JudgeNet Digest #9402 Tue 01 Feb 1994 THE BEER JUDGE DIGEST Chuck Cox , digest administrator Michael Hall , archive administrator digest submissions ONLY to judge at synchro.com ALL administrative requests to judge-request at synchro.com FTP archive information in /pub/judge/README on cygnus.ta52.lanl.gov Sponsored by SynchroSystems and the Riverside Garage & Brewery ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 16:16:00 -0700 (MST) From: Jim Liddil Subject: Exam Proctor Wanted Our club, the Old Pueblo Homebrewers would like to give the BJCP exam in the first half of May of this year. I have already contact Alberta Rager and she is trying to find a qualified person to proctor our exam. I thought a post here might speed up that process. If you are interested, we are located in Tucson, AZ. Contact Alberta Rager or the AHA if you are interested. TIA Jim Liddil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 07:57 CST From: fjdobner at ihlpa.att.com Subject: BJCP Exam: Styles I am planning on taking the BJCP exam in April and have a question on what is required to know about styles, in general. I have seen the study guide and think that it is helping a great deal. However, under the STYLES section of that guide, it say, "You should be able to describe ingredients, procedures and characteristics of each style." My understanding of the BJCP was that it was intended to be able to judge beer styles not brew them. I have brewed a number of the styles and probably can describe many of them but I am trying to get a focus on what it is that the exam is testing me on and study from that perspective. Any specifics to help guide my study would be appreciated. Thanks. Frank Dobner ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 10:43:00 -0500 From: carlo.fusco at canrem.com (Carlo Fusco) Subject: RE: Exam Unfairness? J> I agree; I'm not complaining about this because I'm unfamiliar with J> the styles. Half of my point is that by inadvertently doubling up on J> some styles, the exam skipped over others. There were no questions J> on Porter, Bock, Stout, or other common styles, and this is in part J> because of the undue emphasis on Pilsener and Brown Ale. I'd rather J> be asked questions on two beers than be asked about one beer twice. I have to agree with Bruce. I will be writting the exam in the spring and am worried about this very thing happening. I don't feel that questions should overlap, if it is suppose to be an unbiased exam. The exam should have enough diversity in the tastings and the questions, so that the it better tests your knowlege. For example: If you know all the styles extremely well, except for pilsners, and 2 of the 4 questions on the exam are about pilsner and 1 of the 3 beers you are tasting is a pilsner, you only have the ability to answer 4 of the 7 questions/tastings, an unaccurate evaluation of your knowledge will be tested. If however only one question was on pilsners, you would be able to answer 6 of the 7 questions/tastings, a better evaluation of you knowledge will be tested. Just my $0.02 Carlo - --- * Freddie 1.2.5 * email: carlo.fusco at canrem.com Sharon,Ontario,Canada ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 1994 21:25:48 -0700 From: Steve Dempsey Subject: Re: BJCP Exam: Styles (brewing knowledge vs. resulting product) In JudgeNet Digest #680 fjdobner at ihlpa.att.com writes: >I have seen the study >guide and think that it is helping a great deal. However, under the STYLES >section of that guide, it say, "You should be able to describe ingredients, >procedures and characteristics of each style." My understanding of the >BJCP was that it was intended to be able to judge beer styles not brew >them. But the duty of a judge is to evaluate the beer and either praise a worthy entry, or identify faults make suggestions for improvement. If you don't know how to brew the style, you can't really give feedback on how to remedy problem areas. Some judges come in with the idea that they'll sit down and just pick the winners. That's only half the job. Anybody can pick the beers they like and by studying the style even identify appropriate winners. But when you get a beer that doesn't meet the style, you can't just say 'loser'; you have to say 'loser, could be winner if you did ... [specific modifications to recipe, procedures, etc.]'. ================================ Engineering Network Services Steve Dempsey Colorado State University steved at longs.lance.colostate.edu Fort Collins, CO 80523 ================================ +1 303 491 0630 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 09:02:07 -0500 (EST) From: btg!rgarvin at uunet.uu.net (Rick Garvin (703-761-6630)) Subject: Re: unfair exam > >First, there's a built-in unfairness which is nobody's fault. The beers we > >tasted during the exam turned out to correlate with the ones on the > >questions. This gave us a double jeopardy situation; if we weren't familiar > >with Pilseners or Brown Ales, we'd have gotten nailed twice: once on the > >written section, and then again on the judging. > > jc> all questions of per style verification aside Bruce if you > jc> don't know the Pilsener or Brown Ale styles (the former the > jc> most commonly brewed in the world, the latter incredibly > jc> common among new homebrewers) then IMHO you shouldn't be passing. > > I agree; I'm not complaining about this because I'm unfamiliar with the > styles. Half of my point is that by inadvertently doubling up on some styles, > the exam skipped over others. There were no questions on Porter, Bock, > Stout, or other common styles, and this is in part because of the undue > emphasis on Pilsener and Brown Ale. I'd rather be asked questions on two > beers than be asked about one beer twice. As the procter in question, Bruce ya did fine. Especially on the tasting. As a procter I receieved the exam questions on the Monday before the exam. This gives me 4 wirking days to line up 4 beers. I chose a Pilsner, Brown Ale, Trippel and a Weizen. The Pilsner was a partial mash that was a tad dark but otherwise spot on. The Brown Ale was lactic, oxidized and had diacetyl (extra points for noticing diacetyl past the other garbage). The Trippel was TOO fusel. The Weizen was a two time ribbon winner. This covered judging skills pretty well. Since 18 of the brewers that I know were taking the exam I had a limited pool of homebrews that were good, had never been tasted by the examinees and were not brewed by the examinees. That coupled with the short lead time was a handicap that I thought was handled rather elegantly. The purpose of the hudging section is to test a judges palate, narrative skills and style knowledge (in that order). The style knowledge is tested in the written portion also. Should we have NO overlap between styles on tasting and written? Maybe this is a question that needs to be pursued. Cheers, Rick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 08:00:10 EST From: John DeCarlo Subject: Re: Exam Unfairness and Exam My $.01 worth. I simply found it disconcerting to have so much overlap of styles on the exam. It definitely gave me pause, since I didn't expect it. Any test is only going to cover a subset of the material, and it is rarely the subset you know best , but I would simply tell people that there may be considerable overlap and even some repetition. (BTW, I thought there was too much emphasis on Germany, so there you are.) Farnk Dobner writes: >My understanding of the BJCP was that it was intended to be able to >judge beer styles not brew them. That isn't *my* understanding (and I hope I got this part right on the exam). It is intended to encourage homebrewers by having judges who can give constructive and hopefully uniform and well-informed feedback. Thus, a judge should be able to tell a brewer what the defect detected was and what may have caused it and how it could be corrected. So, when studying for the exam expect to be able to describe styles in terms of end results (what they taste/smell/etc. like) and in terms of creating them (ingredients, procedures, etc.). As well as what is *not* in style or otherwise a defect, and what may have caused it and what could be done differently to avoid it (whether the beer is overattenuated for style or just sour from contamination). John DeCarlo, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA--My views are my own Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdecarlo at mitre.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 8:26:14 -0700 (MST) From: Jim Liddil Subject: BJCP Exam Offered The Old Pueblo Homebrewers will be offering The Beer Judge Certification Program Exam On May 7, 1994 at 10:00 am The exam is tentatively scheduled to be offered at 2332 E. Adams St. Tucson, AZ 85719 The fee is $50 for first time takers and $30 for retakes. The NON-refundable fee must be recieved to the address listed above by April 1, 1994. Please make checks payable to "Old Pueblo Homebrewers". If you have any questions feel free to contact me via e-mail or call (602)881-8768. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 13:14 CST From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: exam coverage/exam fairness Frank writes: >guide and think that it is helping a great deal. However, under the STYLES >section of that guide, it say, "You should be able to describe ingredients, >procedures and characteristics of each style." My understanding of the >BJCP was that it was intended to be able to judge beer styles not brew >them. I have brewed a number of the styles and probably can describe You don't necessarily need to brew the styles, but as judges, I feel we should do more than just say "not sweet enough for style." We should be able to add "try adding some more crystal malt" or "try adding lactose for more sweetness." To do well on the exam you need to know things like what are the ingredients that give a Wit its characteristic flavor or how to make Berliner Weiss. This is ingredient and procedural knowledge that I feel is essential for not only judging a beer, but also helping the brewer do better next time. Some entrants send beer to competitions to compete with fellow brewers or to win ribbons, but a great many are just trying to get an "expert" opinion on how to improve their beer. I think that the "sample exam questions" in the "Unofficial" BJCP Study Guide give a pretty good overview of what kinds of questions will be asked. ********** Carlo writes: > J> because of the undue emphasis on Pilsener and Brown Ale. I'd rather > J> be asked questions on two beers than be asked about one beer twice. > >better tests your knowlege. For example: If you know all the styles >extremely well, except for pilsners, and 2 of the 4 questions on the exam >are about pilsner and 1 of the 3 beers you are tasting is a pilsner, you >only have the ability to answer 4 of the 7 questions/tastings, an >unaccurate evaluation of your knowledge will be tested. If however only >one question was on pilsners, you would be able to answer 6 of the 7 >questions/tastings, a better evaluation of you knowledge will be tested. >unaccurate evaluation of your knowledge will be tested. If however only >one question was on pilsners, you would be able to answer 6 of the 7 >questions/tastings, a better evaluation of you knowledge will be tested. I agree that the exam questions should span a wide variety of styles, but I totally disagree with your argument. I feel that *minimally* what a judge should be able to know *very* well is the description of *each* style. I feel that a judge should be able to KNOW EVERY STYLE at least well enough to be tested on it. I feel that all active judges should be tested periodically on all styles. I think I mentioned this here before: have an open-book exam sent every 5 years to every active judge and they must pass this exam 100%. If nothing else, this will force the "old," entrenched judges, some of whom have developed bad "habits," to open a book and read about each style, periodically, just to keep sharp. Typical questions may include (just off the top of my head): Q: All Belgian styles have a characteristic lactic sourness. [ ] True [ ] False Q: Most commercial Bohemian Pilsners' bitterness falls in the range: [ ] 15 - 30 IBU [ ] 30 - 45 IBU [ ] 22 - 35 IBU [ ] 42 - 57 IBU Q: The primary difference(s) between Mild and Engilsh Brown is/are: [ ] OG only [ ] IBUs only [ ] color [ ] color and OG [ ] OG and IBUs Granted, it takes more than a description in a book to become proficient at a style and some styles are not available in all part of the US, but judges and competition organizers need to be aware of these limitations and the AHA/HWBTA/BJCP need to shedule events that help alleviate these problems (e.g. organize "obscure style tastings" at the National Conference). That's probably more than $.02. Al. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 18:13:02 -0600 From: trl at photos.wustl.edu (Tom Leith MIR/ERL 362-6965) Subject: Strike-Heat Formula Awhile back, I saw a formula for calculating strike-heat that takes into account slaking-heat, moisture-content, a fudge-factor for the heat capacity of the mash-tun, and so forth. Can some kind soul out there supply that for me again? I'm a bonehead, and I've lost it. TIA t ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Feb 94 10:57:08 -0400 From: "Phillip R. Seitz" Subject: More on double jeopardy Bruce Feist commented that at a recent exam (which I also took) there were both questions and tastings on pilsner and brown ale. His point was that this placed a great deal of emphasis on certain styles, and meant that others could not be covered. Someone (Russ Wigglesworth?) responded that if you can't judge these common styles you probably shouldn't pass anyway. I must say I agree, but let me ask this: how many people on the list would pass, or pass at the same level, if there had been an intense focus on Alt and Kolsch? I for one know of no imported examples of this style, and only know of two people who've actually gone to Dusseldorf to check out the alts. I don't know of ANYBODY who's actually spent time drinking authentic kolsch. (Besides, why go to Germany to drink beer when Belgium is so close? :-) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 1994 10:37:18 -0800 (PST) From: Jeremy Ballard Bergsman Subject: Bay area BJCP exam? I noted with the recent post of subscribers how many there were in the apprentice category (including me). How many are there because they are waiting for a chance to take the exam? I am. Can we get one together in the Bay Area? Is there already one planned? The only places I know to look for the exam sites are here and in Zymurgy, and I never see one offered. Thanks, Jeremy Bergsman jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Feb 1994 21:20:59 -0500 (EST) From: Rick Garvin Subject: More on double jeopardy I think that it makes a lot of sense for the beers that people encounter in the tasting portion be familiar styles. The emphasis here is on judging over style knowledge. Maybe one of these styles could be unusual, but commercially available. The exam procedures sheet that you receive prior to the exam states: "You'll need four beers for the tasting portion of the exam. Try to have all homebrews. [this part was hand corrected from "at least two"] The homebrews should represent a reasonable cross section of beer styles. Please use only classic beer styles, no fruit, herb or specialty beers. One or two of the beers should have noticeable faults." It would be helpful if the procter were to receive notification of the styles adressed in the exam a few weeks ahead of the exam date. However, there are practical limitations as to how far ahead this could be done. What will I do in the future? I'll definately keep this issue in mind when I select beers for exams. Would I pick the same beers for the 1/29/94 exam? Yep! Cheers, Rick ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Feb 1994 22:05:26 CST From: "Roger Deschner " Subject: The Alt and Kolsch Problem A while back, I quipped, "Try to get a Belgian beer in Chickasha, Oklahoma." The problem has now been brought closer to home for all of us by Phillip R. Seitz: "I for one know of no imported examples of this style , and only know of two people who've actually gone to Dusseldorf to check out the alts. I don't know of ANYBODY who's actually spent time drinking authentic kolsch." And this is precisely why so many homebrewed Alts and Kolsches are so awful, and why so many of them are judged so badly. Nobody knows what these magical styles are all about, because they have never actually tasted them. I must admit to being a prejudiced observer. I have been to Cologne and Dusseldorf, and the trip made Dusseldorf Altbier my very favorite type of beer. I will never forget that visit, or the experience of drinking the tremendous altbier at the Zum Uerige brewpub in the Dusseldorf Altstadt; I recommend it to anyone. Next time some foolhardy airline offers a deeply discounted airfare to Dusseldorf, take them up on it even if only for a weekend - just to drink beer. Due to the cost of travel to Dusseldorf, not very many people (Seitz mentioned he knows two) agree with me about the wondrous quality of true Dusseldorf Altbier, but among those who do agree at least I've got good company: Michael Jackson. Jackson states, in "Pocket Guide", "Dusseldorf's prized beer is more instantly distinctive than that of its neighbor . It has a dark copper colour, is top-fermenting and is superficially similar to a British ale. The Dusseldorf beer has, though, a much cleaner palate, with a complex blend of malty body and hop bitterness and has little of the yeasty fruitiness and acidity of the classic British ale. ... Zum Ueriege ... produces the classic Dusseldorfer Altbier, an aromatic, tawny brew, deep in colour and flavour, with a slowly unrolling hop bitterness in its big and sustained finish. Zum Ueriege **** beer is the most assertive, complex and characterful of the alts. It is also the most bitter." I couldn't describe it better, so I won't try. Thinking about it brings the flavor back to my memory. Unfortunately, alt is completely unavailable in the United States, and the only even remotely close Kolsch I know of is made seasonally by Goose Island of Chicago. Widmer of Portland set out to duplicate Zum Uerige when they first started, and their early batches were close. But then they made changes having someting to do with "The American palate..." at which point they sold their soul to the devil and their beer became NOT the real thing. I discovered at the Portland AHA conference that Widmer also got their yeasts all mixed up, using Kolsch yeast for Alt and vice-versa, resulting in uncharacteristically dry alts and fruity kolsches. (Wyeast 1338 is Alt; Wyeast 1007, or the new Wyeast Kolsch, is Kolsch. Ref: Zymurgy Yeast special issue.) An American beer, which is at least barking up a nearby tree, is Anchor Steam, whose unique method of brewing has some similarities to the Dusseldorf process. So here are two styles where we might as well all be in Chickasha, Oklahoma, because you just can't get them in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, or Portland. (Except you can get Kolsch in Chicago sometimes.) If we really want to pursue the Style Certification idea, (oops! I said it! Heave those cream pies. Yes, I have spoken against Style Certification right here.) then a used airline ticket to Germany should be a prerequisite to being certified in Alt and Kolsch. I can't see certifying someone who has not tasted the style, and if you have never been there, then you cannot have tasted these styles. Someday, somebody in the United States will wake up to the idea of making these beautiful beers here, and figure out how to do it right, and will sell a lot of beer. That day has not arrived. Until then, airliners are the only alternative. Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago R.Deschner at uic.edu =============== "Civilization was CAUSED by beer." ===================== ------------------------------ Date: 7 Feb 1994 08:48:41 -0800 From: "Rad Equipment" Subject: Bay Area Exam Subject: Bay Area Exam Time:8:30 AM Date:2/7/94 Jeremy Bergsman asks for info on exams offered in the SF Bay Area. The last one was offered in November in Brekeley. You need at least 6 people to schedule an exam. If you can find the takers and a sight to host it, I'll be happy to try to schedule an exam. Phil Seitz comments: >Someone (Russ Wigglesworth?) responded that if you can't judge >these common styles you probably shouldn't pass anyway. I believe that was Jay Hersh, not I. Your point regarding obscure styles is well taken. 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: Tue, 08 Feb 1994 10:10:08 -0400 From: Ed Hitchcock Subject: Altbier Get your flamethrowers ready, and set phasers on setting 18... Roger Deschner made some excellent points in todays digest. However, I seem to recall from the depths of this messy hard drive I call long-term memory that the Alt catagory at the GABF was won* by none other than Sam Adams Boston Ale. Though this may not be a GOOD example of the style, at least it is a beer that has been tasted by most BJCP judges. *Don't ask me what year, this is only a vague recollection. Even if it in fact did not WIN this catagory, it was at least ENTERED in this catagory, which should be good enough to label it thus. ____________ Ed Hitchcock ech at ac.dal.ca | Oxymoron: Draft beer in bottles. | Anatomy & Neurobiology | Pleonasm: Draft beer on tap. | Dalhousie University, Halifax |___________________________________| ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Feb 94 09:48:30 EST From: btalk at aol.com Subject: exam advice I plan on taking 'the exam' this April. I have a copy of th e study guide, but wonder if there is anything else I should use/do/know about. Any advice is welcome. Bob Talkiewicz, Binghamton , NY ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 10:42:33 -0500 (EST) From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: Re: Alt and Koelsch Roger Deschner writes: > > A while back, I quipped, "Try to get a Belgian beer in Chickasha, > Oklahoma." The problem has now been brought closer to home for all of us > by Phillip R. Seitz: "I for one know of no imported examples of this > style , and only know of two people who've actually gone > to Dusseldorf to check out the alts. I don't know of ANYBODY who's > actually spent time drinking authentic kolsch." Well, I guess you don't actually *know* me, but I've spent 2+ months in the Duesseldorf area on two separate occasions drinking every Alt, Koelsch and Dortmunder Export I could get my hands on. To really appreciate those styles, you do have to get them fresh from the source - for example the bottled Zum Uerige seemed to have less complexity. I've tried everything short of begging to be able to judge these styles at the past two East Coast Regionals for the AHA Nationals, but I usually get something like the "Specialty" category. Maybe we should put together beer judging resumes so that organizers have a little more background on us. Scott Bickham National Judge :-) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 06:58:47 -0800 (PST) From: gummitch at teleport.com (Jeff Frane) Subject: Roger's Ranting Roger Deschner (sp?) ranted at some length about alts and kolschbiers, and I say: Huzza! I tend to forget alts as an example, when *I* rant about the unwieldly and unsupportable profusion of beerstyles being judged at competitions -- particularly the NHC. The closest I've ever gotten to Zum Uerige was drinking a bottle filled at the pub a couple of nights previously, which a friend brought back from Dusseldorf. Even several steps removed from Dusseldorf, it was a truly incredible beer -- and it's easy to see how Roger became enamored. It's also clear to me that none of the homebrewed alts I've tasted share much in common with what's being brewed over there. Or that American homebrew judges, for the most part, have a clue about it -- and even less, certainly, do they have a clue about kolschbier. Personally, I've found *one* bottle of what purported to be kolsch, in a California Liquor Barn, and I have the commentary of my traveling friend mentioned above, who tasted it in Cologne and said it was boring. So what are we doing judging altbiers? (And Roger is likewise correct in reference to Widmer Alt. When it originally appeared here it was a MONSTER beer -- huge malt and intensely bitter, as I remember the Zum Uerige sample. For unknown reasons they have mainstreamed it -- unknown because the beer doesn't sell worth a damn anyway; Widmer owes their tremendous success to their "hefeweizen" (which is another story). There had been some talk of restoring the original recipe for alt served at the now-indefinitely-postponed beer cellar, but really! Wouldn't it make mor sense to capture a real hard-core of drinkers than the occasional "oh, well, they're out of Blue Heron" drinkers?) Sorry, digressed badly there. - --Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 08:02:24 -0800 From: bguerin at orincon.com (Bob Guerin) Subject: Alt Availability Roger Deschner stated in JND #685 that: > Unfortunately, alt is completely unavailable in the United States ... That might be true for imported German Alts, but St. Stans does make Alt. I believe that all of their beers are made with Alt yeast. They are available here in California, and I spotted some St. Stans Graffiti '93 recently when I was back in the DC area. Therefore, one need not have a used airline ticket to Germany to be able to judge Alt. Granted, I don't know whether St Stans fits the classic Alt style or not, but at least it's something better to go on than a description in a book. Bob Guerin (bguerin at orincon.com) Orincon Corporation ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 09:29:25 -0600 (CST) From: Allen Ford Subject: True knowledge In JudgeNet #685 Roger Deschner writes: > If we really want to pursue the Style Certification idea, (oops! I said > it! Heave those cream pies. Yes, I have spoken against Style > Certification right here.) then a used airline ticket to Germany should > be a prerequisite to being certified in Alt and Kolsch. I can't see > certifying someone who has not tasted the style, and if you have never > been there, then you cannot have tasted these styles. I, too, have been to the Rhineland and fallen in love with the top-fermented beers there. I wholeheartedly concur with Roger's comments. However, I would carry such a statement a bit further in that I feel it is valid for almost all beer styles. If you have not been to Burton-on-Trent, you have never tasted a true English pale ale. If you have not been to Dublin, you don't know what an Irish stout really tastes like. The versions of these beers that are available in other places are not the same as at their points of origin, whether due to intentional recipe changes by the brewery or simply as a result of the damaging vagaries of transport. This is true to varying degrees for almost all world styles of beer. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to travel beery parts of the world have several options. Two come immediately to mind: 1)get worked up and butt heads with ignorant judges and poor AHA style descriptions, or 2)kick back and take a long swig of our homebrewed Kolsch, dream of our next "research" sabbaticals, and not even try to wipe the grins off our faces. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Feb 1994 08:50:48 -0500 From: "Norman Dickenson" Subject: "Kolsch & Alt Problem" Subject: Time:8:11 AM OFFICE MEMO "Kolsch & Alt Problem" Date:2/8/94 Roger Deschner recently discussed the non-availability of the Alt and kilsch styles in amerika. Having won a first place for a Kolsch in the AHA a couple of years ago without ever having tasted a sample of the true product, I am amused and concerned about judges whose sole experience with some styles is just reading about them, or (even worse) drinking some stale eight month old import stored at 80 degrees (remember when all Pilsner Urquel's were light struck and skunky?). I have not quick solutions to a vexing problem, but remain optimistic that if a market nich is empty, eventually someone will fill it. In the meantime we all should watch for opportunities to taste rare styles. Sooooo......in that vein, those of you lucky to live in Northern California should check out THE SUDWERK a brewpub in Davis, CA which produces authentic German style beers and has a German brewmaster. I stopped by last week and they had a (I'm not affiliated, just an admirer) Kolsch on draft. It was pale golden in color, fairly dry, slightly fruity, and had a lot of finesse. I can't say that it was a great example of the style, because I don't know. However, current thought by some writers is that if a beer is called/labeled a certain style, then that is what it is. (Are Jim Koch's products included in this caveat? Not!!!) -Norman- norman.dickenson at sonoma.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 13:58:35 EST From: EDWARDP at INDY.NAVY.MIL Subject: Kolsch FWIW, Jackson's new book mentions Broad Ripple Brewing Co's version of kolsch as as "full-bodied example of the style", or words similar. The brewer who brought that recipe to BRBC, Greg Emig, now runs his own joint - Lafayette Brewing Co - in Lafayette, Ind. Usually a darn tasty, clean, crisp beer. Authentic?? who knows? MJ tasted some a couple of years back at GABF and thought it was worth a mention. So, maybe BJCP ought to hold a raffle and send a few lucky winners to Cologne, all expenses paid, to brush up on the style, and to handcarry home a few samples... -- Paul E. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Feb 1994 09:20:29 -0500 From: "Norman Dickenson" Subject: BJCP Tests Subject: Time:8:35 AM OFFICE MEMO BJCP Tests Date:2/7/94 To expand on a thread by Jeremy Bergsman, I support his feeling that the opportunities to take the BJCP test are rather limited. Granted that the effort to put one on is time comsuming, HOWEVER, the proctors are amply compensated financially for their efforts. Having been the organizer of a substantial competition for the past two years, I can certify that obtaining sufficient program judges to adequately "person" all the tables and flights required of a larger competition is becoming very, very difficult. I have issued blanket invitations to all judges within one day's drive (about 150) in the hopes of getting 30 to accept. Invariably several will not show up requiring the use of apprentices. This waters down the quality of the judging. I feel that entrants deserve scoresheets from three *qualified* judges in return for their money. I also do not abide by the practice of using apprentice judges to do elimination round screening (sometimes without even completing a scoresheet ) if their scoresheets are the only feedback an entrant gets. With the proliferation of competitions wanting qualified judges, one must pick and choose which events to support. I think the combined BJCP Committee should explore ways to increase the number of tests. Finally, Jeremy references the extensive list of apprentice digest subscribers. I know that myself and a number of other people on that list are long time BJCP participants with test passing rankings dispite being referenced as apprentices . -Norman- norman.dickenson at sonoma.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Feb 1994 12:03:06 EST From: Jay Hersh Subject: Re: JudgeNet Digest #683 (Feb 06, 1994) Phillip Seitz says: >Someone (Russ Wigglesworth?) responded that if you can't judge these >common styles you probably shouldn't pass anyway. I must say I agree, >but let me ask this: how many people on the list would pass, or pass at >the same level, if there had been an intense focus on Alt and Kolsch? >I for one know of no imported examples of this style, and only know >of two people who've actually gone to Dusseldorf to check out the alts. >I don't know of ANYBODY who's actually spent time drinking authentic kolsch. Koelsch and Alt are as you say regional styles. This would hardly qualify them as *common* which was my original contention. Anyway followup mail on this has shown that the test takers objections/concerns stemmed from the lack of broadness of testing on common styles and not any concern of being burned by not knowing the small group of common ones presented (ie OK so the test tested knowledge of Pils and Brown Ales, but what about Wheat and Stout and Porter etc., etc...) JaH ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 10:10:42 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Busch Subject: Re: Judging, of course! > From: btg!rgarvin at uunet.uu.net (Rick Garvin (703-761-6630)) ^^^^^ apprentice judge!!! :-) > Subject: Re: unfair exam > > other garbage). The Trippel was TOO fusel. The Weizen was a two time > ribbon winner. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^! Yeah, but where did the ribbons come from? And didnt it finish less than third the next month :-) :-) > > From: John DeCarlo > Subject: Re: Exam Unfairness and Exam > > repetition. (BTW, I thought there was too much emphasis on Germany, so > there you are.) Impossible! > > That isn't *my* understanding (and I hope I got this part right on the > exam). It is intended to encourage homebrewers by having judges who can > give constructive and hopefully uniform and well-informed feedback. > > Thus, a judge should be able to tell a brewer what the defect detected > was and what may have caused it and how it could be corrected. This is the main thing that I learned from the exam, it wasnt good enough to identify beer constituants, you had to start explaining the causes of Diacetyl. This was certainly a suprise to me, but hey, if thats what the BJCP wants, now I know. Its just I didnt score well going into the exam, since I could care less about " how a brewer advances to National in the the BJCP", and the "how is DMS produced in a lager". Now I know what they want. > > From: korz at iepubj.att.com > Subject: exam coverage/exam fairness > > Typical questions may include (just off the top of my head): > > Q: Most commercial Bohemian Pilsners' bitterness falls in the range: > > [ ] 15 - 30 IBU [ ] 30 - 45 IBU [ ] 22 - 35 IBU [ ] 42 - 57 IBU Jeezz, whats the answer Al? Seems like "most" could be b-d (35-42). > > Q: The primary difference(s) between Mild and Engilsh Brown is/are: > > [ ] OG only [ ] IBUs only [ ] color [ ] color and OG [ ] OG and IBUs Now your getting too hard! Best, Jim Busch ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 10:21:44 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Busch Subject: Re: Kolsch > From: "Phillip R. Seitz" > > I don't know of ANYBODY who's actually spent time drinking authentic kolsch. Well, you didnt realize it, Phil, but you do, me! I realize you turn off at the hint of Germany, but we should do Koln some day! Jim DE HOPPEDUIVEL DRINKT MET ZWIER 'T GEZONDE BLOND HOPPEBIER! ------------------------------ Date: 07 Feb 1994 12:17 -0600 (CST) From: JOHN ELLIOTT-INFO SYSTEMS X6749 Subject: Re: JudgeNet Digest #683 (Feb 06, 1994) UNSUBSCRIBE ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 16:54:46 -0600 (CST) From: "Bill Kitch" Subject: BJCP exam at Bluebonnet? Do any of you Dallas/Ft. Worth folks know if the BCJP exam will be offered in conjuction with the Bluebonnet Competition? I know I asked this question a month or so ago. If it was answered I didn't see the answer. Sante' WAK ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 22:12 CST From: fjdobner at ihlpa.att.com Subject: Sweet Stout In studying for the BJCP exam I was looking at the stout descriptions and was wondering whether the Sweet Stout subcategory would contain both oatmeal stouts and English stouts. For purposes of this discussion assume that the oatmeal stout is a Samuel Smith's and the English stout is a Mackeson. I think the English stout is a Sweet Stout but it is the oatmeal stout that I am unsure of. Anybody know? Frank Dobner ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 02:18:15 -0800 From: Lowell Hart Subject: Domestic Alt Example We here in the Great Central Valley have a domestic example of what is supposed to be an Alt: St. Stan's in Stockton, California. Now, I dunno if this is a good example of an Alt, but I do know that they have a very distinctive yeast. As in all their beers taste alike, seemingly regardless of recipe. St. Stan's has a sweetheart deal with DisneyWorld, so I guess you can get it there, but I don't know how widely they are distributed otherwise. Thought you'd want to know. (Now maybe we'll see if we have any readers from the Stanislas Area Assoc. of Zymurgists.) Lowell Hart San Joaquin WORThogs Raketenflugplatz, Fresno P.S: And yes, I'm the guy who posted the bit on HBD asking about Kolsch yeast, and then went to Bencomo's Homebrew Supply and saw that Wyeast now has one... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 06:52:24 CST From: "Roger Deschner " Subject: St Stans, Sam Adams. Altbiers? St. Stans is a "Meunster Altbier", similar to the widely-available imported Pinkus Alt. These are quite different from the Dussledorf style. Meunster Style Altbiers, such as St. Stans and Pinkus, are generally sweeter, not at all hoppy, and I do not believe they are made using the special Dusseldorf process of warm primary and cold secondary fermentation. It is actually not surprising that the same low-attenuating yeast is used. Many German brewers label their ordinary dark offering "Alt". Sam Adams an Alt? A number of American breweries have entered their beers into the Alt category at G.A.B.F., probably because it was empty and they figured they had a better chance of winning a medal. (What? Jim Koch do THAT just to win a medal?) Alaskan Amber and Old Detroit come to mind, also medal winners at GABF as altbiers - two nice beers, but not real Dussledorf Style Altbier. Are these beers brewed by the Dusseldorf Process? Are we going to let the opportunistic quest for GABF medals redefine a venerable category? Oh Puleeeeeeeeeease! I do want to point out that the AHA Style Guldelines specifically state "Dusseldorf Style" in the name of the category. Someday it may be appropriate to create subcategories within Altbier for Dusseldorf and Meunster styles, but that's another discussion to be left for another day, along with all those discussions about how AHA guidelines do or do not cover every conceivable type of beer... (You've heard it all before and I'm not in the mood to rehash it.) Until then, we in AHA/BJCP are talking only about the outstanding Altbiers of Dusseldorf. You know, the ones nobody has tasted. Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago R.Deschner at uic.edu =========My spellchecker wanted to change "hoppy" to "happy".============ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 08:31:03 -0800 (PST) From: jimmyp at netcom.com (Jimmy Patrick) Subject: Re: Bay Area CA BJCP A couple of issues ago Jeremy Bergstrom (?) (sorry) mentioned the lack of bay area exams this year. Apparently there was some more interest in a bay area exam. A few issues later someone (again, sorry) said that if there were enough interest.. they could put together an exam. Count me in as interested in the next Bay Area exam. Jimmy Patrick --- Apprentice ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 11:54:12 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Busch Subject: RE: St. Stans ALt, NOT > From: bguerin at orincon.com (Bob Guerin) > Subject: Alt Availability > > Roger Deschner stated in JND #685 that: > > > Unfortunately, alt is completely unavailable in the United States ... > > That might be true for imported German Alts, but St. Stans does make Alt. Its not a true German Alt. > I believe that all of their beers are made with Alt yeast. They are > available here in California, and I spotted some St. Stans Graffiti '93 > recently when I was back in the DC area. Graffiti is an American Wheat. > > Therefore, one need not have a used airline ticket to Germany to be able to > judge Alt. Granted, I don't know whether St Stans fits the classic Alt > style or not, but at least it's something better to go on than a > description in a book. No its not! A written accurate description is much better than a poor example of style. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 11:14:04 -0600 (CST) From: Allen Ford Subject: When is a kolsch not a kolsch? In JudgeNet Digest #686, Bob Guerin writes: > Granted, I don't know whether St Stans fits the classic Alt > style or not, but at least it's something better to go on than a > description in a book. If St Stans does not truly fit the style (Has anyone here tasted both St Stans alt and been to Dusseldorf?), then it's much worse than relying on a book's description, assuming that the description in the book is accurate. In order to fairly judge a beer, one must know with certainty what the style tastes like. Such knowledge can come only through tasting and understanding what one is tasting. It is obvious from previous discussion that Widmer alt is not an alt. Celis pale bock is not a bock. Sam Adams cranberry lambic is definitely not a lambic. (Insert your favorite misnomer here.) None of these beers tell you anything about the style they are named after. We must all be very careful to evaluate a beer based on the style it is, not what some unscrupulous and/or ignorant marketing geek tells us it is. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Feb 1994 12:33:45 EST From: Jay Hersh Subject: GABF judging (was Altbier) my impression of the GABF judging is that the standards and methods used in it fall way short of those used in AHA/HWBTA sanctioned competitions. To wit.... no program judges are used. The judges are all drawn from among the brewers represented at the GABF. Now while there are many fine brewers out there to my experience only a minority of them have any exposure to a wide range of styles. Many of them don't even know that much about the style of beer they are brewing as for them they have apprenticed and learned a trade by being shown and then doing the mechanical skills of brewing to an established recipre with established procedures and their is no requirement for them to have a broad mastery of styles (even the ones they brew) to perform their job well. In my observations, this results in many beers being judged on a mostly subjective scale and there is far less of the objectivity that the AHA/HWBTA program endeavors to keep in place by their use of style definitions. Others may disagree with my observations but this was my impression of the GABF judging as it was held in years when I was in attendance (and offered my skills to the judging only to be told that no BJCP judges could be used). JaH ------------------------------ Date: 09 Feb 1994 14:10:05 -0500 (EST) From: STROUD%GAIA at leia.polaroid.com Subject: alt and koelsch availability in the US Roger Deschner stated in JND #685 that: > Unfortunately, alt is completely unavailable in the United States ... Strictly speaking, this is not true. Although there is nothing equivalent to the Dusseldorf brewpub altbiers in this country, I know of three reasonable examples that are currently in the US market. 1) Grolsch Autumn amber. This came into the Boston market last fall. Someone handed it to me at a club meeting. I looked at it, thought, "Hmmmm, so Grolsch is getting into the Oktoberfest market, eh?", then had a taste and thought, "Jesus, this is one bitter O'Fest! What are the Grolsch drinkers going to think about _this_ one?" It wasn't until a week or two later at a more structured tasting that I _really_ tasted this beer and had a good look at the label. It's a smooth, aromatic top-fermented coppery ale (cold-conditioned) with lots of hop flavor and hop bitterness. OK, this isn't a world classic, but it certainly is broadly in the style of a Dusseldorf altbier, comparable to some of the bigger brewers like Gatzweiler or Diebels. I think that it is as good a version as we get in this country (and it is not be sneered at). 2) Schlosser Another of the big Dusseldorf altbier brewers, this beer has been sporadically available on tap in Boston for the last half year, and I've seen ads for it in the Washington DC area. Unfortunately the few glasses of it that I've tasted have not been in the best of condition, but it _is_ a German altbier. 3) DAB Dark Yep, it's labeled 'Dark', but the brewery claims that it is top-fermented and is an altbier. I'd have to agree. It's maltier and somewhat less bitter than I'd expect, but fresh examples of this beer are still instructive of the style. Available in this country both in bottles and on draft, but not always in the best shape. I've had some very fresh and tasty glasses of DAB Dark on draft at the Hofbrau Haus in W. Springfield, MA. Worth seeking out if you can't afford the airfare to Germany :-). ** As for Kolsch, I've not seen a Koln-brewed version in the US since Kuppers was in Boston back in the mid-80's. At the time it was the only Kolsch that I had ever tasted and I thought it was wonderful. Subsequent trips to Koln (and the requisite visits to the house breweries) have changed my opinion! One of the best beer-soaked memories I have is of standing in the anteroom of PJFruh's, grabbing glass after glass of kolsch (freshly drawn, from wooden casks) from the blue-aproned waiters they scurried by. Ahhhhhh...... No example that I've tasted that has been commercially brewed in the US has ever been very close to style. ** To Phil Seitz - As much as I love Belgium, I'd have to agree with Jim. Next time you're over there, take a short drive to the Rhineland and spend a couple of days in Koln/Dusseldorf/Dortmund. As a beer lover, you won't regret it. Steve Stroud ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 09:13:11 -0500 (EST) From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: Re: Sweet stout fjdobner at ihlpa.att.com writes: > In studying for the BJCP exam I was looking at the stout descriptions > and was wondering whether the Sweet Stout subcategory would contain > both oatmeal stouts and English stouts. For purposes of this discussion > assume that the oatmeal stout is a Samuel Smith's and the English stout > is a Mackeson. I think the English stout is a Sweet Stout but it is the > oatmeal stout that I am unsure of. Anybody know? Most oatmeal stouts are entered in the Specialty Beer category, since the oats are a unique fermetable ingredient. Last year we sent one to Portland from the East Regional, but I don't know how it fared. Another example of the sweet, or cream stout, is Watney's. You'll notice less emphasis on roasted character and more on a chocolatey creaminess. The sweet stout that placed second in Portland last year had no roasted barley, a little over one pound of chocolate malt, 2 pounds of crystal malt, and some black malt for color and to give a little roasted character. The rest of the grist was two row pale and the brewer also added 1.8# of lactose at the boil. Watney's and Mackeson are really made very differently. Mackesons pasterurized prematurely to leave the simple sugars unfermented (I don't know if sugar is added and then pasteurized, or if the fermentation is actually stopped, but the end result is the same). Watney's, on the other hand, is more traditional in the sense that the sweetness comes from dextrins that the yeast is unable to ferment, which IMHO makes for a more complex beer. Sam Adams also has a cream stout which I haven't tried. Scott ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 10:17:34 EST From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: Re: lottery EDWARDP at INDY.NAVY.MIL sez... > > So, maybe BJCP ought to hold a raffle and send a few lucky winners to > Cologne, all expenses paid, to brush up on the style, and to handcarry home > a few samples... > I have heard of at least one homebrew club that holds a beer travel lottery. As I understand it, about 25 or 30 people each put up about $25 for a chance. The winner takes all the money and goes to somewhere in Europe for a couple of days and brings back 2 or 3 cases of assorted beers. Everyone gets together and has a party. Even the losers do OK, for $25 they get to try a variety of fresh furrin beer. Such a scheme would work particularly well here on the right coast because we can get round trip airfare to Europe for around $300 off-season. I have tried half-heartedly to setup such an event here, but have only found a few takers. The major concern I hear voiced is that the person making the trip must be a serious beer geek or the trip would be wasted. So you need to find 25 or so serious beer geeks. Hmmm, this list reaches over 200 serious beer geeks. - -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems / Riverside Garage & Brewery - Cambridge, Mass. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 10:53:33 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Busch Subject: Re: GABF Judges > From: Jay Hersh > Subject: GABF judging (was Altbier) > > my impression of the GABF judging is that the standards and methods > used in it fall way short of those used in AHA/HWBTA sanctioned competitions. > To wit.... no program judges are used. The judges are all drawn from among > the brewers represented at the GABF. Now while there are many fine brewers > out there to my experience only a minority of them have any exposure > to a wide range of styles. Many of them don't even know that much about the > style of beer they are brewing as for them they have apprenticed and learned a > trade by being shown and then doing the mechanical skills of brewing to an established recipre with established procedures and their is no requirement for > them to have a broad mastery of styles (even the ones they brew) to perform > their job well. The converse is equally true, many many pro brewers know much more about beer constituants than BJCP judges. They also tend to have more of an open mind, ala "too light for a BarleyWine" , which can indeed be quite light when in the UK. Sweeping generalizations are just that, generalizations. All of the pro brewers in the DC area that I know are much more knowledgeable than the average BJCPers I have had experience with. Most are also fanatic beer hunters, evaluating beers wherever they go. Maybe the junior or assistant brewers fit the above description, but it is not true with most of the brewers I know. In fact, only two local brewers produce a commercial HefeWeizen, but all of the local pros know a good one when they try one, which is certainly more than what occured in last years Nationals. JB ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 09:58:37 -0700 From: Steve Dempsey Subject: Re: GABF Judging In JudgeNet Digest #687 Jay Hersh writes: >my impression of the GABF judging is that the standards and methods >used in it fall way short of those used in AHA/HWBTA sanctioned competitions. >To wit.... no program judges are used. The judges are all drawn from among >the brewers represented at the GABF. For the past 3 years I've been a steward at the PPBT held during the two days before the festival. Judges are not simply drawn from attending brewers. Participation is by invitation only. Panels are constructed using brewers, industry professionals (QA people, other sensory evaluation specialists), and related trade experts (publicans, authors, etc). The last two years a couple of BJCP Master & Honorary Master judges were invited (Phil Fleming and Jim Homer). It's also worth noting that some of the pro brewers are BJCP judges (e.g. Master Brad Kraus), and that the BJCP is regularly promoted to industry (a BJCP exam is schduled at the IBS national micro & pub brewers conference in Portland this spring). >In my observations, this results in many beers being judged on a mostly >subjective scale and there is far less of the objectivity that the AHA/HWBTA >program endeavors to keep in place by their use of style definitions. There is an official program for the PPBT and for the festival, which is distributed to breweries and to judges. The public seldom ever sees this program, but it outlines the specific criteria that will be applied for the judging. These style criteria read very much like the style guidlines used for the AHA NHC. ================================ Engineering Network Services Steve Dempsey Colorado State University steved at longs.lance.colostate.edu Fort Collins, CO 80523 ================================ +1 303 491 0630 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 12:37:39 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert H. Reed" Subject: Celis Pale Bock Allen writes: > It is obvious from previous discussion that Widmer alt is not an alt. > Celis pale bock is not a bock. Sam Adams cranberry lambic is definitely > not a lambic. (Insert your favorite misnomer here.) > We must all be > very careful to evaluate a beer based on the style it is, not what some > unscrupulous and/or ignorant marketing geek tells us it is. In deference to the Celis brewery, I wanted to clarify that Celis Bock is brewed in the style of a Belgian Ale, and is labeled as a Bock because of its alcohol content. In light of this fact, it's a Texas Alcohol Control Board thing rather than a marketing thing. Rob Reed ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 15:17:17 -0600 From: gjfix at utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix) Subject: GABF Jay Hersh is a good and valued friend of mine, so I am sure he will understand why I felt compelled to respond to the following comments made by him: >my impression of the GABF judging is that the standards and methods >used in it fall way short of those used in AHA/HWBTA sanctioned competitions. >To wit.... no program judges are used. The judges are all drawn from among >the brewers represented at the GABF. Now while there are many fine brewers >out there to my experience only a minority of them have any exposure >to a wide range of styles. Many of them don't even know that much about the >style of beer they are brewing as for them they have apprenticed and learned a >trade by being shown and then doing the mechanical skills of brewing to an >established recipre with established procedures and their is no requirement for >them to have a broad mastery of styles (even the ones they brew) to perform >their job well. >In my observations, this results in many beers being judged on a mostly >subjective scale and there is far less of the objectivity that the AHA/HWBTA >program endeavors to keep in place by their use of style definitions. >Others may disagree with my observations but this was my impression of the GABF >judging as it was held in years when I was in attendance (and offered my skills >to the judging only to be told that no BJCP judges could be used). Both Laurie and I were on the GABF panel this year, and we both found it to be a stimulating experience. We were invited to be on the panel next year, and we eagerly accepted. The technical level of the discussions that took place during the taste evaluation was very high. The following are a few examples of the type of people on the panel: 1. Bill Siebel and the two people who teach Siebel's flavor evaluation course. 2. Fred Eckhardt 3. Three German brewers, two from Belgium, and two from the UK. 4. Eric Warner 5. Finn Knudsen (He has a truly remarkable beer palate) 6. Terry Fahrendorf (She is a superb technician in brewing, but she also has broad interests in beer styles) Jay, in short I think you missed the target with this one! BTW we miss your visits to the Dallas area. Come again and I will buy the beer. George Fix ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 16:57:37 -0800 From: bguerin at orincon.com (Bob Guerin) Subject: St Stans Alt: A Defense In defense of my recent post about St Stans Alt, Michael Jackson states in his Pocket Guide to Beer that St Stans makes "Altbier in broadly the Dusseldorf style...". I won't argue whether it is or isn't in the Dusseldorf style, since I've not been to Dusseldorf and my recollection of St Stans Alt is a bit fuzzy. I also did not mean to imply that this Alt should be viewed as the sole basis for judging. IMHO, tasting St Stans, along with knowing the style description, is better than just knowing the style description alone. After all, do we not become better judges through tasting both good and poor examples of a style? Even if it is sweeter and less hoppy than it should be, there must be some similarities to the Dusseldorf style description. A good judge can make mental notes of both the similarities and differences, and use that in future judging of the style. BTW Jim, I was aware that Graffiti was an American Wheat (made with Alt yeast); I was trying to point out that St Stans Alt might possibly be available outside of CA. Bob Guerin (bguerin at orincon.com) Orincon Corporation ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 10:41 CST From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: Alts I'd like to make a suggestion. Perhaps it would be possible to arrange a panel-led tasting of Alts at the Nationals in Denver this spring? Perhaps some kind soul would volunteer to organize the room, commission someone to bring a few cases of St. Stans from the west, some imported Alts from the east (perhaps there might be a way to tap-off 5 gallons into a Cornelius Keg and bring that), I could bring some Pinkus (Muenster -style Alt) and some DAB Dark to Denver (cause that's all we have around here), maybe a few brewers could try their luck at homebrewed versions... Then we all convene with our ears open and our tastebuds at the ready and listen to a panel of experienced Alt drinkers talk about each brew. It would be similar to Mike Sharp's Lambic tasting two years ago in Milwaukee. I'm ready to fork over $15 to learn about Alts (as long as I get reimbursed for the four cases of beer I bring). If you are interested in participating (tasting and/or bringing beer), please send me email and when we find a volunteer to run the thing I'll forward the list to that person. (I have way too many irons in the fire at this time to take this on also.) Furthermore, I think this should be an annual event. A different style each year. If we start filling 250seat banquet rooms, we can start shipping in Real Ale from Burton-on-Trent and casks of Faro from Lembeek!!! Al. korz at iepubj.att.com ------------------------------ Date: 11 Feb 1994 09:33:03 -0800 From: "Rad Equipment" Subject: Serious Beer Geek Trek Subject: Serious Beer Geek Trek Time:7:25 AM Date:2/11/94 Chuck was mentioning the lottery idea. I seem to remember a club in New Orleans sending a member to an Oktoberfest several years ago with the task of collecting beer for the club. The Malts talked about trying it one year but it never came together. RW... Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu - CI$: 72300,61) UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / Home (707) 769-0425 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 15:51:45 EST From: Jay Hersh Subject: Re: GABF judging Well I should have been careful to place my comments in context and not assume that just because so little has changed with some AHA sponsored events that the same was true for the GABF. My observations regarding the GABF are several years old and based on information here it sounds like the nature of the manner in which they approach the judging task has changed somewhat. In my last trip (some 5 years ago) many breweries sent "representatives" who often were not the head brewer, and often not even a brewer. Many breweries sent no representative at all. The judging was done by panels chosen from these folks and other "trade experts" some whom knew what they were doing others not. As for the BJCP being promoted to industry I am under the impression that this has not always been the case. Or at least the industry has not been receptive to it. At the time of my last attendance I was (and still am) one of the top ranked BJUCP judges in the country. Upon offering my services I was (and ot my recollection Chuck Cox was also) snubbed and rather rudely, with aspersions cast upon our skills as judges and the validity of the BJCP. Perhaps I am spoiled and have a narrow view of the BJCP. Overall I feel that the quality of BJCP judges I have worked with is very good. Of course in our region there are many , many high level judges (the Hail to Ale competition boasted 5 Master judges in the room) and as an organizer of competitions here I have found problem judges, but the vast majority are good judges who are generally very conscientious about keeping to styles they feel most comfortable with (and with apologies to Scott Bickham as an organizer it is not always possible to take advantage of that as the assignment task is a very difficult one). So I would wonder what kind of acceptance the BJCP has found among professional brewers?? Any stats on how many BJCP judges number from among the professional ranks?? While the criteria for the GABF professional judging may outline specific criteria I would question how closely those criteria are observed by the judging panels. The available evidence shows a good number of beers that win in categories that I believe they are innapropriate for. As one who has judged more than a number of Best of Shows I can vouch for the fate of beers that make it through the judging rounds of homebrew competitions and are selected without heed to the criteria for the style they are entered as. Generally these beers are quickly eliminated from BOS, and of course the judges who forwarded them often become aware the criteria which cause their elimination when watching the BOS. Now this type of thing occuring at a homebrew competition is one thing since it is all in good fun and the ramifications of the shortcomings of the jduges skills are less widespread. However when a beer is awarded a medal in a style for which it clearly doesn't belong the credibility of the judging criteria and adherence to them is diminshed. While I don't recall the lists of winners from year ot year, or have specific examples at hand, I do recall that in each year I have seen more than a few beers earning awards of dubious merit in categories to which in my opinion I felt they clearly did not belong. As a last knock I'd also like ot challenge some of the "credentialism" which I feel so taints far too much of our society. I judged with a "industry expert" at the 2nd round AHA Nationals this year. While this individual possessed a skilled palette he certainly did not understand or appreciate the nature of the judging task we had in front of us. This person was on a panel with 4 other judges of varying experience and in every case ranked the beers in opposite order of how the BJCP judges ranked them. This was very problematic and I consulted with the organizer on several occasions to ascertain how to handle this situation (and in each case was encouraged ot trust my judgement and overrule this person). The nature of the conflict stemmed from the manner in which this person examined the beers. He judged the beer on a criteria that did not score the beer solely on the condition it was in when presented to us at the judging table. Rather he analyzed the beer and took into account all the underlying components of the beer. So what is wrong with this you ask??? Well we were judging Continental Lights. Many of the beers this person favored were clearly well brewed beers, however the condition they were in upon presentation to us was highly oxidized. Unfortunately almost all of the beers in this category had oxidized (most likely due to a combination of long lag between 1st and 2nd round judging and summer shipping) and while judging from an ex-post facto check (not per beer, but just in general) many beers that scored high in first rounds were scored poorly in this round. This particular judge however insisted in looking past the package/delivery defects of the beer to the quality of the brewing skill itself. I do not dispute that these were well brewed beers, it was quite evident. However at the time of the judging the condition they were in was non-optimal and the BJCP judges all judged the beer as it was presented to them at the table rather than to separate out the brewing skills from the beer as delivered. Was this wrong?? I say no. It is the aim of the BJCP that while feedback is a key goal the beer is judged as it is at the time of the judging, and that it is the beer itself and not the brewers skills as extrapalated from the beer that are being judged (or so I believe). So while the folks George cites are indeed impressive does that mean we take at face value their (or anyone's) judging skills?? I say no. George says there were 3 German Brewers, 2 from Belgium and 2 from the UK. So what?? George knows as well as I there are bad German brewers (recall the Dallas Brewing Co. products you had me help you taste on one visit??), and that brewing skill does not equal judging skill or vice versa (some of the best judges I know are lousy brewers). For each it is a matter of the time and effort expended to hone ones skills and that even a vast amount of experience in one area does not translate into broad skills in all. So as much as some may malign parts of the BJCP it does at least try to establish a certain level of minimum standard (and perhaps it would be worthy for the BJCP to develop a "core" curricula much as many schools use to define and insure that base level of skill) from which folks start from. This is more than I have seen (and would guess still exists) in the GABF judging where I am sure the skills sets can vary widely and the sole guage of them is some industry credentialism which are variable and perhaps even a bit haphazard. Apologies for my heresy JaH ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 09:17:44 CST From: "Roger Deschner " Subject: Alt tasting session in Denver Now here's an idea I can begin to get behind. But *ONLY* if we could somehow get a keg of actual Zum Ueriege flown over, because this is clearly the most outstanding example of the style - the only Altbier which Michael Jackson gives "****" to. This would be difficult, though, because Zum Ueriege puts its beer up in wooden kegs, and a full, wooden keg of beer would probably give an airline the willies - although it would REALLY be something special to have it at this proposed tasting. So let's say our agents in Dusseldorf transfer it into something made of stainless for shipping. Yeah, you could MAYBE also bring in your St. Stan's, Widmer, and whatnot, but remember that "broadly in the style" means that it hits the target like hitting the broad side of a barn. If you can get the real thing, these others will be obvious for what they are: weak, sweet, WIMPY. It would be interesting for some of us who have had the real thing to try to brew a proper Altbier and bring it. Despite the obvious difficulty and cost, it would be worth it: 1) It would introduce a major group of judges and homebrewers to the magic of this great style. I've complained, "nobody has tasted it!" OK, now they could. 2) (selfish) I'd get to have some. I haven't had a good Altbier since those early batches of Widmer, when they actually were trying to make a faithful copy of Zum Ueriege. 3) Perhaps, when enough people taste Alt as it was meant to be, they'll imitate it here in the U.S., and we'll finally have some decent domestic Altbiers to enjoy. I'll get to drink more of it without buying airline tickets. We could also cover Kolsch, although it is less of a problem. I've had good American-made Kolsches, including some excellent homebrewed ones. Odd, that Kolsch is becoming properly understood and made, while Alt remains an enigma to most Americans. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 13:20:25 -0500 (EST) From: btg!rgarvin at uunet.UU.NET (Rick Garvin (703-761-6630)) Subject: Re: Al's Alt Post I hesitated to jump into the Alt thread. I too have been to Dusseldorf (twice) and have partaken of this splendid beverage. The interesting thing is that each homebrew house AND each large brewer brew a distinctly different beer. Contrary to the oft repeated AHA description, the classic Zum Uerige version is dry and bitter with a spicy hop flavor. The malt comes through, I beleive, because of the low ester content and the cold aging. If I were to come up with a spec for this beer I would approximate: 1.048-1.056, 40-55 IBUs and 12-17 SRM. The color is more brown than red. What examples for a tasting? Well, both Zum Uerige and Im Fuchen have off sale in pretty swing top bottles. I was at a meeting with Phil Seitz this week to plan the DC "Spirit of Free Beer" competition where we teased him about all of the people that he knows that have been to Dusseldorf and know the style. Maybe in Chicago or San Francisco there are not too many. But in Washington, DC it is easy to scare up three people to judge Alts that have "been there, done that." And that is just what we have done for HWBTA and SoFB. > Furthermore, I think this should be an annual event. A different style > each year. If we start filling 250seat banquet rooms, we can start shipping > in Real Ale from Burton-on-Trent and casks of Faro from Lembeek!!! Hear, hear. Sounds like Al is volunteering to be our import/export agent! Cheers, Rick ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 13:07:05 -0800 From: raudins at elan2.coryphaeus.com (Glenn Raudins) Subject: 1994 Style Descriptions Does anyone have the 1994 AHA Style Descriptions on-line? If so, could they please e-mail them to me, I'd appreciate it. My subscription to Zymurgy lapsed for an issue or two and I don't have them. Glenn Raudins raudins at elan2.coryphaeus.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 08:47:00 PST From: "SIMPSON, Mark (x-4378)" Subject: AHA Contest; Request for Judges Howdy out there! WE NEED JUDGES!!! I am helping to organize the First Annual "America's Finest City Homebrew Contest" scheduled for March 12 at the La Jolla Brewery in San Diego. It is AHA sanctioned, and as such, it will entitle the AHA qualified judge to receive contest judging points and a merry time in Sunny San Diego!!! If there are any interested judges out there, please reply by e-mail or call for more information. Hoppy Brauing!!! Mark Simpson simpson at rb.unisys.com (619) 578-2627 (H) " 451-4378 (W) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 13:28:36 EST From: "John R. Calen - Contacting Systems - E.F., N.Y." Subject: Score sheet example needed. I've been through the BJCP guide on the proper way for a judge to fill in a score sheet. Along with the advice about being constructive and so on, there's one thing I've never seen. An example of good vs. bad. For example:The Appearance section of a Pilsner being judged. It is dark and hazy, with little effervescence. BAD BETTER? --- ------- Too hazy. Dark. Flat. | This beer is starting off on the wrong foot. | It is too dark. Do not add dark grains to | a pilsner. Also, it's hazy. This may have | been disturbed during presentation. It may | be chill haze or contamination. For chill | haze, store it in the cold until it clears. | This also lacks carbonation. Perhaps it is | underprimed. 4oz. (by weight) of corn sugar | to 5 gallons of beer. Perhaps it hasn't been | conditioned long enough or in a warm place. | This may also contribute to the haziness if | the yeast is still working. Did you use | wheat?... blah, blah, blah! I definitely don't like the one on the left. In practice I find myself wearing two hats, depending on whether I have a problem beer. If I do I assume the brewer wants to know how to fix the fault and I analyse the problem with technique. i.e. watch oxidation, sanitation. If the beer is clean, it's the recipe that I concentrate on. I still try to offer specific recommendations. i.e. Add 4oz. chocolate malt, use bavarian yeast. (An excellent beer I just praise and enjoy!) Of course I've talked this over with judge friends and I'm at the certified level. I think in the above example, the "BETTER?" response is too anal, and is likely to scare off a new brewer. Even so, a judge ought to be thorough. I'd like to see what the AHA/HWBTA/BJCP considers a properly completed score sheet. Regards, John Calen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 06:56:46 -0800 (PST) From: gummitch at teleport.com (Jeff Frane) Subject: Proper Commentary In my considered opinion (as a judge and organizer), the "better" comments John posted (sorry for terseness here, having some editor difficulties) was *waaaaaaay* too windy. Not only is the judge sticking his neck out and making a number of assumptions (the odds are that maybe half are wrong), the judging form is the place for useful but concise feedback, not lectures. It's also really important to keep the judging moving. Dragging it out not only means that the organizer will hate you for keeping him there forever, but the timing suffers considerably. Beers should be tasted in a rapid order so that you can make honest comparisons. I try to limit my own commentary to what I can absolutely taste: "Perhaps a little more malt in the profile to balance the hoppiness" or "banana esters aren't well-suited to pilsners". I'm not there to tell the brewer how to make beer, just to offer some assessment and some nudges in what I think might be the right direction. - --Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 10:48:39 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Busch Subject: Re: Good judging > From: "John R. Calen - Contacting Systems - E.F., N.Y." > Subject: Score sheet example needed. > > I've been through the BJCP guide on the proper way for a judge to fill > in a score sheet. Along with the advice about being constructive and > so on, there's one thing I've never seen. An example of good vs. bad. > > For example:The Appearance section of a Pilsner being judged. It is dark and > hazy, with little effervescence. > > BAD BETTER? > --- ------- Too hazy. Dark. Flat. | This beer is starting off on the wrong foot. | It is too dark. Do not add dark grains to > | a pilsner. Also, it's hazy. This may have > | been disturbed during presentation. It may > | be chill haze or contamination. For chill > | haze, store it in the cold until it clears. > | This also lacks carbonation. Perhaps it is > | underprimed. 4oz. (by weight) of corn sugar | to 5 gallons of beer. Perhaps it hasn't been > | conditioned long enough or in a warm place. > | This may also contribute to the haziness if > | the yeast is still working. Did you use > | wheat?... blah, blah, blah! > > If the beer is clean, it's the recipe that I concentrate on. I still try to > offer specific recommendations. i.e. Add 4oz. chocolate malt, use bavarian > yeast. > IN general, I agree. In practice, depending on how many beers are to be judged, this amount of detail is not practical. I would comment on chill haze, it is well know how chill haze is formed. I would strongly advise against giving specific quantities of malt figures. This is recipe formulation that varies with every brewer/brewery. To tell me to use 4 oz of xxx malt is pretty meaningless in my large system, where I often do high gravity brewing and dilute 10-25%. The worse the beer, the better the comments need to be, but its hard when the beer is infected. JB ------------------------------ Date: 15 Feb 94 18:06:31 EST From: Karen Barela/AHA President <75250.1350 at CompuServe.COM> Subject: Alts I think the discussions about having a specific beer style reviewed in depth during the AHA National Homebrew Conference is a great idea. It's too late for the AHA to organize one for Denver, but the AHA would be happy to organize and plan one for the 1995 conference. I'm open to ideas regarding which style (is Alt the choice?) and which brands you want to have represented. Roger Deschner has pointed out some real hurdles we'd need to jump in order to get some real representation. I also think its a great idea to have hombrew on hand for comparison as well. Karen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 18:31 CDT From: sblack at utxvm.cc.utexas.edu Subject: Re: John Calen's "bad vs. better" judging comments Yes, John, you are being rather alpha-retentive. While it is certainly well and good to offer as helpful a comment as you can muster, several things should be kept in mind. Like reality. In many judging circumstances you have 10-15 beers to judge, many with similar flaws. Maybe you can write a cogent essay once or twice, but then the weariness sets in. And while you try to be helpful, lets remember that we judge for fun and glory and the brewer pays a minimal fee for an informed and quick opinion -- its not a fucking laboratory analysis. Another thing to keep in mind is ... reality. You are given a beer, a categoryand, occasionally, a few ingredients (and then only if it is a speciality beer or fruit beer). You do not know the receipe, so it is awfully presumptuous to guess what the ingredients might have been, guess what the procedures might have been and then guess what the brewer might do differently. There are so many ways beers be off style that I find it more honest just to identify major flawsand perhaps hazzard a clearly worded GUESS as to a problem area (like cleanlyness) and let brewer do his homework. The information is readily available. Relax, have a dozen god-awful to merely mediocre homebrews, pray for one or two good beers, write as helpful, but realistic comments as you can in a *reasonalble* time (5-10 minutes) and move on. "judge" not God, "judge" not technician,we are just homebrewers with some experience and a self-serving sense of civic duty. For my money, too many judges let the titles, ribbons and ceremonies go straight to their bloated heads. Yours in the cause of having a fine time, Steve "Ma" Black ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 11:16:21 EST From: Jay Hersh Subject: Re: Good Judging John's comments bring up the question of the role of the judge. Is the judge there to provide feedback or to also be a teacher?? My opinion is to provide feedback. If I tell someone their beer has a chill haze I don't feel i need ot explain all the sources of chill haze. There are plenty of places to go to find information about the sources of flavor defects and other such defects. George Fix's fine book, Greg Noonan's, Charlie P's, etc..., etc... As Jeff indicates the judging task is time consuming enough that the judge shouldn't also have to tutor the brewer. While I understand that many people lack a place to turn to for knowledgeable feedback of what flavor components are in their beer and what the defects in it are (and that is the legitimate role of the judge), to expect the judge to provide minute details of the sources and means to correct these problems is pushing the limits. JaH ------------------------------ Date: 16 Feb 1994 08:53:00 -0500 From: "Norman Dickenson" Subject: Steve Black's Comments Subject: Time:8:14 AM OFFICE MEMO Steve Black's Comments Date:2/16/94 HEAR, HEAR!!!!! A GRAIN OF TRUTH AMIDST THE BABBLE. Norman Dickenson *NATIONAL* Judge(tm)#176##197##195# and Grand Subliminal Tongue Tied Poobah OPINION: A belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge. OPINIONATED: Unduly adhering to one's own opinion or to preconceived notions ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 8:37:37 CST From: zipfel at cs.wisc.edu (Gary Zipfel) Subject: Comments on a beer I can get? I'm a novice brewer, and I subscribed to this list to get some insight as to how beers are judged. I like the list, good S/N. Anyway, my question as a novice brewer and (hopefully) future judge is : Can some experienced judges critic a beer that we novices can find on the market. How about Bock? Are there any good bocks on the market? Perhaps Berghof (spelling?) Bock? Can anyone provide a critic of any beer I can get? Maybe even a weekly or monthly style? Thanks, - -- Zip (zipfel at cs.wisc.edu) Brewer of Madison's finest: FIB "And evolving from the sea would not be too much time for me to walk beside you in the sun" - Black Francis ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 10:43:59 -0500 (EST) From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: Note for HWBTA Nat. judges I've had a few requests to bring some glassware from the Chemistry stockroom at Cornell, so I thought I'd make the offer public. I'll be driving to Rockville, MD to help judge at the HWBTA Nationals on March 5th and 6th, so I can bring plenty of stuff to help brewers with yeast culturing and starters. I'm not in this to make money, so standard disclaimers blah blah blah apply. Item Price - --------------------------------- ----- Erlenmeyer Flask, 1 L $3.75 each Mercury Thermometer,-20 to 100C 4.25 each Culture Tube, 13 X 110 mm 0.55 each " " , 16 X 125 mm 0.75 each Sterile poly centrifuge tubes with caps, great for going from slant to full size starter 5.55 for a bag of 25 Anything else will check Hope to see you there! Scott ======================================================================== Scott Bickham bickham at msc.cornell.edu ========================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 10:14:00 -0600 From: chuck.wettergreen at aquila.com (Chuck Wettergreen) Subject: specialty beers I have a question concerning the judging of specialty beers, such as fruit and herb beers. I would assume that the classic sub- category would be judged first according to the style under which it is submitted, and then further judged as to how well the special ingredient(s) are incorporated/matched/melded/complement the style. Is this correct? Which brings me to specialty beers which are not a classic style. It would seem, that without a standard or style to compare to, all the judge can do is first look for defects, and then look to "drinkability". Could someone please comment on the judging of these styles? TIA, Chuck Chuck.Wettergreen at Aquila.com * RM 1.3 00946 * ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 11:06:22 EST From: Jay Hersh Subject: Re: Comments on a beer I can get? >Can some experienced judges critic a beer that we >novices can find on the market. Compuserve does this in an online manner on various occasions. The one problem I do see with it however is that being purchased at various places and in various conditions the beers with, well, vary.... I don't think this is necessarily a show stopper to the idea, but it does make it far more difficult to concur on flavor defects or more subtle flavors present in a given beer. JaH ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 10:14:50 MST From: mlh at cygnus.ta52.lanl.gov (Michael L. Hall) Subject: Specialty Beer Judging Chuck Wettergreen asks about how to judge specialty beers. I think that the most important thing to look for in a fruit/herb beer is balance. In other words, it should be a *good beer* with additives, and both the "beeriness" and the flavors of the additives should be apparent. Neither should overpower the other, but both should be well-balanced. This part is similar to judging the hop/malt balance. The things which I think are important in judging a fruit/herb beer are: 1. Defects. 2. Balance. 3. Adherence to the beer style specified, if any. 4. Balance. 5. Expression of color of additive, if appropriate (e.g. a cherry wheat beer should be pinkish red, but a ginger stout shouldn't have any particular ginger-related color). 6. Balance. 7. Fresh, real additive taste, instead of a fake extract (fruit) or stale (spice) taste. This can be achieved (sometimes more easily) with an extract. Some extracts are better than others. 8. And finally, balance :-) Mike Hall Los Alamos Atom Mashers ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 15:02:25 CST From: stevie at spss.com Subject: Specialty Beers Chuck Wettergreen asks about judging specialty, fruit, and herb beers. Indeed, for entries in the 'classic-style' subcategories, the beer must exhibit the signature characteristics of the specified style. If not, it'll get knocked down a tad. In fact, I distinctly recall judging Herb beers at the AHA National 2nd round a couple of years ago. We all fell in love with one entry and were ready to concede it 1st place. But then we noticed it was entered as a classic-style herb beer, targeting an IPA. Unfortunately, the beer had little/no IPA character, so it ended getting dropped to 4th. I am sure this was the highest score I have ever given to a beer that didn't win a ribbon. The lesson to brewers is, if you are at all unsure about the 'classic-style' character of your herb/fruit/specialty beer, you're better off entering it under the more general heading. This leads to Chuck's second question: >Which brings me to specialty beers which are not a classic style. >It would seem, that without a standard or style to compare to, all >the judge can do is first look for defects, and then look to >"drinkability". Could someone please comment on the judging of >these styles? This raises the issue: When you've got such HUGE acceptable ranges for gravity, IBUs, and color, what else can you go by? Well, actually, you CAN look for something. Above all, check out the expression of the special ingredient(s) or fruit. If these are imperceptable, then you've got a big prob- lem. Also, I know I like to look for at least some "beer-like" qualities. I've judged many a fruit beer that might have passed for fruit soda, shandy, or even mead! At the very least, some malt character will do the trick. +------------------+---------------------------+------------------------+ | Steve Hamburg | Internet: stevie at spss.com | "Life is short, and so | | SPSS Inc. | Phone: 312/329-3445 | are some brewers." | | Chicago, IL | Fax: 312/329-3657 | | +------------------+---------------------------+------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 94 16:36:17 EST From: jimsnow at aol.com Subject: BJCP Exam As I prepare this last week before the exam in Westport, I have a couple of questions. Should we know anything about meads, ciders or sake? Also, the BJCP Study Guide lists Hordeum vulgare as 6-row barley, but Michael Jackson's World Guide to Beer lists it as 2-row barley. Which is correct? Thanks in advance. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 1994 07:50:08 -0500 (EST) From: STROUD%GAIA at leia.polaroid.com Subject: BJCP Exam There are no questions on the BJCP exam regarding cider, mead, or sake. Steve Stroud Assoc. Director, BJCP ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 14:32:58 EST From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: administrative requests Recently a number of administrative requests have been posted to some of the digests I publish. According to discussions in the list-managers digest, this is an increasingly widespread problem on the Internet. It seems that many online services, universities and corporations are unleashing new users onto the net with far less education than in the past (which was pretty pathetic to begin with). The net result is not only an exponentially increasing workload for administrators, but also an increase in clueless postings. I have no problem with the increasing workload, and welcome all considerate, informed subscribers. In order to reduce the administrative backlog, I am in the process of completely automating the subscribe/cancel/change process. However, I have no time to hold hands with every clueless newbie who won't follow instructions. I try to remove offending messages from the digest, but sometimes the digest is sent before I have a chance to edit it. I could send them manually, but that would only increase my workload and interfere with the flow of legitimate discussions. If you feel this is a harsh attitude, please feel free to contact the offenders directly and coach them on your own time. It is easy to blame the newbies, but really the fault lies with their system administrators who expect us volunteer service providers to educate their users for them. If you are a sysadmin, please provide your users with one of the many introductory texts before unleashing them onto the Internet. If you tell a friend or colleague about a mailing list, please give them the administrative address, not the main address. As always, messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored. When I have the time and inclination, I will send the following message to the clueless: ========================================================================= Howdy- You recently sent an administrative request to an entire mailing list. As you might imagine, the hundreds of subscribers to the list were not interested in reading your administrative message. Most Internet mailing lists, including those published here at SynchroSystems, use the listname-request at sitename address format for handling administrative messages such as subscription or cancellation requests. For instance, if the main address of a mailing list were newbies at clueless.com, the correct address for administrative messages would be newbies-request at clueless.com. Since most sites, including SynchroSystems, use some degree of automation in their list administration, requests sent the main address are generally ignored. In order to process your request, please resend it to the correct address. Instructions for sending administrative requests are included in the header of all digests published at SynchroSystems. The current administrative addresses at SynchroSystems are: embed-request at synchro.com (Embedded Systems Engineering Digest Admin) judge-request at synchro.com (Beer Judge Digest Admin) libeerty-request at synchro.com (Libertarian Beer Digest Admin) Most free services on the Internet are provided by volunteers who don't have the time to educate new users, please try to be informed and considerate when using these services. There are a variety of introductory texts available for new Internet users, please contact your system administrator for a copy of one, it will help you avoid common mistakes as you learn to navigate the information highway. - -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems / Riverside Garage & Brewery - Cambridge, Mass. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 12:27:06 EST From: brewnews at aol.com Subject: Grand Master Judge I recently heard that a new level of judge had been created called Grand Master Judge. Can anyone enlighten me? Thanks. Phil Doersam Certified Beer Judge brewnews at aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 15:32:00 PST From: "SIMPSON, Mark (x-4378)" Subject: Contest software Hi there! I am helping to organize an AHA sanctioned event here in San Diego (any Judges want to come down??) and I am getting close to having to deal with the logistics of getting the results back to the contestants. I have heard rumors that there is a database software package available that is specifically suited for beer competitions (i.e. generating labels, replies, forms e.t.c.). I hope that this rumor is true. Does anyone out there have any idea where I might find/purchase this little gem???? Any info at all will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Mark Simpson, The BrewCat simpson at rb.unisys.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri Feb 25 05:01:46 1994 From: darrylri at microsoft.com Subject: re: Contest software The Maltose Falcons have a software package for running contests; contact A.P. Ward Pond at (805) 242-7005 or write c/o The Home Wine & Beer Making Shop, 22836 Ventura Blvd #2, Woodland Hills, CA 91364. The Seattle Brews Bros. have developed a scoring package. Contact Scribe Bro Rob Nelson at (206) 788-0271. (He's on Compu$erve, but I haven't got his address at home; I'll write later with his email address.) --Darryl Richman ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 08:30:56 TZ From: Darryl Richman Subject: More contest software notes As a followup, if you're interested in some contest scoring software, you can contact Scribe Bro Rob Nelson of the Seattle Brews Bros. on Compu$erve at 70206.1316 at CompuServe.com. --Darryl Richman ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 1994 16:00:41 -0500 (EST) From: STROUD%GAIA at leia.polaroid.com Subject: Sweet Stouts IN JudgeNet #687 fjdobner at ihlpa.att.com writes: > In studying for the BJCP exam I was looking at the stout descriptions > and was wondering whether the Sweet Stout subcategory would contain > both oatmeal stouts and English stouts. For purposes of this discussion > assume that the oatmeal stout is a Samuel Smith's and the English stout > is a Mackeson. I think the English stout is a Sweet Stout but it is the > oatmeal stout that I am unsure of. Anybody know? MJ's wonderful new book 'Beer Companion' pigeonholes Oatmeal stouts in the Sweet Stout subcategory. I would agree with him that that is true for the English Oatmeal stouts like Sam Smith's. I think that American oatmeal stouts are more varied, some are sweet, some are dry. I disagree with Scott Bickham that an oatmeal stout belongs in the specialty category. Steve Stroud ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 10:49:59 EST From: Jay Hersh Subject: Re: Contest software Russ Wigglesworth developed tghe software used for the AHA National competitions. Russ can be reached at rad_equipment at rad-mac1.ucsf.edu The nice thing about this software is that it allows use of either all scores per entry in which case it averages them, or takes an assigned score which replaces the average. The software is written in the Filemaker database. There is extra stuff in it that you won't need if you're not running one of the AHA National contests but it isn't too difiicult to strip stuff out and Russ might make a stripped version available to AHA Sanctioned comeptitions perhaps.... (he's a pretty nice guy :-) JaH ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 13:45:49 -0500 (EST) From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: Oatmeal stouts I have to agree with Steve Stroud, who disagreed with my statement that oatmeal stouts should be entered as Specialty Beers. But since there is no oatmeal stout category and the brewer reads that a Specialty Beer is "brewed using unusual techniques and/or fermentable ingredients other than malted barley as a unique contribution to the overall character of a beer," they become specialty beers. While raw oats do add some smoothness and silkiness to a stout, I have to disagree with Steve on grouping them with sweet stouts. A much better description, which also agrees with M. Jackson, is the addition of oats to what would otherwise be a dry stout. In other words, there is still a perceptible roast barley character which is almost absent in a sweet stout. So while these oatmeal stouts are better grouped with stouts, the unique contribution of the oats makes them a specialty beer, specifically a dry stout with oats as the special ingredient. Of course oats are really fruits, but they don't come to mind when we think of fruit beers ;-) I don't intend this to be a flame of Steve - he helped write the style definitions and knows how the different styles should be grouped, but my point is that John Doe brewer will likely enter his oatmeal stout as a specialty beer, as was the case in Kingston last year. Perhaps the comment "oats may be used" in the dry stout definition would ensure that all of the stouts are kept together. It really should be a separate subcategory, but from what I've seen, there hasn't been enough entries to warrant the addition. Scott - -- ======================================================================== Scott Bickham bickham at msc.cornell.edu ========================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 10:50:48 -0800 (PST) From: Jeremy Ballard Bergsman Subject: Alts/DAB Dark I'm sorry, I seem to have lost the post, but I believe somebody said that DAB Dark was an alt, but that it was maltier and less bitter than typical. Well, as I have never had an alt, I ran out to buy and taste some. I found it not very malty (except for a slight hint of dark malt character that surprised me [and might have been something else]), and quite bitter. I would estimate it to be in the low 40's, IBU-wise. This is well beyond the AHA's suggested range for alts. Could one of you alt experts comment? On a slightly different note, I tasted it side by side with St. Stan's amber alt, just for fun (I know, it's not authentic). In both I noticed a very slight odor of camphor. Is this typical? On a very different note for those wanting to organize the Bay area BJCP exam, I asked at my homebrew club meeting and got 1 yes and 5 strong maybe's, all (including me) depending on the date. Also, I learned from them that it is typical for the exam administrator to offer a review a week or so before the test. Many of the maybe's were contingent on whether this would be offered. Will it? Thanks. Jeremy Bergsman jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu ------------------------------