Format of a Style Description

We have used a standard format to describe beer styles. The sections within the template have specific meanings that should be understood so as not to be misused:

• Overall Impression. In past editions, this was often a simple restatement of the basic Appearance, Aroma, Flavor and Mouthfeel sections. However, the section now describes the essence of the style; those points that distinguish it from other styles and that make it unique. The Overall Impression can also be thought of as an expanded consumer-level description that might be used to describe and differentiate the beer to someone who isn’t a beer geek or judge. This section also acknowledges the many uses outside judging, and allows others to describe a beer simply without using the detail needed by judges.

• Appearance, Aroma, Flavor, Mouthfeel. These four sections are the basic building blocks of the style. They are the perceptual elements that define the style, and are the guidelines against which a beer is judged in competition. These sections have been rewritten from prior guidelines to focus more on the perceptual characteristics of the ingredients, not the ingredients or process themselves. Saying that a Munich Helles tastes like continental Pils malt is a great shorthand for what is perceived; except, of course, if you have no idea what continental Pils malt actually tastes like. Our guidelines are written so that a trained judge unfamiliar with examples of a given style can do a credible job judging it just using the structured evaluation method and using our guidelines as a reference.

• Comments. This section contains interesting trivia or additional notes about a style that do not affect the perceptual assessment. Not every style has extensive comments; some are quite simple.

• History. The BJCP is not a historical research organization; we make use of multiple references, although we freely admit that we have defined the history for many modern styles that aren’t found in reference books. Entire books can be (and have been) written on some of the styles we describe; we are only presenting a brief summary of some of the more important points.

• Characteristic Ingredients. We don’t attempt to provide enough details to create a recipe for every style, but we do try to describe the typical ingredients (and sometimes processes) that help drive the character that distinguishes the style from others. Not every beer is going to be made the same way or using the same ingredients; we are simply describing what is typical, not what is required.

• Style Comparison. A new section in this edition of the guidelines, the Style Comparison notes help describe how this style differs from similar or related styles. Some people might understand a new style better if it can be described in terms of another style. Judges occasionally want to know the key points that separates one style from another. This section provides those clues, which helps put the perceptual notes in context, particularly for judges unfamiliar with the style.

• Entry Instructions. This section identifies the required information necessary for judges to judge an example in the given style. Competition entrants should always provide this information. Competition software should always require this information. Competition organizers should always provide this information to the judges. Judges should always ask for this information if it is not provided.

• Vital Statistics. The general characteristics of the style, expressed in Original Gravity (OG), Final Gravity (FG), Alcohol-by-Volume (ABV), International Bittering Units (IBUs), and Color as expressed in the Standard Reference Method (SRM) from the American Society of Brewing Chemists (ASBC). For those outside the United States that use the European Brewing Convention (EBC) color method, note that an EBC value is roughly double the equivalent SRM value. For those familiar with the Lovibond system, Lovibond is roughly equivalent to SRM for colors that exist in all but the darkest beers. For the purists out there, we’re talking about what is distinguishable to a judge using their eyes, not chemists using analytical equipment in a laboratory setting. Keep in mind that these Vital Stats are still guidelines, not absolutes. They are where most examples fall, not every possible commercial example of a style. They help judges determine judging order, not whether an example should be disqualified.

• Commercial Examples. The guidelines present well-established commercial examples that are generally representative of the style. The number of examples has been generally reduced from past editions of the guidelines to facilitate maintenance. We intend to publish additional examples on the BJCP web site in the future. Do not assign any additional meaning to the order of examples within the guidelines. Do not assume that every commercial example would score perfectly when evaluated against the style descriptions. Simply because a commercial example is listed as a reference for a style does not mean that every example is going to be world-class. Some beers can be mishandled, and some examples change over time. Do not use commercial examples as the benchmark for a style description; judge competition beers against the guidelines, not expectations from a single commercial example. A single beer rarely defines the entire range of a beer style, so do not limit your expectations in such a restrictive way.

• Tags. To facilitate the sorting of styles into alternate groupings, we have applied an Information Architecture-type tagging of attributes for each style. The list of tags is in no particular order, and is meant to signify attributes or information about a style. The tags should not be used to imply any deeper meaning.