From synchro!judge-request at uu6.psi.com Wed Feb 16 07:03:10 1994 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA26547 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at hendrix.itn.med.umich.edu); Wed, 16 Feb 94 07:02:53 -0500 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA21631 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 94 05:48:27 -0500 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA13303; 16 Feb 94 05:11:44 EST (Wed) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-request at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9402160511.AA13303 at synchro.com> From: judge-request at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #693 (Feb 16, 1994) Date: 16 Feb 94 05:11:44 EST (Wed) JudgeNet Digest #693 Wed 16 Feb 1994 THE BEER JUDGE DIGEST Chuck Cox , digest administrator Michael Hall , archive administrator DIGEST SUBMISSIONS ONLY to judge at synchro.com ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REQUESTS to judge-request at synchro.com Send rank updates to the administrative address FTP archive information in /pub/judge/README on cygnus.ta52.lanl.gov Sponsored by SynchroSystems and the Riverside Garage & Brewery Contents: Proper Commentary (Jeff Frane) Re: Good judging (Jim Busch) Alts (Karen Barela/AHA President) Re: John Calen's "bad vs. better" judging comments (sblack) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 06:56:46 -0800 (PST) From: gummitch at teleport.com (Jeff Frane) Subject: Proper Commentary In my considered opinion (as a judge and organizer), the "better" comments John posted (sorry for terseness here, having some editor difficulties) was *waaaaaaay* too windy. Not only is the judge sticking his neck out and making a number of assumptions (the odds are that maybe half are wrong), the judging form is the place for useful but concise feedback, not lectures. It's also really important to keep the judging moving. Dragging it out not only means that the organizer will hate you for keeping him there forever, but the timing suffers considerably. Beers should be tasted in a rapid order so that you can make honest comparisons. I try to limit my own commentary to what I can absolutely taste: "Perhaps a little more malt in the profile to balance the hoppiness" or "banana esters aren't well-suited to pilsners". I'm not there to tell the brewer how to make beer, just to offer some assessment and some nudges in what I think might be the right direction. - --Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 10:48:39 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Busch Subject: Re: Good judging > From: "John R. Calen - Contacting Systems - E.F., N.Y." > Subject: Score sheet example needed. > > I've been through the BJCP guide on the proper way for a judge to fill > in a score sheet. Along with the advice about being constructive and > so on, there's one thing I've never seen. An example of good vs. bad. > > For example:The Appearance section of a Pilsner being judged. It is dark and > hazy, with little effervescence. > > BAD BETTER? > --- ------- Too hazy. Dark. Flat. | This beer is starting off on the wrong foot. | It is too dark. Do not add dark grains to > | a pilsner. Also, it's hazy. This may have > | been disturbed during presentation. It may > | be chill haze or contamination. For chill > | haze, store it in the cold until it clears. > | This also lacks carbonation. Perhaps it is > | underprimed. 4oz. (by weight) of corn sugar | to 5 gallons of beer. Perhaps it hasn't been > | conditioned long enough or in a warm place. > | This may also contribute to the haziness if > | the yeast is still working. Did you use > | wheat?... blah, blah, blah! > > If the beer is clean, it's the recipe that I concentrate on. I still try to > offer specific recommendations. i.e. Add 4oz. chocolate malt, use bavarian > yeast. > IN general, I agree. In practice, depending on how many beers are to be judged, this amount of detail is not practical. I would comment on chill haze, it is well know how chill haze is formed. I would strongly advise against giving specific quantities of malt figures. This is recipe formulation that varies with every brewer/brewery. To tell me to use 4 oz of xxx malt is pretty meaningless in my large system, where I often do high gravity brewing and dilute 10-25%. The worse the beer, the better the comments need to be, but its hard when the beer is infected. JB ------------------------------ Date: 15 Feb 94 18:06:31 EST From: Karen Barela/AHA President <75250.1350 at CompuServe.COM> Subject: Alts I think the discussions about having a specific beer style reviewed in depth during the AHA National Homebrew Conference is a great idea. It's too late for the AHA to organize one for Denver, but the AHA would be happy to organize and plan one for the 1995 conference. I'm open to ideas regarding which style (is Alt the choice?) and which brands you want to have represented. Roger Deschner has pointed out some real hurdles we'd need to jump in order to get some real representation. I also think its a great idea to have hombrew on hand for comparison as well. Karen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 18:31 CDT From: sblack at utxvm.cc.utexas.edu Subject: Re: John Calen's "bad vs. better" judging comments Yes, John, you are being rather alpha-retentive. While it is certainly well and good to offer as helpful a comment as you can muster, several things should be kept in mind. Like reality. In many judging circumstances you have 10-15 beers to judge, many with similar flaws. Maybe you can write a cogent essay once or twice, but then the weariness sets in. And while you try to be helpful, lets remember that we judge for fun and glory and the brewer pays a minimal fee for an informed and quick opinion -- its not a fucking laboratory analysis. Another thing to keep in mind is ... reality. You are given a beer, a categoryand, occasionally, a few ingredients (and then only if it is a speciality beer or fruit beer). You do not know the receipe, so it is awfully presumptuous to guess what the ingredients might have been, guess what the procedures might have been and then guess what the brewer might do differently. There are so many ways beers be off style that I find it more honest just to identify major flawsand perhaps hazzard a clearly worded GUESS as to a problem area (like cleanlyness) and let brewer do his homework. The information is readily available. Relax, have a dozen god-awful to merely mediocre homebrews, pray for one or two good beers, write as helpful, but realistic comments as you can in a *reasonalble* time (5-10 minutes) and move on. "judge" not God, "judge" not technician,we are just homebrewers with some experience and a self-serving sense of civic duty. For my money, too many judges let the titles, ribbons and ceremonies go straight to their bloated heads. Yours in the cause of having a fine time, Steve "Ma" Black ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************