From JudgeNet Wed Feb 3 03:20:58 1993 From: "PAUL EDWARDS" <8260PE at indy.navy.mil> Subject: exam feedback Russ, My score sheet did indeed have comments from the each of the test examiners, things like "good answer to wheat question", or " a little weak on the hops quesion" and for the tasting portion, they commented as well. I don't have the score sheet in front of me, so I can't give exact quotes. I found the comments very helpful. If such is not standard practice, it should be. Otherwise, it would be akin to getting a beer judging sheet back with a score but no comments, something the program is designed to prevent. Now that I have a better idea of the depth and breadth of the exam, I'll be better prepared the next time. And, I won't take the test at the end of the week after the convention. I think I "crammed" too much in the hospitality suites to be at my peak. -- Paul PS - I showed my dad your roller mill article, and one week later, he had one finished. Not quite the same design, but it gave him some good ideas... -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Feb 3 03:20:58 1993 From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: synchro.com It appears there is now a 'syncro.com' on the net. Be careful when sending mail to JudgeNet, make sure you send it to 'synchro.com' - -- Chuck Cox -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Feb 19 05:20:26 1993 From: Jay Hersh Subject: Judge Competition Well flipping through the channels last night I came across something interesting on this program which is English language daily news from Japan. Seems they have a Sake Judge Competition. This is a competition where the judges are presented several brands of Sake and are supposed to identify the brand. This is done in a blind fashion of course, and the winner is the person who gets the most right. Unfortunately the show did not present very much info. It mostly focused on this American woman from Easthampton, NY who is going to school in Japan and on a lark entered the competition and has made it to the final rounds. >From what I could see in the clips each judge was presented with 6 samples at a time and had to identify them. From the commentary it was apparent that there were several rounds with elimination at each round, though it is not clear if the brands are varied from round to round to make it harder. The woman they profiled had a perfect score through however many rounds she had endured. Also from the commentary it appeared that wine judges also have a similar system. Now what makes me bring this up is that perhaps this idea could be adopted for beer judging as well. I had 2 ideas how this might work for beer judging. 1) Judging in a given style. In this approach a range of beers in a given style are selected. Since all beers may not be commercially available in different areas it would be fair to present the judges with a trial taste of each brand, openly identified, in a pre-competition orientation. Then some subset of the range of brands is presented to the judge in blind fashion at each round and the judge must correctly identify the brands from the list of all possible brands (as opposed to just the brands in that subset). The winning judge is the one who identifies the most brands. Ties would cause subsequent taste off rounds. 2) Style Selection. In this approach a group of beers from a range of styles is selected. Possibly the judges are presented with an orientation tasting or maybe not (this point can be debated). The judges are presented with a subset of the range of styles and must correctly identify the style from the list of all possible styles ( as opposed to just the styles in that subset). The winning judge is the one who identifies the most styles. Ties would cause subsequent taste off rounds. Now for #2 you might think it a no brainer to tell Stouts from Pale Ale, but in a range of styles Steam Beer can be similar to Oktoberfest, Porter to Stout or Continental Dark, etc... Sometimes certain brands within a style demonstrate the reasonable variation of that styles definition, and because of this variation there can be some overlap or fuzzy area between styles. So in #2 you will likely have easy rounds and tough ones dependent on the subset selection. However my thinking is that #2 is a little better geared to gauging the knowledge of what the various styles are than #1. #1 demonstrates a raw ability to memorize and detect particular characteristics within a beer, and subtleties amongst them, but IMHO approach #2 is a broader measure of beer judging skills and is more appropriate toward facing off among BJCP judges. I am going to forward a copy of this message to my local brew club discussion group and perhaps we can set up a session and hold this judge off and report back. If folks are interested, maybe we could talk to the AHA about setting something like this up for the Portland Conference, assuming some rules can be worked out, entry fee to cover costs set, and prizes for the winners solicited. Then Chuck Cox may be the World's fastest Beer Judge, but will he be the best?? :-) :-) :-) JaH -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat Feb 20 03:50:06 1993 From: Victor Reijs Subject: temperature change of beer/wine in bottles Hello all of you, I read in a book about tasting wines (La degustation, Connaitre et comprendre le vin, G. Fribourg, C. Sarfati), that the temprature is very important in tasting. Even a change of a degree Centegrade can change the taste sensation. So when having a beer/wine tasting fair the temperature of the wine/beer poured in the tasting glasses is very important. If the temperature of the room is 19 degrees Centigrade and the wine/beer is just brought in at 4 to 10 degrees centigrade, then the taste sensation will become very dependant of the time/temperature. My question of you is, what is the time needed to increase the beer/wine temperature in a bottle from say 4 to 19 degrees centigrade? If somebody have some formulae, please provide it. I also would like to know the time for the standard beer and wine bottles. Thanks for your help, All the best, Victor -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat Feb 20 03:50:06 1993 From: uunet!joebloe.maple-shade.nj.us!joseph (Joseph Nathan Hall) Subject: Jay's Judge-Off How about: 3) Name that flavor. Give the judge some doctored beers. Judges should at least be able to recognize some common flavors/defects by name ... ethyl acetate, acetaldehyde, etc. For whatever reason, the lack of a formal flavor recognition requirement in the judging program and the subsequent general lack of this quantitative experience among most judges below the National level worries me most. Judging the quality of homebrew may well be a qualitative process, but I can't help but think it would be more repeatable if analysis were somewhat more profile-oriented. As you may know, profiles are frequently a more reliable way of distinguishing beers than side-by-side tests, particularly when there are several judges involved. In commercial testing, differences that are below the threshold of many tasters still show up in statistical analyses of profiles. Obviously this involves more than a small panel of judges but .... I find the list of descriptors with check boxes on the National judging sheets to be a little strange. Why are there so many omissions? Why are they just check boxes and not at least ranges (like none/ faint/moderate/strong)? What is anyone to make of a box like "bitter?" Was it TOO bitter? Or just right? Personally I like Eckhardt's grouping of descriptive terms into (mostly) favorable and (mostly) unfavorable. Certainly profiles are not needed if you merely want to determine whether a brew is a good example of its style. Either it strongly resembles P-U or MacAndrews or Chimay, or it doesn't. But this is not the primary purpose of the judging process. Judges with "squishy" experience and qualifications are still valuable to the program. Better repeatability, though, would be very helpful in the higher level contests. I have seen piles of National contest sheets where it seems obvious that in some particular categories (Belgian ale comes to mind) there is no easy consensus on scoring (15-20 point spread on one beer). Among other things, perhaps some experienced judges and tasters could score some commercial brews and make the results a "standard" for newer judges. I am aware the variability in samples, etc. as well as personal preferences could make this difficult, but I don't think that a "tiger team" of, for example, lambic tasters would have any trouble scoring a half dozen commercial examples consistently after some initial discussion. Notes and detailed profiles would provide invaluable training aids for less experienced judges. Finally, let me note that I am not in the BJCP at this time, though I expect to be active in it very shortly. I do have a fair bit of tasting experience and am looking forward to applying it productively in the near future ... consider this all hot air if you like, but I'd like to hear your comments. ================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 1993 by Joseph N. Hall. Permission granted to copy and redistribute freely over USENET and by email. Commercial use prohibited. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat Feb 20 03:50:06 1993 From: "Rad Equipment" Subject: Re: JudgeNet Digest #548 (Fe Reply to: RE>JudgeNet Digest #548 (Feb 1 Hmmm... Jay's idea is certainly interesting. I would be in favor of such a exercise if it were to follow his #2 scenario. I have long thought that judges should ultimately be certified by style rather than only as an overall judge. We all have styles which we feel more comfortable with as well as styles which we either detest or are totally ignorant of. I can see a lot of benefit in running through a flight of beers and having to identify their style. Even if the competition aspect were dropped, I think the idea is worth investigating as a evaluation of a judge's ability. The Brits ask prospective judges to evaluate a flight of beers (maybe two) and correctly rank the top 4 beers as such relative to the "expert panel" which has pre-judged the same flight(s). The judge need not get the order of rank correct as long as the top 4 beers are the same. The system has a lot of merit in my mind as it better determines the ability of judges to pick out the best beers. Coupling this with our own commentary sheets on the beers, which helps to evaluate the judge's ability to identify problems or specific characteristics could be a more accurate means of rating a palate. Perhaps the BJCP could organize a "style ID taste off" in Portland. I don't know what the schedule is like yet so I don't know if there is a block of time which would lend itself to this. Possibly there could be an ongoing or progression of evaluations which would last all week, elimination rounds if you like, culminating in a final panel on Friday AM. Now you have me thinking Jay... RW... -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sun Feb 21 04:31:07 1993 From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: Judge-Off I like the Judge-Off idea, and will gladly help set something up. Here are some thoughts: 1) How about speed judging? See who can correctly identify the most styles in 60 seconds. 2) It should definitely involve a high-speed driving section. After all, I have to have some kind of advantage. Perhaps add your best lap time at a local track to the time required to correctly identify 8 beers. Some safety weenie will probably insist that the driving should be before the judging. 3) It should NOT be an official event. I think we need some organizational flexibility at first. Once we get an idea of how fun/popular/hassle-free/reasonable this event is, we can consider handing it over to the BJCP. Trying to get the AHA to include it in the conference is certainly more trouble than its worth. There are already some 'underground' sessions being planned, lets just add this in. - -- Chuck Cox Make: Don't know how to make sense. Stop. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Feb 23 05:14:12 1993 From: uunet!sstcx1.lanl.gov!reeves (Geoff Reeves) Subject: Re: JudgeNet Digest #549 (Feb 20, 1993) > >I find the list of descriptors with check boxes on the National judging >sheets to be a little strange. Why are there so many omissions? >Why are they just check boxes and not at least ranges (like none/ >faint/moderate/strong)? What is anyone to make of a box like "bitter?" >Was it TOO bitter? Or just right? Personally I like Eckhardt's grouping >of descriptive terms into (mostly) favorable and (mostly) unfavorable. > I regard the check boxes to the left on the judging forms to be a glossary. They do not substitute for accurate comments by the numerical scores. But if I write "Too bitter" then I check the "bitter" box so that the brewer knows what I mean by "bitter". Of course bitter is not the best example. But if I write "DMS" the brewer may not know what I mean or even if it is good or bad. Hence the glossary. +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Geoff Reeves: Space Science Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory | | reeves at sstcx1.lanl.gov or essdp2::reeves (span) | | Phone (505) 665-3877 | | Fax (505) 665-4414 | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | A brewery is like a toothbrush. Everyone should have their own. | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Feb 23 05:14:12 1993 From: uunet!cygnus.ta52.lanl.gov!mlh (Michael L. Hall) Subject: Warming up bottles for judging Victor Reijs says: > My question of you is, what is the time needed to increase the beer/wine > temperature in a bottle from say 4 to 19 degrees centigrade? If somebody have > some formulae, please provide it. I also would like to know the time for the > standard beer and wine bottles. This is really a much harder question to answer theoretically than one might think. The things that are hard to consider properly are: 1. The air flow in the room (forced or natural convection), 2. Natural convection within the bottle, 3. The heat transfer coefficient from the bottle to the air, 4. Conduction through the bottle glass, 5. The actual surroundings (did you leave the beer in a sixpack of other cold beers or take it out and separate it?), 6. Bottle shape (longneck or Anchor-type bottle), and, the big one, 7. Heat transfer due to condensation on the outside of the bottle, which depends on the humidity of the air. My suggestion is to determine it empirically. Take a bottle out of the fridge, stick a thermometer in it and take measurements at regular intervals. You could use a bad beer for this, as the results from BudMilCoors should be similar to those from most other beers. Heavier beers may differ slightly. To gain greater accuracy, you could open a new bottle for every measurement (take out one beer, wait five minutes, take a reading, take out another beer, wait ten minutes, take a reading, etc.), but this would use up more beer. Hope this helps, Mike Hall Thermohydraulic Nut -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Feb 23 05:14:12 1993 From: Jay Hersh Subject: Re: JudgeOff Thanks to Joseph Hall for some very good feedback on this idea. We have considered doing Judge profiles, (ie each judge gets a range of samples in order to determine their sensistivity level to the various substances), but have balked so far since it is a lot of work to do the prepaparation for so many samples. Your idea of testing judges ability to identify constituent components using the Dr. Beer approach is good. One potential drawback of course is that the proper levels for these components to be detectable varies with reference beers, and what amounts to use as truly representative of a wide range of tasters is unknown. For example, if we choose too low an amount, an judge who is very senstitive to that substance will pick it up, and possibly also identify it correctly. However the amount chosen may be below some "average" threshold for humans and so we have thus presented an advantage for that item to the person very sensitive to it. However that doesn't mean the same person is very sensitive to everything, and in fact may be only an average detector of other substances, perhaps below average, so we may in this respect have skewed the competition to that individual. The sort of global problem with this approach is that the chosen substances are "niches" in a true flavor profile, and by using this as a single metric effects of flavor symbiosis (where 2 flavors create a different sensation in combination than they do in isolation) are not possible. All that having been said, it would seem that a multi-part competition where such a "niche" judging is one component, begins to make more sense. BTW Joe, hope we'll be seeing you volunteer for the First Round Nationals (as apprentice judge/steward if you're not in the BJCP or judge if you take the test before June). As indicated in my prior message please contact Bob to insure you'll receive our mailing. Russ' idea of certification by style sounds interesting, my only concern is it already costs $35 to get certified, imagine if you had to take a per style test... Ouch, my wallet hurts thinking about it. >Now you have me thinking Jay... yow, we know how dangerous that can be.... interested in what you're cooking up out there.... keep us posted. Jay -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Feb 23 05:14:12 1993 From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: Re: JudgeOff Jay Hersh sez... > > Thanks to Joseph Hall for some very good feedback on this idea. > We have considered doing Judge profiles, (ie each judge gets a range > of samples in order to determine their sensistivity level to the various > substances), but have balked so far since it is a lot of work to > do the prepaparation for so many samples. When I took my first certification exam (in early 1986 I think), Pat Baker included a flavor perception threshold test which was included in the overall score. He had six or so different flavors in three concentrations. We were supposed to identify the flavors and rank them according to strength. The idea was to help judges identify their weak spots, and discourage poor palates. The threshold test was eliminated pretty quickly. I think Pat said it was too much work for marginally useful results. - -- Chuck Cox Make: Don't know how to make sense. Stop. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Feb 24 05:49:45 1993 From: uunet!mta.ca!AGRANT (ANDREW GRANT) Subject: RE: Warming up bottles for judging Simple question, I hope, But why is there a need to warm up the bottles in the first place. if needed what kinda of temperature is required for good beer? Thanks, - --Andrew -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Feb 24 05:49:45 1993 From: uunet!joebloe.maple-shade.nj.us!joseph (Joseph Nathan Hall) Subject: Re: JudgeNet Digest #551 (Feb 23, 1993) > >I find the list of descriptors with check boxes on the National judging > >sheets to be a little strange. Why are there so many omissions? [etc] > > I regard the check boxes to the left on the judging forms to be a glossary. > They do not substitute for accurate comments by the numerical scores. > [...] This makes a certain amount of sense, though I think that in this case the boxes are too few. What is their official use? Let me ask some questions in particular about the system used to score the Nationals. How do you rate "appearance"? It seems to me that this is an automatic 5-6 points for a beer that is clear, appropriately carbonated and the right color. How do you rate "flavor" for a beer that is obviously infected? I have now sipped many infected, weird-tasting beers at our local club meetings (for one). Most of the folks there are newbies and feel these brews are drinkable or better. I, on the other hand, find them pretty close to wretched. Personally I would tend to give a beer that was significantly thin/sour/astringent/sulfury/etc. from 0 to 5 points for flavor, give beers that were more or less clean from 6-13, give rate clean beer in style higher. > Thanks to Joseph Hall for some very good feedback on this idea. > We have considered doing Judge profiles, (ie each judge gets a range > of samples in order to determine their sensistivity level to the various > substances), but have balked so far since it is a lot of work to > do the prepaparation for so many samples. I'm not so sure that judges need to be rated on their flavor thresholds (though I have known some drinkers whose palates were pretty dull). It would be nice, though, if they all knew what loads-O-fusel smelled like, all the permutations of sulfury odors, what ethyl acetate, bubblegum, banana, etc., taste like in beer. To do this a combination of Dr. Beer and tasting both homebrew as well as prototypical and extreme commercial brews is required. Personally I think that for favorable or neutral flavors the way to go is to find commercial brews that happen to have those characteristics. Of course the most important thing is a sense of style. If someone can't tell that Stoudt Doppelbock doesn't really taste like doppelbock then he's useless as a judge, even if through some fortunate accident of genetics he can tell 1- from 2-octanol. > Your idea of testing judges ability to identify constituent components > using the Dr. Beer approach is good. One potential drawback of course > is that the proper levels for these components to be detectable varies with > reference beers, and what amounts to use as truly representative of a > wide range of tasters is unknown. Again, I would doctor at high levels and not worry about who can taste what at low levels. > The sort of global problem with this approach is that the chosen substances are > "niches" in a true flavor profile, and by using this as a single metric > effects of flavor symbiosis (where 2 flavors create a different sensation in > combination than they do in isolation) are not possible. Very true, but the ability to pick out component flavors is essential if judges are to work by profile. I don't mean 1 flavor = 1 chemical, but the ability to recognize the distinctive flavors of certain chemicals suggests the ability to appreciate all beer flavors in detail. The nice thing about working from profiles is that it greatly improves your ability to judge a style even if your memory of the flavor isn't that fresh. "Ahh. Malty, diacetyl, amber, no hops bouquet, mouthfeel light, hoppy as hell in the finish. Must be Old Brewery Pale Ale!" > All that having been said, it would seem that a multi-part competition > where such a "niche" judging is one component, begins to make more sense. It would be fun. It would be immensely educational. Judges should meet for tastings and/or other "practice" type activities regularly. I don't propose to test and rank judges, but I would like to see them (including me!) exposed to a wide and somewhat standardized array of beers and other tasting activities. > BTW Joe, hope we'll be seeing you volunteer for the First Round Nationals > (as apprentice judge/steward if you're not in the BJCP or judge if you > take the test before June). As indicated in my prior message please contact > Bob to insure you'll receive our mailing. The name is Joseph, but I'm sure you won't make that mistake again. :-) No problem. How I will find time to get up to New York I don't know but I will certainly try to make myself available. Unless I have some kind of brain injury in the next three weeks (before the exam) I will officially be a newbie Recognized Judge by that time. On another topic, apparently last year there was a NJ state fair contest. A fellow mentioned to me a while ago that there is a need for a coordinator this year. I might be interested in doing this. Does anyone out there have any information for me? > Russ' idea of certification by style sounds interesting, my only concern is it > already costs $35 to get certified, imagine if you had to take a per style > test... Ouch, my wallet hurts thinking about it. Definitely there are judges out there who need to be "trained" in some of the more extreme styles. How about a kinder, gentler approach than all this testing, testing, testing. Figure out what the problem styles are (Belgian, for one). Require that anyone who judges these styles sit down beforehand with several other judges and/or qualified personnel and taste and discuss commercial examples, as well as any worthwhile homebrewed examples handy. A dated sheet of names and signatures indicates enough "experience" to begin judging these beers. Sorry to be such a windbag, but it's nice to have some discussion going on in here for a change! ================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 1993 by Joseph N. Hall. Permission granted to copy and redistribute freely over USENET and by email. Commercial use prohibited. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Feb 25 16:12:23 1993 From: Victor Reijs Subject: Re: warming up of bottles ==> From: JudgeNet > This is really a much harder question to answer theoretically than one > might think. The things that are hard to consider properly are: > > 1. The air flow in the room (forced or natural convection), > 2. Natural convection within the bottle, > 3. The heat transfer coefficient from the bottle to the air, > 4. Conduction through the bottle glass, > 5. The actual surroundings (did you leave the beer in a sixpack > of other cold beers or take it out and separate it?), > 6. Bottle shape (longneck or Anchor-type bottle), > > and, the big one, > > 7. Heat transfer due to condensation on the outside of the > bottle, which depends on the humidity of the air. Oke, point 2, 3, 4 and 6 are quiet determined. I assume that you in US also only accept certain bottle during a competition. So these variables are almost always the same (we in the NEtherlands except two kind of bottles: the Grols bottle [which has the nice stopper], the standardized pils bottle within our country and the white bourdeau type of bottle for fruit wines). The other point I whould like to take the most common (or the worst for the warming up process). There is only natural convection, and the bottles are standing like in our competions (so in some 3 thick and some 15 bottle long [this is for fruitwines]). About point 6, I would like to ask you. What is the effect of this condensation, does it lower the bottle temperature faster or will it decrease temperature? > > My suggestion is to determine it empirically. Take a bottle out of the > fridge, stick a thermometer in it and take measurements at regular > intervals. You could use a bad beer for this, as the results from I will do this for our standard beer bottle and wine bottle. The results I will send over list. (I will place 9 bottles of water in a square, and measure the temperature of the middle bottle and one on the outside). All the best, Victor -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Feb 25 16:12:23 1993 From: Victor Reijs Subject: Re: warming up bottles ==> From: JudgeNet > Simple question, I hope, But why is there a need to warm up > the bottles in the first place. if needed what kinda of temperature is > required for good beer? > > Thanks, > - --Andrew > Hello Andrew, First of all, my main interest is wine. So most of the time one drinks the wine at room temperature. Furthermore at the Dutch competitions, the wines and beers are just standing in the competition room (some 50 beers and 1000 fruitwine bottles). The temperature of these bottles is not known (depending of the time of travel, refriging, etc.). Because temperature is so important for tasting (irregardless of what), it is important to drink all the items at the SAME temperature (irregardless of what temperature). If the beer is not refrigerated during tasting, and the first beer is drunk at 4 degrees centigrade and the room is some 19 degrees centigrade, then I am certain that the rest of the beers will be higher in temperature (and that influences the taste...). I have the idea that some hour at 19 degrees centigrade, all beers/wines will also be at temperature. But I am going to measure it;-) I hope this explains my question. All the best, Victor -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Feb 25 16:12:23 1993 From: "Rad Equipment" Subject: Certification by Style Subject: Certification by Style Time:7:36 AM Date:2/24/93 >>Russ' idea of certification by style sounds interesting, my only >>concern is it already costs $35 to get certified, imagine if you >>had to take a per style test... Ouch, my wallet hurts thinking >>about it. >Definitely there are judges out there who need to be "trained" in >some of the more extreme styles. How about a kinder, gentler approach >than all this testing, testing, testing. Figure out what the problem >styles are (Belgian, for one). Require that anyone who judges these >styles sit down beforehand with several other judges and/or qualified >personnel and taste and discuss commercial examples, as well as any >worthwhile homebrewed examples handy. A dated sheet of names and >signatures indicates enough "experience" to begin judging these beers. I wasn't necessarily intending to add financial burden or formal examination to the existing system. In fact, I hadn't thought out a means for determining one's ability to judge specific styles. I . I don't expect that style certification will be adopted anytime soon. It is probably too narrow a focus to be worked into the current program. I just don't think that a beer judge needs to be proficient in all styles to be a good judge, provided the judge recognizes this in his or her own abilities. RW... Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu - CI$: 72300,61) UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / 474-8126 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Feb 25 16:12:23 1993 From: Jay Hersh Subject: Re: JudgeOff >I'm not so sure that judges need to be rated on their flavor >thresholds (though I have known some drinkers whose palates were pretty >dull). It would be nice, though, if they all knew what loads-O-fusel >smelled like, all the permutations of sulfury odors, what ethyl acetate, >bubblegum, banana, etc., taste like in beer. To do this a combination >of Dr. Beer and tasting both homebrew as well as prototypical and >extreme commercial brews is required. The rating of judges on their flavor thresholds was never proposed as anything "official" we were considering doing it as a "for your own gratification" type of thing. Since we have done Dr. Beer sessions here many times over the years some folks have noted that there are certain substances that they are blind to at levels that others tasted them at. We have always solicited feedback from everyone (as I did in Milwaukee) along the 3 Bears principle (too little, too much, just right). In the past we found that while a majority said just right, some were still not detecting. We thought that profiling in this manner would tell us if folks were blind to that flavor or just poor detectors. Many people were interested in finding out for themselves what their thresholds were. As I said we have yet to do this since we don't know a few things such as what median to start with (we actually probably do have a better guess at this now from a few years of Dr. Beer sessions), what steps to use for each substance, and where minimum and maximum levels shuold be. As you can see, if we do this for 3 samples, and do 6 levels of each sample and we get the step and min and max wrong, we've basically wasted everything. Then we have to try again.... So the trial and error approach to getting this right for all 10-12 samples we use will likely be time consuming. We can probably do some research into this and get a better starting point but right now I'm bogged down preparing the competition.. >I don't propose to test and rank judges, but I would like to see them >(including me!) exposed to a wide and somewhat standardized array >of beers and other tasting activities. Well I don't know about any kind of ranking. I wasn't proposing this as a ranking system. Just as a competition, along the lines of how it is apparently done for the sake judges in Japan. So a winner and perhaps a few runners up would be named, but it wouldn't be any kind of comprehensive ranking since it is strictly limited to whoever entered, as opposed to some more official program where some score was delineated and some ranking issued. > Unless I have >some kind of brain injury in the next three weeks (before the exam) >I will officially be a newbie Recognized Judge by that time. Which reminds me that there are a fair number of tests in between now and June and I must get the AHA to provide me upgrades so our mailings go to the most up to date list. If anyone out there is taking and proctoring BJCP tests between now and the end of May can you please contact me. Thanks. >Definitely there are judges out there who need to be "trained" in >some of the more extreme styles. How about a kinder, gentler approach >than all this testing, testing, testing. Figure out what the problem >styles are (Belgian, for one). Require that anyone who judges these >styles sit down beforehand with several other judges and/or qualified >personnel and taste and discuss commercial examples, as well as any >worthwhile homebrewed examples handy. A dated sheet of names and >signatures indicates enough "experience" to begin judging these beers. At least in New England the most active judges know each other pretty well and we're starting to get a feel for people's capabilites. However it might be a good idea to coordinate with competition organizers and keep a registry of who has judged which styles, at least in a given region. For the AHA Competition we're planning on relying on self selection (asking the judges which categories they're qualified to judge). This will probably work out OK... JaH -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Feb 25 16:12:23 1993 From: uunet!iepubj.att.com!korz Subject: Re: warming bottles/judge-off Andrew writes; > Simple question, I hope, But why is there a need to warm up >the bottles in the first place. if needed what kinda of temperature is >required for good beer? Usually, at competitions, we must do with existing facilities. When holding a 1000 beer competition (like the first round, the only places that have enough room for all those beers are microbreweries, brewpubs or large liquor stores. Alas, usually the walk-in coolers at these places are at 40F or 35F even! Much too cold for virtually any beer style. The correct serving temperatures for ales are generally 50F to 55F and for lagers, generally 45 to 50F. At the first round in Chicago, we had buckets of icewater near the tables and the stewards did a fantastic job of pulling several beers just far enough ahead of our judging them so they were at the right temperature. We were lucky enough to have good stewards -- perhaps if you weren't in your region, you might want to enlist stewards early on and train them properly. Beers reserved for temperature checking (with thermometers in stoppers in the bottles) really help get the temps right. Joseph writes: >> >I find the list of descriptors with check boxes on the National judging >> >sheets to be a little strange. Why are there so many omissions? [etc] >> >> I regard the check boxes to the left on the judging forms to be a glossary. >> They do not substitute for accurate comments by the numerical scores. >> [...] >This makes a certain amount of sense, though I think that in this >case the boxes are too few. What is their official use? None, as far as I can tell. They are a carryover from the previous sheets which were only 4.25" x 5.5" and had the boxes and flavors *without* the explanations. > >Let me ask some questions in particular about the system used to score >the Nationals. > >How do you rate "appearance"? It seems to me that this is an automatic >5-6 points for a beer that is clear, appropriately carbonated and the >right color. Appropriate carbonation is scored in the flavor section (under conditioning). Appropriate head retention *is* in the appearance section. Yes, I usually give the brewer 4 or 5 and only give a 6 if it's perfect in color, clarity and head retention. >How do you rate "flavor" for a beer that is obviously infected? I >have now sipped many infected, weird-tasting beers at our local club I try my best to taste them anyway. In the last 6 competitions I've judged at, I've only had one unjudgable beer and that was a gusher -- it was so infected with Lactobacillus or Pediococcus that nearby tables could smell the lactic acid. We promptly had it brought out of the room. >meetings (for one). Most of the folks there are newbies and feel >these brews are drinkable or better. I, on the other hand, find them >pretty close to wretched. Personally I would tend to give a beer >that was significantly thin/sour/astringent/sulfury/etc. from 0 to >5 points for flavor, give beers that were more or less clean from >6-13, give rate clean beer in style higher. I think you may be right on the significantly bad beers, but maybe a bit too generous on the "more or less clean" beers. I've only scored *two* beers in the last 6 competitions in the 40s and they were much better (IMO) than any commercial examples of the style. >> Thanks to Joseph Hall for some very good feedback on this idea. >> We have considered doing Judge profiles, (ie each judge gets a range >> of samples in order to determine their sensistivity level to the various >> substances), but have balked so far since it is a lot of work to >> do the prepaparation for so many samples. > >I'm not so sure that judges need to be rated on their flavor >thresholds (though I have known some drinkers whose palates were pretty >dull). It would be nice, though, if they all knew what loads-O-fusel >smelled like, all the permutations of sulfury odors, what ethyl acetate, >bubblegum, banana, etc., taste like in beer. To do this a combination >of Dr. Beer and tasting both homebrew as well as prototypical and >extreme commercial brews is required. > >Personally I think that for favorable or neutral flavors the way to >go is to find commercial brews that happen to have those characteristics. I think that's a good idea -- it also puts a typical amount of the flavor in the beer rather than some contrived level. > >Of course the most important thing is a sense of style. If someone >can't tell that Stoudt Doppelbock doesn't really taste like doppelbock >then he's useless as a judge, even if through some fortunate accident >of genetics he can tell 1- from 2-octanol. Right on! >> Russ' idea of certification by style sounds interesting, my only concern is it >> already costs $35 to get certified, imagine if you had to take a per style >> test... Ouch, my wallet hurts thinking about it. > >Definitely there are judges out there who need to be "trained" in >some of the more extreme styles. How about a kinder, gentler approach >than all this testing, testing, testing. Figure out what the problem >styles are (Belgian, for one). Require that anyone who judges these >styles sit down beforehand with several other judges and/or qualified >personnel and taste and discuss commercial examples, as well as any >worthwhile homebrewed examples handy. A dated sheet of names and >signatures indicates enough "experience" to begin judging these beers. Sounds good. Personally, I'd like to have it that judges be certified for particular styles, but agree that it's probably not feasable. As more and more judges become more experienced, I think we'll have less problems. It should be up to the judges themselves and the coordinators to *make sure* that there's at least one judge who really knows the category in the flight. I've turned down the opprotunity to judge styles that I felt uncomfortable with (it really helps to know in advance which styles you will be judging so you can brush-up) and luckily the coordinators I've worked with have stuck with me on these decisions. I've both benefitted and got shafted from the problem of inexperienced judges. To a recent competition, I sent two Belgian ales (a style in which I feel I'm a competent judge, by the way) a Chimay clone and an Orval clone. The Chimay clone was way-full of some nasty higher alcohols and tasted to me like Bug and Tar remover. I sent it to solicit comments and suggestions, not to win anything. The Orval clone, I thought, was almost a perfect copy right down to the excessive foaming upon pouring (I cultured the yeast right from an Orval bottle -- with great difficulty I might add). The Orval was deemed infected, it was given a 17 or 18 and I was instructed to change my yeast. I immediately poured myself one and checked their assesment -- it became obvious to me that neither had ever tasted Orval. The Chimay-clone one 1st place in Belgian ales. I checked the experience level of the two judges -- one was Recognized, the other Apprentice. I plan to bring a bottle of the Chimay-clone to the next CBS meeting and have some National judges see if I'm right or those two judges are. Al. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat Feb 27 05:16:02 1993 From: Victor Reijs Subject: testing the judge ability Hello all of you, I see that a lot message concern the judge testing. Do people have read the book: "How to test and improve your wine judging ability"? It is a book about tasting wine, but all of the describe test are also for beer possible.. THe writer is H. Marcus, Davis, California, 1984. The test describe are, I think, important for doing it in an open atmosphere (in the amature judging environment). It is the talking about tasting which is very important when determine an even idea about the sensations. I do not know if it is important for descriminating judges (certainly not in the amature environment). All the best, Victor -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat Feb 27 05:16:02 1993 From: uunet!galt.b17d.ingr.com!raudins (Glenn Raudins) Subject: Certification & Al's beers Russ writes: >I wasn't necessarily intending to add financial burden or formal examination to >the existing system. In fact, I hadn't thought out a means for determining >one's ability to judge specific styles. I . I don't expect that style >certification will be adopted anytime soon. It is probably too narrow a focus >to be worked into the current program. I just don't think that a beer judge >needs to be proficient in all styles to be a good judge, provided the judge >recognizes this in his or her own abilities. I agree with Russ on this. I feel I would be qualified to judge areas such as stout or belgian ales (not browns though) but would not be qualified to judge Lambics, though I love them. Until there is a larger number of judges, it would be impossible to limit the program in this manner unfortunately. Though, back to the original subject. I have been looking at working on finding the "blind spots" in my palette. There was a good article in the New Brewer (the one about brewing light beers.) It provided some good info on allowing people to see how certain flavors (diacetyl for one) change the overall flavor of the beer. (Sorry, if this was mentioned before but I missed a few issues during a corporate move.) They mention a compound from Aldritch (sp?). Does anyone have a number for this place and do they sell to individuals? > The Orval clone, > I thought, was almost a perfect copy right down to the excessive foaming > upon pouring (I cultured the yeast right from an Orval bottle -- with > great difficulty I might add). The Orval was deemed infected, it was Sorry to hear about this Al! It does sound like your judges had NEVER (read not even once) had an Orval. (A love of mine.) Though, I can see how they would have thought that. If you ever have need to get rid of some of those infected Orvals, let me know. :-) Glenn Raudins raudins at galt.b17d.ingr.com --------------------------------------