From synchro!judge-request at uu6.psi.com Thu May 26 07:09:53 1994 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA02396 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at hendrix.itn.med.umich.edu); Thu, 26 May 94 07:09:47 -0400 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA15263 for ; Thu, 26 May 94 06:42:26 -0400 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA11251; 26 May 94 05:23:40 EDT (Thu) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9405260523.AA11251 at synchro.com> From: judge-request at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #769 (May 26, 1994) Date: 26 May 94 05:23:40 EDT (Thu) JudgeNet Digest #769 Thu 26 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: my $.02 worth... (Brian Bliss) Original gravities (Btalk) German beer categories, freeze distillation (darrylri) BJCP Exam Costs ("Rad Equipment") BJCP Exam Costs Time:7:38 AM Date:5/25/94 BJCP administration (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 07:02:21 -0500 From: bliss at pixel.convex.com (Brian Bliss) Subject: my $.02 worth... Robert H. Reed writes: >What *is* significant about your beer is the category into which it is >entered, not whether you used an ale yeast for Steam Beer, agreed. >or if you used Centennial hops in a Classic English Pale Ale. that IS significant, and the perpetrator should be shot (IMHO)... >I don't believe the typical >judge could discern a 5 point specific gravity difference in a 1.090 beer, >anyway. I think the relevant point in both Dopplebock and Eisbock is that >there should be noticable alcohol. certainly. brian-overly_hop_variety_sensitive-bliss ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 May 94 08:32:34 EDT From: Btalk at aol.com Subject: Original gravities It seems to me that the OGs given in the style descriptions are more of a guideline for the brewer than the judge. When a beer is being judged, isn't it the end result that is being examined rather than how it got there? (regarding terminal gravities in particular) Granted that if you use totally inappropriate ingredients the flavor profile is going to be way off, and this is where the 'constructive criticism' part of a judge's job comes into play. What I'm trying to say is that I think you can have a beer that is pretty close stylistically even if your OG is out of bounds. Regards, Bob Talkiewicz ------------------------------ Date: Wed May 25 07:14:41 1994 From: darrylri at microsoft.com Subject: German beer categories, freeze distillation People have been discussing these two topics, and I'd like to add my research into the subject. German beer categories: Before the EC had a look into the German beer scene, the Germans had incorporated the Reinheitsgebot (beer purity law) into their biersteuergesezt (beer tax code). The code identified several different original gravity bands with names, and then provided for beer taxes based on those names. The law also required not only the alcohol but the tax name to be displayed on the bottle. Bock and doppelbock beer were categorized as starkbier (strong beer), the former being of 16-18 Plato, and the latter being >18 Plato. At least since WWII, there has been no name for the band from 14-16 Plato, and hence, it was illegal to sell a beer with an original gravity in that range, since the brewer could not put a tax code name on it. The EC came along and knocked down the Reinheitsgebot. Well, sort of. It is actually still in force, but only for beers brewed in Germany and also those imported from outside the EC. So, the English, French, and Belgians can import their nonR-bot beer into Germany, but neither the German brewers brewing for their home market, nor American brewers, can sell nonR-bot beer there. They emphasize this difference to their customers by proclaiming "Gebraut nach dem deutches Reinheitsgebot" on the label. Freeze distillation in the US: This is technically illegal, because the general laws prohibit concentrating alcohol without a licence. In writing my book, I spoke with an agent of the BATF, and I also asked about the newest rage: Ice beer. The BATF is formulating a set of regs to cover this situation. But basically, if the concentration does produce an effective original gravity higher than the actual OG, then the BATF doesn't mind. So, if you brew a beer (as the megabrewers all do) with an OG of 1.060, then water it to 1.048 at the end, and then freeze distill it back to an effective 1.055 (that is, remove about 12% of the water), they don't mind. If you were to distill it to an effective 1.065 (removing about 26%), the BATF will want to see a distillers license and appropriate labelling. Obviously, the big brewers have more sway at the BATF. But making an eisbock is still technically illegal in this country. I only know of two breweries that regularly produce an eisbock, so it's not like it's a widely available product. Since EKU is not one of them, and since they make a beer that's stronger either of the two I do know of, I suppose it is possible to make an eisbock legally in the US; but I think that both of the eisbocks I've had are better beers than EKU 28. (One is Niagara Brewing's eisbock, of about 8% alcohol, and the other is EKU's neighbor, Kulmbacher Reichelbraeu, with an effective OG of 24 Plato.) --Darryl Richman ------------------------------ Date: 25 May 1994 08:32:25 -0800 From: "Rad Equipment" Subject: BJCP Exam Costs Subject: BJCP Exam Costs Time:7:38 AM Date:5/25/94 >But, when people are being charged $50 or $30 for each >administration (far more than the cost of producing, >administering, and scoring the exam) Actually the program has been pretty much in the red or in a break-even mode. It is not making anyone rich, that's for sure. Remember it is a stand alone program which is co-sponsored by the AHA & HWBTA. It does not get money from either parent unless it cannot support itself through fees for exams, pins, and experience points. Since the majority of the activity in the program centers on the exam, that's where the funds are found. Last year I floated a suggestion in this forum that an annual membership fee (say $5) be charged to active judges to help defray the costs of the program rather than increase the exam fee. This was met with much resistance and suggestions like charging the competitions for the service of "certifying" the judges. The BJCC decided to raise the exam fee for first timers only. RW... Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu - CI$: 72300,61) UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / Home (707) 769-0425 ------------------------------ Date: 25 May 94 16:44:00 GMT From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Subject: BJCP administration Ed writes: >have been taken. But, when people are being charged $50 or $30 for each >administration (far more than the cost of producing, administering, and >scoring the exam) and the exam is a requirement for certification on a >national/international level, I feel that the BJCP has such a >resposibility. The money collected from exams does far more than just pay for the producing, administering and scoring of the exams. It is also used to maintain the database of BJCP judges, their ranks, points, etc. as well as printing BJCP rule booklets, judging guidelines, annual distribution of status to all the judges (paper, envelopes, postage) and probably a couple of other things too. The people producing and scoring the exams are volunteers and the money paid to the people administering the exams has to cover the postage, facilities and incidentals associated with the administering of the exams. However, I agree that it would be a good idea to return graded exams to exam takers. With the BJCP service requirements for the new Grand Master rank, there will be more help scoring exams and doing other BJCP work, so that maybe it will be easier to arrange for exams to be returned. Al. ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************