From JudgeNet Tue Jan 5 03:30:17 1993 From: "Rad Equipment" Subject: Tasting Portion Chuck suggests: >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. I agree completely. I know Byron always presents his beers this way when he administers an exam. Since he is the only person I have worked with on exams I thought this was the standard. I'll bring it up to the committee. My question to Phil is, how do you know which specific beer of the 4 was the one in question. I don't believe the feedback given to the examinees with their results includeds specific comments about specific questions or judging sheets. 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 Tue Jan 5 03:30:17 1993 From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: bounces Now that I have optimized the delivery costs of JudgeNet, it seems that bounced messages are taking up more bandwidth than the digest itself. In the past I have been fairly tolerant of bounces. No longer. One bounce, and you will be removed. Actually, I'll just comment-out your entry, so it'll be easy to reinstate you. It will be your responsibility to request reinstatement. There are a small handful of subscribers who are responsible for all the bounces, so this shouldn't affect most of you. - -- Chuck Cox Free your mind and your ass will follow - George Clinton -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Jan 6 03:19:17 1993 From: uunet!qmw.ac.uk!G.A.Cooper Subject: Durden Park Beer Circle Al says: >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. Bold statement Al! You will, I hope accept that any allowance made (if any!) for historical differences would have to be based on contemporary descriptions and a certain amount of (educated) speculation. Page 6 of the second edition starts: "In translating old recipes where the hop variety is not given, however, it is safer to assume that these were coarse hops with a lower bittering potential than Goldings (5.5%) or Fuggles (4.5%) and assume a bitter resin content of 4%." That is, when old recipes were re-formulated the hop rate was assessed on the assumption that the hops they used were 4%AA and if Goldings are now to be used that they are 5.5%AA. As the book (2nd Edition) now tells you the basis of the hopping estimates, you can now make any further allowances (like using a different hop or your batch of Goldings is 6%AA) you wish - in an informed manner. It's worth making the OG 70 Original IPA (Whitbreads, 1837) and keeping it a few months before sampling. Per Imperial gallon: 3lb Pale Malt and 2.5 oz Goldings Hops. I'll leave the rest to you. Another difficult one on hopping is what allowance (if any) do you make for the homebrewer making smaller batch sizes than the commercial boys. OK, I know that has nothing really to do with Judgenet, so don't flame me if you think I shouldn't have posted here. Geoff (Member of the Offending Circle) -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Jan 6 03:19:17 1993 From: uunet!drutx.att.com!homer Subject: BJCP exam (tasting portion) It is part of the instructions to all exam delegates that the different bottles of each beer be poured together into a pitcher. This is to minimize any discrepancies due to bottle variation. At the Milwaukee exam, on one beer, I did not open enough bottles for the all examines and Alberta and I (the proctors) to judge. I opened several bottles and poured them into a pitcher. After the beer had been distributed to each of the examines, there was only about half a glass left in the pitcher. I opened another bottle for Alberta and I to judge. Alberta and I used half a glass from the pitcher to verify that the beer distributed to the examines had the same flavor and aroma profile as the beer we judged. The taste and essay portions of the exam are not weighted equally, this is because the grade of the taste portion is highly subjective, and some parts are dependent on the judging skill of the exam proctor. The taste portion of the exam is 30% of the total grade. When I score the taste portion I give equal weight to each of the following: -Neatness -Completeness of comments -Perception -Feedback (suggestions for improvement) -Scoring A difference in characteristics perceived by the proctor and the examinee will only affect perception and scoring. A single difference in perception will not have a great effect on the total exam grade. Jim Homer Co-Director BJCP -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Jan 7 06:20:18 1993 From: uunet!qmw.ac.uk!G.A.Cooper Subject: Durden Park again, Ale OGs, Examinations From: chuck at com.synchro (Chuck Cox) >In your recent post to JudgeNet, you said... > >> Page 6 of the second edition starts: > >Second edition of what? Sorry Chuck. When the thread relating to beer styles started there was reference to Durden Park who had "reconstructed a recipe for Original India Pale Ale, which ...". This recipe could only have come from the the booklet "Old British Beers and How to Make Them". The recipe appeared in the first edition (1976) along with 14(?) others. The second edition (1991) has much more historical information (although still brief) and 60 recipes, which still includes the Original IPA. For the record, although a very good beer, I would not regard it a true IPA in the style that we homebrewers are attempting to make. I would classify it more as a highly hopped strong ale. - ---------- In 1990, the English judges reviewed the ale categories and kept the upper limit on OG for IPA at 60. The style Strong Ale has a gravity range from 60 to 80, and Barley Wine is from 90 upwards. The gap between Strong Ale and Barley Wine was not accidental; there are other gaps in the range also. We have found that breaking up the OG continuum (just a little) can improve clarity of style definition, and be of benefit to both competitor and judge. Neither do we attempt to have competition styles to cover all beer types made by home brewers (maybe the US is better in their approach); in general we concentrate on those styles made (and enjoyed) by most brewers/drinkers over here. For example, I have been making porter for many years (since long before the current revival) but thereare no competition where I can enter it. As for porters, I believe they get into their own at OG 60 and a little above; they benefit from a range of roasted malts with a flavour of brown malt (roasted to ca. EBC 150) coming through. IMHO of course. If you introduce a lighter version of porter, as some commercial revitalists have done (eg. OG 45), I hope you give it a name that clearly distiguishes it from the full bodied 'traditional' porters. - -------------Dispensing beer at exams > 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. Bottle variation has to be something in the minds of all examining judges. A few years ago we changed our exam procedure to one which is seen to be 'fairer', but it means more work for the examiner(s). Every candidate is given a 10oz bottle of each beer being used in the exam. They each work at separate tables and every beer is uniquely labelled to identify both the beer and the candidate. Candidates are instructed to assess a sample from each bottle (about 4oz appears to be the optimum) and to recap the beer. The examining judges (minimum 3 but usually 4) have a set of beers that they assess and their assessment is usually done in advance. Immediately after the exam, the candidates papers are examined. Where a candidate's comments significantly differ from the examiners' then the actual bottle used by the candidate can be retasted there and then. Thus allowing the examiners to be more accurate in their assessment of the candidate: if the candidate said it was acetified or oxidised, say, then the examiners are able to confirm or refute the assessment based on the same sample of beer. Don't be worried about this recapping of the beer, keeping it for a while and then tasting it - it doesn't do the beer much harm. Remember, it is only necessary to check when a candidate's comments are at signifcant variance with the examiners', and experienced judges are quite capable of making allowances. Finally, the NGWBJ exam has 3 components: Handbook, Theory and Practical. A pass is required in all 3 sections for an overall pass (ie there is no weighting). In the practical, greatest note is taken of accuracy of comments (perception?), completeness of comments, and marking (scoring). Geoff -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Jan 8 03:30:30 1993 From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: AHA Beer Judge Study Guide I just got my annual wad-o-stuff from the BJCP. It includes a nice card and slick program guide. I was reviewing the program guide and noticed a reference to a Beer Judge Study Guide by the AHA. I'm not familiar with this publication, has anybody seen it? What does it cover? Is my study guide redundant now? - -- Chuck Cox Free your mind and your ass will follow - George Clinton -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat Jan 9 03:36:26 1993 From: uunet!spss.com!stevie Subject: AHA Beer Judge Study Guide Chuck Cox writes: >I was reviewing the program guide and noticed a reference to a Beer >Judge Study Guide by the AHA. I'm not familiar with this publication, >has anybody seen it? What does it cover? Is my study guide redundant >now? Absolutely not. I actually paid for a copy about three years ago and was sorely disappointed. I'm not sure how much it has changed since then, but what I got was merely a bound collection of past Zymurgy articles on a number of relevant topics (e.g., a Fred Eckhardt piece on beer styles, reprints from the troubleshooting issue, etc.). It's not like it's worthless, but I think AHA could have saved itself the trouble and just printed a one-page biblio- graphy of source material. I would not include it on my recommended reading list for prospective exam takers. Save a few bucks. Rest easy, Chuck. You're still very much in business. - --- +------------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+ | Steve Hamburg | Internet: stevie at spss.com | "Life is short, and so | | SPSS Inc. | Phone: 312/329-3445 | are some brewers." | | Chicago, IL | Fax: 312/329-3657 | | +------------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+ -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat Jan 9 03:36:26 1993 From: Jay Hersh Subject: Re: BJCP info I just wanted to publicly state that as Site Director for the New England and Mid-Atlantic First Round Regional Competition I'm particularly miffed that the BJCP chose to change the point awards without first at least consulting with the Site Directors (well other than Russ W. who was in the loop) since changes in point awards directly effect the planning of the Site Directors and their ability to attract judges for the Regional Competitions. Yes I did bring this up in my response to Charlie P. who solicited feedback from this group. No other than a "message received" acknowledgment I have gotten no other feedback on this. Yes I do consider this typical of the modus operandi of the AHA staff.. JaH -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat Jan 9 03:36:26 1993 From: Steve Dempsey Subject: Re: AHA Beer Judge Study Guide Chuck sez: > I was reviewing the program guide and noticed a reference to a Beer > Judge Study Guide by the AHA. I'm not familiar with this publication, > has anybody seen it? What does it cover? Is my study guide redundant > now? I got one of these just before taking the exam my first time (1991) and thought it not worth the cost. The guide is a collection of old reprinted Zymurgy articles on competition procedures, evaluation criteria, flavor/aroma characteristics, and includes a flavor wheel and a listing of styles taken from (too long) past NHC rules, which would hopefully be updated annually. It is probably lacking most in technical details of the brewing process and of sensory evaluation. I think Chuck's study guide is more comprehensive and up to date. ================================ Engineering Network Services Steve Dempsey Colorado State University steved at longs.lance.colostate.edu Fort Collins, CO 80523 ================================ +1 303 491 0630 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat Jan 9 03:36:26 1993 From: Martin A. Lodahl Subject: The Official BJCP Study Guide In JudgeNet Digest #536, Chuck Cox said: > I just got my annual wad-o-stuff from the BJCP. > It includes a nice card and slick program guide. > > I was reviewing the program guide and noticed a reference to a Beer > Judge Study Guide by the AHA. I'm not familiar with this publication, > has anybody seen it? What does it cover? Is my study guide redundant > now? By no means. I think they were referring to the study guide the AHA sells, which I regret having bought. 48 pages of reprints from a variety of sources, much of the material outdated, much completely useless, for a mere $12.95, plus shipping and tax, where applicable. I don't see it in the present catalog; with luck, they've dropped it from the lineup. The AHA's bookstore is certainly the best single source of homebrewing information anywhere, and this is the only publication I've ever bought there that I actually regret buying. It's not clearly focused as your guide is, Chuck, and appears to have originally been intended to be a sort of "helpful hints" compendium rather than an actual study guide. = 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 Wed Jan 20 05:21:08 1993 From: uunet!iepubj.att.com!korz Subject: Original IPA Goeff wrote: >>> Page 6 of the second edition starts: >> >>Second edition of what? > >Sorry Chuck. When the thread relating to beer styles started there was >reference to Durden Park who had "reconstructed a recipe for Original >India Pale Ale, which ...". This recipe could only have come from the >the booklet "Old British Beers and How to Make Them". The recipe appeared >in the first edition (1976) along with 14(?) others. The second edition >(1991) has much more historical information (although still brief) and >60 recipes, which still includes the Original IPA. Actually, I got the info from Terry Foster's book, Pale Ale (Brewer's Publications Classic Beer Style Series #1). The whole recipe was not given, just the OG, the ounces of Goldings per imperial gallon (I believe) and the expected IBUs (150-200). Foster himself had speculated that the actual utilization may be less at such a high hop rate. This is where the thought of this beer not being a good data point for the IPA style descriptions initially came from. I guess I was a bit lazy in my explanation of why I chose to not include this data point in my suggestions to the AHA. I wrote ("you" being Darryl): >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. When I wrote "yields," I meant "utilization at such a high hop rate" which I meant in the same way as Foster had noted. Are the wild hops in the UK really on the order of 4%AA? If so, then perhaps the 2.5oz/Imp-gallon of modern Goldings could actually be the correct amount to brew a copy of the 1837 IPA. Perhaps just that the IBUs may actually not be 200 and actually closer to 150. I'm hooked. I'll try it. I have yet to put too much East Kent Goldings in a batch and I suspect I'll even like the 2.5oz/Imp_gallon. Now just where do I get good East Kent Goldings? Plugs would cost me an arm and a leg at these rates! Sorry about veering off the JudgeNet charter. Al. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Jan 20 05:21:08 1993 From: Jay Hersh Subject: Trying to contact Site Coordinators for AHA 1st Round Comp. Howdy folks, sorry to waste the badnwidth but I am trying to set up a mail list for quick turnaround cooperative discussion among the 3 Coordinators of each of the AHA 1st Round judging sites so that we can work together at problem solving and try to insure a greater degree of uniformity among the judging sites. I have contact info on the Cali. site, and the New England/Mid-Atlantic Site. Can anyone tell me if the folks Coordinating Chicago or Boulder are on-line and if so what their address is?? Thanks and once again sorry to take up bandwidth here, but I think this group will understand the importance of getting this set up... JaH -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Jan 20 05:21:08 1993 From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: sorry for the interruption Sorry about the disruption of service. My digest software was crashing. The problem has been fixed. I think all the affected messages are contained in this digest. Let me know if anything is missing. - -- Chuck Cox Make: Don't know how to make sense. Stop. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Jan 21 03:16:08 1993 From: Victor Reijs Subject: sweetness of products in wine/cider/beer Hello all of you, I am looking for information on what the perceived sweetness (compared to sucrose) is for some products which are present in wine/cider (and perhaps also in beers). I am thinking of products like: - alcohol (in the range of 4 to 15 % vol.) - glycerol (in the range of 0 - 20 gr/litre) I have some ideas about the sweetness of other products (like glucose, lactose and maltose). Perhaps other people have even more information on other products (not mentioned). Because sweetness is not a linair scale, I have putten some info of the concentrations of the products. So if there is some info about this non-linair process, I am also very interested. Hope somebody can help or point me to some articles/papers. All the best, Victor -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat Jan 23 04:32:33 1993 From: uunet!joebloe.maple-shade.nj.us!joseph (Joseph Nathan Hall) Subject: Sensory training (DIY?) I am interested in training my palate to recognize specific flavors in beer, wine, mead, etc. at the compound or group-of-similar compounds level. That is, upon sipping a beer, I might proclaim, "Aha! 1- or 2-octanol, about x parts per million." I understand that taste and olfactory perception are very, very complex matters indeed, but I would at least like to advance from the level of "was this fermented too warm?" to being able to name some specific agents in the brew. (Actually, that is a particular point of curiosity. What is/are the compound(s) responsible for "steam beer" character? I'm thinking of something that tastes phenolic but which has a muddy, soupy taste rather than a sharp, harsh character, at least at low levels.) In any event, I have access to a lab full of organic reagents, as well as the ability to order some if necessary. Given some literature and a copy of the big Meilgaard list, I suppose I could train myself, the long, hard and slow way. Before I get into that, though, I'd like to know if there are any folks in the Philadelphia/DC area who have some specific training along these lines who could do some sort of workshop(s) with me and possibly others. If there are classes offered in the immediate area that are not terribly expensive (probably not), I'd be interested in that, too. ================O Fortuna, velut Luna, statu variabilis================ uunet!joebloe!joseph (609) 273-8200 day joseph%joebloe at uunet.uu.net 2102 Ryan's Run East Rt 38 & 41 Maple Shade NJ 08052 Copyright 1992 by Joseph N. Hall. Permission granted to copy and redistribute freely over USENET and by email. Commercial use prohibited. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Jan 27 03:21:37 1993 From: uunet!galt.b11.ingr.com!raudins (Glenn Raudins) Subject: Malting Articles I have been comparing some of the recent data about malt on the HBD with what is stated in the study guide. I have noticed some differences, like 2 row from Schreier or Great Western is stated as having a diastatic power or 131 and 135. The study guide shows 2 row as having 63-70 degrees Lintner. Where was the study guide info obtain form? Glenn Raudins raudins at galt.b11.ingr.com Ps. I notice there are quite a few judges at synchro.com! Does this mean Chuck is breeding judges? -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Jan 27 03:21:37 1993 From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: Re: Malting Articles Glenn Raudins sez... > > I have been comparing some of the recent data about malt on the HBD with > what is stated in the study guide. I have noticed some differences, like > 2 row from Schreier or Great Western is stated as having a diastatic power > or 131 and 135. The study guide shows 2 row as having 63-70 degrees > Lintner. Where was the study guide info obtain form? The study guide data comes from the usual sources: Fix, Miller, Noonan, Papazian, etc. 63-70 does seem a little narrow. How dependable are the 130+ figures? What would be a more appropriate range for the guide? I welcome suggestions for adjusting any of the numbers. > Ps. I notice there are quite a few judges at synchro.com! Does this mean > Chuck is breeding judges? Damn! You've discovered my secret Beer Judge Android production plan. Actually, I am providing net access for members of the Boston Wort Processors. SynchroSystems remains a one-man company (now in the 10th year of business). - -- Chuck Cox Make: Don't know how to make sense. Stop. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Jan 29 03:14:44 1993 From: uunet!galt.b11.ingr.com!raudins (Glenn Raudins) Subject: Malt Numbers I have started recently collecting numbers on various malts. The HBD has provided a good amount of information. I am willing to collect and publish a chart comparing the various malts available, if people can get the data sheets to me, or the address of the maltster so that I may get them. Re: Diastatic Power With that said, the numbers I have seen seem to indicate that the 60-70 range is about right for Pale Ale malt. Ok, now I have another question along the same line. Miller and the study guide indicate that Wheat malt has a diastatic power of 49-60 degrees lintner. Which seems right to me, but I have some information from an Australian maltster that indicates 110-160 degrees Lintner. Someone rest my doubts and tell me they have lost their mind. Glenn Raudins raudins at galt.b11.ingr.com --------------------------------------