From synchro!judge-request at uu6.psi.com Tue Apr 12 07:32:17 1994 X-VM-Attributes: [t nil nil nil nil] Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA05915 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at hendrix.itn.med.umich.edu); Tue, 12 Apr 94 07:32:10 -0400 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA16034 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 94 06:39:28 -0400 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA19758; 12 Apr 94 05:16:34 EST (Tue) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9404120516.AA19758 at synchro.com> From: judge-request at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #736 (Apr 12, 1994) Date: 12 Apr 94 05:16:34 EST (Tue) JudgeNet Digest #736 Tue 12 Apr 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: Re: The Not_so_great Porter Debate (Jim Busch) Porters ("James Spence/AHA/Colo.") Porters/History/Scoring (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Score Sheets (Spencer.W.Thomas) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 1994 10:24:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Jim Busch Subject: Re: The Not_so_great Porter Debate My *opinion* on porters: A porter should have caramel and chocolate notes. A stout should have roasted barley character. This may be simplistic, but it is the difference between the two styles in my *opinion*. And I dont care if the commercial examples dont always follow this. Good judging, Jim Busch ------------------------------ Date: 11 Apr 94 10:52:37 EDT From: "James Spence/AHA/Colo." <70740.1107 at CompuServe.COM> Subject: Porters Good info from everyone. I think Michael Jackson's comment was enlightening. Here are the NHC 1994 Porter style definitions a) Robust Porter: Black. No roast barley character. Sharp bitterness of black malt, without high burnt/charcoallike flavor. Medium to full bodied. malty sweet. Hop bitterness medium to high. Hop flavor and aroma: none to medium. Fruitiness/esters OK. Low diacetyl OK. OG=1.044-60; alc/vol=5-6.5%; IBUs=25-40; SRM=30+ b) Brown Porter: Medium to dark brown. No roast barley or strong burnt malt character. Light to medium body. Low to medium malt sweetness. Medium hop bitterness. Hop flavor and aroma: none to medium. Fruitiness/esters OK. Low diacetyl OK. OG=1.040-50; alc/vol=4.5-6%; IBUs=20-30; SRM=20-35 All are invited to send me your revisions to this definition. Please don't send historical notes, or vague suggestions. Simply say where you believe the definition goes awry, why you believe this, and how you would change the definition to fix the problem. Jeff>You could check; my memory is that I didn't use the word "analogy" at all - -- that was Chuck Cox. I was referring to the baseball and dachshund analogies you used to argue that the NHC committee practiced judicial fiat, and that porter brewers/AHA members were disgruntled with the style definitions. >For my own perspective, I think the porter category should be clearly spelled >out as an historical beverage, brewed with brown malt and within a distinct >gravity range. If necessary, perhaps a sort of Modern Porter category as >well, along the lines of Yuengling and perhaps with room for hoppy versions. Quite frankly, I don't see how we can create a "clear" Historical Porter, a Modern Porter, and a Hoppy Porter, and really have made the style definitions clear and distinct. These descriptions seem more general and nebulous than ever. What is the distinct gravity range you have in mind? Extending the discussion to other categories: It has been suggested that we form two subcategories in the Barley Wine category. One for "English-style barley wine" (Th. Hardy's et al) and one for "American-style barley wine" (Foghorn, Bigfoot). Does this sound like a good idea? How about the Bock category? Shall we change the style definitions to include the flavor profiles found in Rolling Rock, Sam Adams, Coors, Niagara's Eisbock? James ------------------------------ Date: 11 Apr 94 16:19:00 GMT From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Subject: Porters/History/Scoring Scott writes: > since porters and stouts have similar origins, one would expect the style > differences to become blurred, but he would like to see more of what are If memory serves correctly, I believe Geoff Cooper posted a while back that, in Britain the style guidelines for homebrew competitions have intentional gaps between beers (no overlap). Perhaps we should revisit the reasoning behind this and then debate the pros and cons of: 1. being as accurate to the styles as we can, versus 2. making judging the beers easier. Consider that if there is considerable overlap, more brewers will submit beers to both categories, making the Porter and Stout categories even more unwieldy. *********** Jeff writes, quoting me: >> Did the Americans give up when the Germans >> bombed Pearl Harbour? After I finish my taxes (probably Apr 15th), >All I can say is that I hope your bookkeeping is better than your >history, Al! I hope your memory of beer style definitions is better than your memory of classic lines in the movie "Animal House," Jeff... ;^). *********** Dennis writes: >Now, where I have a problem on score sheet comments is, Do I explain malting >technique changes to an extract brewer ? You never are 100% certain that you >have an extract beer or an all grain beer. (There's always some room for >doubt.) My question is should there be 2 seperate entry classes ? Or should >you be told before hand that this is extract or all grain ? This would make >it a lot easier for comments that fit the type of beer you have. I know you meant "mashing technique," but I had thought this a problem also, and have successfully avoided worrying about it. Let's say there's a lot of astringency in the beer. I might write: "very astringent -- don't boil grains, watch mash/sparge pH, don't oversparge" The grain boiling comment is aimed at an extract+specialty brewer whereas the other two are aimed at mashers. If indeed it's a decoction masher, hopefully they will know to ignore the first comment. If they don't understand the comment, perhaps they could ask a local clubmember, write to BT or Zymurgy Q&A columns or post to an electronic digest. Al. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 13:30:32 EDT From: Spencer.W.Thomas at med.umich.edu Subject: Score Sheets My first judging experience was in a competition where I had expected to be a steward. A no-show made it necessary to "promote" me. But the competition organizer was sensitive to the problem, and paired me with a National-ranked judge. I learned a lot about judging beer in that competition (so much so that by the end I had gained enough confidence to argue with him!) =S ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************