Fun: How to Judge Beer (BJCP Basics)

Learning to judge beer systematically elevates your appreciation and brewing skills. It involves a methodical evaluation of aroma, appearance, flavor, mouthfeel, and overall impression against established style guidelines. My approach, refined over two decades, emphasizes objective assessment and detailed feedback, transforming mere consumption into an analytical journey that directly improves my brewing.

When I first started homebrewing two decades ago, my method of “judging” beer was simplistic: “Do I like it or not?” My feedback to myself was often equally unhelpful: “This tastes… off,” or “Good, but not quite what I was aiming for.” It took a fundamental shift in perspective and a deep dive into systematic evaluation, specifically the BJCP (Beer Judge Certification Program) methodology, to truly unlock my potential as a brewer and a beer enthusiast. My biggest mistake early on was not understanding the ‘why’ behind the ‘what.’ Why did that stout taste thin? Why did my German Lager have a fruity aroma? Without a framework, I was simply guessing. Embracing the BJCP basics transformed my brewing by teaching me to deconstruct beer, identify specific attributes, and correlate them directly to my process. This isn’t just about winning competitions; it’s about rigorous self-improvement and developing a palate that can pinpoint exactly where a brew excels or deviates. Trust me, once you learn to speak the language of beer judging, your appreciation for every pint, commercial or homebrewed, will soar. It’s a skill I now consider indispensable for anyone serious about brewing.

The Math of Beer Judging: Deconstructing the Score Sheet

Judging beer isn’t just a subjective art; it’s a data-driven science, especially when you consider the structured framework of the BJCP. Understanding how points are allocated is the “math” that guides your evaluation. It’s not about complex equations, but about proportional emphasis. Over my 20 years, I’ve found that internalizing this point distribution makes my feedback much more precise and actionable. Here’s how I break it down, along with a simple formula for comparative analysis:

BJCP Score Sheet Point Allocation

The standard BJCP score sheet allocates 50 points across five primary categories. This isn’t arbitrary; it reflects the relative importance of these characteristics in defining a beer’s quality and style fidelity.

My takeaway from this breakdown is clear: Flavor and Aroma combined account for 64% of the total score. This means your palate and olfactory senses are paramount. Appearance and Mouthfeel, while important for sensory experience, have less numerical weight. Overall Impression acts as a subjective summary, allowing for an overarching assessment that transcends individual categories.

Calculating Personal Improvement Score (PIS)

When I’m judging my own brews or practicing with commercial examples, I often use a simplified “Personal Improvement Score” to track my progress in identifying off-flavors and style characteristics. It’s not a formal BJCP metric, but it helps me quantify my learning:

PIS = ( ( Number of Correctly Identified Off-Flavors / Total Potential Off-Flavors Present ) * 0.4 ) + ( ( Number of Correctly Identified Style Characteristics / Total Expected Style Characteristics ) * 0.6 )

• Off-Flavors: I maintain a mental checklist of common off-flavors (diacetyl, DMS, acetaldehyde, oxidation, metallic, phenolic). If a beer has 3 known off-flavors and I identify 2, that’s a 2/3 ratio.
• Style Characteristics: Based on the BJCP guidelines, I list 5-7 key defining characteristics for a given style (e.g., for an American Pale Ale: citrus hop aroma, moderate bitterness, pale amber color, medium body, clean fermentation profile). If I identify 4 out of 5, that’s a 4/5 ratio.

This formula gives more weight (60%) to identifying positive style characteristics, as that’s often harder and more nuanced than just spotting obvious faults. My goal is always a PIS above 0.8. If I’m consistently below that, I know I need to spend more time with my BrewMyBeer.online resources on sensory training.

Relative Importance Multiplier (RIM) for Learning

For educational purposes, when I’m specifically training my palate, I sometimes use a Relative Importance Multiplier (RIM) to mentally adjust the BJCP points based on what I want to focus on. For instance, if I’m practicing identifying yeast characteristics, I might temporarily give Aroma a RIM of 1.5, making it carry more mental weight in my current evaluation session, without changing the official score sheet:

This isn’t about altering the official score, but about directing my sensory attention during practice. It’s a powerful tool for focused learning.

Step-by-Step Beer Judging Execution: My Proven Process

After two decades of evaluating thousands of beers, I’ve refined my judging process into a systematic flow that ensures consistency and thoroughness. It’s more than just tasting; it’s an immersive sensory experience designed to extract every piece of data from the glass.

1. Preparation: Setting the Stage for Objective Analysis

1. The Right Glassware: I always use a clean, neutral tasting glass – typically a snifter or an authentic BJCP tasting glass. It should be free of detergent residue, which can kill head retention or impart off-aromas.
2. Optimal Temperature: Most beers are best judged between 8°C and 13°C (46°F and 55°F). Colder temperatures suppress volatile aromatics and flavors, while warmer temperatures can emphasize alcohol or off-flavors. Some very rich, dark beers might benefit from slightly warmer temps, up to 16°C (60°F), but it’s style-dependent.
3. Quiet Environment: Distractions are the enemy of objective evaluation. I ensure I’m in a well-lit, quiet space, free from competing aromas like food, perfumes, or cleaning products.
4. Palate Cleansing: A simple water cracker and still water are my go-to palate cleansers. I avoid flavored snacks or carbonated beverages.

2. Aroma Evaluation (12 Points): The First Impression

This is where I begin. I fill the glass only about one-third full to allow ample headspace for aromatics to collect.

1. Initial Sniff (Gentle): I take a few short, gentle sniffs to catch delicate esters, phenols, and hop aromatics. This helps avoid “nose fatigue.”
2. Swirl and Deep Sniff: A gentle swirl releases more volatile compounds. Then I take a longer, deeper sniff, focusing on malt character (bready, caramel, roast), hop varieties (citrus, pine, floral, earthy), yeast characteristics (fruity esters like banana or apple, spicy phenols like clove), and any alcohol presence.
3. Identify Off-Flavors: This is critical. I’m actively looking for tell-tale signs of common flaws: diacetyl (buttery), DMS (cooked corn/vegetal), acetaldehyde (green apple), phenolic (band-aid, plastic), oxidation (papery, sherry-like), or metallic. I make a note of their intensity.

3. Appearance Evaluation (3 Points): Visual Cues

While only 3 points, appearance sets expectations and can reveal potential issues.

1. Color and Clarity: I hold the glass up to a light source. Is the color appropriate for the style? (e.g., SRM 3-6 for a German Lager, SRM 25-35 for a Baltic Porter). Is it clear, hazy, or opaque?
2. Head Characteristics: I note the color, thickness, and retention of the head. How long does it last (e.g., 1-3 minutes is good for many styles)? Does it leave lacing on the glass as I drink?

4. Flavor Evaluation (20 Points): The Heart of the Beer

This is the most heavily weighted category, demanding careful attention.

1. Initial Taste: I take a good sip, letting the beer wash over my entire palate. What are the immediate impressions? Malt sweetness, hop bitterness, yeast flavors?
2. Mid-Palate and Balance: As I swallow, I assess the balance between sweetness, bitterness, and acidity. Does one dominate, or are they harmoniously integrated? I identify specific malt flavors (toasted, caramel, chocolate), hop flavors, and yeast byproducts (fruity, spicy).
3. Finish and Aftertaste: How does the flavor evolve after swallowing? Is it dry, sweet, lingering, or clean? Does it leave a pleasant aftertaste or any harshness, like excessive astringency or bitterness? Again, I check for off-flavors that might be more pronounced on the palate.

5. Mouthfeel Evaluation (5 Points): The Physical Sensation

Mouthfeel contributes significantly to drinkability and adherence to style.

1. Body/Texture: Is it thin, medium, full, or creamy? This often correlates with Original Gravity (OG) and residual sugars (Final Gravity, FG). A perceived body higher than expected for its FG could indicate dextrins from higher mash temps (e.g., 68-70°C).
2. Carbonation: Is it prickly, effervescent, creamy, or flat? Is it appropriate for the style? (e.g., a German Wheat Beer needs high carbonation, while a British Mild often benefits from lower).
3. Alcohol Warmth: Is there a warming sensation? Is it smooth, or is it harsh and hot, indicating fusel alcohols?
4. Other Sensations: I note any astringency (puckering), stickiness, or oiliness.

6. Overall Impression (10 Points): The Holistic View

This is where I synthesize all my observations, comparing them to the style guidelines.

1. Style Adherence: How well does the beer fit the defined characteristics of its style? Does it have the required elements, and are any deviations positive or negative?
2. Drinkability and Enjoyment: Is the beer pleasant to drink? Is it refreshing, complex, sessionable, or something else entirely?
3. Complexity and Character: Does the beer offer layers of flavor and aroma? Is it unique in a good way, or just muddled?
4. Feedback: I summarize my findings, providing constructive feedback for brewers. This is where my 20 years of brewing experience really helps, as I can often suggest specific process adjustments. I often find excellent advice and inspiration for my next brew on BrewMyBeer.online.

Troubleshooting: What Can Go Wrong When Judging Beer

Even with two decades under my belt, I’ve made my share of judging blunders. Recognizing potential pitfalls is as crucial as mastering the process itself. Here’s a rundown of what can derail an objective evaluation:

Palate Fatigue and Sensory Overload

This is perhaps the most common issue. After tasting several complex or high-IBU beers, my palate can become dulled or saturated.

• My Fix: I enforce strict breaks, usually 5-10 minutes between flights of 4-6 beers. Water and plain crackers are essential. For heavy-hitting beers, I might even step away for 15 minutes.
• Common Mistake: Rushing through too many samples. You might start missing subtle nuances or mistaking a strong flavor for an off-flavor simply because your senses are overwhelmed.

Bias and Expectations

I learned early on that preconceived notions are dangerous. If I know who brewed a beer, or if I have a strong preference for or against a particular style, it can unconsciously skew my judgment.

• My Fix: Blind tasting whenever possible. If I know the style, I consciously reset my expectations, focusing solely on the liquid in front of me, not on what I *think* it should be based on its label or brewer.
• Common Mistake: Letting personal preference dictate score. Just because you don’t like IPAs doesn’t mean a well-made IPA shouldn’t score highly within its style.

Inadequate Style Knowledge

Judging a beer without a firm grasp of its style guidelines is like trying to critique a painting without knowing art history. My early attempts at judging German Lagers were abysmal because I didn’t fully understand the nuanced malt character or the clean fermentation profile expected.

• My Fix: Before any judging session, I review the relevant BJCP style guidelines. For me, it’s a constant learning process. If I’m unsure, I refer back to commercial examples of the style.
• Common Mistake: Judging a beer against a generic idea of “good beer” rather than its specific style. A “hazy” character is a flaw in many styles but a defining feature in a New England IPA.

Poor Note-Taking and Recall

A detailed evaluation is useless if you can’t remember your observations or articulate them coherently. I once gave identical, vague feedback to two very different beers because I hadn’t properly documented my initial thoughts.

• My Fix: I use the BJCP score sheet as a template for my notes, even for personal evaluation. I write down specific descriptors for each category immediately, using quantified language (e.g., “medium-low diacetyl,” “high citrus hop aroma”).
• Common Mistake: Relying on memory or writing overly subjective, non-actionable notes. “Tastes weird” isn’t helpful; “moderate metallic off-flavor on finish, possibly from old hops” is.

Inconsistent Pouring or Temperature

Variations in how the beer is served can drastically alter its presentation and flavor profile.

• My Fix: I standardize my pouring technique, ensuring a consistent head formation. I also regularly check the temperature of the samples to ensure they’re within the optimal range for evaluation.
• Common Mistake: Serving a beer too cold, which suppresses aromas, or too warm, which can emphasize alcohol and off-flavors.

Sensory Analysis in Detail: My 20-Year Perspective

After two decades, my sensory analysis isn’t just about identifying flavors; it’s about understanding their origin and impact on the overall beer. Here’s how I approach each category with a brewer’s eye:

Appearance: The Visual Storyteller

• Color: Beyond simply naming it (e.g., “amber”), I consider its intensity and hue. Does it fit the style’s SRM range (e.g., a Robust Porter should be very dark, SRM 22-30)? Does it suggest appropriate malt usage?
• Clarity: Is it brilliantly clear, hazy, or opaque? I consider if haziness is a flaw (e.g., chill haze in a German Pilsner) or a desirable characteristic (e.g., yeast haze in a Hefeweizen or hop haze in a Hazy IPA).
• Head: I evaluate its persistence, density, and lacing. A persistent, creamy head often indicates good protein content and proper carbonation. Poor retention can hint at fats, oils, or improper glassware.

Aroma: Decoding the Olfactory Fingerprint

• Malt: I look for specific descriptors: grainy, bready (pale malts), biscuity, toasty (amber/crystal malts), caramel, toffee (darker crystal), chocolate, coffee, roast (dark roasted malts). Is the intensity appropriate? Are there any raw, husky notes?
• Hops: I identify varietal characteristics: citrus (Cascade), pine (Chinook), floral (Fuggle), earthy (East Kent Goldings), spicy (Saaz), tropical (Mosaic), berry (Simcoe). I assess intensity and freshness. Stale hop aroma is a definite negative.
• Yeast Esters/Phenols: These are crucial for yeast-driven styles. Esters manifest as fruity notes (banana, apple, pear, berry), while phenols often present as spicy (clove, pepper) or sometimes medicinal (which is an off-flavor). I’m looking for appropriate levels; too much banana in a Stout, for instance, would be a major flaw.
• Alcohol: Is it smoothly warming, or harsh and solvent-like (fusel alcohol, often from high fermentation temperatures above 22°C / 72°F)?
• Off-Flavors (Aroma): This is a primary detection point for many faults: diacetyl (butterscotch, movie popcorn), DMS (cooked corn, cabbage, shellfish), acetaldehyde (green apple, pumpkin), lightstruck (skunky, rubbery), oxidation (papery, stale, sherry-like), sour/acidic (infection), phenolic (band-aid, clove but out of place, smoke).

Flavor: The Palate’s Narrative

• Malt/Sweetness: Is the malt flavor robust, subtle, clean, or complex? Does the sweetness balance the bitterness, or is it cloying/absent? I consider residual sweetness and how it contributes to body.
• Hops/Bitterness: I assess the intensity of bitterness and its quality (smooth, sharp, lingering). Is it harmonious with the malt? Are hop flavors distinct or muddled?
• Fermentation Characteristics: These mirror the aroma but are experienced on the palate. Esters and phenols should be present and appropriate. I look for clean fermentation in styles where it’s critical (e.g., German Lagers).
• Balance: This is key. Do the components complement each other, or does one overpower the others? A well-balanced beer has interplay between malt, hops, and yeast.
• Finish/Aftertaste: How long do the flavors linger? Is the finish dry, sweet, clean, or does it have an unpleasant astringency or bitterness? A clean, crisp finish is often desirable.

Mouthfeel: The Texture and Sensation

• Body: I evaluate the beer’s weight on the tongue. Is it watery, medium, full, or viscous? This is often directly related to the specific gravity and dextrin content. A stout with an FG of 1.018 should have significantly more body than a pilsner at 1.008.
• Carbonation: From still to effervescent. Is it appropriate for the style? (e.g., a German Wheat Beer typically has high carbonation, around 3.5 volumes of CO2, while some British styles might be 1.5-2.0 volumes).
• Warmth: Gentle warmth from alcohol is fine, but “hot” or “boozy” often indicates fusel alcohol issues.
• Astringency: A puckering, drying sensation, often from over-sparging, excessive hop polyphenols, or roasted malts. It’s a flaw if prominent and out of style.

Frequently Asked Questions About Beer Judging

How is beer judging different from simply drinking a beer?

Simply drinking a beer is a personal, subjective experience focused on enjoyment. Beer judging, particularly using the BJCP method, is a systematic, objective, and analytical process. I approach it like a diagnostic test: I’m not just asking “Do I like it?” but “Does it adhere to style guidelines?”, “What are its specific attributes?”, “Are there any off-flavors?”, and “How could this beer be improved?” It requires focus, a developed palate, and a deep understanding of beer styles and their parameters.

How can I learn to identify common off-flavors more reliably?

My top recommendation, developed over years of brewing and judging, is targeted sensory training. You can purchase off-flavor kits that allow you to dose specific compounds (like diacetyl or DMS) into a neutral beer. I regularly set up blind tastings for myself, spiking samples with a single off-flavor, and then trying to identify it. This direct exposure, coupled with diligent note-taking on each flavor’s aroma, taste, and mouthfeel characteristics, is incredibly effective. Over time, you build a mental library of these sensory cues. My rule of thumb: practice at least once a month for consistent improvement.

How important are style guidelines in the judging process?

Style guidelines are the bedrock of objective beer judging; they are incredibly important. They provide the objective framework against which every beer is evaluated. Without them, judging becomes purely subjective, based solely on personal preference. As a judge, I’m assessing how well a beer represents its stated style, not just whether I enjoy it. The BJCP guidelines, for example, detail expected SRM (color), IBU (bitterness), OG/FG (strength/body), aroma, flavor, and mouthfeel for hundreds of beer styles. My job is to compare the beer in the glass to these published standards. If I’m brewing, I use these guidelines as my target specification, aiming for a specific Original Gravity (e.g., 1.050) or Bitterness (e.g., 30 IBU) for a chosen style.

Can I effectively judge my own homebrewed beer fairly?

It’s challenging but absolutely possible to judge your own beer more fairly, and it’s a vital skill for improvement. The key is to minimize bias. I always recommend tasting your own beer blind, if possible, by having someone else pour it for you among other commercial examples of the same style. Also, defer judgment until a few days or even a week after packaging, as fresh beer can often present differently. Most importantly, use the same systematic approach and score sheet you would for any other beer. Be brutally honest with yourself, focusing on specific attributes and potential flaws rather than just your emotional attachment to the beer you created. Compare it against your target style guidelines, just as a competition judge would. It’s a difficult exercise, but it leads to significant growth as a brewer.