From synchro!judge-request at uu6.psi.com Fri May 20 06:36:09 1994 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA19752 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at hendrix.itn.med.umich.edu); Fri, 20 May 94 06:11:18 -0400 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA10894 for ; Fri, 20 May 94 06:19:19 -0400 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA18486; 20 May 94 05:23:32 EDT (Fri) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9405200523.AA18486 at synchro.com> From: judge-request at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #765 (May 20, 1994) Date: 20 May 94 05:23:32 EDT (Fri) JudgeNet Digest #765 Fri 20 May 1994 THE BEER JUDGE DIGEST Chuck Cox , publisher 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 Published by SynchroSystems and the Riverside Garage & Brewery Contents: Re: Top-down vs Bottom-up Judging (Rick Garvin (703-761-6630)) Contesting a BJCP exam score ("Roger Deschner ") Clarification on Eisbock? (The Rider) (Michael Fetzer) Exam ("\" Dennis Davison \"") Request for commercial examples (ALKinchen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 08:02:13 -0400 (EDT) From: rgarvin at btg.com (Rick Garvin (703-761-6630)) Subject: Re: Top-down vs Bottom-up Judging korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas ) wrote: > Subject: Top-down vs. Bottom-up/petitioning exam grading > > The way that I judge a beer is to write the comments and individual > scores for each section, add them up and then look at the total score. > If I feel that I was too generous and that indeed this is not a 31 beer, > then I adjust down. I may further adjust up or down based upon a > subsequent discussion with my fellow judges in the flight. I feel > that it is important to evaluate the nose immediately and write down the > comments on it as quickly as possible. Whether a judge writes all the > comments first and then assigns numbers, doesn't bother me. Al agrees with about 40% of the responses that I have gotten on this subject. I have categorized this approach as "Bottom-up with Top-down adjustment." Some folks seemed surprised that there was a choice at all. I still believe that the purely top-down approach provides the most consistent results. I do agree that the best way to implement this is to write down your comments before choosing a score. Al makes an important point in regards to the order of judging. I have developed a process for this. Its not something that I would normally commit to paper, but teaching judge classes forces you to formalize the process. The order I advocate is: 1) Bottle Condition 2) Aroma 3) Appearance 4) Flavor 5) Aroma I emphasize checking the aroma a second time since it can change over time. I have found this especially true for stronger beers with a sulfer component. In 5 minutes it can be gone completely. Cheers, Rick ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 11:58:10 CDT From: "Roger Deschner " Subject: Contesting a BJCP exam score It's easy, though not fast. Describe your problem in a letter, and send it by regular (non-electronic) mail to: James Spence BJCP Administrator American Homebrewer's Association P. O. Box 1679 Boulder, Colorado 80306-1679 You'll get a letter back fairly quickly confirming that your letter was received, and estimating how long it will take. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 09:11:08 -0800 From: mfetzer at ucsd.edu (The Rider) (Michael Fetzer) Subject: Clarification on Eisbock? I'm a bit confused about the AHA definition of Eisbock. The o.g. requirements are such that there is a gap between doppelbock and eisbock, and 'eis' is not mentioned in the verbal explanation of Eisbock. It was my understanding that Eisbock is simply a freeze distilled presumably doppelbock. Removing the ice concentrates the alcohol. But, according to Charlie (and whoever helps him write the AHA definitions) it's simply a bock with an o.g. higher than 92 or 95 (forget exact number). This not only does not use ice distillation (why call it eisbock?) it also leaves a gap between the upper end of doppelbock (o.g. 82) and the lower end of eisbock. What do I call it if it had an o.g. of 87? Mike - -- Michael Fetzer pgp 2.2 key available on request Internet: mfetzer at ucsd.edu uucp: ...!ucsd!mfetzer Bitnet: FETZERM at SDSC HEPnet/SPAN: SDSC::FETZERM or 27.1::FETZERM ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 18:27:50 -0400 (EDT) From: "\" Dennis Davison \"" Subject: Exam The only problem I see with open ended questions is At what point does the exam taker receive full points for an answer? If he forgets to put down finished ph of 3.0-3.5 does this knock his points down to 9. How can open ended questions be graded fairly? What I'm getting at is that each answer must contain certain items ? If the answer should have 15 points made then if only 10 points are hit the taker gets a 6 or 7 points for the answer. Now is there a master list for answers or is this up to the people scoring the exams ? I know that 3 people score the exams. This sounds like it's done by commity and whatever tickles there fancy on any given day may effect a score from 78 to say 80. Now that scores are critical with your level of judgeship I feel that these questions asked should have answer sheets with key points. At that point the exam will reflect a judges true knowledge. 14 to 15 minutes to think, formulate, and write an answer for each question is ruff. If you go off on a side road you may never hit all that they expect. 20 - 30 minutes per question would be fine but who wants a 6 hour test ? Personally, all questions on the history and flavor descritions should be removed to allow for more technical questions. What's the first thing EVERY JUDGE does when he's assigned to judge a category ? He pulls out the AHA style guidelines and re-reads it to make certain. Basically I think that's all they really want for answers anyway ? Or is it ? If I'm not a porter brewer should I be penelized for not knowing the history, the same holds true for oktoberfest. The way the exam is layed out makes me feel like I'm a certified beer historian more than a beer judge. The exam should focus more on off flavors and ways to avoid them more than this style has low to medium hop bitterness, low flavor and no aroma. Heck we all refresh our memories and with close to 100 beer styles and some of them so very similiar 1/2 the written exam centers on this. Dennis Davison ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 May 94 23:18:42 EDT From: ALKinchen at aol.com Subject: Request for commercial examples With the release of the representative question pool for the BJCP written exam and the Chuck Cox Study Guide, there should be no surprises when taking the written part of the exam. Studying for the oral (sorry, Guys) or tasting part of the exam is not as well under control. I am looking for suggestions of commercial beers, preferably widely distributed ones, that exhibit specific and identifiable characteristics or the definition of a style. For example, some of the following beers have unique flavors, and I don't mean to be blasting any of these beers. Some of these characteristics are designed into the flavor profile: Characteristic Example Comments - -------------- ------- -------- Cascade hops SNPA Anchor Liberty Northern Brewer Hops Anchor Steam DMS Rolling Rock Skunkiness Heineken Banana esters (isoamyl acetate) Red Tail Ale Lactic sourness Goudenband Winey oxidation Some Bottled brewpub beers Papery oxidation Style - ----- Belgian White (Wit, Bier Blanche) Celis White By definition Dry Stout Guiness " Bohemian Pilsner P.U. When fresh Doppel bock Salvator etc. Any suggestions? You can E-mail me. I will post the results. Thanks. ak alkinchen at aol.com ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************