From synchro!judge-request at uu6.psi.com Wed Apr 13 06:51:23 1994 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA27221 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at hendrix.itn.med.umich.edu); Wed, 13 Apr 94 06:51:17 -0400 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA19400 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 94 06:11:53 -0400 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA26032; 13 Apr 94 05:15:43 EST (Wed) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9404130515.AA26032 at synchro.com> From: judge-request at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #737 (Apr 13, 1994) Date: 13 Apr 94 05:15:43 EST (Wed) JudgeNet Digest #737 Wed 13 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: Score sheets (bickham) "American Bocks" and Barley Wines (Brian J Walter (Brewing Chemist)) RE: Bocks (nee, Porters) (Darryl Richman) B'wines! (Martin Lodahl) More Porter, Please (Bob Guerin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 09:16:36 -0400 (EDT) From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: Re: Score sheets Spencer writes: > 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!) My first judging experience was similar - I was paired with Pat Baker doing Imperial Stouts. Of course my learning curve advantage rapidly declined with each of the beers, but it was a great introduction to the world of homebrew judging. Was this in response to the posting by someone who got scoresheets back with apprentice judges on each? If so, I'll add a few belated comments. Often an organizer will be in a situation where the best judges for a particular category aren't in the BJCP. In the last IBU competition, I assigned an apprentice judge to the fruit beer and mead category. While his scoresheets do say apprentice, they don't tell the entrant that he has been running his family's winery for 10+ years and has been commercially making and selling meads there for the last 2 years. Similarly, the head judge at the American ale category was Kieran O'Connor, who is studying for the BJCP Exam, but has brewed several award-winning pale ales and teaches a homebrew course at a local college. Of course this goes back to the old argument on style certification, since these are two examples where apprentice judges were at least as competent, if not more, than then the other recognized and certified judges that were available for these categories. Scott - -- ======================================================================== Scott Bickham bickham at msc.cornell.edu ========================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 08:49:53 -0700 (MDT) From: walter at lamar.ColoState.EDU (Brian J Walter (Brewing Chemist)) Subject: "American Bocks" and Barley Wines James says: > 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? This sounds like a good idea, as there is probably enough distinction between the two on the basis of hopping rates and hop varietey, ala Eng/Am pale ales. > > 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 This is really a "style" of beer with no category to enter it in. Although I may wonder how many homebrewers brew this style. It definitely is a style that exists. In addition to the above breweries, Huber brewing brews a "bock" under their own label, and I believe they brew the Berghoff "bock" also; & G. Heileman brews Augsberger "bock", and Stevens Point Brewery brews a "bock" , and Linenkugels (now owned by Miller) brews a "bock" also. I am sure that there are more, as these are all WI based. As an aside to this, I would opt to put it into the American Lager category before adding it to the Bock category, which consists of traditional German styles of bock beers. Category 16g) American "Bock" -Brian ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 08:05:24 TZ From: Darryl Richman Subject: RE: Bocks (nee, Porters) "James Spence/AHA/Colo." <70740.1107 at CompuServe.COM> writes: > 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? Heavens forfend. --Darryl Richman ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 09:06:49 -0700 (PDT) From: malodah at pbgueuze.scrm2700.PacBell.COM (Martin Lodahl) Subject: B'wines! In JudgeNet Digest #736, James Spence offered: > 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? It sounds like an _excellent_ idea, to me. > 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? Call me a stick-in-the-mud, but all of these beers seem to me to be bastardizations of a great style. I know it's a completely irrational reaction, but I just don't see them as a separate substyle, but rather as failures. = Martin Lodahl Systems Analyst, Capacity Planning, Pacific*Bell = = malodah at pacbell.com Sacramento, CA USA 916.972.4821 = = If it's good for ancient Druids runnin' nekkid through the wuids, = = Drinkin' strange fermented fluids, it's good enough for me! (Unk.) = ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 16:57:42 -0800 From: bguerin at orincon.com (Bob Guerin) Subject: More Porter, Please I don't see the need for a "historical" porter subcategory. What difference does it make how porters were originally made? The more important question is, "How are they made now?" After all, brewing techniques and styles evolve over time. If history were to be the main consideration for defining a category, then we should throw out those American inventions/mutations, American Brown Ale, American Pale Ale, and CA Common Beer, for starters. Next, out go all beers made with that new-fangled lager yeast. Then, out go all beers using that wicked weed, hops, for flavoring/preserving. I guess we should just judge Ninkasi-type beers. ;^) Let's face it, the majority of homebrewers attempt to recreate specific commercial beers that they like, or at least the desirable characteristics of them. Therefore, it is reasonable to have categories that reflect the current beer styles. The only question then is where to draw the dividing lines. It seems to me that the current porter/stout descriptions sufficiently cover the vast majority of commercial beers. The subcategories are broad enough to cover like styles, but narrow enough to separate clear distinctions (which specialty malt(s) used, OG, IBUs, color). The only change I would like to see is to *require* that dry/foreign stout use roasted barley. This would minimize the subcategory overlap with robust porter. Bob Guerin (bguerin at orincon.com) ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************