From synchro!judge-request at uu6.psi.com Fri Mar 18 07:29:05 1994 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA27984 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at hendrix.itn.med.umich.edu); Fri, 18 Mar 94 07:29:00 -0500 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA03569 for ; Fri, 18 Mar 94 06:04:08 -0500 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA07601; 18 Mar 94 05:11:56 EST (Fri) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9403180511.AA07601 at synchro.com> Status: O X-Status: From: judge-request at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #716 (Mar 18, 1994) Date: 18 Mar 94 05:11:56 EST (Fri) JudgeNet Digest #716 Fri 18 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: seeing bottles during judging ("John L. Isenhour") Re: Uniform Bottles (John DeCarlo x7116 ) judges' math (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Cincinnati First Round NHC site (WESTEMEIER) Call for Judges-1994 GCHC (Carlo Fusco) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 13:55:20 CST From: "John L. Isenhour" Subject: seeing bottles during judging Greg writes: >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. I dont agree with the above, for a few reasons. The last competition I was in, was HWBTA style where the beer was served in pitchers and the judges did not see the bottles. I was aware of 3 instances where, somehow, the beers that were supposed to go into the entry-marked pitchers were mixed up. This to me is the ultimate screwup, in one case we were not sure if a beer was judged twice (which seemed to be the case when I went back over the scoresheets) and one beer not at all. I hate to think that I sent someone an evaluation of the wrong beer. The organizer was experienced and the system seemed good, but I guess it just got too hectic. In one case we pulled an extra bottle, but there goes the BOS entry. If the bottle is on the table, I dont see how this could happen. I also have found MANY instances of "ring around the collar", sometimes severe and sometimes just developing. This provides the opportunity to make feedback that the brewer should be aware of. In some instances, I've requested a second bottle and when the infection ring is not present in that sample and the beer is scores better, it targets corrective measures even more effectively. Also of interest is the amount (or total absence) of slurry. I'm just interested in giving the brewer their moneys worth. > 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 I agree, and generally the stewards bring the bottle to the table. Opening and pouring the beers gives extra perception of the condition (although once I did end up wearing an entire kreik in less than second;-) and one can also feel the temperature of the bottle and make allowances if required (warm beer might tend to gush, while a really chilly one might not show nose characteristics as intensely). I know that these points should be addressed by the organizer, but we do live in an imperfect judging world. -john - -- John Isenhour renaissance scientist and AHA/HWBTA National Beer Judge home: john at hopduvel.chi.il.us work: isenhour at lambic.fnal.gov ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Mar 94 09:53:05 EST From: John DeCarlo x7116 Subject: Re: Uniform Bottles >>There is no reason why a judge needs to see the bottles. >False. If I sense oxidation, I want to know if the fill level on the >bottle was low so I can advise the brewer to minimize head space. [...] >There's plenty of information to be had by inspecting the bottle, much >of it useful in confirming or refuting things found in the aroma and >flavor evaluations. >Besides the information to be gained, there is the bias of non-uniform >packaging. [...] >As a beer judge you may try to ignore bottle variation, but the truth >is there will remain subconscious influences. These should be >minimized to maintain objectivity. The problem IMHO is that ideally you want to judge the beer only on its merits, and not be influenced by the packaging. *BUT* as you say above, you want information on the packaging *after the judging* to get more of use in advising the brewer. Unfortunately, this isn't really practical and we end up seeing the bottle before tasting the beer--even if we know that a ring or lots of head space or lots of sediment doesn't *mean* bad beer, we might tend to think that way anyway. If you have stewards you trust, it does seem a better compromise to have the steward pour and *tell you* what the bottle was like after you judge. I know what you mean about bias, though. If I start noticing that all the best beers I judge are those with the O2-absorbing caps, will that influence me when I notice it? John DeCarlo, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA--My views are my own Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdecarlo at mitre.org ------------------------------ Date: 17 Mar 94 18:46:00 GMT From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Subject: judges' math In another digest, Bill writes: >Then the steward was, of course, responsible for checking everyones >math and that the sheets were totalled. There are always mistakes >in this area! For assuring each sheet has legible comments, and >making sure the ranking sheet is completed. As well as making sure >there is enough water, bread, pencils, score sheets,... As much as I appreciate stewards and their efforts to check the judges math, I'd like to offer a word of caution. In my experience, once the judging is complete, I pull out the top five or six sheets and discuss which three beers should be 1,2 and 3 with the other judges. This is where I look at the total scores and the notes which I've taken on the beers and verify that indeed the top three beers have the top three scores and they are in order. I will, after consultation with the other judges, adjust scores to make sure the beer we agree is #1, indeed has the top score (sometimes, the first several beers in the flight are judged too harshly or too lenientley). If, after this adjustment some error in math is discovered by the stewards, I would expect the stewards to collect the judges and report this error, not just adjust the scores. In most cases it will not make a difference, but in some cases it could. I had a brewer once come up to me and say: "Al, you made an error in math that could have cost me a ribbon." to which I must reply: "The total scores of the top five or six beers were verified to ensure that the beers we agreed were the 3 best had the top scores. If your beer was not one of the top three beers in our opinion, a 1-point higher score would not have changed our opinion." The only case where I could see this making a difference is in the AHA Nationals, where Gold Certificates are issued to all 40+ beers, Silver for 30-39 beers and Bronze for 25-29 beers. This should be considered when reviewing math errors with stewards. By the way -- I can't thank stewards enough for all their help -- let me take this opportunity to thank all of you again: THANKS! Al. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 18:07:49 -0500 (EST) From: WESTEMEIER at delphi.com Subject: Cincinnati First Round NHC site As most of you know by now, a fifth site has been added for first round judging in the National AHA competition. The new site is the Oldenberg brewery, in Ft. Mitchell, KY (just a few miles south of Cincinnati). If any judges think they can make it (Friday/Saturday, April 29/30), please let me know and I'll send full details. Don't want to squander bandwidth, but if there's enough interest, I may post it instead of e-mailing to interested parties. Ed Westemeier, Judge Coordinator Bloatarian Brewing League westemeier at delphi.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 14:55:00 -0500 From: carlo.fusco at canrem.com (Carlo Fusco) Subject: Call for Judges-1994 GCHC _____________________________________________________________________ Canadian Amateur Brewers Association Presents the 10th Annual Great Canadian Homebrew Competition and Conference June 3 and 4, 1994 Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 101 3850 Lakeshore Blvd. West Etobicoke, Ontario _____________________________________________________________________ The 1994 Great Canadian Homebrew Conference will be the tenth time that homebrewers from across our nation will gather to celebrate homebrewing as an art and a science, the Canadian way. Over the last decade we have seen this annual event grow into a first class conference with informative seminars, the Great Canadian Homebrew Competition awards presentation, demonstrations, exhibits, excellent beers from across the country, superb gourmet food, entertainment, and lots of fun. This year will be no exception. Conference registration and itinerary will be posted in April. The 1994 Great Canadian Homebrew Competition promises to be the best yet. This year's competition will feature expanded categories and sub categories as well as the challenging 'Look-Alike' beer. The styles for the competition are as follows: Canadian Lager Canadian Ale Continental Pilsner British Ale Vienna/Oktoberfest/Marzen Pale Ale Munich Dunkel India Pale Ale Bock English Bitter Traditional Bock Brown Ale Helles Bock English Brown Wheat Beer English Mild Berliner Weisse Porter Weizenbier Stout Dunkelweizen Dry Stout Belgian Witbier Sweet Stout Extra Strength Fruit Beer Barley Wine Specialty Imperial Stout Herb Beer Doppelbock Unique Fermentables Weizenbock Belgian Special Ales Scotch Ale Trappist Belgian Strong Ale Lambic Look-Alike Flanders Brown Ale Hart Amber Ale Saison The deadline for entries is May 14, 1994. Attention Beer Judges: The Great Canadian Homebrew Competition is a AHA sanctioned event and points for judging will be awarded. Please contact Dennis Kinvig at 416-536-1016 if you are a BJCP/HWBTA beer judge and wish to participate in judging this event, or are not yet a judge but wish to help and learn more about judging beer. Judging: Judging will be done on Sunday May 29, 1994. The decisions of the judges will be final. Contact Dennis for specifics. Awards: Gold, Silver, and Bronze CABA medallions will be awarded for first, second and third in each beer class. These awards and Best of Show and Best Novice will be presented on June 4 at the Conference. All entrants will receive the judging sheets used to evaluate their entry. For more information write or phone CABA at: CABA 19 Cheshire Dr. Islington, Ontario M9B 2N7 Phone/Fax: 416-237-9130 Compuserve: 71601,3357 InterNet: carlo.fusco at canrem.com ligas at mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Fidonet: Carlo Fusco at 1:229/15 - --- * Freddie 1.2.5 * email: carlo.fusco at canrem.com Sharon,Ontario,Canada ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************