From synchro!judge-request at uu6.psi.com Tue Mar 15 06:55:52 1994 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA14592 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at hendrix.itn.med.umich.edu); Tue, 15 Mar 94 06:55:45 -0500 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA24560 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 94 06:07:56 -0500 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA23286; 15 Mar 94 05:12:41 EST (Tue) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9403150512.AA23286 at synchro.com> From: judge-request at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #713 (Mar 15, 1994) Date: 15 Mar 94 05:12:41 EST (Tue) JudgeNet Digest #713 Tue 15 Mar 1994 THE BEER JUDGE DIGEST Chuck Cox , digest administrator Michael Hall , archive administrator digest submissions to judge at synchro.com administrative requests to judge-request at synchro.com send rank updates to the administrative address messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored FTP archive information in /pub/judge/README on cygnus.ta52.lanl.gov Sponsored by SynchroSystems and the Riverside Garage & Brewery Contents: JudgeNet Digest #712 (Mar 14, 1994) (greg) Bottles and Judging (Spencer.W.Thomas) AHA points scale (Spencer.W.Thomas) Re: Entry Bottles (Kevin "Puck Head" Hardee) English vs American Pale Ales (Jim Cave) Impartiality (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Re: Pale Ale Categories (Rick Garvin (703-761-6630)) Those Pale Ales (Jeff Frane) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 08:55:01 -0500 (EST) From: greg at holton.kgn.ibm.com Subject: JudgeNet Digest #712 (Mar 14, 1994) I totally disagree with the restriction against Grolsh bottles. I use them almost exclusively, not only because they are more convenient, but the rubber gasket produces a better seal than caps. I don't mind giving them away in a competition because I've bought about 300 of them for little more than the nickel deposit (usually 7-8 cents each), which isn't much different than a standard 12 oz. bottle. As noted elsewhere in this thread, there are many unusual shapes and sizes of bottles which are "legal" in competition. As for the blind tasting issue, judges are there to judge, not to scurry back and forth to the cooler pouring their own beers -- that's what stewards are for. The "bottle inspection" is an unnecessary formality which has been dispensed with in every contest in which I have judged, since it doesn't enter into the 50 point rating system. There is no reason why a judge needs to see the bottles. > > Date: Sun, 13 Mar 94 10:17:55 TZ > >From: Darryl Richman > Subject: RE: Bottles and Judging > > John DeCarlo x7116 writes: > > Rick Garvin: > > >Actually, non-standard bottles were disqualified, but judged so that > > >the individuals could get the comments. There were three entries from > > >one person in Grolsch bottles. They were not contenders. > > > > >I agree that relaxing the bottle requirement COULD make sense. How do > > >we address the blind tasting issue? > > > > I wonder what other judges think about bottle restrictions. Is this > > really a "blind tasting" issue or more of an administrative thing or > > even just a historical issue. > > I'd like to believe that I'm generally unaffected by the information > presented by the bottle. I rarely write comments in the bottle > inspection area; only if the fill is extremely low or there's a ring > around the collar, or if -- heavens forfend -- the bottle gushes. I > don't feel the bottling restrictions are aimed in that direction. > > Instead, I think the bottle restrictions -- in particular, the size > restrictions -- are intended to help out the competition organizers. I > have some sympathy for the brewer who makes a craft product and wants > to package it in a traditional shape, but that really affects only a > small number of categories. I have a lot more sympathy for the > organizers who get 300-500 bottles (or more) and have to find a cold > place to put them. They need to be able to put them in standard cases > and stack them. Bottles that are significantly taller than others, or > too wide to fit into a normal slot, are a pain to deal with. As an > entrant, I'd rather not have my beer require "special" treatment to get > it into the sometimes tight areas that competition organizers are often > forced to borrow. As a helper and organizer, I'd rather not have the > additional trouble. > > --Darryl Richman ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Mar 94 09:24:00 EST From: Spencer.W.Thomas at med.umich.edu Subject: Bottles and Judging John DeCarlo x7116 writes: > OTOH, to be really radical, I think it would be an interesting > experiment to let the judges see the brewer's name, beer name, and > recipe on each bottle as they judge. Has anyone ever tried something > like this to see if the judging was adversely affected? Having done blinded tastings of commercial beers, it is amazing how my perception changes when I know the maker versus when I don't. It really is true that you "see" what you're looking for. Blind tasting is (IMHO and experience) critical to preventing preconceptions from sneaking in. For instance, a friend sneaked a p-lambic into a "holiday beers" tasting (that one was tricky, because we didn't have any "style" labels to go by). I rated it as "probably infected, maybe phenolic." Then he pointed out that it was supposed to be a lambic. Of course, then it tasted about right, and there weren't any phenolic notes at all. I suppose that says something about the state of education of my palate, too (I've still got to work on picking out that "goaty" aroma). =S ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Mar 94 09:39:55 EST From: Spencer.W.Thomas at med.umich.edu Subject: AHA points scale In our practice sessions, we've scored beers up to about 45. I personally don't think I'd ever score a beer at 50. What if I got a better one in the next bottle? Sort of like the figure skating competition at the Olympics. Lots of 5.9s, but only a few 6.0s. And the scores almost never fall below 4.0 (at least the ones we see :=-). I also find it hard to give a beer a low enough rating in every category to get it below a 20. There's almost always something right about even the rankest, most infected beer. =S ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Mar 94 09:30:59 CST From: khardee at whodat.aud.alcatel.com (Kevin "Puck Head" Hardee) Subject: Re: Entry Bottles >>Knowing the name of the brewer can influence your judgement. I have seen >>myself judge a beer a few points higher than it deserved because I knew the >>brewer made good beer. I later dropped the mark when I scored a better >>beer lower, but it did illustrate the problem to me. >> Allowing non-standard bottles doesn't affect your judgement per se, >>but suddenly realizing while you're judging pale ales that your best friend >>uses Orval bottles just like these... I think that is what the rule is >>for, not to prevent you from scoring a beer badly if it's in a corona >>bottle. > >Well then how about getting people to pour the beers for you, and you judge >them. Sort of like a two person team. This way, beers could probably be >judged quicker, and it would give the brewer the optimum bottle, according to >the brewer. I don't know the legalities of this type of thing, but remember, >everybody has a different pour (including judges) and packaging is a major part >of the final touch of a beer. > > >What do people think here? At any competition, there would be many people who >would volunteer to be 'pourers'. Perhaps studying judges? > > Well, guess what?? At the Bluebonnet Brewoff this weekend, I was a Steward. This is basically what you have discussed above. A Stewards job was to tell the judges which category a beer was in, read the AHA style sheet, open and pour the beer, tabulate the results, and check the judges math. Oh, and I forgot the best part.....finish off the bottles when the judging was done. Quite interesting. - -- Kevin M. Hardee UUCP: ...uunet!fozzy!khardee Alcatel Network Systems, Inc. Internet: khardee at aud.alcatel.com Richardson, TX PHONE: (214) 996-6112 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 9:19:53 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Cave Subject: English vs American Pale Ales Frank Doner asks what the differences are between English and American Pale ales. Jim Larsen suggests that these differences relate to choice of hops and grain. Personally, outside of the use of English hops, (American hops tend in my opinion to be characteristically grapefruity), the main differences are are fermentation characteristics. The English beers are very fruity. Many of them have a very strong "Granny Smith" apple character that is very lovely. IMHO, the classic English is Worthington's White Shield, and it has a strong apple character. I've had this beer in England and it was a 40+ beer. The Goldings hop has a "round" aroma and flavour, with a slight "cheezy" note: I've seen judges down grade beers because of this. The round hop characteristic makes for a wonderful synergy with the malt and fruit characters. BTW, the English beers do not travel well...So...as for the "Alts" If you haven't had an English beer in England, you haven't had them, Unless you've had them properly made in North America--the good fortune of which I have not had!! I'm going back to the UK (and also Belgium) in 3 weeks so maybe I'll report back! Jim Cave "Drink only beer!" ------------------------------ Date: 14 Mar 94 19:27:00 GMT From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Subject: Impartiality At last year's Chicago Beer Society Spooky Brew Review, I was judging fruit beers and came across a Raspberry Tripel. Now, partly because I tasted this exact beer a short time earlier and partly because I talked to the brewer about this very combination of beer and fruit, I knew that this beer was brewed by Mike Pezan. It was a very good beer but I wanted to make very sure that I did not score it high because I knew it was Mike's beer. I concentrated very intently on scoring the beer fairly (and probably was 2 or 3 points low as a result) and then tried my best to stay out of the discussion after the scoring. The other two judges were very impressed by the beer and scored it much higher than I did. When the time came to pick 1, 2 and 3, the other two judges felt that the Rasperry Tripel was the clear winner. Hapily, I concurred. I knew that Mike's beer was very good, but was glad that there was no dispute about it placing 1st. I would definately like to avoid this situation in the future, but am sure that it come up again. It's difficult to try to be fair to all the beers/brewers even without any additional distractions. Al. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 11:33:29 -0500 (EST) From: rgarvin at btg.btg.com (Rick Garvin (703-761-6630)) Subject: Re: Pale Ale Categories fjdobner at ihlpa.att.com (Frank J Dobner +1 708 979 5124) writes > Subject: American and British Pale Ales > > Pale Alers; > > As I look at the 1994 Style Guidelines for National Homebrew Comepetition, > I see the following for two separate styles: > > 5. English-style Pale Ale > a)Classic English Pale Ale 1.045-56 OG 20-40 IBU 4-11 SRM > > 6. American-style Pale Ale > a)American Pale Ale 1.044-56 OG 20-40 IBU 4-11 SRM > > Obviously there are differences that are transparent to the granularity > of the characteristics above that I am sure I do not understand. Perhaps > it is yeast characteristics or hoppiness (flavor or aroma). Can anyone > give me objective differences between these two subcategories? The instructions that I give judges is that American Pale should have a predominance of fresh American hop character. Think MT Hood, Cascade or Centenial. When myself, Tim Artz, Ben Jankowski and two others whom I cannot remember judges the American Pale Ale style at the AHA Second round last year we found that this style suffered from the long lead times. Those fresh hop character had staled. Result: American Wheat won first place. Cheers, Rick ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 15:47:12 -0800 (PST) From: gummitch at teleport.com (Jeff Frane) Subject: Those Pale Ales > > Frank Dobner writes: > Obviously there are differences that are transparent to the granularity > of the characteristics above that I am sure I do not understand. Perhaps > it is yeast characteristics or hoppiness (flavor or aroma). Can anyone > give me objective differences between these two subcategories? > As far as I've been able to tell, the only *concrete* difference in the two categories (British and American pale ales) is whether or not the beer uses "British" hops. How the judge is supposed to determine whether the brewer used Fuggles or Willamettes, is not clear. Cascades, yes, butf there are a number of hops grown in this hemisphere that would work just fine in a British ale. ?? The AHA often works in mysterious ways. - --Jeff ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************