From synchro!judge-request at uu6.psi.com Thu Apr 14 09:21:57 1994 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA26082 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at hendrix.itn.med.umich.edu); Thu, 14 Apr 94 09:21:11 -0400 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA10247 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 94 07:19:13 -0400 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA02300; 14 Apr 94 05:15:42 EST (Thu) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9404140515.AA02300 at synchro.com> From: judge-request at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #738 (Apr 14, 1994) Date: 14 Apr 94 05:15:42 EST (Thu) JudgeNet Digest #738 Thu 14 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: JudgeNet Digest #737 (Apr 13, 1994) (Alan_Marshall) Styles and Competitions (Again) (Tom Leith MIR/ERL 362-6965) Barleywine subcategories (STROUD) Suggestions for 1995 categories in the NHC (STROUD) Historic Porter (Jeremy Ballard Bergsman) New subcategory/Original Porter (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Managing a big comepetition (/R=SISO01/R=AM/U=slamb/FFN=SLAMB/) RE: Bocks (nee, Porters) (Darryl Richman) Re: Porters. What Else (Jeff Frane) Review: Beer and Ale: A Video Guide (Alan_Marshall) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 08:56 EDT From: Alan_Marshall Subject: Re: JudgeNet Digest #737 (Apr 13, 1994) I am sorry for the Subject line. My mail system does not allow me to edit the subject line. There is a small thread on bocks: James Spence says (I've re-margined liberally throughout): > 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 To which Brian replies: > 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... and Martin Lodahl replies: > 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 is a stick-in-the-mud. There! ;-) I would like to jump to the defence of a local product, Niagara Fall's Eisbock. I should really assume that none of you are familiar with it, and assume that Brian's and Martin's comments are directed at the RR, SA, and Coors products rather than NF's. In the most recent edition of the Pocket Guide, MJ rates the NF Eisbock at *** -> ****, the highest rating accorded a Canadian beer. Similarly, in his Beer Companion, Jackson features NF Eisbock along side Einbecker, EKU, Kulmbacher, Paulaner, and Samichlaus. This is no bastardization. I'll trust Martin's judgement on the others, though. Recently, I had the opportunity to send a bottle to a net friend in California, Ken Papai (kpapai at rahul.net, quite active in rec.food. drink.beer) and he raved about it. Related to this thread, In alt.beer and rec.food.drink.beer, Joel Plutchak (plutchak at lager.geo.brown.edu) has set up a Virtual Pub, with a series of VP Tastings. The current tasting is "bock beers any and all you can find". In the past they have been SNPA, SA Boston Lager, Theakston's Old Peculier. I would like to encourage the judging community to get involved in these tastings. For appentices, it's an opportunity to practice putting your impressions into words. For experienced judges, it's an opportunity to provide examples to educate the inexperienced. - -- - -- Alan Marshall -- AK200032 at SOL.YORKU.CA (York University, Toronto, Canada) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 10:10:22 -0500 From: trl at photos.wustl.edu (Tom Leith MIR/ERL 362-6965) Subject: Styles and Competitions (Again) I'm the guy who started the latest round of this (stones mat be thrown in my direction), and I've read each message going by with great interest. It seems to me the consensus is that, stylistically speaking, robust porter is identical with stout, which used to be called "stout porter". Or at the very least noone should really expect even Certified AHA Judges to discern the difference reliably. This leaves "Brown" or "Historical" Porter, which is difficult to find exemplified commercially, and what I'll call "Modern Porter", exemplified by Boulder and other malty-caramely-toasty brews in that space. This, I think, is what we should work on. I personally would reccommend dropping the "Robust Porter" category entirely (no pun intended) since it can't/won't be judged reliably at competitions. This would mean that Anchor's offering is not a porter, but rather, a stout. In today's digest Bob Guerin raised some points that are near to my heart 8-) and I thought I'd make a "contribution"... >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?" This goes right to the heart of what we want our beer appreciation society to be. Are we willing to let beer marketeers define styles for us? Gee, I hope not. For example, our local microbrewery has a beer he's calling dunkelwizen on tap right now. Well, its dark, and it *does* contain wheat in the grist, but not so much you can taste it. Even the brewmaster will tell you its not really a dunkelwizen. But the name sounds better to the management down there than "alt", and they could wave their hands and make an excuse for the name, so there it is. My answer to the "How are they made now?" question is: "Maybe they're NOT made now, despite the label the brewery puts on it. Just because the brewer calls it "porter" don't make it so. At least for AHA competition purposes". >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. OK -- but where is it written that every commercial beer falls into some competition category? What's the point of the program? If the point of the program is to honor the homebrewer best able to "clone" a commercial beer, then I guess its OK to define a bunch of categories defined by popular commercial brews. The competitions would run a little differently. And this could be interesting. But the materials used for the competitions suggest that this is NOT the point. Perhaps what we need for the AHA Competitions is a better "Mission and Goals" statement. Then we'd have something to compare specific practices against and ask ourselves whether the practice supports or confounds the "Mission and Goals" of the program. I'll have to work on this; but right now, the Healthcare System requires my attention 8-) t ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 1994 11:18:46 -0500 (EST) From: STROUD%GAIA at leia.polaroid.com Subject: Barleywine subcategories 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? I'm generally in favor of adding subcategories to any style if it helps to better define a brewer's entry. Note, however, that many beer enthusiasts define Thom Hardy's as an Old Ale, not a barleywine (for example, look at MJ's 'Beer Companion'). Eldrige Pope _does_ make a product that they call a barleywine. It is named 'Goldie,' has an OG in the mid '80's, and to my thinking is a much better example of an English-style barleywine. Steve Stroud ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 1994 12:13:58 -0500 (EST) From: STROUD%GAIA at leia.polaroid.com Subject: Suggestions for 1995 categories in the NHC In Judgenet #733, James Spence said: >Please send me your suggestions for any category in the NHC, and they WILL be >considered for the 1995 categories. Well, since you asked.................... I think that everyone has their own pet peeves regarding their favorite styles. Personally the porter/stout debate bores me. It is nearly impossible to separate all of the different subcategories. Even the roast barley (stout)/ no roast barley (porter) definitions have fallen by the wayside since many American brewers seem to use roast barley in both styles. Judging of these styles therefore becomes subjective, depending on who is doing the judging. Pale ales are another style where subjectivity is often the norm. It is probably something we'll all have to live with. My read on the AHA style definitions is that they are only a _guideline_ which cover many but not all of the commercial examples of a style. I have engaged in some spirited debates about this with my fellow club members, many of whom seem to think that the AHA definitions are chiseled in stone and that an entry that falls outside of them is automatically flawed. James, here are a couple places that I suggest that you make changes in the categories for 1995: 1 - Fritz Maytag won't like this, but get rid of the 'California Common Beer' as a separate category. The correct place for it is as a _subcategory_ under American ales. Anchor Steam drinks like a pale ale and in a blind tasting would be virtually indistinguishable from many other American pale ales. Before any of you start objecting ("But it's an American Original!!") please read Greg Noonan's article 'What Makes an Ale an Ale' in "Beer and Brewing, Vol. 9" - from the 1989 AHA National Conference. It may change your mind. 2 - Move witbiers into the category that includes Berliner weisses and weizens. I don't care where they are brewed, flavor-wise there is more similarity between wits and weizens then Berliner weisses and weizens, so it seems a good fit. 3 - Move Flanders Brown ales out of the general Belgian ale category and into the category that contains the lambics - but rename the category! (Sour Belgian ales, or something like that). It really makes a lot more sense to have the Goudenband and Rodenbach-type beers in with the lambics, as opposed to having them in with the dubbels and tripels. 4 - Add a Dutch-Scandinavian Pilsner subcategory to go along with the German and Bohemian subcategories. There really should be a place for beers like Carlsberg and Grolsch - the broadly available European lagers that have lower OG's and less hop character than North. German pilsners, and may use small amounts of corn or rice as adjuncts. Miller's 'Pilsner' book gives a nice description of the style. 5 - Drop the herb/fruit/specialty categories :-). Now there's a suggestion that Rick Garvin could endorse!!!! That's enough for you to chew on right now. Any opinions? Steve Stroud ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 09:27:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeremy Ballard Bergsman Subject: Historic Porter bguerin at orincon.com (Bob Guerin) writes: > 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?" > 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. I have to take exception to this argument. I know several homebrewers who have tried to make "historic" porter. One member of my homebrew club, who is taking the long course at Davis, did weeks of research in order to try to make an accurate historic porter (and he doesn't even like porter!). I have seen several requests about historic porters in HBD and R.C.B. I understand the difficulty of defining a style that has no commercial examples, nor even a clear consensus about its characteristics. Also, every new style is more work for competition organizers. But people are out there trying to make this beer and the lack interest cannot be used to argue against its inclusion. Jeremy Bergsman jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 94 15:59:00 GMT From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Subject: New subcategory/Original Porter I'm not sure where this new subcategory should go, maybe with American Lagers or maybe someone has a better suggestion, but we need a category for beers such as Baderbrau, Pete's Wicked Lager and Samuel(tm) Adams(tm) Boston(tm) Lager(tm). A brewer who brews a perfect clone of SABL would not be able to enter it in the Nationals. This can't be right, can it? I proposed a subcategory like this about a year or 1.5 years ago (are JudgeNet Digests archived?) but it was called "Robust American Lager" and I had come up with some suggested style descriptions. James? How about a "Robust American Lager" subcategory? ****** Bob writes: >I don't see the need for a "historical" porter subcategory. What >difference does it make how porters were originally made? The more My answer is, because it would be interesting. >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. I didn't say we should discard modern styles did I? I was just saying that this is a style that there appears to be enough information (thanks to Terry Foster) to create this subcategory. If a couple of brewers would like to make this type of beer and enter it in a competition to see how they did (and not have to enter it in the Specialty category), why not give them a place to put it. I didn't come up with this idea, and I may not have been the first to mention it in this forum, rather I entered a regional competition (St. Louis? Kenosha? I don't recall) in which there was a subcategory called "Original Porter" alongside "Modern Porter". >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. Yes, but try and find a commercially made herb beer in the US five years ago and there was definately a category for it already in the Nationals. No, I don't feel that "there is no commercial equivalent" is a valid argument for not having a particular subcategory, but that's just my opinion. Indeed, it is reasonable to have categories that reflect the current beer styles, but it is not unreasonable to have categories that reflect historical beer styles. Where else but if not among homebrewers? Al. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 12:29:26 CDT From: /R=SISO01/R=AM/U=slamb/FFN=SLAMB/ at MRSED.JSC.NASA.GOV Subject: Managing a big comepetition We're in the throes of working on this year's Dixie Cup Competition and I have 2 fears. The first is that the number of entries that we get this year will decrease from last year. The second is that we will have a substantial increase over last year. It is this second problem that I would like to submit to this forum. How should you go about trying to judge 800 beers in a day and a half? I don't like the idea of doing any "pre-judging" prior to the weekend of the competition. How do you give 800 entrants a fair shake? Any ideas would be appreciated. Sean Lamb Grand Wazoo, Houston Foam Rangers Homebrew Club ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Apr 94 09:08:35 TZ From: Darryl Richman Subject: RE: Bocks (nee, Porters) Before I get flamed to death for being snide, let me elaborate just a bit on where I think these other Bock beers ought to go. > "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? Rolling Rock and the large set of American Bocks fall squarely in the American Dark Lager category. I can distinguish nothing about them that could possibly differentiate the two categories. I must admit to have not had Coors' Eisbock yet. I haven't had a Sam Adams Doppelbock in several years, but at the time it was a well made beer that didn't taste much like a traditional German dark bock beer because of the chocolate malt character in it. I had some of Niagara's first year Eisbock; I understand that the product has been inconsistent. It was a well made beer, but the fermentation was obviously not tightly controlled and it exhibited a fair ester profile. The Bock categories are ok as they are, except that the German beers don't exhibit a strong chocolate or roasty character (forgive me if I'm not quoting exactly, I don't have the category description in front of me at work); they taste like the particular melanoidins that are formed in making Munich malt. This character does not taste like sweet caramel malt to me, either. Also, I think that the emphasis on making huge, big, giant, tremendous, towering, behemoth, leviathan beers for the Doppelbock category is unwarranted; the best ones taste less strong than they actually are. (Have you had a Salvator lately?) This comes back to the idea (which I like) of an American vs. British Barleywine style. British barleywines start below 1.060 OG (for example, I believe Old Nick is in the low 1.060s). Similarly, if you discount EKU 28 and Kulmbacher Reichelbraeu and a couple others, nearly all Doppelbocks are made in the 1.075-1.085 range. --Darryl Richman ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 16:09:17 -0700 (PDT) From: gummitch at teleport.com (Jeff Frane) Subject: Re: Porters. What Else >From James Spence: > > 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 > Gosh, these sound perfect to me! I only have two quarrels. (a) I dislike the term "sweet" in reference to malt. How about "malty"? (b) I believe the Brown Porter should reflect a wider range of hop flavor and aroma; I do not think a vigorous hopping rate is inappropriate. ((James! How'm I doing?) > > 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. > Well, I did poorly in speech class, so I never learned the rules. My speech teacher told me, in front of the class, that I was a traitor and should be shot. I did *not* say that the NHC committee practiced judicial fiat; I said that you could *not* behave that way, in spite of a couple of people posting comments to the effect that an organizer defined the categories and contestants needed to either adhere to those requirements or simply not enter. My comments should not be construed as a criticism of the actual committee nor its rulings -- merely the dangers of such an attitude. > 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? > Once again, this sounds peachy. If I may make a suggestion, the definitions should include very specific information about conditioning levels; i.e., English barleywines are virtually flat, whereas American versions have more "normal" carbonation levels. Obviously, American versions likewise lean toward the very hoppy -- a complete distinction from the British. > 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? > Elsewhere someone suggests that American Bock (as exemplified by the Wisconsin breweries, for the most part) be included as a subcategory of American lager. I think this idea is a pip (that's good, folks). It is, as Martin Lodahl says, a bastard style, but it has been around longer than any of the micros. Since we seem bent on including every type of beer brewed by anyone, anywhere, American Bocks are definitely a legitimate category. Can we leave out the ice beer? Al Korzonas writes: > 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... ;^). > I got a couple of letters about this one. Clearly, my education is, um, lacking. I really did think old Al was joking on this one, folks; little did I know he was quoting from a classic! However, to demonstrate that I am not a complete ignoramus, I offer an anecdote (not, James, an analogy): Someone asked Dorothy Parker to use the word "horticulture" in a sentence. She replied, "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think." I know, it is not pertinent, but I thought it was funny and I didn't want all you guys to think I was completely ignorant. - --Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 22:42 EDT From: Alan_Marshall Subject: Review: Beer and Ale: A Video Guide I have posted a review of "Beer and Ale: A Video Guide" to rec.food.drink.beer and alt.beer. If you cannot access Usenet, and would like a copy of the review, email me. If I get overwhelmed by requests, I'll post here. - -- - -- Alan Marshall "If a picture is worth a thousand AK200032 at SOL.YORKU.CA words, a taste is worth a thousand York University pictures." - Charles Finkel, Pike Toronto, Canada Place Brewery/Merchant du Vin ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************