From synchro!judge-request at uu6.psi.com Wed Jan 18 07:07:16 1995 Status: O X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["20292" "" "18" "January" "1995" "05:15:14" "EST" "JudgeNet Administrator" "judge-owner at synchro.com" nil "422" "JudgeNet Digest #945 (Jan 18, 1995)" "^From:" nil nil "1" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.2) with X.500 id HAA19874; Wed, 18 Jan 1995 07:07:13 -0500 Received: from goodman.itn.med.umich.edu by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.2) with SMTP id HAA19869; Wed, 18 Jan 1995 07:07:11 -0500 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA06471 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at umich.edu); Wed, 18 Jan 95 07:07:07 -0500 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA05222 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 95 06:49:36 -0500 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA06311; 18 Jan 95 05:15:14 EST (Wed) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9501180515.AA06311 at synchro.com> From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #945 (Jan 18, 1995) Date: 18 Jan 95 05:15:14 EST (Wed) JudgeNet Digest #945 Wed 18 Jan 1995 THE BEER JUDGE DIGEST digest submissions: judge at synchro.com administrative requests: judge-request at synchro.com send cancellations & rank updates to the administrative address messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored FTP Archives: guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu in /pub/judge WWW Archives: http://guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu/Beer/Judge Gopher Archives: guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu Editor: Chuck Cox Archivist: Spencer Thomas Publishers: SynchroSystems and the Riverside Garage & Brewery Contents: PART TWO--specialty, fruit, herb.... (Bob Paolino Research Analyst) RE: Identifying "special" ingredients ("Robert C. Santore") Re: Identifying "special" ingredients (bickham) Specialty categorization (Craig Pepin) Judging fruit, herb and specialty beers (Steve Russell) BJCP exam to be given in Binghamton, NY (bickham) BJCP elections (Chuck Cox) Re: Identifying "Special" Ingredients (Steve Hamburg) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 01:37:06 EST From: Bob Paolino Research Analyst Subject: PART TWO--specialty, fruit, herb.... That example points to something else that has been mentioned before on JudgeNet--listing only a partial list of spices (or other ingredients). I've seen references to beers with a dozen spices and only some subset of that list has been given to the judges for reasons of space on the form used for the entry list given to judges. I think that's a real disservice to both entrants and judges. If it doesn't fit in a spreadsheet cell or whatever you're using to prepare the list, then write in by hand what doesn't fit, but don't make an arbitrary decision about which ones to include and exclude! What if there's an ingredient that really stands out but isn't in the list given to the judges? What if you (as a judge) detect an aroma or flavour, but it's not listed. Well, is that peach there because it's one of the ingredients, or is it an ester resulting from the yeast and/or fermentation temperature? (And it may be that it could be a pleasant characteristic--ever have a Lakefront Cream City Pale Ale on tap at its "peachiest"?) The source of it is going to affect how you, as a judge, evaluate it. Do you advise the brewer to try to avoid warm fermentation or use a less fruity yeast? Or do you offer advice on how to handle the fruit(boil? primary? secondary? at bottling?) Someone who entered a Ginger Peach ale as an herb beer (you've gotta pick one or the other) isn't going to get a competent evaluation if that peach isn't listed (even though listed by the brewer) because it's a fruit rather than an herb....or if there are seven spices and the organiser told the judges about only four of them because they wouldn't all fit--and the ginger that stands out happened to be one of the three that didn't fit. What about yeast as a special ingredient? Do you let the brewer list it, and does the organiser pass that information on to the judges? Or do the judges remain in the dark and dismiss it as infected. I noticed that Charlie's most recent book includes a recipe for a barley wine pitched with Brett. What category do you use there? I don't know what this stuff tastes like, but I would guess it would go very far as a straight (1a) barley wine, and it's not going to fit any of the lambic subcategories. Probably a classic style specialty....then you'd better tell the judges about that Brett. culture. And if it's a Ginger-Nutmeg Framboise Brett Barley Wine in the herb category, do you tell the judges only about the spices, or do you let 'em know about the fruit and funny bugs also? One more before I give you a chance to read something else (sorry for the length, but I hope it gets some discussion going...and maybe even a few answers): What about less popular styles that don't have AHA categories? Does someone who brewed a great Adambier not get to receive an evaluation in a competition just because there's no category for it? The German Ale subcategories aren't going to be appropriate. (I don't think the alt subcategory is going to go high enough in gravity to accommodate it, but I suppose I'd have to look to be sure. In any event, it's a stretch.) Can something be a "Specialty" beer by virtue of an obscure style even if not an unusual technique or ingredient? (And should the brewer be required to give a citation to a source that defines the style so the judges have something to go by--I know _I_ wouldn't have the slightest clue about Adambier had I not been invited to visit Oregon Brew Crew dudes Doug and Al's Hair of the Dog brewery...and, you know, I still haven't found a published reference....) Or if you can get the square peg into the round hole of some existing style category, do the judges get to be told the style (the "sub-sub-category")? Well, sorry again for the length (the digest has been kind of quiet recently anyway), and I hope you find something interesting in there to chew on. I'm relatively new at this competition organising game, and I like to give entrants every benefit of the doubt. It could be that I'm being too lenient-- and maybe someone will tell me that--but better that than arrogance about what I think the brewer should have done or what I think the judges should or shouldn't know. Let the entry stand or fall on the brewer's decision about what to call it, not on an organiser's decision either to "help" or restrict something. Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino / Disoriented in Badgerspace /uswlsrap at ibmmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 09:34:24 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert C. Santore" Subject: RE: Identifying "special" ingredients In JudgeNet Digest #944 Bob Paolino wrote: > For the fruit, herb, and specialty categories: Obviously, you identify the > "special" ingredient that defines the category, but what about others? > Shouldn't an organiser/registrar, when preparing the list given to the judges, > identify _all_ "special" ingredients listed by the brewer? . . . . . . > Needless to say (or I wouldn't have brought up the subject), I would hope > the answer is the more inclusive one. I disagree with you here, but I'm glad you brought this topic up. The specialty categories have bugged me for a long time. I would prefer that the only information that was passed to the judges was the title of the beer and the category the brewer chose to enter it in. If the beer is named "Maple Corriander Apricot Bock" then the judges may feel that each of those flavor components should be represented in the beer. But if it was called "Christmas Bock" I don't think the judges should be informed of specific ingredients used. It is difficult to justify this approach since AHA guidelines say something like "character of fruit, herb, or spice should be evident in aroma and flavor". Obviously the judges need to know what they are looking for to evaluate that criteria. In my experience, however, when judges know about every minor ingredient in a specialty beer you wind up with comments like "you need to bring out the roasted pumpkin seed a little more in this one". On the other hand, commerical beers are generally viewed favorably when specialty ingredients are used in a subtle manner such that they cannot be identified. I would rather give contest entrants that same option instead of requiring that specialty ingredients are used so that they impart "evident character". Leave it up to the contest organizers to determine if the beer qualifies as a specialty/fruit/herb category. If it makes it to the judges table, the judges should assume "it's in there" whatever "it" is. Bob Santore rsantore at mailbox.syr.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 10:34:32 -0500 (EST) From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: Re: Identifying "special" ingredients Bob Paolino wrote: > I have some questions about the circumstances in which brewer-specified > "special" ingredients should (or should not?) be identified for the judges. I > intend for this to start a discussion, but I'm sure there are also some > aspects for which there are "factual" answers somewhere in the rules. BJCP > people? This is a confusing area, not only when defining specialty beers, but also when making a cyser. In that case, one is supposed to enter any cider where honey is used as an adjunct as a cyser, but this doesn't make sense unless the honey is a significant percent of the fermentables and contributes to the flavor and aroma. The same goes with beers. In case Rick Garvin doesn't mention the 1994 HWBTA Nationals, I will. The same honey basil beer placed in two different categories, herb and specialty. Now the specialty beer judges shouldn't have scored the beer well unless the honey contributed to the overall character of the beer, but in this case, the herb beer judges should have recognized that the beer was miscategorized. On the other hand, if the honey is subtle, then perhaps the herb beer judges were more accurate. I've judged my share of beers in this category and am pretty flexible about what fits unless the beer is clearly a fruit or an herb beer. One example was an entry labeled as a raspberry vanilla beer. The vanilla is the specialty ingredient, but it was virtually impossible to taste or smell, so the beer was essentially a very nice raspberry ale. We scored it well, but didn't allow it to advance to the AHA second round. Bob added: > For example, a Maple Coriander Apricot Bock could presumably qualify as a > Specialty, Herb, or Fruit beer at the entrant's discretion (and a > classic-style one, to boot, if s/he so chose)--six possible subcategories. Here, the maple and the combination of fruits and herbs distinguish it as a specialty beer. But if the herb or the fruit overwhelms any other character, then you're right that it could be entered in those categories. But then you're taking the risk that the judges won't pick out the other ingredients and disqualify the brew, so the best bet is still specialty. All I know is that I plan to a enter a specialty beer this year so that I don't have to get involved in these life or death decisions ;-) Scott "skipping work tomorrow to brew" Bickham - -- ======================================================================== Scott Bickham bickham at msc.cornell.edu ========================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 11:00:14 -0500 (EST) From: Craig Pepin Subject: Specialty categorization To reply briefly to some of Bob's questions (since I am sure there will be others as well), and speaking both as an inveterate brewer of weird specialties (Chili Rauch-Rye, etc.) and a contest registrar/judge ... All specialty ingredients should be listed at all times, whether they are apparent in the flavor profile or not. This is the responsibility first of the contestant (Do it on both the entry form AND the bottle label) and the contest registrar. Which category, however, is up to the contestant only. As a registrar I would never change a category, nor would I want one of my beers shifted in categories by an organizer who never tasted it. If it is miscategorized, than it should be the entrant's fault only. Re the Belgian Fruit Weizen: Was it entered as a classic-style specialty? If so, it fits no style at all and suffers accordingly. If it was not a classic-style, than the name is meaningless anyways: it is a Belgian fruit beer with wheat in it, and gets judged purely on taste aesthetics alone, since there is no specific style guideline to adhere to (other than the presence of fruit). I suspect the brewer wanted to make a fruit weizen and it got infected, so he resorted to the classic homebrewer dodge of entering a mildly infected beer as a Belgian (now thankfully disappearing). There is no such thing as using a Belgian yeast for a weizen: it is, BY DEFINITION, a contradiction in terms (but maybe a tasty brew all the same). As far as the Saison goes, this should be a recognized style anyways. If you send it to our TRUB VII competition this Fall (plug, plug) you would do well to have judged as a belgian, since we will be making special arrangements for Belgian beers. As an herb specialty, writing that it was a Saison should have been enough, and you may just have encountered unknowledgeable judges (I hope it wasn't TRUB VI). I guess we should look into making Saisons a subcategory of Belgians for our own competition this Sept., even if the AHA still does not recognize them. Craig Pepin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 08:55:33 -0700 (MST) From: Steve Russell Subject: Judging fruit, herb and specialty beers Along somewhat different lines than were pursued by Bob Paolino, who was investigating how to categorize fruit, herb and specialty beers.... I would like to start a discussion on how best to judge these beers. Since there are few specific guidelines, why not discuss it here? Among the things I consider when judging these beers: - -- is the intensity of the herb/fruit flavor appropriate? (note: not "high enough" -- some beers are clearly overdone) - -- is the underlying beer of a good quality? - -- does the underlying beer fit the designated style? (such as a peach porter) - -- is the type of beer appropriate to the type of herbs/fruit? - -- is the blend and/or balance of herbs/fruit appropriate? - -- do i like it? (i always ask this but probably weigh it 2X as much for these categories as for standard ones) How's that sound? Anyhow, i'd like to hear what you think. I seem to judge this category in 2 of every 5 competitions. Other points to consider might include the difficulty of expressing certain flavors (which has been covered in analogous fashion in BoS comments about whether or not to judge beers based on how difficult they were to brew). Looking forward to the discussion, STEVE AHA Certified Judge Stephen W. Russell aaswr at asuvm.inre.asu.edu Department of Chem, Bio and Materials Engineering 602-965-5021 work Arizona State University 602-350-9775 home "Master knows all except combination to safe." 602-965-3534 FAX ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 11:17:35 -0500 (EST) From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: BJCP exam to be given in Binghamton, NY There will be a BJCP Exam to be given on Saturday, April 1st in Binghamton, NY. The three hour exam will start at 10 a.m. and afterwards, the exam takers will have the opportunity to judge in an AHA sanctioned competition. Please e-mail me for details if you're interested in taking or retaking the exam. Scott - -- ======================================================================== Scott Bickham bickham at msc.cornell.edu ========================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 12:39:46 EST From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: BJCP elections I have it on good authority that soon one of the BJCP committee representatives will be an elected position. The remaining representatives will still be appointed by the AHA and HWBTA. As I understand it, a general election would be prohibitively expensive, so only senior judges will vote, but I'm not sure of the specific rank required. Perhaps someone less clueless (more clueful?) than myself can fill in the details. P.S. I recently received a Grand Master Judge application form, so it is for real now. I am disappointed that a shiny bauble is required to entice judges to continue to contribute to the program, and I am disappointed that the BJCP would stoop to such obvious pandering. On the other hand, I would support the idea if Grand Masters were required to wear some kind of silly hats during competitions. - -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems / Riverside Garage & Brewery - Cambridge, Mass. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 17:25 CST From: Steve Hamburg Subject: Re: Identifying "Special" Ingredients Bob "Now go have a beer" Paolino asks about how to identify "special" ingredients for judges. As a past 3-time National Competition regional organizer, local competition organzier, and frequent competition "data entry guy," here's what I've done: For all entry categories that require delineating special ingredients, all ingredients that the brewer includes on his/her entry form are included on the list of beers presented to the judges. Obviously, when a "classic style" subcategory is entered, the style is also included in this list. In an example similar to one Bob posited, we had a Classic Style Fruit Beer with this list: Bohemian Pilsner, honey, strawberries. Honey might be considered a "specialty" ingredient that the judges don't need to know about, but that's not been my approach. I strongly believe that beers should NOT be recategorized by organizers except in the rarest of circumstances. In a large competition, like NHC, this is an absolute NO. The responsibility for entering a beer correctly rests on the entering brewer, period. So, in the above case, even though one might argue that the presence of honey might make this a better entrant in the Classic Style Specialty subcategory, it's up to the judges to judge it in the category it was entered in. It's judged on its merits as a Classic Style Fruit beer. And, if the judges feel the honey is too prominent, they can tell the brewer that the beer was mis-entered. In the case of the "Belgian Fruit Weizen," I would have done exactly as Bob did. "Belgian" is not specific enough as a classic style, but weizen clearly is. If there was any questions from the judge panel, I would instruct them to judge it as a weizen. Frankly, though, I would leave it up to the judge panel as much as possible. They could try to determine what sort of "Belgian" character the beer actually had. The Specialty category is broadly defined enough to include weird beers like this. We certainly shouldn't be THAT particular about it, even in this instance. If the judges can figure out what a Belgian Weizen should taste like, that's fine with me! The use of the term "Belgian" does not, at least to me, definitively state that a Belgian yeast strain was used. Besides, the sheer number and variety of strains in use in Belgium makes this even more fuzzy. After all, just because a beer is entered in the Belgian categories doesn't mean it was made with a "real" Belgian yeast. Having entered National data for 3 years, I can tell you that the great majority use nothing more esoteric than Wyeast Belgian, and a sizable number use various non-Belgian strains. Saison is also a difficult matter. Without a separate category, what I've done is take the inclusive approach and actually listed the style "Saison" on the list given the judges. An example was this past year's NHC, where we had one Saisons entered in 2D - Belgian Ale. This may not be the "official" policy, but that's what I did. Interestingly, this was one of the 3 beers sent to 2nd round in category 2, although it didn't win a ribbon. Do you think this was wrong? Comments? +--------------------+----------------------------+------------------+ | Steve Hamburg | Internet: shamburg at mcs.com | "Life is short, | | Chicago, Illinois | Phone: +1.312.878.0177 | and so are some | | USA | Fax: +1.312.878.0177 | brewers." | +--------------------+----------------------------+------------------+ ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************