From JudgeNet Sat Jul 3 02:52:53 1993 From: Jim Busch Subject: Judging HefeWeizens A question to generate discussion amoung the BJCP netters: You are judging HefeWeizens. You decide the beer has great flavor and aroma profiles, very reminicint of a Paulaner Hefe. You want to score it well. Your fellow judges complain that it is too clear for a hefe and not as highly carbonated as a hefe "should" be. The group argues, and settles on a score of 38/50. Is there anything wrong with this picture? Jim Busch -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sun Jul 4 02:14:15 1993 From: "Roger Deschner " Subject: Re: Judging Hefeweizen Well, whether we agree with them or not, you've got to judge according to the published AHA style guidelines, because that is what the brewers have been told they will be judged by. They say "Highly effervescent. Cloudiness OK." (There has been a recent trend among competition organizers to provide each judge with a photocopy of the AHA Style Guidelines - a trend which I applaud.) This beer, then, could be downrated only for being too flat. Clarity is not a defect, because it only says "Cloudiness OK" - it does not say "Must be cloudy". Furthermore, the "Traditional Beer Styles" special issue of Zymurgy, upon which the AHA style guidelines were allegedly based, says "many breweries add lager yeast to the priming because it clears the beer better." So a clear weizen would appear to be an infrequently reached goal, rather than a defect. My score: 41. Only defect noted: inadequate carbonation, which would cost (a small number of) points in each of the "appearance", "flavor", and "overall" scores on the score sheet. Might only score a 4 for "body" since a flat beer can sometimes be percieved as being too full-bodied. The other problem with this picture is the lack of constructive comment. What went wrong with this almost-great beer? In my comments, I would say: "Remarkably clear. Not a defect, but possibly a symptom. Was this beer filtered? If so, it is possible that it was filtered too aggressively, and nothing was left to generate carbonation at priming. Try adding a little lager yeast at priming, as some German weiss bereweries do." A procedural problem here is that it was probably unnecessary to argue in the first place. If the individual judges can be persuaded to come within 5 points of one another, then that's all that's necessary. Agree to disagree 5 points apart. The three judges could score 41-36-37, give the beer a 38, each go away with their opinions intact, and that would be fine. - Roger Deschner -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sun Jul 4 02:14:15 1993 From: Steve Dempsey Subject: Re: Judging HefeWeizens >You are judging HefeWeizens. Assuming that this is a regional competition that has decided to create and define such a subcategory. The current AHA styles only generalize the German-style Weizen/Weissbier. >You decide the beer has great flavor and >aroma profiles, very reminicint of a Paulaner Hefe. You want to score >it well. Your fellow judges complain that it is too clear for a hefe >and not as highly carbonated as a hefe "should" be. The group argues, >and settles on a score of 38/50. I'd say the beer *should* be clear until you stir up the yeast dregs and pour some into your glass. I think too many wheat beers come out with protein and starch haze from incomplete processing of the wheat malt, and that this is a technical fault. The cloudiness comes from the yeast in a Hefe. The other pale styles (Berliner, Kristall) are quite clear. Conditioning is always very high in these beers. I find that many commercial bottles nearly gush. But the beer should not explode into so much froth upon every sip; it should be crisp and thirst- quenching. My preference is for about 2.5-3.0 volumes CO2; this is near the level of most commercial american pilsener/premium beers, and makes the beer more slammable (an important factor occasionally overlooked during judging :-). And Warner says the range is 2.8-5.1 volumes, which goes from bright to explosive. >Is there anything wrong with this picture? If you want to go by point recommendations from the score sheet, clarity is worth 2 (the above described beer should not be penalized) and conditioning is worth 2; and if conditioning is poor, head retention might suffer as well, so maybe drop it 3. If aroma, flavor, and body were otherwise perfect, overall impression is worth 10 so you could theoretically score zero there and give the beer a 47. But no judge is likely to do this. You might knock off a couple of points each in flavor and overall impression; I'd expect a higher score, probably low to mid 40s. If the beer had the right level of conditioning, it might be mid to high 40s. But I have not tasted the beer in question (sigh) and can't say exactly what my score would have been. ================================ Engineering Network Services Steve Dempsey Colorado State University steved at longs.lance.colostate.edu Fort Collins, CO 80523 ================================ +1 303 491 0630 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sun Jul 4 02:14:15 1993 From: jdg at cyberspace.org (Josh Grosse) Subject: Re: JudgeNet Digest #601 (Jul 03, 1993) Jim Busch poses an academic question: > You are judging HefeWeizens. You decide the beer has great flavor and > aroma profiles, very reminicint of a Paulaner Hefe. You want to score > it well. Your fellow judges complain that it is too clear for a hefe > and not as highly carbonated as a hefe "should" be. The group argues, > and settles on a score of 38/50. > > Is there anything wrong with this picture? You bet. The difference between the two scores is *12*. I was given to understand that differences should be no more than *7*. Were I one of the judges on this team, I would discuss rather than argue, and try to find a way to consensus. I'd ask a less experienced judge to consider the 12 point gap, and ask how the points allocated to clarity and carbonation add up to 12? I'd suggest that it's possible the judge let his dislike of those two features to skew his overall impression downward too far. I'd call for the Zymurgy special issue on style. I'd ask if the organizers have Eckhardt's book handy. I'd also reconsider my own 50 as being too high, and consider compromising downward if the other judge would consider compromising upward. I'd defer to more experienced judges at other tables for assistance in finding a solution, and I'd defer to the competition organizers for their recommendation. It may also be moot: our disagreement on this beer may not change it's ranking within the flight. If the other judge were more experienced than I, I'd probably describe how the carbonation and clarity match my own experience with Paulaner and Hacker-Pschorr, and ask for additional input as to their complaint. I'd also wonder why I'm scoring it a 50 in the first place. THAT's never happened to me before! -Josh Grosse, just a Recognized judge- - ----------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Grosse jdg at grex.cyberspace.org Ann Arbor, Michigan -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sun Jul 4 02:14:15 1993 From: WESTEMEIER at delphi.com Subject: Re: Judging HefeWeizens Jim Busch asks: >You are judging HefeWeizens. You decide the beer has great flavor and >aroma profiles, very reminicint of a Paulaner Hefe. You want to score >it well. Your fellow judges complain that it is too clear for a hefe >and not as highly carbonated as a hefe "should" be. The group argues, >and settles on a score of 38/50. > >Is there anything wrong with this picture? I think I see what he's getting at. The carbonation level and the clarity each account for two points out of 50. Assuming the beer has some of the appropriate characteristics of each, it might lost one from each section. The rest is purely subjective. With so many of the 50 available points coming from subjective rather than objective criteria, it all comes down to "how good is the judge, really?" I've observed some really poor judges, and one was National ranked. I've also seen some really terrific apprentices. My feeling is that we should do everything we possibly can to encourage better education and experience for judges, but at the end of the day it's just like going into a courtroom and facing the judge in the black robe. Some are good, others aren't. On the whole, it's a pretty good system. ++ Ed Westemeier Cincinnati, Ohio westemeier at delphi.com ++ -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Jul 7 02:00:35 1993 From: Jim Busch Subject: Weizen judging, continued Alright, a good selection of responses to my weizen inquiry. As some of you may have realized, this is the score that my Weizen received in this years first round AHA, of which my entries were judged in Kingston, NY. One of the really suprising results for me was this beers judging, in particular because I was a bit critical on the fullness of the beer, the OG only hitting 11.5 P, and yet the judges scoring on body was "right on". (it was pretty tasty). >From "Roger Deschner " : : Subject: Re: Jim B's Wheat Jim In a competition handling over 700 beers it is simply impossible to try to keep information like your on the bottle indication that it should be poured with the yeast. Along the same lines with up to 36 simultaneous panels judging it is also virtually impossible for 3 coordinators (one of whom is serving as cellar master) to micro manage the judges. In this case the problem clearly lies with category and subcategory breakdowns. Certainly their are 2 "substyles" within the weizen range, hefe and kristall will have different appearance. Of course this ends up counting for 2 of a possible 50 points if it gets scored wrong by the judges. So is this worth splitting the style into subcats?? I don't know. it would however be appropriate for the category description to at least delineate the possibilities. Since you seem to have complaints wrt how your beer was judged here I suggest you draft a modification of the style description as a proposal and send it to Karen Barella at the AHA. I believe that some review of the style descriptions will be performed by the National Homebrew Competition Committee this year. Last year the Committee was presented, quite at the last minute, with this years rules to review, and was explicitly told style descriptions were not eligible for review. Perhaps the situation will differ this year. Your writing a well thought out note might help further such a review. Finally please recall that with over 700 beers we had quite a task. We had 36 panels during session 1, and 27 or so in each of session 2 and 3. Despite the lack of 2nd bottles we used temporary caps provided by the AHA so we could recap contending beers from subcats and perform 2nd round judging (beers were stored in the walk in during the interim). Next year we anticipate going to a 2 bottle 1st round. Why is it necessary to do this?? Well almost every single category had over 15 beers. Since only the top 3 from each catgegory (not subcat!!) go on this meant that when a category had 27 beers it had to be judged by 2 panels. But using raw score to select winners was completely unconscienable to us as organizers. There is just no way to acheive that kind of consistency among judges. So contenders were selected and then reevaluated. The 2nd round panels consisted of only experienced judges. Another thing to keep in mind is that with so many panels think of how many judges we needed. A lot of the most experienced judges in the Northeast had other things to do that day apparently. Still we had over 40 judges at the certified or higher level. However with 36 panels to judge that meant using Recognized or even apprentice judges oppostie them. We were very careful to balance judges. This took hours, and because of a large number of no shows (see earlier discussions on this topic) a lot of reassigniong had to be done last minute. So it is real easy to belly ache because you feel your beer didn't get a fair shake. I challenge anyone with complaints to organize even a small competition. You'll see how truly difficult it is to do a good job. We have had almost exclusively positive comments about the job we did in Kingston. The ones that mean the most come from folks who have organized other copmeptitions. The negative comments come from folks belly aching about how their beer got scored. The fact is that competitions are and will always be somewhat of a crap shoot. Just about every body here in New England (where we have a long history of organized competitions) accepts that. You pay your money you take your chances. The BJCP has made tremendous strides in getting new judges into the program and educating them. However most of the folks I know in the program don't get to be really good until around the time they're becoming Nationally ranked. prior to that I think they struggle for competence. At least there is a minimum standard. To relate an anecdote. I had a Dunkel, a really good beer. It scored a 19 in Burlington Vermont, and one of the judges was the Registrar at Kingston and a Master ranked judge. This same Dunkel is going to the 2nd round of the Nationals after being passed on in Chicago. What went wrong in Vermont?? Bad bottle, mislabeled bottle, who knows?? It's a crap shoot. I howled, and no I can wax indignant haviong been vindicated. If I win a ribbon there are 2 judges out there who will never hear the end of it :-) The reality of organizing a competition is that it isn't a perfect system. There are lots of good beers usually. The criteria used to judge them are not perfect and the ability of the system to completely eliminate subjectivity is limited. The system is still evolving. Oh and just so you don't mistake me for an AHA apologist, ask just about anyone and they'll tell you I'm one of the AHAs most vocal critics. And I intend to continue to be. So many folks I know are pretty fed up with them. Unfortunately they are a top down, oligarchic organization. They have made some small steps to solicit feedback but they have done little to create a true membership based representative structure and empower it with decision making authority. Until they do so I'll be making noise and lobbying for suffrage. So please learn a lesson from all this. Your beer got as fair a judging as was possible. If the judging it got wasn't perfect you must help work to change the problems with the system that can be changed, and accept those that just can't be. Thanks, Jay Hersh Site Coordinator Kingston Site AHA 1st Round National Competition -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Jul 9 03:23:58 1993 From: Jim Busch Subject: Re: Whining about judging I get the impression that Jay took my comments personally. This was not the intention of generating a philosophical discussion on judging weizens. > Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1993 12:12:43 EDT > From: Jay Hersh > Subject: Re: Jim B's Wheat > > > Jim/via the digest > In a competition handling over 700 beers it is simply impossible to try to keep > information like your on the bottle indication that it should be poured with > the yeast. I didnt expect it to remain on the bottle. It was merely an attempt. > In this case the problem clearly lies with category and subcategory breakdowns. > Certainly their are 2 "substyles" within the weizen range, hefe and kristall > will have different appearance. Of course this ends up counting for 2 of a > possible 50 points if it gets scored wrong by the judges. So is this worth > splitting the style into subcats?? I don't know. it would however be > appropriate for the category description to at least delineate the > possibilities. Not only do they have different appearences, the flavor profiles are vastly changed as a result of pouring the yeast into the glass. Also, many Kristalls are filtered and as such have lower protein levels and corresponding body/ mouthfeel effects. It certainly accounted for more than 2 out of 50 points in my case, since body, flavor and overall impressions count for the bulk of the points. At any rate, how many kristalls are made by homebrewers??? I think the answer is very few, especially since mine got judged as a hefe despite the possibility of it being a kristall (which it was by the method of pouring). In fairness to whoever went to the second round in this category, I personally didnt expect this beer to go on, since I considered it a bit on the thin side, even if the judges didnt. > > Since you seem to have complaints wrt how your beer was judged here I suggest > you draft a modification of the style description as a proposal and send it to > Karen Barella at the AHA. I believe that some review of the style descriptions > will be performed by the National Homebrew Competition Committee this year. > Last year the Committee was presented, quite at the last minute, with this > years rules to review, and was explicitly told style descriptions were not > eligible for review. Perhaps the situation will differ this year. Your writing > a well thought out note might help further such a review. Great! I could write 10 pages on the subject matter! One of the major problems of AHA judging (IMHO) is this obsession with numbers vis a vis gravity and IBUs and SRMs. What would have happened if a Maisel Weizen clone were entered as a Hefe? Judges comments: Way too amber for a hefe, looks like a pale ale, with phenols of a weizen (Maisel is a very amber hefe). Real stylistic variances in the host countries of original beer styles is quite normal. I realize the difficulty this presents to the AHA but it is true. Words like: some are as highly hopped as 50 IBUs or as dark as 20 SRM should be noted. Think of how varied the Pils style is. > > Finally please recall that with over 700 beers we had quite a task. > We had 36 panels during session 1, and 27 or so in each of session 2 and 3. > Despite the lack of 2nd bottles we used temporary caps provided by the AHA so > we could recap contending beers from subcats and perform 2nd round judging > (beers were stored in the walk in during the interim). Next year we anticipate > going to a 2 bottle 1st round. Why is it necessary to do this?? Well almost > every single category had over 15 beers. Since only the top 3 from each > catgegory (not subcat!!) go on this meant that when a category had 27 beers it > had to be judged by 2 panels. But using raw score to select winners was > completely unconscienable to us as organizers. There is just no way to acheive > that kind of consistency among judges. So contenders were selected and then > reevaluated. The 2nd round panels consisted of only experienced judges. Two bottles would make great sense. Imagine the poor brewer who uses a yeast that is very powdery, and "fluffy", ie it does not cake hard. His first round judging was fine, good beer. Then by the second pour, it is all yeasty. Is this fair?? > > Another thing to keep in mind is that with so many panels think of how many > judges we needed. A lot of the most experienced judges in the Northeast had > other things to do that day apparently. Still we had over 40 judges at the > certified or higher level. However with 36 panels to judge that meant using > Recognized or even apprentice judges oppostie them. We were very careful to > balance judges. This took hours, and because of a large number of no shows > (see earlier discussions on this topic) a lot of reassigniong had to be done > last minute. > Sorry I couldnt make it, I was in Belgium getting a real education! Seems to me that being certified just means that you have been able to attend numerous AHA judging events near you, or you really like to travel. I mean, big deal that someone has judged in 10 events, in how many different categories? I also detect a serious degree of subservience to the "certified/national" judge that results in duplicate analysis. > So it is real easy to belly ache because you feel your beer didn't get a fair > shake. I challenge anyone with complaints to organize even a small competition. > You'll see how truly difficult it is to do a good job. We have had almost > exclusively positive comments about the job we did in Kingston. The ones that > mean the most come from folks who have organized other copmeptitions. The > negative comments come from folks belly aching about how their beer got scored. I wasnt attempting to belly ache, but I can certainly point out numerous problems in the process. An American ale of OG 15P was noted as being both "too light in body" and by the same judge, could use more malt to balance the hops. Now this was a 50 IBU pale! It had over 12% caravienne/Caramle 40 and Biscuit and Munich! FG was 3P. Not what most of us would call thin. Of course it was out of style as the "experienced" judge noted, while his "novice " counterpart was in love and noted the good body. Go figure. A barley wine of OG 25P, FG 6P, was also too thin for style, and not dark enough! Since when do ALL barely wines have to be porter color? (This same beer took 3rd in the Bluebonnet, but managed a 25 in Kingston). The Wit: Strange aroma, "mexican food smell"? Now this is what Im looking for in judges! Also of note was "not spicey/wit flavor enough". So some guy has had a Raaf Wit and now thinks all Wits should reek of orange? Balance mate, balance...Oh, and the other comment was, like an american light lager *without all of the adjuncts*. Hah! This was a Wit, mashed with 48% Raw Wheat and 2% Raw Oats, not that I call these adjuncts :-) And lastly, a maibock/helles bock with a *measured* bitterness of 20 IBU was docked for being too hoppy for style. > The fact is that competitions are and will always be somewhat of a crap shoot. I can tell. Sorry if this offends anyone. Good brewing, Jim Busch -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Jul 9 03:23:58 1993 From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: Judging to style in Kingston Sorry I don't have any references, but this is on the subject of the wheat beer judging in Kingston. Some of Jim's beers, notably one labeled as a "hefeweizen" didn't fare as well as he expected. For that particular case, a beer labeled as a hefeweizen in an AHA-sanctioned competition should not be judged as such - the only categories are weizen and dunkelweizen, with no Krystall or Hefe subcategories. If it was entered in category 24b, then whether or not the judges were able to get any yeast in suspension should not affect the scoring. This is especially true when they could only use half the bottle to save the rest for a potential second round. Since I don't know who the judges are, I can't (and wouldn't) make any comments about their competence, but as the Kingston organizers know, it's difficult to match judges with the style they are most experienced with. For example, my first choice in the judging registration was German style ales because I felt that drinking altbier for two weeks straight last summer and touring two breweries gave me a good background in that style. But the organizers had no way of knowing that - I might have just marked that preference because I wanted more experience tasting those beers. But alas, I didn't get to judge any altbiers and there's a good chance that someone who has never tasted an authentic alt selected the beer that was best described by a few words in the AHA style definitions. I really don't think that would be a problem with most judges, but that's the chance you have to take when you enter competitions. Scott - -- ======================================================================== Scott Bickham | LASSP and Materials Science Center | bickham at msc.cornell.edu ========================================================================= -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Jul 9 03:23:58 1993 From: uupsi!techbook.com!gummitch (Jeff Frane) Subject: NHCC at the National? Jay Hersh mentioned the need for the NHCC to meet with AHA staff at this year's national (just a few weeks away). What assurance has anyone received that such a meeting will take place? And if there is a meeting, has anyone developed an agenda? I would STRONGLY recommend that the members prepare an agenda ahead of time and insist to Karen Barela that the meeting take place -- I would also strongly recommend that a copy of the meeting's minutes be given to members of the Board of Advisors. In fact, I would recommend that the meeting be held early in the week of the conference, so that the BofA could potentially meet a second time (the first meeting is on Tuesday a.m.), in order to discuss the minutes. NHCC members (and others) should also make a point of writing out, in detail, any problems, concerns, grievances, complaints, kudos that they want brought to the attention of the AHA staff. If the staff refuses to deal with any of these issues, or shrugs the whole thing off, the Conference would be a good starting point for anyone to distribute a small publication listing these talking points. In general, it's very difficult to reach the AHA membership except through Zymurgy advertising but a few hundred could be reached at the Conference. - --Jeff -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Jul 9 03:23:58 1993 From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: Nationals 1st round Jay writes: >In a competition handling over 700 beers it is simply impossible to try to keep >information like your on the bottle indication that it should be poured with >the yeast. Actually, Jim's lucky that this bottle was accepted at all... recall that there must be no labels or markings that would allow someone to identify a particular beer. Jim lucked out that someone mercifully removed his label. I'd like to point out that, the difference between Kristalweizen and Hefeweizen commercially is the presence of yeast in the bottle. If your bottle had yeast it it, then it should have been judged as a Hefe- weizen and the yeast poured out with the beer. Indeed, the judges goofed on this point. >Finally please recall that with over 700 beers we had quite a task. >We had 36 panels during session 1, and 27 or so in each of session 2 and 3. >Despite the lack of 2nd bottles we used temporary caps provided by the AHA so >we could recap contending beers from subcats and perform 2nd round judging >(beers were stored in the walk in during the interim). Next year we anticipate >going to a 2 bottle 1st round. Why is it necessary to do this?? Well almost ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This may not be feasable. At the Midwest Regional, our sponsor brewery, Goose Island, added another tank to the cold room since last year and thus there was just enough space to hold all the entries. Going to a two-bottle first round may be a big problem. Steve? >So please learn a lesson from all this. Your beer got as fair a judging as was >possible. If the judging it got wasn't perfect you must help work to change the >problems with the system that can be changed, and accept those that just can't >be. Amen. Al. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat Jul 10 03:06:06 1993 From: Phillip Seitz <0004531571 at mcimail.com> Subject: More comments on style parameters I wholly agree with Jim Busch that there are problems with the style parameters used as "benchmarks" when judging beers. As I see it, the strengths of the system as it stands are that it probably enforces a certain amount of uniformity between judges and competitions, and it provides some structure for less-experienced judges. Given the large number of submissions received at the nationals and the relatively small numbers of people who REALLY know their beer, this has its merits. However, I strongly disagree with two aspects of the style guidelines: 1) These are required rather than suggested parameters. In other words, if your beer has too many IBU it loses, even if there is no appropriate stye category to move it to. (The example so far was a pale ale at 50 IBU). This leaves us no room for future development or new ideas, other than "novelty" beer categories. I think that it would be better to rely on certain flavor targets--such as balances of hops and maltiness and preferred level of intensity--than to set things in stone. In other words, structure the styles so that they can accomodate anything that could be produced. IPA, for instance, could be >35 IBU, or whatever, bitter could be <27 IBU, or as you like it. 2) I think it is a serious mistake to base style parameters solely on commercial examples. Are we saying that if nobody has succeeded in selling it that it can't be a great beer? Moreover, since (until recently at least) a great many beer styles developed to suit local tastes or the availability (or lack) of certain ingredients, why should we be confined to the examples of history? I see no reason whatsoever to be prisoners of history, or to discourage people from juggling different aspects of known brews to come up with something new. In fact, commercial brewers do this all the time. Anchor Liberty is a good example, but even so-called classics like the Belgian trappist beers are a 20th century invention. To treat beer style as a static thing is a serious mistake, as we all know from looking at recipes that date from even the turn of the century. British IBUs have been dropping steadily, with their SG, for over a century. Who's to say that what they brew now is "correct"? I suggest that we think of what we might be missing and what's being left out, and find ways to make that part of the system. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat Jul 10 03:06:06 1993 From: bliss at pixel.convex.com (Brian Bliss) Subject: pouring hefe yeast Al writes: >Jay writes: >>In a competition handling over 700 beers it is simply impossible to try to keep >>information like your on the bottle indication that it should be poured with >>the yeast. > >Actually, Jim's lucky that this bottle was accepted at all... recall that >there must be no labels or markings that would allow someone to identify >a particular beer. Jim lucked out that someone mercifully removed his >label. I'd like to point out that, the difference between Kristalweizen >and Hefeweizen commercially is the presence of yeast in the bottle. If >your bottle had yeast it it, then it should have been judged as a Hefe- >weizen and the yeast poured out with the beer. Indeed, the judges goofed >on this point. One could try agin the bottle upside-down, so that the yeast cake forms on top. then the judges have no choice but to pour the yeast out also. Agreed that one shouldn't have to do this. bb -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Jul 14 03:17:25 1993 From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: Spices in Belgian brews This is something I've been wondering about lately. Many Belgian-style beers are spiced with ingredients such as coriander, cumin, mace, orange peel (technically not a spice ;-), etc. In the AHA Style Definitions for the White, it even says "May be spiced with coriander seed, orange peel." Okay, so we know that spices are traditionally used in making several of the Belgians, and I'd even say that most of us would mark down a Belgian White with no perceptible orange and coriander. My question is in which style would you put a Belgian style homebrew that has been spiced. For example, consider the Grand Cru style. Many of the commercial varieties are spiced, but according to the Style Guide, if it's spiced, it should be entered as a Specialty, with the style defined as either "Belgian Ale" or "Belgian Strong Ale", depending on the gravity. I don't think that's fair to either the Belgian or the other beers entered in the specialty category. I think it makes more sense to keep the Belgian beers together, with the option of marking down any specialty ingredients on the entry label. We could then get rid of the coriander vagueness in the Belgian White subcategory by asking the brewer to write down the spices used. There is the issue of spiciness inherent in the yeast strain, but most experienced BJCP judges should be able to recognize that possibility and could still score the beer fairly, i.e. be able to recognize good and bad phenolics. Any comments? Scott - -- ======================================================================== Scott Bickham | LASSP and Materials Science Center | bickham at msc.cornell.edu ========================================================================= -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Jul 14 03:17:25 1993 From: melkor!rick (Rick Larson) Subject: Competition planning help Our club is planning our second annual homebrew competition for this fall and are looking for ways to improve it. Last year we managed all the entries (282) and score sheets in four *big* three-ring binders. This year we hope to use a database to better manage this. Does anyone have any ideas how to to use a database for a competition? Schema? PD database? We have access to a PC but I don't know what database is on it (Paradox? Microsoft Works?). We may be able to get a Mac if necessary. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, rick - -- rick at adc.com -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Jul 15 02:08:03 1993 From: "Roger Deschner " Subject: Style Description Changes What follows is a summary of styles where, over the past year, I can recall there being discussions of AHA style descriptions which need updating. DEADLINE: WE MUST GET THIS DONE BEFORE PORTLAND. Somebody else could fill in exactly how we can effect these changes, but I do know that the deciding will be done in Portland, and that those who will do the deciding are listening. OLD PECULIER: There's noplace to put an Old Peculier clone. But Old Peculier is one of the real classic beers. It would flunk as a Porter. GERMAN WHEAT: We just went through this. No, it doesn't have to be cloudy. Yes, it must be highly carbonated. Perhaps just some wording changes to make these distinctions clear. Perhaps a subcategory split, with subcategories for Heffeweissen, Krystal, etc. YES, we DO allow brewers to "stick a label on the bottle" to tell the judges what kind of beer it is, but still preserve annonymity, through the structure of the subcategories. Organizers are supposed to pass the subcategory letter designation along to the judges along with the category number. The structure is there; let's use it to solve this problem by adding subcategories where needed. GERMAN-STYLE ALES. See Michael Jackson's Pocket Guide for different, and much better, information on DUSSELDORF ALT and KOLSCH. Perhaps another subcategory is needed for Altbier that is NOT in the style of Dusseldorf - these are less hoppy, more dark, and sweeter. If there were a Non-Dusseldorf Alt subcategory, then perhaps we could make it clear what most alleged Dusseldorf Alts lack - MORE HOPS! To repeat - refer to Jackson; he's got it exactly right here, down to the IBU numbers, and AHA does not. BELGIAN GRAND CRU: These are often made with spices. This is how Pierre Celis makes his in Austin, Texas as well. OKTOBERFEST/VIENNA/MARZEN: Hacker-Pschorr Oktoberfest (one of the "style-defining" commercial examples of this category) is dry-hopped with a delightfully heavy hand. All that flowery hoppiness balances out the sweetness of the malt in this beer beautifully, but it wouldn't be judged all that well. (This hoppiness is most apparent on draught.) There are others we have discussed on this list as well, but I cannot recall them, due to too much relaxing... -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Jul 15 02:08:03 1993 From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: subscribers Several judges have been advancing throught the ranks, so I figured it was time for the occasional posting of the subscriber list: ################################# ## ## ## JudgeNet ## ## the beer judge digest ## ## ## ## subscriber list ## ## ## ################################# # ### Federation of Amateur Wine and Beer Guilds (FAWBG) - NL # # Master Wine Judge # victor.reijs at surfnet.nl (Victor Reijs) # ### National Guild of Wine and Beer Judges (NGWBJ) - UK # # Examiner # g.a.cooper at qmw.ac.uk (Geoff Cooper) # ### Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP) - USA # # Co-Director # att!drutx!homer (Jim Homer) # # Associate Director # stroud%gaia at polaroid.com (Steve Stroud) # # Committee Representative # rad_equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu (Russ Wigglesworth) # # Master Judge # chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) # # National Judges # steved at longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steve Dempsey) digest at hopfen.synchro.com (Mike Fertsch) hersh at expo.lcs.mit.edu (Jay Hersh) isenhour at lambic.fnal.gov (John Isenhour) glo at lanl.gov (Gordon Olson) darrylri at microsoft.com (Darryl Richman) # # Certified Judges # tony at spss.com (Tony Babinec) baughmankr at conrad.appstate.edu (Kinney Baughman) beebed at ere.umontreal.ca (Dwight Beebe) bickham at msc.cornell.edu (Scott Bickham) lcarter at claven.idbsu.edu (Loren Carter) devine at cs.berkeley.edu (Bob Devine) fitz at synchro.com (Jim Fitzgerald) gummitch at techbook.com (Jeff Frane) judge-relay at semantic.rsi.com (Bob Gorman) hall at buffa.enet.dec.com (Dan Hall) mlh at cygnus.ta52.lanl.gov (Michael Hall) stevie at spss.com (Steve Hamburg) charris at u.washington.edu (Craig Harris) doug at techbook.com (Doug Henderson) korz at iepubj.att.com (Al Korzonas) slamb at milp.jsc.nasa.gov (Sean Lamb) malodah at pbmoss.pacbell.com (Martin Lodahl) reeves at sstcx1.lanl.gov (Geoff Reeves) resch at craycos.com (Dave Resch) ross at mscf.med.upenn.edu (Andy Ross) aaswr at asuvm.inre.asu.edu (Steve Russell) strasser at raj5.tn.cornell.edu (Tom Strasser) boskoduck at aol.com (Julian Zelazny) # # Recognized Judges # bradley at adx.adelphi.edu (Rob Bradley) bronson at ecn.purdue.edu (Edward Bronson) busch at daacdev1.stx.com (Jim Busch) gcb at fc.hp.com (Glenn Colon-Bonet) u52983 at uicvm.uic.edu (Roger Deschner) jimme at ahpcrc.umn.edu (Jim Ellingson) tee at cray.com (Tony Ernst) 71064.1725 at compuserve.com (Chris Folta) brew at devine.columbiasc.ncr.com (Jim Griggers) jdg at grex.ann-arbor.mi.us (Joshua Grosse) cush at msc.edu (Cush Hamlen) melkor!rick (Rick Larson) jelj at cornella.cit.cornell.edu (John Lenz) tedm at hp-pcd.cv.hp.com (Ted Manahan) pmiller at mmm.com (Phil Miller) scott at gordian.com (Scott Murphy) piatz at cray.com (Steve Piatz) kurt.swanson at dna.lth.se (Kurt Swanson) wrs at gozer.mv.com (Bill Slack) gak at wrs.com (Richard Stueven) gdtms at garlic.lcs.mit.edu (Greg Troxel) 72240.2510 at compuserve.com (Eric Webster) westemeier at delphi.com (Ed Westemeier) # # Apprentice Judges # polstra!judge-in (Larry Barello) dbeedle at rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Dave Beedle) peterb at cs.cmu.edu (Pete Berger) michael at wupsych.wustl.edu (Mike Biondo) gdblanke at magnusug.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Greg Blankenship) bliss at csrd.uiuc.edu (Brian Bliss) embreed at sfovmic1.vnet.ibm.com (Emily Breed) bli at psuvm.psu.edu (Jeff Brendle) jbunn at seanews.akita.com (John Bunn) akcs.chrisc at vpnet.chi.il.us (Chris Campanelli) sysop at partyline.com (Jami Chism) nchoksi at erenj.com (Neelan Choksi) dalton at mtl.mit.edu (Timothy Dalton) psd1 at midway.uchicago.edu (Pratik Dave) jdecarlo at mitre.org (John DeCarlo) tdenny at rigel.cs.pdx.edu (Tom Denny) donham at super.enet.dec.com (Perry Donham) 8260pe at indy.navy.mil (Paul Edwards) 73627.3144 at compuserve.com (David Elliott) darren at ua1vm.ua.edu (Darren Evans-Young) efarrell at ossi.com (Liz Farrell) 76702.764 at compuserve.com (Robin Garr) jason at gibson.sde.hp.com (Jason Goldman) agrant at mta.ca (Andrew Grant) green at hpmtaa.lvld.hp.com (Bob Green) sunilg at access.digex.com (Sunil Gupta) joseph-judge at joebloe.maple-shade.nj.us (Joseph Hall) hilliard at zookeeper.zoo.uga.edu (Steve Hilliard) hinz at memphis.med.ge.com (David Hinz) dhholscl at rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (David Holsclaw) lrj at helios.tn.cornell.edu (Lew Jansen) keinert at iastate.edu (Fritz Keinert) jal at techbook.com (Jim Larsen) mol at jyu.fi (Mika Latokartano) jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu (James Liddil) edl at tekig5.pen.tek.com (Ed Lingel) ktl at kittyhawk.aero.rmit.oz.au (Katie Lord) v-ccsl at microsoft.com (Scott Lord) klm at gozer.mv.com (Kevin McBride) tim at mtl.mit.edu (Tim McClure) wtm at gr.cs.utah.edu (Tom McCollough) daniel.f.mcconnell at med.umich.edu (Daniel McConnell) frmac at cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Larry McCormick) berniem at microsoft.com (Bernie McIlroy) tmitchel at bbn.com (Tom Mitchell) cm199 at cleveland.freenet.edu (Thomas Moore) morgan at spectra.com (Mike Morgan) munyon at 4j.eugene.or.us (Pat Munyon) bmyers at uclink.berkeley.edu (Brian Myers) rcm at col.hp.com (Rick Myers) raudins at galt.b17d.ingr.com (Glenn Raudins) u2102952 at csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au (Phil Reichert) roody at necsc.enet.dec.com (Greg Roody) roy.rudebusch at travel.com (Roy Rudebusch) lennart at btjsys.btj.se (Lennart Sandberg) kenneths at ai.mit.edu (Kenneth Schneider) p00644 at psilink.com (Phillip Seitz) wseliger at chinet.chi.il.us (Bill Seliger) brewml at convex.com (Dave Shaver) smerage at icbr.ifas.ufl.edu (Jeff Smerage) 70740.1107 at compuserve.com (James Spence) envkas at sn634.utica.ge.com (Karl Sweitzer) spencer.w.thomas at med.umich.edu (Spencer Thomas) tinsethg at ucs.orst.edu (Glenn Tinseth) tuecks at mathematik.uni-kl.de (Markus Tuecks) mark_wallace at crd.lotus.com (Mark Wallace) walter at lamar.colostate.edu (Brian Walter) swh at ll.mit.edu (Sarah White) zamick at yoko.rutgers.edu (Jonathan Zamick) ### -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Jul 16 08:49:44 1993 From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: More beers without categories/changes to the definitions. I'd like to add two more categories: Robust American Lager -- to cover beers such as Samuel(tm) Adams(tm) Boston(tm) Lager(tm) and Baderbrau. Special Export Bitter -- to cover beers such as the bottled version of Young's Special London Ale (see my comments below). Last year, I was asked to be on the NHCC for 1993 and submitted my suggestions. Below, I'm including excerpts from what I send Karen Barella (flanked by ">") and then my assessment of the changes. I'd like to point out that someone (sorry) said that the definitions were not available for comment or change. I contend that we did make some headway in making some improvements and can make some more improvements this year (for the 1994 NHCC). I agree that there need to be some changes in other areas (that the "no roasted barley" in porters is one issue debated here, for example). >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 _Young's >Special Export Bitter_, I propose that a new subcategory should be created >just below 6c, and called _Special Export Bitter_. 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." Al. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Jul 16 08:49:44 1993 From: Jim Busch Subject: Style revisions, pt 2 I am really pleased to hear Roger Deschner put forth the concept of some revisions to the styles. 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]. ^^^^ That should be 1979. At least I didn't write that Ballentine's had an original gravity of 1976! ;^) Al. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat Jul 17 03:00:48 1993 From: uupsi!techbook.com!gummitch (Jeff Frane) Subject: Category Profusion/Confusion Whoa! Before we get too far down this road: can we simply discuss the question of whether we really _need_ another gazillion beer style categories for competitions? It's not as though we were trying to create categories so that we have an opening for Budmiller Dark Dry, after all. Rather than add _more_ categories, why can we not simply loosen up some of the ones we have? Loosen up, way up, on the "rules" about starting gravities, for instance. I say, for instance, if it _tastes_ like a strong beer, it's a strong beer, whether it falls into some completely arbitrary range of starting gravities or not. "Oh, gee, [that's a pun] I can't enter this in the English Strong ales, 'cause the OG was 1078. Whatever will I do?" I say enter it and lie. Or, better yet, leave the upper limit open and let the judges determine whether or not it's a good strong ale. Are homebrew competitions in the business of creating a category for everyone (like certain professional events) so that everyone goes home with a gold medal? Or are we in the business of rewarding good brewers' accomplishments and encouraging those who are struggling to make good beer? God, I hope that's a rhetorical question. - --Jeff Frane -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Sat Jul 17 03:00:48 1993 From: mlh at cygnus.ta52.lanl.gov (Michael L. Hall) Subject: JudgeNet Archive Site I have finally updated the archive site, for those of you that like to dig up the past :-) I thought that it would be good to have it updated before the NHC. BTW, I'm going to Portland! Hope to meet a lot of you there... Mike Hall Los Alamos Atom Mashers Here's the README file: The JudgeNet Archives Available by anonymous ftp from cygnus.ta52.lanl.gov (128.165.144.121), in the directory /pub/judge. Limited ftp site -- only open to members of the JudgeNet. Please do not post this site on any widely spread medium (i.e. the HBD or Usenet). Feel free to distribute the files as much as you wish. These are selected archives from JudgeNet (the Beer Judge Mailing List). They have been edited slightly to remove messages that I don't consider to have archival value (e.g. timely things like requests for judges at a competition). This archive will not be updated in a timely fashion (the last interval was one year 8^). In the past, the archives were arranged by topic. The categorization part became a hassle, so now they are organized by date. For a while, the old files that were organized by topic will still be available, but I am going to delete them eventually so get them now if you want them. All of those postings are duplicated in the files ordered by date. Michael L. Hall hall at lanl.gov - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Last updated: 07/16/93, 12:49:09 The current files are: Size Name Description, if needed ---- ---- ---------------------- 78305 9111 3874 9112 96639 9201 92714 9202 132099 9203 25394 9204 63472 9205 0 9206 Yes, there were no postings this month. 65437 9207 18085 9208 64540 9209 37550 9210 16200 9211 50350 9212 25088 9301 46688 9302 14958 9303 44410 9304 31405 9305 34373 9306 53574 9307 2748 README This file. 7732 dr_beer Dr. Beer Seminar Guidelines. 41867 scoresheet.ps PostScript scoresheet. 2291 scoresheet.tex Plain TeX scoresheet. 18538 studyguide_v1 Study Guide, version 1, February 1992. 30122 studyguide_v2 Study Guide, version 2, July 1992. 1794 undigestify Ignore this file. Files organized by topic that will be deleted soon: 79342 BJCP 3051 JudgeNet 34228 bottles 9266 events 127432 judging.forms 99154 procedures 23056 smells.n.tastes 43675 styles 128109 studyguide 19042 whoswho ============================================================================== The Beer Judge mailing list is an Internet mailing list dedicated to the discussion of issues of interest to beer judges and competition organizers. Anyone with an interest in judging or organizing beer competitions is welcome to join. To subscribe to the mailing list, send your email address, name, and BJCP rank (use 'apprentice' if not ranked) to: judge-request at synchro.com ============================================================================== -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Jul 20 02:30:20 1993 From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: Category Profusion/Confusion Jeff writes: >Whoa! > >Before we get too far down this road: can we simply discuss the question >of whether we really _need_ another gazillion beer style categories for >competitions? It's not as though we were trying to create categories so >that we have an opening for Budmiller Dark Dry, after all. I guess I mistakenly wrote categories in stead of SUBcategories. I had always envisioned the Strong (or Special) Export Bitter to be a subcategory of the current Bitter category. There's no reason that Robust American Lager could not be a subcategory in the American Lager category. I agree that creating more categories is not a good idea, since it would only make Best Of Show judging that much harder. >Are homebrew competitions in the business of creating a category for >everyone (like certain professional events) so that everyone goes home >with a gold medal? Or are we in the business of rewarding good brewers' >accomplishments and encouraging those who are struggling to make good >beer? God, I hope that's a rhetorical question. I think all of us would agree that it's the latter, but we also should make sure that there's a category fitting the best commercial beers. It's a crime if someone can brew a beer that's a dead ringer for Young's Special London Ale or Samuel(tm) Adams(tm) Boston(tm) Lager(tm) or Old Peculiar and then not be able to enter it in a competition, no? Al. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Jul 20 02:30:20 1993 From: "Rad Equipment" Subject: BJCP $ Question PRELIMINARY/EXPLORATORY QUESTION As with all other organizations, the BJCP needs to pay for expenses. Since it is not a part of the AHA but an independent organization made up of AHA/HWBTA reps and staff it does not get funds automatically from either organization, except through recharges for services. Suffice it to say that it must find its own funds when ever it can. We are currently looking into modifying the sources for funds and I would like to get some feedback on several solutions which have been proposed. As stated above, this is preliminary stuff and NOTHING HAS BEEN DECIDED UPON AS YET. I would like interested parties to respond to me DIRECTLY via e-mail. Thanks! - Raise the fee for the exam. Currently the fee is $40 for 1st timers and $30 for retakes. - Create a maintenance fee for registered participants. Have a nominal ($5?) annual fee to maintain active participation. Currently there are no additional fees to judges. Once past the exam a judge pays nothing else and is considered active as long as points are accumulated without a lapse of 2 years. In return for this fee some services could be increased (judges' newsletter, annual critique of score sheets for feedback to judges on performance, etc.) - Increase charges to parent organizations for points awarded on their behalf. This is a bit murky as to how it is done at present and it is the main area I am concentrating on. My goal is to be equitable to both organizations an still get sufficient income to maintain the program. Those are the current thoughts. If you have a reaction (as I'm sure you will) please send them to me ASAP so I can carry them to the BJCC meeting in Portland. RW... Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu - CI$: 72300,61) UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / Home (707) 769-0425 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Jul 21 02:22:52 1993 From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: AHA Second round results? In the Zymurgy with the entry forms, I read that the results will be announced via Compuserve during the award ceremony. I won't be able to make the conference this year and don't have access to Compuserve, but I was wondering if someone who does could somehow post the results here after they are released on Compuserve. Muchos Gracias, Scott - -- ======================================================================== Scott Bickham | LASSP and Materials Science Center | bickham at msc.cornell.edu ========================================================================= -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Jul 21 02:22:52 1993 From: gummitch at techbook.com (Jeff Frane) Subject: Too Many Categories! > From: korz at iepubj.att.com > Subject: Category Profusion/Confusion > > I said: > >Before we get too far down this road: can we simply discuss the question > >of whether we really _need_ another gazillion beer style categories for > >competitions? It's not as though we were trying to create categories so > >that we have an opening for Budmiller Dark Dry, after all. > Al responded: > I guess I mistakenly wrote categories in stead of SUBcategories. I had > always envisioned the Strong (or Special) Export Bitter to be a subcategory > of the current Bitter category. There's no reason that Robust American > Lager could not be a subcategory in the American Lager category. I agree > that creating more categories is not a good idea, since it would only make > Best Of Show judging that much harder. > My point is that we should be careful of _any_ profusion, whether of categories or subcategories or subsubcategories. I would rather see the profiles expanded to a more realistic expression of the huge differences *within* a style. > >Are homebrew competitions in the business of creating a category for > >everyone (like certain professional events) so that everyone goes home > >with a gold medal? Or are we in the business of rewarding good brewers' > >accomplishments and encouraging those who are struggling to make good > >beer? God, I hope that's a rhetorical question. > > I think all of us would agree that it's the latter, but we also should > make sure that there's a category fitting the best commercial beers. > It's a crime if someone can brew a beer that's a dead ringer for Young's > Special London Ale or Samuel(tm) Adams(tm) Boston(tm) Lager(tm) or > Old Peculiar and then not be able to enter it in a competition, no? > No. I don't think it's a crime. I do, however, think it's ridiculous that someone can't brew a dead ringer for Young's SLA and enter it as a pale ale. Period. Essentially, I think the category descriptions are entirely too confining and that, furthermore, they in no way reflect the reality of brewing, either commercial or amateur. They are arbitrary and I don't think there is a single category for which we could not *easily* find a commercial beer to belie the description. Obviously, we can't proceed without *any* descriptions, but all we really need to do, IMHO, is loosen up. I recently had two recently-imported Czech beers. They were too bitter for a Helles, and nowhere near hoppy enough to be called pilsners. They were also very tasty and I would have been proud to have brewed either. Neither would have stood a chance in a competition. The Czechs, apparently, just call them lager beers. Ignoramuses! - --Jeff -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Jul 27 02:03:25 1993 From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: AHA Style Description Changes (Part II) This is probably a bad time to post to the digest, but not all of us were able to make it to Portland this year, so we need some rhetoric to hone our judging skills ;-) I recently posted some comments about spiced Belgians, such as Grand Crus, which may have been interpreted to mean that I thought yet another Belgian Ale subcategory was needed. Not at all - the (d) Belgian Ale and (e) Belgian Strong Ale are really catch alls in the sense that they cover most of the Belgian specialties on the basis of gravity, hops and alcohol content. What I'd like to see added is the possiblility of adding spices, herbs etc. to these existing subcategories. This would be analogous to the White subcategory, which says that coriander and orange peel may be used. This would keep the Belgian Ales together in a sanctioned competition instead of asking someone to enter his or her spiced Belgian Ale in the Specialty Beer category. I also think this is more in line with the history of these styles in Belgium. Scott - -- ======================================================================== Scott Bickham | LASSP and Materials Science Center | bickham at msc.cornell.edu ========================================================================= -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Jul 27 02:03:25 1993 From: "Mike Fertsch" Subject: re: BJCP Costs and Fees Russ W brought up an interesting "PRELIMINARY/EXPLORATORY QUESTION" regarding BJCP fees and expenses, and proposes ways to increase its funds. I realize that Russ and other folks who can influence policy are in Portland now, but I'd like to respond anyway. Perhaps someone can pick this up and get it to Russ and friends in Portland. >As with all other organizations, the BJCP needs to pay for expenses. Since it >is not a part of the AHA but an independent organization made up of AHA/HWBTA >reps and staff it does not get funds automatically from either organization, >except through recharges for services. Suffice it to say that it must find its >own funds when ever it can. > - Raise the fee for the exam. > - Create a maintenance fee for registered participants. > - Increase charges to parent organizations I've never seen a balance sheet for BJCP expenses and income, and I can't understand why the program can't be solvent with its current funding. As I see it, the only service that I see from the program is an annual statement showing the points I've accumulated. Every time the total is wrong, and takes a while to straighten out. I'm still waiting for a reconciliation from the February BJCP statement. Other BJCP expenses I can think of are printing of the program booklets every time a rules change (once a year), and the scoring of each judge's exam/test. The test fee should be able to cover these costs. I'm not against increasing funding sources, but I believe that discussion of how current monies are spent is necessary prior to a discussion of fee increases. I'm not in favor of tax-and-spend programs. - -- Mike Fertsch Personal mail at home: mikef at hopfen.rsi.com Work mail at home: fertsch%kili at cboston.compass-da.com --------------------------------------