From JudgeNet Tue Dec 8 03:23:31 1992 From: Victor Reijs Subject: wine judges in the Netherlands Hello all of you, Chuck asked to give some information on how the wine judges are organized in Holland. Now here is my story. There is some relation with the UK organizational setup, because we had some talks during the setup of the new Dutch wine-judging organization. But details are different! Ok, here it comes. The organization that provides the certificates for the wine judges is the FAWBG, Federation of Amature Wine and Beer Guild. Most wine judges are member of the WKG, Wine Judge Guild (Beer Judge Guild in cause of beer judges). The rest of the text concerns only the wine judges (the beer judges have a different structure). There are two levels of wine judges: - master: This person can perform during national/international wine compititions on his/her own. To become a master one must fullfil the following criteria: . must have done the apprentice-coarse . must have experience at regional competitions as an apprentice judge and/or as a steward at the (inet)national competitions. . must have done a coarse on "How to say things to others" (to give the judges some practise how to tell in a proper manner the winemakers that their wine is [not] good). - apprentise: This person has the ability to judge at regional competitions and has to right to be a steward at (inter)national competitions. To become an apprentise one has to meet the following criteria: . be at least a wine maker for 4 years . have a good understanding of the technology to make wine. . must have done (a centrally defined) course on how to taste wines (incl. practisizing). A centrally organized course, to get a good understanding of the wine technology, is also setup by FAWBG. The FAWBG is in the process of defining the master course. The total number of masters in Holland is (1992) around 30, the number of apprentise is around 20. This is some info on the master and apprentice wine. In a following mail I will elaborate on the competions. All the best, Victor -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Dec 16 03:31:47 1992 From: uunet!iepubj.att.com!korz Subject: NHC 93 Well the Winter `92 Zymurgy is here and so then are the 1993 NHC Rules and Regulations. I was on the 1993 NHCC and gave some recommendations. Some were incorporated and some were not. I'm posting here in the hopes of starting some constructive discussion and perhaps getting more support for my recommendations -- hopefully to be considered again for the 1994 NHC. Here were were my suggestions: >I have a concern not so much with the R&R, rather how they are interpreted. >I feel that some clarification needs to be provided, either in the rules >themselves, or instructions to the Regional Organizers, regarding the >"raised glass designs." Last year, several bottles that I judged, had >raised lettering along the bottom edge of the bottles, namely >"NO DEPOSIT" on several and one that had a bottling code (0 XT S 711 . . .) >of some kind. Each of these entries were shown to the organizer for >a ruling. The ruling was, that these bottles were acceptable and that >the raised lettering that was meant in the rules was "Bass" or "ORVAL" >for example. I'm concerned that some bottles which were accepted at the >Regionals, may be disqualified in the second round. Note also, that >almost every bottle has something printed on the bottom, which could >be used to identify a bottle if this was really a big problem with >the judges. There appears to be no change in the Rules and Regulations on this point, however, there may be an update to the Competition Guidelines. >As you know, some categories have very large numbers of entries. In these >categories, such as Stouts, Pale Ales, Porters, etc., at the Midwest >Regional, we solved the problem of burnout by having a miniature two-tier >judging. For example, we had four flights of Porters -- the best three >from each flight were judged by a panel of the four most experienced >judges in the four Porter flights (which were run simultaneously). The >best three from the second-tier judging were deemed the entries that went >on to the second round. As much as we tried to recap and chill the beers >in the first-tier, it would have been much more fair if we had two bottles >for the first round. This would only be necessary for the very large >categories. Doing this for every category would cause space-crunch problems >for the host locations' refridgerators. There was no change here also. Perhaps it's mostly a problem of storage space. >Category 6c -- English Extra Special Bitter: Currently, the OG is listed as >1042-1050, however, Fuller's ESB (to which Michael Jackson gives four stars) >has an original gravity of 1055+ [both in Eckhardt's book and Jackson's >pocket guide]. I propose that the upper-limit be raised to 1055. Done. >There is a gap in the OGs of strong English Ales. The OG upper-limit for >English Old Ale/Strong Ale is 1075 and the OG lower-limit of Barley Wines >is 1090. I propose that the OG upper-limit on English Old Ale/Strong Ale >be raised to 1090, to bridge this gap. Alas, no change. >I propose that the OG upper-limit on IPAs (category 4b) should be raised >to 1080 from its current 1060. Note that the 1896 version of Bass Pale Ale >had an OG of 1062, Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale has an OG of 1066, and the >1079 version of Ballentine's Old IPA had an OG of 1076 [Eckhardt]. Well, partial victory -- it was raised to 1065. Perhaps we can get them raised 5 points per year? >While on the subject of IPAs, I also propose that the upper-limit of >IBUs be increased to 90. Notwithstanding the fact that the Durden Park >Beer Circle has reconstructed a recipe for Original India Pale Ale, which >has a hop rate of 2.1 ounces of Goldings per gallon (which would translate >to 150-200 IBU) [Foster], I feel that 90 IBU would be a more accurate >representation of the style. Consider that the 1896 version of Bass Pale Ale >had 87 IBU [Eckhardt]. I think this one was raised 5 points too, from 40-60 to 40-65. >Category 9d -- Imperial Stout: Courage Russian Imperial Stout has an OG of >1098, but originally had an OG of 1104 [Jackson] -- therefore, I propose >that we increase the OG upper-limit to 1104. Was this raised? The upper limit is 1095 now. Wasn't it 1090? >Eldridge Pope's Thomas Hardy's Ale (Jackson gives it four stars) has an OG >of 1125.8 [Jackson]. Perhaps the OG upper-limit for Barley Wines (category 1a) >should be increased to 1125.8 (in honor of this fine beer)? If not, then >perhaps there should be no upper-limit OG in category 1a? I think there was no change here. >There seems to be a need for a new subcategory. Young's Special London Ale >has an original gravity of 1062-3 and a hop rate of 56 IBU -- this would >imply that this is an IPA, Young's, as well as several other higher-gravity >ales have a relatively high final gravity and quite a bit of residual >sweetness -- IPAs, of course, are usually dominated by bitterness. Although >Young's Special London Ale has an assertive bitterness, it is balanced by >a prominent malt sweetness and even a high hop flavor. >Given that the name of Young's Special London Ale in England is \fIYoung's >Special Export Bitter\fP, I propose that a new subcategory should be created >just below 6c, and called \fISpecial Export Bitter\fP. Here are my suggestions >for its definition and description: >Definition: >OG: 1055-1065; Percent alcohol: 5-6.5% v/v; IBU: 45-60; Color: 5-8 SRM. >Description: >Copper to dark amber. Low to medium carbonation. Medium bitterness. Medium >maltiness. Bitterness and maltiness evenly balanced. Medium body. Low to >medium diacetyl. Medium to high hop flavor and aroma. Medium >fruitiness/esters. No dice. Maybe next year. If you have a microscope, you can read "Strong Export Bitter" on the bottle label, but Jackson says it's currently called "Special Export Bitter" in the UK. I called the brewmaster at Young's to find out about the name and found out that it had been called "Strong Export Bitter," in the past, but currently is called "Special Export Bitter." If those of you who think you may be asked to be in the NHCC next year, could consider these changes and submit them next year (there's strength in numbers), perhaps we could get some more changes, next year. Comments? Al. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Dec 16 03:31:47 1992 From: uunet!linac.fnal.gov!hopduvel!john (John Isenhour) Subject: 93 competition forms I was just looking over the 1993 National HB scoring forms, and I was wondering what people thought about the changes. Specifically I noticed that the sub-sections (i.e. color, clarity, head) are formatted on one line such that you can no longer easily attribute points next to the-sub section. I usually note the points so the brewer can tell more specifically why they are getting the scores they receive. For instance, if in the appearances section, I give a total of 4, then I might put a, 1 by color/2 by clarity/1 by head retention. I then add comments about specifics of the scores, and the brewer would know relative weighting of sub-section. If this is now to be indicated only by comments, it seems to reduce the feedback to the brewer. - -- John Isenhour renaissance scientist and AHA/HWBTA certified Beer Judge home: john at hopduvel.UUCP (hopduvel!john at linac.fnal.gov) work: isenhour at lambic.fnal.gov -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Dec 18 03:40:37 1992 From: Darryl Richman Subject: RE: NHC 93 uunet!iepubj.att.com!korz writes: > >I propose that the OG upper-limit on IPAs (category 4b) should be raised > >to 1080 from its current 1060. Note that the 1896 version of Bass Pale Ale > >had an OG of 1062, Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale has an OG of 1066, and the > >1079 version of Ballentine's Old IPA had an OG of 1076 [Eckhardt]. > > Well, partial victory -- it was raised to 1065. Perhaps we can get them > raised 5 points per year? > > >While on the subject of IPAs, I also propose that the upper-limit of > >IBUs be increased to 90. Notwithstanding the fact that the Durden Park > >Beer Circle has reconstructed a recipe for Original India Pale Ale, which > >has a hop rate of 2.1 ounces of Goldings per gallon (which would translate > >to 150-200 IBU) [Foster], I feel that 90 IBU would be a more accurate > >representation of the style. Consider that the 1896 version of Bass Pale Ale > >had 87 IBU [Eckhardt]. > > I think this one was raised 5 points too, from 40-60 to 40-65. Al, I wonder how important it is to try to reflect data on beers brewed before, say, WWII in the style guide. Those measurements that were not in use in the past (I'm thinking of IBUs and alpha acid content here) can not be reliably back calculated, since the materials we use are different than those of the past. When quoting very high IBU numbers for example, I really wonder if the extraction at those high hopping levels is linear. We also don't know that the hops were dried to the same extent they are today (if not, the alpha content by weight would be significantly less). And even for hop varieties long in use like Fuggles and Goldings, I'm not convinced that changes in hop farming may not have raised their output levels. Similarly, it's not clear to me that barley malt provided the same kinds of yields in the past that they do now. The other side of the coin is that most beers brewed before, if I may be so bold, "the modern age" do not exist any more and may not be useful comparisons. In a sense, the English brewers have given the lie to our categories by making many IPAs very low gravity, low bitterness beers these days. Shall we change the categories to reflect this reality? If not, to what period do we assign each category. What do we do when a category goes extinct? For example, with porters, we now use a definition based on revivals of the style, because we have no real, continuous connection to the original type. Shouldn't we be judging porter as merely a lower gravity stout, as the historical evolution of the style suggests? If we did that, of course, we'd have the problem that the archetypical stout, Guinness, is fairly low gravity. Do we declare that tap Guinness is a porter, but the bottled Extra is a "real" stout? What about the revivalists then? Anchor Porter is brewed from an OG of about 68. How do we then get new judges to understand what we mean when we use the term? I think that requiring the styles to closely track either or both historical and newly created beers, just because the brewer declare(d/s) them to be in a particular style, is not necessarily the way to go. I am *not* advocating that we freeze forevermore the styles as they are currently laid out. These changes can only be done on a case by case basis, I feel, and changes should be made with more concern than just "brewer's perogative." --Darryl Richman -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Dec 18 03:40:37 1992 From: Martin A. Lodahl Subject: The AHA Sure Blew It, IMHO Well, that will teach me to go on the road for a few days. When I got back, my mailbox contained JudgeNet Digest #526, and what should I read, but: > From: uunet!iepubj.att.com!korz > Subject: NHC 93 > > Well the Winter `92 Zymurgy is here and so then are the 1993 NHC > Rules and Regulations. I was on the 1993 NHCC and gave some recommendations. > Some were incorporated and some were not. I'm posting here in the hopes > of starting some constructive discussion and perhaps getting more support > for my recommendations -- hopefully to be considered again for the 1994 NHC. Well, Al, I'd say you're rather missing the point. You were on track concerning "constructive discussions", but it's not YOU that needs the support, but rather the future of homebrew competitions in America. 'Scuse me a minute, while I climb up on this here soapbox. Last summer at the AHA Conference it looked like the AHA was taking another vital step toward the Homebrew Millenium, when the National Homebrew Competition Committee was "chartered". It had instant credibility only because Russ Wigglesworth was asked to convene the organizational meeting, and it appeared that finally the AHA was on a roll, making the most tangible effort to serve their members since the decentralization of the NHC judging itself. But now that the '93 NHC is "cast in stone", it's clear that those of us who thought so were giving them too much credit. The committee was never empowered to perform any meaningful function. The membership was given a single vague request for input, with a VERY tight deadline (I returned home from a road trip after the deadline had expired), no chance for discussion or even identification to the members of who else was on the committee, chairmanship of the committee was retained in Boulder, etc. etc. In short, they got as little as they could possibly get out of the effort, and I for one feel they've SQUANDERED an opportunity. Had they appointed a credible member of the homebrew contest community to chair the committee and given them support in the form of mailings, a consistent and comprehensive set of recommendations could have been generated through the give and take of ongoing discussion by people well qualified to do so, and from all sectors of the community. Further, if those recommendations were enacted, AHA responsiveness to member concerns would be a good deal more visible than it presently is. I've never been an "AHA-basher", but that's not an easy position to maintain at times like these. I'm forwarding a copy of this to James Spence in the hope that they'll take some notice of it in Boulder. And I'll get down off my soapbox, now. = Martin A. Lodahl Pacific*Bell Systems Analyst = = malodah at pbmoss.Pacbell.COM Sacramento, CA 916.972.4821 = = If it's good for ancient Druids, runnin' nekkid through the wuids, = = Drinkin' strange fermented fluids, it's good enough for me! 8-) = -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Dec 18 03:40:37 1992 From: uunet!iepubj.att.com!korz Subject: New score sheets John HopDuvel laments at the change in the format of the judging forms. Well, I'm with you John, I agree that having room to put numbers next to the sub-areas is sometimes very useful and much faster than describing the breakdown of the score to the brewer than to write it out in words. The reason I feel a need to comment, is that several of my suggestions to improve the scoresheets were adopted ("Other *Aromatic* Characteristics," and the addition of "Other Flavor Characteristics") and thus I don't want anyone to think that I suggested the change in the format. I think that room could be made for numbers simply by leaving spaces between the sub-areas. Also, why not eliminate the "Max. Score?" It's over the "judge's score" column anyway -- if they must have it, perhaps rearrange the maximum score and the line like this: BOUQUET/AROMA (as appropriate for style) ________ of 10 Malt(3), Hops(3), Other Aromatic Charateristics(4) . . . APPEARANCE (as appropriate for style) ________ of 6 Color(2), Clarity(2), Head Retention(2) . . . etc. Comments? Al. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat Dec 19 03:51:19 1992 From: uunet!iepubj.att.com!korz Subject: History vs. Modern Interpretations Darryl writes: >Al, I wonder how important it is to try to reflect data on beers brewed >before, say, WWII in the style guide. Those measurements that were not >in use in the past (I'm thinking of IBUs and alpha acid content here) >can not be reliably back calculated, since the materials we use are >different than those of the past. When quoting very high IBU numbers >for example, I really wonder if the extraction at those high hopping >levels is linear. We also don't know that the hops were dried to the >same extent they are today (if not, the alpha content by weight would >be significantly less). And even for hop varieties long in use like >Fuggles and Goldings, I'm not convinced that changes in hop farming may >not have raised their output levels. Similarly, it's not clear to me >that barley malt provided the same kinds of yields in the past that >they do now. Well, you'll note that I didn't include the Durden Park Beer Circle's 150-200IBU in my suggestion, since I felt, as you do, that they had not considered historical differences in yields and %AA. I was simply trying to use the extreme as a bargaining chip in my plea. >The other side of the coin is that most beers brewed before, if I may >be so bold, "the modern age" do not exist any more and may not be >useful comparisons. In a sense, the English brewers have given the lie >to our categories by making many IPAs very low gravity, low bitterness >beers these days. Shall we change the categories to reflect this >reality? If not, to what period do we assign each category. What do >we do when a category goes extinct? For example, with porters, we now >use a definition based on revivals of the style, because we have no >real, continuous connecion to the original type. Shouldn't we be >judging porter as merely a lower gravity stout, as the historical >evolution of the style suggests? If we did that, of course, we'd have >the problem that the archetypical stout, Guinness, is fairly low >gravity. Do we declare that tap Guinness is a porter, but the bottled >Extra is a "real" stout? What about the revivalists then? Anchor >Porter is brewed from an OG of about 68. How do we then get new judges >to understand what we mean when we use the term? BJCP classes? A new BJCP Study Guide? I'd say Chuck has a lead on the rest of us in that area, no? Frankly, how can we expect new judges to get anything right on the exams, given that the required reading list in the current BJCP Study Guide has books in it that contradict each other? >I think that requiring the styles to closely track either or both >historical and newly created beers, just because the brewer >declare(d/s) them to be in a particular style, is not necessarily the >way to go. I am *not* advocating that we freeze forevermore the styles >as they are currently laid out. These changes can only be done on a >case by case basis, I feel, and changes should be made with more >concern than just "brewer's perogative." Closely track? Perhaps we should try to track them as closely as we can, yes... on a case-by-case basis. One competition I was at lately (they all begin to run into each other) had two categories for porter: a) historical and b) modern interpretations. Why not? I think that we all agree that the descriptions need some tweaking, but they are workable as they currently exist (except for the fact that if you brewed a perfect copy of Young's Special London Ale, you wouldn't have a chance in any current category except ESB, where its OG and IBUs put it way out of character -- but that's my personal battle). Perhaps it's a good idea that the AHA is not making sudden, sweeping changes and their inch-by-inch changes are the most prudent path? Al. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat Dec 19 03:51:19 1992 From: uunet!iepubj.att.com!korz Subject: Re: The AHA Sure Blew It, IMHO Martin writes: >Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 10:06:35 PST >From: Martin A. Lodahl >Subject: The AHA Sure Blew It, IMHO > >> From: uunet!iepubj.att.com!korz >> Subject: NHC 93 >> >> Well the Winter `92 Zymurgy is here and so then are the 1993 NHC >> Rules and Regulations. I was on the 1993 NHCC and gave some recommendations. >> Some were incorporated and some were not. I'm posting here in the hopes >> of starting some constructive discussion and perhaps getting more support >> for my recommendations -- hopefully to be considered again for the 1994 NHC. > >Well, Al, I'd say you're rather missing the point. You were on >track concerning "constructive discussions", but it's not YOU that >needs the support, but rather the future of homebrew competitions in >America. > >'Scuse me a minute, while I climb up on this here soapbox. Last >summer at the AHA Conference it looked like the AHA was taking >another vital step toward the Homebrew Millenium, when the National >Homebrew Competition Committee was "chartered". It had instant >credibility only because Russ Wigglesworth was asked to convene the >organizational meeting, and it appeared that finally the AHA >was on a roll, making the most tangible effort to serve their >members since the decentralization of the NHC judging itself. Recall that up until a few years ago, the AHA was a benevolent dictatorship. *ALL* suggestions appeared to fall upon deaf ears. The fact that there has been some movement is a good sign and we should not expect things to change overnight. >But >now that the '93 NHC is "cast in stone", it's clear that those of us >who thought so were giving them too much credit. The committee was >never empowered to perform any meaningful function. Perhaps next year. Maybe it's just the optimist in me, but I have high hopes too and perhaps I'm just more willing to have it take a few years to accomplish. >The membership >was given a single vague request for input, with a VERY tight >deadline (I returned home from a road trip after the deadline had >expired), no chance for discussion or even identification to the >members of who else was on the committee, chairmanship of the >committee was retained in Boulder, etc. etc. I was assured by Karen Barela that next time the deadlines will be more reasonable. >In short, they got as >little as they could possibly get out of the effort, and I for one >feel they've SQUANDERED an opportunity. Had they appointed a >credible member of the homebrew contest community to chair the >committee and given them support in the form of mailings, a >consistent and comprehensive set of recommendations could have been >generated through the give and take of ongoing discussion by people >well qualified to do so, and from all sectors of the community. >Further, if those recommendations were enacted, AHA responsiveness >to member concerns would be a good deal more visible than it >presently is. I agree, but hey. There's always NHCC `94 (can you tell I'm a Cubs fan?). >I've never been an "AHA-basher", but that's not an easy position to >maintain at times like these. I'm forwarding a copy of this to >James Spence in the hope that they'll take some notice of it in >Boulder. And I'll get down off my soapbox, now. I have alternated between pro- and anti-AHA several times over the course of my 6-year membership. Obviously, I'm currently pro-AHA mostly because I feel that it's headed in the right direction. We all want the best for homebrewing and we all have lots of ideas how to achieve that goal, but I urge patience with and continued pressure on the AHA leadership. Our voices will be heard. I'll bet that there's at least one member of every homebrew club in the US somehow tied into the Homebrew Digest, JudgeNet, the Brewer's Forum, RCB, etc. We have nearly instantaneous communication. The electronic media is mightier than the pen and the sword combined. Al. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Dec 22 04:36:05 1992 From: uunet!galt.b11.ingr.com!raudins (Glenn Raudins) Subject: Oatmeal Stout When looking at the recent Nationals style guidelines, I began to think about Oatmeal Stout. To my palette, oatmeal stouts do not fit into either the dry or sweet catagories. The "chewy" flavor will prevent it from fitting either taste profile. So I looked in the "Styles" special issue to see if it was mentioned. I found Sam Smith Oatmeal stout listed as a Dry stout and this was the only mention. Glenn Raudins raudins at galt.b11.ingr.com -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Dec 22 04:36:05 1992 From: Charlie Papazian/Boulder Subject: AHA comp specifics I've been reviewing some of your correspondences and I think a few things would be helpful to us here at the A.H.A. I've read correspondence by Lodahl, Hersch, Korzonas and Frane and Wigglesworth. It is difficult to pinpoint what exactly people are annoyed at. What is it about the 1993 Competition rules and procedures, etc. that you are upset about. Please be specific. I noted a 1 1/2 inch thick pile of material that Karen has. It represents the correspondence and recommendations she received from people from the committee. The majority of the committee and board of advisors were contacted and specifically asked to reply to some points. Some responded and some did not. But there is a good deal of valuable recommendations that we did receive from many of you. All of it was considered. Some of it was incorporated. Some of it was not. Some of it is being considered for 1994. It seems that some of the complaints are stemming from projections of what people think it will be like this spring and summer as we judge. We are trying a lot of new things in 1993 per recommendations from those that have corresponded. Many decisions are yet to be made. To begin criticising the judging before they've even been tried is curious ? We've taken a lot of things into consideration as Karen can clarify for you if you give her a call. If a group or a person has suggested ten things and the AHA has implemented three or four (or perhaps more, you'll have to ask Karen for details), to be "branded" as tyrannical and unlistening kind of has us here at the AHA scratching our heads and at the edge of worrying (but not). As Mick Jagger once said, "You can't always get what [everything] you want, but if you try some time, you get what you need." Anyway, if you are really concerned about this and think that the AHA has missed the boat, please be specific, as the view from here is that we have a pile of stuff, and we can clearly see how much of it has been considered and implemented. Still curious... Charlie P. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Dec 22 04:36:05 1992 From: uunet!cbos.uc.edu!HOMEBREW Subject: Extra category? What prompted this post is a conversation I had with a couple of other judges while waiting for things to begin. It was mentioned that there are a great many really outstanding beers that don't fit in any of the AHA categories. You know, the beers you bring to club meetings but that you can't enter in competitions, like a cherry stout or a highly hopped bock. We talked about the possibility of an extra category for these beers (no, I don't have a good name for it, except maybe "Unique Brews"). The category could even be subdivided, for example into Reinheitsgebot and Non-Reinheitsgebot. We felt it would be good to include the category in Best of Show judging as well, either along with the others, or as a separate BOS award. Forgive me if this idea has been discussed and dismissed before, but I'd really like to get some opinions from the very experienced judges here. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Dec 22 04:36:05 1992 From: Darryl Richman Subject: re: History vs. Modern Interpretations uunet!iepubj.att.com!korz writes: > Darryl writes: > >for example, I really wonder if the extraction at those high hopping > >levels is linear. We also don't know that the hops were dried to the > >same extent they are today (if not, the alpha content by weight would > >be significantly less). And even for hop varieties long in use like > >Fuggles and Goldings, I'm not convinced that changes in hop farming may > >not have raised their output levels. Similarly, it's not clear to me > >that barley malt provided the same kinds of yields in the past that > >they do now. > > Well, you'll note that I didn't include the Durden Park Beer Circle's > 150-200IBU in my suggestion, since I felt, as you do, that they had > not considered historical differences in yields and %AA. I was simply > trying to use the extreme as a bargaining chip in my plea. I am concerned that by being completely inclusive, we lose the focus of the style categories. These categories are in some sense arbitrary, having largely been chosen by what was perceived about beer in this country over the last 5 years or so, and in many other countries from perhaps 10 to 20 years ago. > >The other side of the coin is that most beers brewed before, if I may > >be so bold, "the modern age" do not exist any more and may not be > >useful comparisons. In a sense, the English brewers have given the lie [...] > >Porter is brewed from an OG of about 68. How do we then get new judges > >to understand what we mean when we use the term? > > BJCP classes? A new BJCP Study Guide? I'd say Chuck has a lead on the > rest of us in that area, no? Frankly, how can we expect new judges > to get anything right on the exams, given that the required reading list > in the current BJCP Study Guide has books in it that contradict each > other? I meant to indicate that we cannot now tell an aspirant judge how to interpret the current style guide without teaching them the fairly arbitrary history of the categories. That some of the recommended materials are contradictory cannot be helped, and for me at least, serves as a reminder that this business is still fairly subjective. The contradictions may come about because the different authors are writing from different time periods, with different world viewpoints. Until and unless we qualify each category to state what its history is and and what beers it is intended to cover (and continue to update this as the brewing scene evolves), new judges will have to work out the contradictions and get a subjective hold on each category on their own. > >I think that requiring the styles to closely track either or both > >historical and newly created beers, just because the brewer > >declare(d/s) them to be in a particular style, is not necessarily the > >way to go. I am *not* advocating that we freeze forevermore the styles > >as they are currently laid out. These changes can only be done on a > >case by case basis, I feel, and changes should be made with more > >concern than just "brewer's perogative." > > Closely track? Perhaps we should try to track them as closely as we can, > yes... on a case-by-case basis. One competition I was at lately (they > all begin to run into each other) had two categories for porter: > a) historical and b) modern interpretations. Why not? That's not a bad idea. Is a historical porter opaque? How bitter should it be from hops? Ooops, sorry, I'm falling into discussion #1, above. > I think that we all agree that the descriptions need some tweaking, but > they are workable as they currently exist (except for the fact that if > you brewed a perfect copy of Young's Special London Ale, you wouldn't > have a chance in any current category except ESB, where its OG and IBUs > put it way out of character -- but that's my personal battle). I think that it's pretty clear that we do not cover all potential beers with the existing style guide, and that we may not want to. If we merely wanted to have categories for all beers, we would create categories based on OG/Color/IBU in a regular and objective way. That a historically valid (and tasty!) beer doesn't happen to fall in any category is not necessarily a failing of the style guide. > Perhaps it's a good idea that the AHA is not making sudden, sweeping > changes and their inch-by-inch changes are the most prudent path? That's my viewpoint, since the categories we have are full of subjective expectations that are not written down. It's also the case that there is a strong feeling that we can't really accomodate many more categories, but broadening the current ones makes it more difficult to judge entries. Maybe I'm just a luddite, but I think that dramatically changing the current categories is a bad idea unless the new system has a more logical set of underpinnings. --Darryl Richman -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Dec 23 03:25:06 1992 From: uunet!iepubj.att.com!korz Subject: Re: History vs. Modern Interpretations I think that Darryl and I are generally in agreement, except I'd like to add one thing: Darryl writes (quoting me): >> BJCP classes? A new BJCP Study Guide? I'd say Chuck has a lead on the >> rest of us in that area, no? Frankly, how can we expect new judges >> to get anything right on the exams, given that the required reading list >> in the current BJCP Study Guide has books in it that contradict each >> other? > >I meant to indicate that we cannot now tell an aspirant judge how to >interpret the current style guide without teaching them the fairly >arbitrary history of the categories. That some of the recommended >materials are contradictory cannot be helped, and for me at least, >serves as a reminder that this business is still fairly subjective. >The contradictions may come about because the different authors are >writing from different time periods, with different world viewpoints. >Until and unless we qualify each category to state what its history is >and and what beers it is intended to cover (and continue to update this >as the brewing scene evolves), new judges will have to work out the >contradictions and get a subjective hold on each category on their own. I think that a more expanded version of the BJCP Study Guide, one with either the actual answers or pointers to the answers would go a long way towards helping new judges. Maybe the pointers would be the best route, for example, point to "Greg Noonan's _Brewing Lager Beer_, chapter N" for a description of decoction mashing. This would keep the guide thinner and easier to re-publish as the rules and descriptions evolve. Perhaps there should be BJCP points given for teaching a class on taking the BJCP? James? My concern here is that the ten minutes that you get to shake hands, introduce yourself and skim the Style Descriptions sheet before you begin a flight is not the time to be working-out the contradictions. If there's a judge in the flight who is considerably senior to the others, usually that judge leads the team in a general direction. If that judge happens to think that "Porters with *any* roasted barley nose should be disqualified" then that's probably the way it will be. If there is no clear leader then, I feel, there may be even bigger problems. Al. P.S. Looks like Charlie can wield a sword, pen and keyboard as well as any of us ;^). -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Dec 23 03:25:06 1992 From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: Re: History vs. Modern Interpretations uunet!iepubj.att.com!korz sez... > > >> BJCP classes? A new BJCP Study Guide? I'd say Chuck has a lead on the > >> rest of us in that area, no? Frankly, how can we expect new judges > >> to get anything right on the exams, given that the required reading list > >> in the current BJCP Study Guide has books in it that contradict each > >> other? First, a minor quibble: the BJCP has made it very clear that they do not support, endorse or approve of my study guide. It should probably be renamed 'The Unofficial Beer Judge Exam Study Guide', but in any case it is not the BJCP study guide. What's wrong with a little contradiction? We're all adults, we know the world isn't perfect, and we are all capable of handling differing opinions. Beer is a complex topic, you would be doing new judges a disservice to try to hide or gloss over the different opinions. When scoring exams, I give more points to an answer like: A says X, but B says Y. as opposed to: The answer is X. As far as documenting beer styles goes, the Study Guide is sort of a synthesis of Jackson, Eckhardt, and the AHA rules (as of the current edition). I don't think the guide should change every year, but I will try to keep an eye on the evolution of the style descriptions and update it as often as seems reasonable. To that end, please send me suggestions for changes and updates. The more specific your suggestions, the more useful and more likely to be used. Provide references if appropriate. I use the number of suggested changes as an indication of how out-of-date the current edition is. There are currently only 3 or 4 suggestions for the next edition, so I'm in no hurry to make a new one. > I think that a more expanded version of the BJCP Study Guide, one with > either the actual answers or pointers to the answers would go a long > way towards helping new judges. Maybe the pointers would be the best > route, for example, point to "Greg Noonan's _Brewing Lager Beer_, chapter N" > for a description of decoction mashing. This would keep the guide thinner > and easier to re-publish as the rules and descriptions evolve. Perhaps > there should be BJCP points given for teaching a class on taking the > BJCP? James? I think providing example (or actual) exam questions and answers was one of the recommendations that Charlie Papazian made to the BJCP a few months ago. I offered to print them in the 'unofficial' study guide, but haven't heard back on that. I would certainly include them if provided. I'll consider adding some specific references in the next edition. Suggestions encouraged. As for giving points for teaching, why not? I would recommend some minimum guidelines i.e. a minimum of 2 hours of instruction to no more than 20 candidates, instructor must be National or higher. > P.S. Looks like Charlie can wield a sword, pen and keyboard as well as > any of us ;^). Don't assume he follows all discussions on this list. He's just a lurker, not really on the list, someone forwards selected postings to him. You should probably CC to him if you want to be sure he sees a message. - -- Chuck Cox Free your mind and your ass will follow - George Clinton -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Dec 24 03:25:05 1992 From: "PAUL EDWARDS" Subject: BJCP exam (tasting portion) Chuck, I wrote and passed the exam in June at the milwaukee AHA convention. Didn't do too bad, but I have a question/quibble about the tasting portion of the exam. One of the beers I tasted/evaluated was noticebly stale and oxidized, so I downgraded it and noted the defect in my comments. But, my test score was penalized because I didn't agree with the test proctors on this beer. They didn't drink from the same bottle I did because I watched them pour their samples from a different bottle from the six-pack. This was a commercial beer, not a homebrew. I know the tasting/evaluation portion of the exam is every bit as important as the written portion, maybe more so, but what can be done to ensure a more fair approach in the grading of the exams? This is only a minor quibble, but I might have made the next breakpoint on the scale if I hadn't been penalized as much on the tasting portion. -- Paul Edwards -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Dec 24 03:25:05 1992 From: "Rad Equipment" Subject: BJCP Study Guide Subject: BJCP Study Guide Time:8:01 AM Date:12/23/92 Chuck Cox says: >First, a minor quibble: the BJCP has made it very clear that they >do not support, endorse or approve of my study guide. It should >probably be renamed 'The Unofficial Beer Judge Exam Study Guide', >but in any case it is not the BJCP study guide. Hmmm. While it is true that the guide has not been endorsed by the BJCC (Beer Judge Certification Committee, oversees the BJCP, of which I am one of the two AHA representatives) it has certainly not been dismissed. In fact, the committee has not discussed the guide since I have been a part of it. In the correspondence which has been generated since the Conference in June, the only mention of the guide was included in my feedback to Karen Barela on the new BJCP booklet which outlines the program to potential examinees. In that feedback I suggested adding Chuck's guide to the Basic Study List and possibly incorporating it with the current AHA guide for distribution. I have had no response to this suggestion, nor have I had any related discussion regarding the guide with other committee members. It is my intention to support the endorsement of Chuck's guide by the BJCC. I intend to formally suggest such as soon as current items under consideration are dealt with. RW... Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu - CI$: 72300,61) UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / 474-8126 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Dec 24 03:25:05 1992 From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: Re: BJCP Study Guide Rad Equipment sez... > > Hmmm. While it is true that the guide has not been endorsed by the BJCC (Beer > Judge Certification Committee, oversees the BJCP, of which I am one of the two > AHA representatives) it has certainly not been dismissed. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that anyone had 'officially' dismissed it. However, when I was at the Milwaukee conference, I found out they were giving examinees a copy of the incomplete study guide that was inadvertinently distributed before the first edition. I had an original of the complete guide and offered it to some official (I forget who) for copying. I was told that it was unacceptable because it didn't carry the BJCP disclaimer they had added to the copies they were distributing. I interpreted this as meaning the BJCP didn't want to be affiliated with the study guide. > It is my intention to support the endorsement of Chuck's guide by the BJCC. I > intend to formally suggest such as soon as current items under consideration > are dealt with. Cool. Even if it is not officially endorsed, I will gladly consider any suggestions from the BJCC or BJCP regarding the study guide. - -- Chuck Cox Free your mind and your ass will follow - George Clinton -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Dec 24 03:25:05 1992 From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: Re: BJCP exam (tasting portion) PAUL EDWARDS sez... > > They didn't drink from the same bottle I did because I watched them pour > their samples from a different bottle from the six-pack. This was a commercial > beer, not a homebrew. > > I know the tasting/evaluation portion of the exam is every bit as important as > the written portion, maybe more so, but what can be done to ensure a more fair > approach in the grading of the exams? I recommend pouring all the bottles in a pitcher, then in the glasses, insuring uniformity. Perhaps examiners should be given some written instructions to that effect. - -- Chuck Cox Free your mind and your ass will follow - George Clinton -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Dec 25 03:24:01 1992 From: uunet!leia.polaroid.com!STROUD%GAIA Subject: Beer Evaluation/BJCP Study guide Paul Edwards sez: >They didn't drink from the same bottle I did because I watched them pour >their samples from a different bottle from the six-pack. This was a >commercial beer, not a homebrew. The information that Pat Baker sends to exam proctors recommends that all samples be served from the same source. Using pitchers and blending bottles is suggested to remove the problem that you encountered, bottle-to-bottle variation. This doesn't do you much good now, I'm afraid, but I will reinforce this with Pat next time I talk to him and request that he emphasize this more strongly in the packet of info that goes out to proctors. On another note, Chuck sez: >the BJCP has made it very clear that they >do not support, endorse or approve of my study guide. Really? I have not been a party to such a discussion. As Russ pointed out, I don't think that your guide has even been officially discussed by the BJCC. I gave Pat Baker the most recent version and he was very positive about it. I would be willing to talk to whoever made these statements to you if you'd like to privately email me their name(s). also, >However, when I was at the Milwaukee conference, I found out they were >giving examinees a copy of the incomplete study guide that was >inadvertinently distributed before the first edition. I wasn't at Milwaukee, so i can't say for sure, but be very careful about this: are you confusing members of the AHA with the BJCC? It seems unlikely to me that the BJCC was giving copies out, but I can believe that the AHA might have done so. Remember, they ARE NOT one and the same. Again, I'd like to know the names involved if you know. Thanks, Steve -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Dec 25 03:24:01 1992 From: uunet!cbos.uc.edu!HOMEBREW Subject: June test procedures Responding to Paul Edwards, Chuck sez: >I recommend pouring all the bottles in a pitcher, then in the glasses, >insuring uniformity. Perhaps examiners should be given some written >instructions to that effect. Now I'm a bit confused. I took the BJCP exam in Milwaukee last June also, and my observation was that the examiners did exactly that. Maybe I wasn't watching closely enough, but it seemed like such a logical thing to do that I assumed it was standard practice. Since the examiners were two of the biggest shots in the BJCP program, I guess I assumed they were doing everything the right way. Paul may have been watching more closely than I was, though. Ed Westemeier -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Dec 25 03:24:01 1992 From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: Re: Beer Evaluation/BJCP Study guide Stiv Stroud sez... > > I wasn't at Milwaukee, so i can't say for sure, but be very careful about this: > are you confusing members of the AHA with the BJCC? It seems unlikely to me > that the BJCC was giving copies out, but I can believe that the AHA might have > done so. Remember, they ARE NOT one and the same. Again, I'd like to know the > names involved if you know. You are probably right. I do tend to blur the distinction. I honestly forget who told me that, but I withdraw my claim that it was a BJCP official, it was more likely an AHA official. I think they were including the study guide in the registration packets of those who signed up for the test. I never saw the alleged disclaimer, did anyone out there see the study guide that was distributed at Milwaukee? - -- Chuck Cox Free your mind and your ass will follow - George Clinton --------------------------------------