more.

If enough of you complain and send them what you believe are the right descriptions maybe they will start to listen.

Here is their page with contact emails. There is one for Europe.

Edit: Also the 2021 guidelines can be found on their website as well for your critiquing pleasure.

https://www.bjcp.org/contact-us/

Why is there one for Europe?
By all means let the USian brewers associations set parameters for their own competitions, but let them also keep their noses out of everybody else's business. I've looked at these so called "guidelines" (read "decrees") and they're pretty naff for many European styles as well as English styles.

 

[MickDundee]

Here’s another Burton Ale article by Gordon Strong for Peebs to get his teeth into:
https://byo.com/wp-content/uploads/woocommerce_uploads/Burton-Ale.pdf
I was actually googling his name from the posts above to see if I could find a bit more information and stumbled upon it.

 

[Sadfield]

Hope Santa brings some new untwisted knickers. Getting irate at US homebrew guidelines is a bit like being upset about NFL rules when you support Blyth Spartans.

Wasn't Barley Wine what the aristocracy replaced wine with when England was at war with France?

 

[peebee]

Here’s another Burton Ale article by Gordon Strong for Peebs to get his teeth into ...

Thank you. (I'll go away and throw up now!).

But, just a few years ago I'd be lapping up this nonsense. In only in that few years I've begun to appreciate what I often say: "Don't view history through a telescope". And "Burton Ale", being one of our oldest (UK) "styles" that we still have (if you're very, very, old!) some handle of needs to be viewed with a very wide lens! "Mild Ale" claims the slot for oldest UK "style".

Gordon Strong doesn't have that appreciation. I only have it because of another forumite here (@Dyke Busters) who got me involved with a "recreation project" for which I'm hugely thankful, even if we did then have a recent fallout over something or other. I do not like the way Mr Strong drags in some eminent beer historians into his distorted views (I occasionally worry about Ron Pattinson's chumming up to the "American Craft Brewing" proponents, but I guess he's following a very important rule: "DO NOT bite the hands that feed you"!). I rely rather heavily on Ron's scribblings for recent (19th C. onwards) beer history BTW




I am working up to create a historical "Burton Ale" (c.1700). As I have an "ale" for Xmas, I've just been assembling my means of serving it out of a Corny keg as I've nothing to serve them by gravity alone (handpumps, if they could help, weren't around until early 19th C.). Any CO2 pressure seriously trashes these "beer" types, so I couldn't "blow" it out. I think I'll try one of Ron's derived more recent recipes first for "practice", like: Let's Brew Wednesday - 1879 William Younger No.1. Yeap, FG1.040! I'll have to get the hopping down for an early "Burton Ale", say 10-20IBU? And come up with a suitable "emulation" for 18th C. Derbyshire malt. Now how does all that fit in with Mr Strong's "historical" ramblings?

 

[peebee]

Hope Santa brings some new untwisted knickers. Getting irate at US homebrew guidelines is a bit like being upset about NFL rules when you support Blyth Spartans.

Wasn't Barley Wine what the aristocracy replaced wine with when England was at war with France?

It is perhaps "sour grapes"? The UK (and much of the world) is already overrun with all this "craft beer" twaddle. Serves us right, we took our eye off the ball (and haven't been watching for a long time).

But surely time for an ineffective late rant?



It began to dawn on me a couple of years ago sitting in a Sicilian bar ... drinking a "Russian Imperial Stout". A what?